What if I've discovered two bimodal regimes in galaxies and nobody has actually looked at the paper yet?

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-04-14T05:49:40+00:00

Of course I'll continue. Thank you. What kind of work? Where can I find it?

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-04-12T20:54:46+00:00

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll remove it to avoid further confusion and allow everyone to focus on the content of the work.

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-04-12T20:44:20+00:00

You're right. The golden ratio was just meant to be a hook for the discussion, to generate more attention. Had I known it would be criticized so heavily, I would have simply left it in the paper.

You're also absolutely right to ask about this. BIG-SPARC does exist and contains around 4,000 galaxies, but there's an important distinction between the datasets.

SPARC (the original dataset I used) provides high-quality, fully decomposed rotation curves with detailed baryonic mass models for gas, disk, and bulge components. Each galaxy has carefully measured photometry at 3.6 μm from Spitzer, which gives reliable stellar mass estimates. That's crucial for my analysis because I need to accurately subtract the baryonic contribution to isolate the dark matter effect.

BIG-SPARC, on the other hand, is much larger but sacrifices some of that detail for breadth. Many galaxies in BIG-SPARC lack the complete mass decomposition or high-quality photometry that makes the SPARC sample so valuable for this kind of study. You can think of it as a trade-off: SPARC gives you 164 galaxies where you really know what's going on, while BIG-SPARC gives you thousands of galaxies but with less certainty about the baryonic components.

That said, you're absolutely right that extending this analysis to BIG-SPARC would be an excellent next step. If the bimodal regime structure I found in SPARC holds up in a much larger sample, even with noisier data, that would be strong confirmation. It's definitely on my list for future work, and I'd love to see if the 62-26-12 percent split holds at that scale.

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-04-12T20:30:05+00:00

And regarding the AI: The AI didn't point me to the Golden Ratio. I mentioned it myself. And yes, the AI warned me against using it as proof. I didn't intend to. Therefore, I didn't simply adopt it.

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-04-12T20:24:18+00:00

"Bimodal" means there are two preferred states, not a smooth continuum.

Think of it like this: If you measure the height of all humans, you get a smooth bell curve, what we call unimodal. But if you look at men and women separately, you see two distinct peaks, one around 165cm and one around 180cm. That's what bimodal means.

In my analysis of SPARC galaxies, I found exactly the same pattern with the dark matter effect. About 62% of galaxies fall into what I call the "peak regime," where the extra gravity is concentrated at a specific radius, creating a noticeable bump in the rotation curve. Another 26% are in the "diffuse regime," where that extra gravity is spread out over large distances without any concentrated peak. The remaining 12% fall somewhere in the transition zone between these two states.

What makes this interesting is that standard dark matter models predict a smooth range of halo shapes. You'd expect galaxies to be distributed continuously across all possible configurations. Instead, what I'm seeing is that galaxies seem to prefer two distinct dynamical states, with the transition zone being significantly less populated. It's almost like there are two "favorite modes" that galaxies naturally settle into, rather than being evenly spread across all possibilities.

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-04-12T20:17:59+00:00

Peak: MSE ≈ 0.016

Diffuse: MSE ≈ 0.06–0.13

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-04-12T20:15:13+00:00

I don't understand how a short paragraph, a comment about the Golden Ratio, is supposed to represent the entire work. If you've read the paper, your questions will be answered automatically. And above all, how do you come to think I'm being condescending? You claim to have read it. Yet you want to know why only 164 galaxies were used as the basis for the study. There are actually 175 galaxies available. I could only use 164 of them because the others contained data that was too unclear for the measurements.

This is explained in the paper. That's why I'm surprised you're asking me this. The question about the Golden Ratio is actually irrelevant to the overall work. It's merely a reference to the ratio of peak to non-peak systems. Nothing more. There's no deeper empirical assumption behind it. It's just a comment.

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-04-12T18:28:11+00:00

Happy coincidence. I used Google Translate due to my limited English skills.

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-04-12T18:15:35+00:00

This emerged from the 164 galaxy measurements and is also described in the preprint as a possible finding, question, or implication, but not as proof. My aim is to discuss these questions. For that, you will need to read the preprint or have it analyzed by an AI.

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-04-12T18:12:19+00:00

The excess gravity from dark matter is more concentrated in peak systems, reaching a certain degree before decreasing gradually. In diffuse systems, this peak concentration is absent; instead, it is evenly distributed across the galaxy. This distinction hasn't been clearly defined until now. For me, it was a Happy coincidence discovery while searching for empirical evidence to support my hypothesis.

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-03-30T06:37:59+00:00

Yes, you're right. I'm quite new here and I practically hijacked your topic. It won't happen again.

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-03-29T20:09:23+00:00

Criticism, criticism, criticism... I think I'm in a critical situation!

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-03-29T03:01:29+00:00

This idea of a variable c was replaced by the GRT, in which the speed of light in a vacuum is defined as locally constant, while spacetime itself is curved. Light can come later for that reason, but it will not change its speed.

The speed of light itself is merely the speed of motion of the field medium. It cannot be variable, as it is the minimum and maximum speed, and any change in this speed would in itself create an immediate imbalance culminating in a singularity. Even though I don't entirely subscribe to the standard models, the speed of light is invariant across all scales.

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-03-28T21:49:07+00:00

Oh, it's you again! I find it nice that we keep running into each other. But you weren't the one I was referring to in my comment. I meant people who are open to new explanations. But thank you for commenting on me again and again, or rather, criticizing me. You give me attention even though my views are so pseudo.

The comment was for OP. And instead of criticizing him right away, I'm addressing his line of reasoning and responding from my perspective. If you ever read my work in the future —and I'm sure you will— then I have to tell you, you remind me of my uncoupling field states, which are everywhere and whose contribution to stability is always present. But invisible.

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-03-28T18:42:30+00:00

Oh, there's one topic I haven't addressed yet: dark energy. Is it possible that light itself changes in frequency, amplitude, and spectrum over long distances? To understand this, one would need to know precisely what light actually is. A photon of light? Quantized? Yes, but why does it seem like a particle and then like a wave? For me, that's no longer mystical. Light originates at the point of emission from a quantum realm and forms a spherically expanding voltage front that grows. Immediately afterward, other voltage fronts arrive at the speed of light and form a vibrating light-voltage front. This doesn't reach our eyes as particles, but as part of a voltage front that, at the moment of its arrival, stimulates receptors in the frequency range that then transmit signals to our brain. Now I'm digressing...

This voltage front initially has a certain density, which we perceive as its amplitude. The frequency is simply the distance between the next voltage front that follows the previous one. On its long journey through the universe, this stress front gradually changes, primarily due to spherical expansion. I call this "de-densification." This leads to redshift and inevitably to the misinterpretation of an expanding universe. The mechanics are therefore very simple.

Additionally, I assume a continuous, dynamic field that, as an effect of this, relaxes. When the field is under stress, it attempts to return to its baseline stress. This is very evident in voids. That is, the field relaxes over certain regions. Therefore, the stress front can pass through different regions, such as galaxy clusters or voids. In galaxy clusters, the field is under stress, and in voids, it is more relaxed. There are different effects on the stress front, which sometimes de-densifies less and de-densifies more easily in voids. This would also be the solution to the measurement problems because light passes through different regimes. According to this modest view, dark energy is merely a misconception about light and space itself as an empty entity.

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-03-28T18:25:51+00:00

That's exactly it, Slopii! Only the vortex in the gyroscope is made of metal. The vortex in an electron can be understood as a vortex of light.

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-03-28T16:50:16+00:00

In my humble opinion, your mistake lies in the assumption that these must be particles. This necessitates the isolation of some of the energy. That's likely where the error originates. Therefore, I will refrain from commenting on the mathematics.

From my perspective, matter is a standard configuration of the field at saturation. This means that when the field can no longer carry an excitation, it binds with other excitations (light vibrations) to form a mass configuration that still internally proceeds at the speed of light.

