Presents a theoretical framework addressing dark matter through geometry, proposing new insights into galaxy dynamics.
This paper presents a geometric resolution to the dark matter problem. The central claim is: Newton was right, the calculation was right, and the geometry was wrong. Applying spherical Gaussian surfaces (A_eff = 4πr²) to disk-shaped galaxies understates the effective flux area by a factor of r/H ≈ 20–100. Dark matter is the mathematical residual of this geometric error, not a physical substance. We develop the Gravitational Flux Transport Network framework, in which the gravitational acceleration is g = GM_enc/A_eff, where A_eff depends on the geometry of the mass distribution. Two foundational principles determine A_eff: (1) A feedback principle: gravitational flux concentrates matter, which further concentrates flux, driving disk and filament formation (A_eff = 4πHr for spirals, g ∝ 1/r, flat rotation curves). (2) A lazy propagation principle: the universe invests in efficient flux channels only when the lifetime cost of construction is less than the lifetime cost of inefficient propagation (d > d_max = √(2GMH/σ²)). Together these principles reproduce, without free parameters:- Flat galactic rotation curves- The Tully–Fisher relation (v_c⁴ ∝ M, derived)- The Faber–Jackson relation (L ∝ σ⁴, derived from lazy propagation ceiling)- The NFW profile (geometric artifact)- The M_BH–σ relation (r_s = d_max condition)- The universal M_BH/M_bulge ≈ 10⁻³ ratio- The cosmic web topology (Steiner network optimisation)- The galaxy morphology–density relation (8-strategy taxonomy S1–S8)- The dark matter distribution as a flux efficiency map (f_DM ∝ ε·d/d_max·n)- The Hubble tension (KBC void outflow 8–11%)- Apparent dark energy as void pressure Λ_eff(t)- DESI's evolving w(z) ≠ −1 Thirty-eight new observational predictions are listed, testable with JWST, DESI, Euclid, and SKA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
JongJin Ma (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: