No, claiming that "A key tenet of RET is dark-matter" is totally incorrect.
Dark-matter is a hypothesis put forward by Cosmologists to explain an apparent anomaly in the velocities of stars orbiting in galaxies.
It has nothing to do with the basic theory of the heliocentric solar system.
But if dark matter does not exist, there are consequences. You cannot explain the velocities of those stars, your model of gravity then falls apart, and you are left without the most fundamental part of your model.
Incorrect. Dark-matter is only hypothesised to account for the faster than expected velocities of stars towards the outer edge of galaxies. It has no effect on the solar system or even nearby stars.
It certainly does not cause the "model of gravity" to "fall apart".
I don't have to explain "the velocities of those stars" but in any case, those velocities only start to deviate some 1000 light years from galactic centres.
"Dark-matter" is simply one hypothesis for that, though is the one currently most supported. Science accepts that there are many unknowns about things far away and far back in time.
But this anomaly has no effect on any object within many hundreds of light years of here. Dark-matter is too sparse to have any local effect anywhere.
Again it's nothing to do with the basic heliocentric solar system "theory" but to do with "modern cosmology".
You say, "If dark-matter exists, it should be drawn to stars, moons, planets, according to RET"
but all ordinary matter is not drawn into the one place because it is in motion and is subject to inertial forces.
Dark has different properties and it unable to form atoms and particles, so cannot form planets and stars so would be expected to remain diffuse.
And modern cosmology is RET.
No,
modern cosmology is not
RETinstead of this tedious semantic rubbish that you use to try and give yourself the illusion of superiority, drop the act and start making your posts about the actual topic.
I'm not trying to give myself any "illusion of superiority". I'm simply trying to present things as they are.
RET, like FET, proposes a model of how the whole universe works. Everything from the distances on a map to the stars themselves operates differently, it does not make the slightest bit of sense to divorce the heliocentric model from its subsequent model of the universe when we are debating the merits of the model as a whole.
It makes plenty of sense "to divorce the heliocentric model" from the "subsequent model of the universe".
"Distances on a map" can and have been measured directly, many using the old chain and theodolite methods of geodetic surveying. Distances to the planetary bodies have been measured, initially using "parallax" and more lately using radar and laser measurements.
So the
heliocentric model can be observed and measured with sufficient accuracy to predict closely (but not perfectly) where planetary bodies will be for a significant time in the future.
The distance to stars a few light years away can be measured with fairly good accuracy but once distances get over a few hundred light years even the distances have to be inferred by other means.
There is a massive distinction between the
heliocentric solar system, which can be observed and accurately measured, and the distant galaxies that I, at least, class as part of "modern Cosmology".
It could be called a distinction between "what we are", the local region that we can study in detail, and "where we can from", the region far away and far back in time.
I specifically acknowledged and went over the fact dark matter would not interact with itself in my opening post, you are not adding anything new here so i fail to see why you felt the need to bring that up unless it's, like the rest, more stageplay, more pointlessness to give an illusion of victory. My point stands. Not being able to form atoms does not equal being diffuse, it is still going to be attracted to the same centers of gravity. You don't need particles for that. i notice that you completely fail to actually explain what you think connects those points.
Now, I don't pretend to be a cosmologist and you certainly are not one, so this a case of the "blind" debating the "blind" but still:
Dark-matter cannot form atoms and molecules and hence cannot form planetary bodies. Neither you nor I know what velocity that dark is moving at but presumably, it is at the velocity of the stars in that region.
Dark-matter is a hypothesis to explain the apparent missing (unseen) mass in galaxies and the distribution is inferred from where that mass needs to be.
You haven't explained why dark-matter should gather around the individual planets and stars any more than the stars of the various systems, say the stars and planets in the Solar System and the Centaurus Constellation don't all collapse into one big mass.
There are simply no "historical unanswered questions" and "major rewrites" necessary anyway, whatever the properties of dark-matter, because even if it were within the earth its mass would have been "measured" along with baryonic matter.
And would have been at odds with what geologists determined to compose the Earth, did you even read my post?
Yes, I read your post and I do not agree.
In the hypothetical event that
dark-matter was incorporated into the
ordinary matter of planets etc it would then simply be part of
ordinary matter and when geologists determined the composition of the Earth it would have been included.
So why would there be any discrepancy.
But and it's a big BUT, your scenario of dark-matter being concentrated in or about ordinary matter completely defeats the purpose of the hypothesis.
The hypothesis is that dark-matter is placed where it is needed to explain the rotational velocities of stars far from the galactic centres and that dark-matter is moving at the observed velocities of these stars.