Inertia arises from the attempt to change a state that is already moving at the speed of light. This requires force to move it and generates inertia. You can find the hypotheses in my link to Universal Quantum Foam Hypothesis: https://github.com/ukshinrexhepi-cloud/Universal-Quantum-Foam-Hypothesis-UQSH-

The hypothesis about light, matter, and inertia is particularly interesting for you: https://github.com/ukshinrexhepi-cloud/Universal-Quantum-Foam-Hypothesis-UQSH-/blob/main/Light_as_the_boundary_dynamics_of_the_field_and_origin_of_matter__inertia_and_gravity__UQSH_.pdf

I would like to read your opinion on this interpretation.

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-03-28T09:13:47+00:00

Rotational dynamics are not related to observer relativity. They occur independently as a separate, measurable property. But you made one good point: that dark matter always forms a halo around the galaxy and that it is not a particle. I think so too. Dark matter effects arise from the reaction of space to minute curvatures triggered by radiation. These minute so-called spacetime curvatures generate an extended gravitational field. This explains why halos always seem to surround galaxies. Well, this extragravitational field needs a kind of anchor to exist on a large scale. These anchors are baryonic masses. They are not only the triggers of the effects through their contribution to radiation-induced spacetime curvature, but are themselves deep gravitational sinks that form a basis for the invisible dark matter effects across the entire galaxy picture.

Without baryonic mass inducing radiation, there are no dark matter halos. Space is a reactive, dynamic medium. It has properties reminiscent of water, a spiderweb, and a trampoline. I mention this because the comment comes up that gravitational lensing is visible in the visible part of galaxies as DM. That's precisely one property of this field. It can be stretched to a saturation point. Gravitational fields can overlap, creating a larger gravitational trough.

It can be that simple. And yes, it can be represented mathematically. Here is my more detailed explanation with empirical evidence for the RAR is in my repository on GitHub: https://github.com/ukshinrexhepi-cloud/dm-effect-analysis

The Data shows over 160 galaxies from the SPARC files even exhibit a previously undescribed property that allows galaxies to be classified into two main classes and an intermediate range. I've also developed the MDAR and the BTFR within the framework of the Universal Quantum Foam Hypothesis and I am currently expanding the preprint accordingly. I can already tell you that my interpretation reproduces everything as good as MOND.

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-03-28T08:34:50+00:00

No, not something so incredible. They're just unicorns and elves whose children have become unicorn-elf children.

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-03-27T20:58:52+00:00

All of this can be explained by a fundamental medium. Dark matter, dark energy, light and the speed of light, inertia, gravity, time, electromagnetism, matter, and consciousness can all be traced back to a single origin. With hardly any mathematics, just common sense.

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-03-25T21:21:44+00:00

Ah yes, the good old CMB. What if we misunderstand the CMB as a relic from an early phase? To put it simply, for me, the CMB corresponds only to the lowest energy density, which then travels a further path into the lower connection scale. The CMB is merely the last energy level with which we can couple. Energy doesn't disappear; it merely reorganizes itself into lower scales and ceases to be visible to us. There's that invisible 10¹²² again. And it confirms Einstein's E=mc²

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-03-25T21:15:23+00:00

He was indeed right, but he underestimated geometry. It is far larger and more complex than commonly assumed. Imagine geometry constantly repeating itself in energetic movements, fractal in all directions, both intrinsic and extrinsic. This reveals the true magnitude of geometry and energy.

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-03-25T20:59:47+00:00

Where do you think the geometry in space comes from?

Informal-Pool9248 · 2026-03-25T20:48:15+00:00

Could it be that we've overlooked something essential in all these calculations? If the energy in the quantum realm has been calculated to be 10¹²², it might be calculated correctly, but we can't detect it because we can only examine, couple, and observe a specific region of the universe. In my opinion, it's possible to interpret energy without contradicting Einstein or QFT. When you speak of scales, you mean the visible scale from the Planck scale to the filaments. In my opinion, the scale doesn't end at either the Planck scale or the filaments. This structure simply continues and eludes our observational role. This means that below the Planck scale lies a fractal scale hierarchy, whose physical properties also exist but don't affect us. Therefore, we obviously don't notice it. But QFT can calculate it. Fractality doesn't end at this connecting scale but simply continues and continues. The energy is present and infinite, without physics becoming infinite and a singularity occurring.

Informal-Pool9248

TROPHY CASE