[JRowe]

1) You don't agree that a particle cloud can exert gravity upon itself.

No. I have no idea how you could possibly say that given how much I've been talking about particle clouds exerting gravity on themselves under the RE model. I think gravity exerted by a complete galaxy on its edges is going to be far lower than the gravity exerted by either a less massive cloud on its edges, or an equally massive and significantly larger cloud on its edges. I explained both how we can tell the cloud would be larger, and pointed out that actually the dominant model on galaxy formation these days is smaller clouds merging so you aren't even going to have the mass of a galaxy in play.

2) You keep saying that anything with enough speed to escape the sun has enough speed to escape the galaxy.

Again, no. A dust cloud is not a galaxy and you should stop equating the two. The only situation where that is remotely valid is if the dust cloud has both equal mass and equal radius to the galaxy which is not the case. Anything with the speed to escape the Sun is going to have to the speed to escape a dust cloud that has not yet condensed to have all its mass in the same volume as the galaxy.
And that's a fact, I ran the numbers on it remember? And more than that, after a quick check my numbers for the density seem to check out; in fact I'm pretty sure we made it more dense than planetary nebula composed of the heaviest natural element uranium, so that figure would have been significantly larger still than the force exerted by the galactic cloud.

3) Finally, you imagine that the clumping up of matter makes it "slow down".

The kinetic energy of the system does slow down as objects coalesce, but you seem to be mistakenly applying that kinetic energy to the speed of the objects when compared to the speed of the cloud they are travelling with. The easiest way to avoid that trap is to simply imagine that this particular cloud is stationary. The particles are orbiting around a central point that is the one true fixed point in space. All other galaxy clouds are speeding away from this one, but this one is holding still. I'm just applying Galilean relativity here... the old "pour a cup of tea while you're on a speeding train" bit.

Now, when 2 particles collide, and they lose energy, does the rest of the cloud speed away from them? Of course not, the cloud isn't going anywhere. The cloud is just orbiting a fixed central point. So maybe the 2 particles drop to a lower orbit within the cloud... and thus the cloud contracts a little. But they stay with the cloud.

The cloud is composed of those particles, and the dark matter is going to move faster than the regular. That's all.

[ICanScienceThat]

I think we've taken things about as far as we can. If anyone else wants to try go for it.

You've asked your questions, I've given the answers. I believe you are mistaken about certain areas, and I've tried to explain them to you. I get the distinct impression that you don't want to concede any of these points, and nothing will change your mind.

You are simply convinced that you know better than all the best scientific minds in the world.

I am not the top scientific mind in this field. I have researched what those people have to say, and I am proud to say that I've understood a lot of it. Everything they have to say matches my understanding of physics and mathematics.

I'm not sure why you cannot seem to agree with their conclusions when it all seemed to make perfect sense to me. Hey, maybe you are a super-genius and Stephen Hawking was a chump compared to you. Doesn't seem particularly likely, but I guess it could be.

Even so, I'm not sure why you'd be so fixated on it. We made some observations, we found some mysteries, we're searching for answers. So far nothing has totally panned out. Scientists are currently betting on WIMPs as a likely candidate for this mystery, but nobody is certain. There are issues with that model to work out. Why would that be such a calamity?

You seem fixated that our inability to explain the phenomenon of dark matter means the entire RE model is wrong. That isn't how it works. We know some stuff really well. Every time we answer one question, three new questions pop up. We learn more and refine the model as we go.

[JRowe]

I think we've taken things about as far as we can. If anyone else wants to try go for it.

You've asked your questions, I've given the answers. I believe you are mistaken about certain areas, and I've tried to explain them to you. I get the distinct impression that you don't want to concede any of these points, and nothing will change your mind.

Lose the goddamn self-righteousness already. My point of contention is that the cloud that formed the galaxy is either going to be less massive (if multiple clouds were involved) or significantly larger (given it would need to condense to form matter) than the galaxy. I have brought this up twice now and you have completely ignored it both times to go on condescending rants.
Instead of going the "You're refusing to concede," direction, basic acknowledgement of what I say would be nice. Why would I concede when you openly and blatantly ignore my points?

Even so, I'm not sure why you'd be so fixated on it. We made some observations, we found some mysteries, we're searching for answers. So far nothing has totally panned out. Scientists are currently betting on WIMPs as a likely candidate for this mystery, but nobody is certain. There are issues with that model to work out. Why would that be such a calamity?

You seem fixated that our inability to explain the phenomenon of dark matter means the entire RE model is wrong. That isn't how it works. We know some stuff really well. Every time we answer one question, three new questions pop up. We learn more and refine the model as we go.

As I have said before, it is not an oddity, it is a contradiction. A detail that needs to be explained and that questions are asked about - fine. A gaping hole that means a major part of the model does not work and that gets brushed under the carpet - not fine. The fact dark matter, especially the WIMP model, are still openly discussed without any mention of the problems speaks volumes about the closed-minded nature of modern mainstream science.

[spaceman spiff]

Dark matter has no limitations on its movement, I agree with that.
My issue still has to be with the effect of gravity on dark matter though. It would not need to form any actual structure, particularly if it collisionless. Take the RE moon and its orbit around the Earth's core; why not have dark matter do the same within the Earth? You could have tonnes of the stuff in the same location. That's a halo, the same structure you're talking about, just less diffuse.
The only reason I can see for it to be as diffuse as you've said is that it lacks an efficient way to lose energy, though they overlaps with the discussion I've had with ScienceThat; it needs to lose energy if it's to be present at all to affect the galaxy, especially galactic center.
I may be misunderstanding what you're saying, but it still doesn't quite seem to work.

You got it, DM has no efficient way of losing energy, that's why it's more diffuse. I still don't understand why the fixation with earth; if anything it would be attracted to the sun in the solar system, not the earth (or earth-moon). Besides that, there are millions of other stars way more massive than the sun. Given the collisionless nature of DM, it would most likely follow the denser regions. And models of structure formation predict that there are subhalos within the halo, exactly what you are saying. And we see that the distribution is not totally uniform. But, as we both agreed that DM is collisionless, the substructures formed are larger than that of ordinary matter.
The (possible) reason that there's more DM in the center it's because the halo was formed by gravitational collapse. It grew later on by mergers or pure accretion.

[JRowe]

You got it, DM has no efficient way of losing energy, that's why it's more diffuse. I still don't understand why the fixation with earth; if anything it would be attracted to the sun in the solar system, not the earth (or earth-moon). Besides that, there are millions of other stars way more massive than the sun. Given the collisionless nature of DM, it would most likely follow the denser regions. And models of structure formation predict that there are subhalos within the halo, exactly what you are saying. And we see that the distribution is not totally uniform. But, as we both agreed that DM is collisionless, the substructures formed are larger than that of ordinary matter.
The (possible) reason that there's more DM in the center it's because the halo was formed by gravitational collapse. It grew later on by mergers or pure accretion.

The same point works for the Sun too, added mass is even less likely there given it's primarily said to be composed of the lightest elements (and the only way to do away with that is to lose a gaseous Sun altogether, which RET can't do without a lot of revision) so there's no room to remove any as dark matter.
I agree dark matter would form larger haloes with this model, but it's when you get within that that there starts to be an issue. The dark matter that aggregated in areas that affect us, I don't agree that those haloes would be stable. You use the example of one collapsing at galactic center, but what about elsewhere? All the subhalos seem as though they should end up attracted to other massive bodies, and vice versa; for that to instead leave a gap with only one type of matter is headscratching. Sure, regular matter loses energy faster but that's a lot of time for their mutual gravitational pulls to not interact.

[spaceman spiff]

You got it, DM has no efficient way of losing energy, that's why it's more diffuse. I still don't understand why the fixation with earth; if anything it would be attracted to the sun in the solar system, not the earth (or earth-moon). Besides that, there are millions of other stars way more massive than the sun. Given the collisionless nature of DM, it would most likely follow the denser regions. And models of structure formation predict that there are subhalos within the halo, exactly what you are saying. And we see that the distribution is not totally uniform. But, as we both agreed that DM is collisionless, the substructures formed are larger than that of ordinary matter.
The (possible) reason that there's more DM in the center it's because the halo was formed by gravitational collapse. It grew later on by mergers or pure accretion.

The same point works for the Sun too, added mass is even less likely there given it's primarily said to be composed of the lightest elements (and the only way to do away with that is to lose a gaseous Sun altogether, which RET can't do without a lot of revision) so there's no room to remove any as dark matter.
I agree dark matter would form larger haloes with this model, but it's when you get within that that there starts to be an issue. The dark matter that aggregated in areas that affect us, I don't agree that those haloes would be stable. You use the example of one collapsing at galactic center, but what about elsewhere? All the subhalos seem as though they should end up attracted to other massive bodies, and vice versa; for that to instead leave a gap with only one type of matter is headscratching. Sure, regular matter loses energy faster but that's a lot of time for their mutual gravitational pulls to not interact.

The milky way is composed mostly of dark matter. If anything, ordinary matter should follow, not the other way around. And it actually does, the density profiles for both baryonic and dark matter are similar (DM halo extends way beyond the visible disk for reasons we have already discussed).There's no gap anywhere, DM is present. It's just that the sun is at the outer edge of the galaxy and therefore the density is lower (for both kinds, compared to regions closer to the center).
If you accept that DM is collisionless and that it composes around 80 - 90% of galaxies, I don't see any way for it to concentrate around earth- (or even sun-) sized bodies, I would actually expect much larger substructures within the halo. And they are not static, they're moving around the center exactly like the solar system orbits the center of the galaxy.