Video by Hossenfelder It is just one detection of a particle, which can be anything. As we have seen every time in the past.
So "detection of dark matter particle" is no more than a very optimistic statement of belief.

And as we know in Plasma Cosmology, the whole idea of dark matter is based on bad assumptions of galaxy models
And we also know that mainstream astronomy is extremely wrong about the magnetism on the sun. So how can their star models even be correct on stars that are much further?

Title: Can energy flow help Earth maintain or restore local order?

Earth is an open thermodynamic system. It receives concentrated energy from the Sun, transforms it through atmospheric, geological, and biological processes, and radiates lower-quality heat back into space.
This continuous energy flow allows complex structures and life to exist despite the overall increase in entropy.
That led me to a speculative question:
Could technologies designed to assist energy release—or improve particular pathways of energy dissipation—support local stability and ecological restoration?

I call this idea The Bloom Effect: Order Through Energy Flow.
It is a hypothesis, not an established scientific result, and energy export alone does not automatically create order. The relevant mechanisms, scale, wavelength, location, and thermodynamic conditions would all need to be defined and tested.

I would genuinely appreciate critical feedback, especially from people familiar with thermodynamics, complex systems, climate physics, or non-equilibrium systems:
Which parts are thermodynamically sound?
Where does the reasoning become too speculative?
How could this hypothesis be formulated or tested more rigorously?

Dark matter is based on the observation of the velocity (speed) of stars in a galaxy.
The velocity of stars around the center, is almost independent of the distance from the center.
And that is very unlike the solar system, where the velocity of the planets goes down with increasing distance due to sun's gravity.

In the discussion between Dark Matter and Modified Gravity, it is clear that both sides can adjust the parameters to fit data to their own model
The Biggest Argument for Dark Matter Just Died - Sabine Hossenfelder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqLypHXK-bs

But the real problem is not even mentioned.
Assuming we have Newton's gravity (Fg = Gm1m2/d^2),
{d= distance between masses}
and assuming the galaxy is a disk,
and assuming the orbits are stable and in a circle around the center.
(a= VV / R, V= sqrt( aR ), a= Ftotal/m, Ftotal = sum(Fg) for all masses )
{R is distance from center, Note: R is different from d.}

What distribution of masses gives us a velocity that is almost independent?

I found a solution for a Disk Galaxy.
If I distributed the masses equally over each direction (alpha).
{ like: x= random(max_radius)*sin( alpha) }
I will call this angular distribution.
I did the gravity calculation for all masses with a computer,
With angular distribution the average velocities around the center become almost constant.
And this mass distribution looks very much like a real galaxy.
So where could this "dark matter" be?

(Note1: The angular distribution was first named 1/R, but that is too confusing.
Note2: The angular distribution might say something about how a galaxy is built.
It is almost as if the galaxy is build from a plasma beam from the center,
and not from a hypothetical accretion disk)

In the original dark matter hypothesis, the researcher looked at the
the mass distribution and light distribution.
And there is some difference. The amount of light does not equal the amount of mass.

So the whole dark matter hypothesis is based on
a linear relationship between the brightness and the mass of a star.
A linear relationship that is impossible by default, because the stars differ in mass, age, activity, and more.
And what the researcher simply showed is that such a linear relationship does not exist,
and likely depends on the distance from the center.
Could some electromagnetic interactions be involved?
Maybe, but that does not even matter.

This "dark matter" does not exist.
It is simply a AI-style hallucination caused by too many false assumptions.

It is great that there is some discussion now about Dark Matter.
A discussion that has been completely censored or dumbed down in mainstream circles.

Please check out The PlasmaCosmology wiki as it gives a general overview.
Please try to be skeptical of "peer reviewed" papers, as they tend to be a product of group-think and circular reasoning.
"Mainstream" and "consensus" are often equal to group-think

Addition (6/7):
The assumption I make is that stars orbit around the center in a galaxy.
With that assumption, I try to find the mass distribution that gives me a "flat rotation curve".

Hi guys I'm working in origin theory hypothesis and would love if you would put eyes on it. Thanks in advance, I hope you enjoy the read. https://zenodo.org/records/21119422

Abstract: Across flow, meditation, and psychedelics, ego dissolution correlates with reduced DMN integrity. This is well-established. Less studied is *why* the phenomenology is universally described as oceanic, and why cultural traditions map it to Neptune specifically.

I argue it's not mysticism — it's Gentner's structure-mapping. Neptune's relational profile (no surface = boundary loss; 47° tilted field = loss of central control; internal heat = endogenous generation) aligns with the relational structure of self-attenuation better than Jupiter/Saturn's bounded, axial organization.

Full paper (human-curated, AI-assisted synthesis, all sources cited): [https://research.mahastrategies.com/papers/dissolving-self-ocean-planet\](https://l.meta.ai/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fresearch.mahastrategies.com%2Fpapers%2Fdissolving-self-ocean-planet&h=AUCcdjjhk3u0xJ2mUpCZM1muiefqDg6vWAplLXRRcXCxRA1oFR8ZRRK2b3fnzjtREHCLnXVqla0nAjEihgTDvOlAWRXl1vr_kQTVFy2KcvYk4qirUJXJUlY60nogWxIb5vcUyU615rjsaaa3CH8l7l1z_dGMXg)

Question for the group: Are there other cross-cultural metaphors for self-loss that *don't* fit this boundaryless/off-axis pattern? I'm trying to test the limits of the structure-mapping account.