Mass distinct from matter, and rotating galaxies rotate . .

Having gained my third degree, BSc Hons 2:1 in Nat Sci (Phys, Astro) am no longer thinking this subject so much.  I have learned something, but as expected the main lesson is how little I know. Main stimulus is New Scientist articles, with ever-more-esoteric explanations and 'discoveries' featuring the sentiment "might". Two things recently occurred to me out of this blue:

1) I have long held that it is not obvious that the content of black holes, matter, has the same form as its familiar form outside the black hole.  It is obvious that its mass is retained otherwise black holes could never happen or be sustained, and anyway, where would the mass go?  But no-one knows what form the matter can take after entering the event horizon, though surely is is very different even from its form in elementary particles, its most dense.

A way to look at it is not that mass is a property of matter, but rather that mass is a fundamental, and it may occupy matter as an essential constituent, but is not exclusive to matter.  By this view matter may be destroyed or completely transformed in a black hole, separated from its mass, while the mass exists in its basic or raw form taking up no space.

The only property of mass is its bending of spacetime to cause the effect of gravity, the intensity of the bending being directly related to the density of mass, and the amount of bend in a region relating to the totality of mass in that region.  (Whether the binding of mass with matter (optional to mass) is a property of mass or matter is moot.)  Mass exists in black holes, it exists in matter to give it inertia/weight, and it can also exist outside either black holes or matter in the form of - dark matter (DM).  Which hereby has a new and apposite name - unattached mass (UM).

2) This turns on its head my scepticism about so-called DM, as I have intuitively favoured MOND/TeVeS approaches, while seeking a way in which this conflict can instead be a duality.  MOND works very well in rotating galaxies but does not extend to larger-scale cosmology.  The increasingly detailed maps of DM as evidenced by gravitational lensing, the prime test for mass, are not helping the case for MOND, and it must be accepted that DM is ubiquitous and not necessarily related to the MOND acceleration a₀.

Yet the success of MOND to explain flat rotation curves without DM begs the question 'what is special about rotating galaxies that lets MOND work?'.  The answer may be that they are rotating.  I have argued at length about the special nature of rotation, causing an acceleration which once at steady rotational speed is constant and indefinite with no further energy requirement, also a description of gravity itself.  Rotation also has the property of existing in just two dimensions in terms of its plane, with the axis orthogonal and hence virtually defining an additional dimension.

So this conjecture is that mass is a fundamental and independent occupier and interactor of spacetime with no properties other than to bend spacetime, and (where required) to stiffen and weight matter.  It appears not to interact with itself, and cannot be expected to interact with matter (except as a constituent) or with the electromagnetic spectrum.  UM can be mapped in the cosmos by its gravitational effects but there are no particles of it.  Stop looking for Dark Matter, it does not exist.  But UM does link closely with rotational cosmology as evidenced in galaxy rotation curves, and points to a relationship between mass and a model for the universe as a whole involving rotational acceleration as an analogue for gravity.

The downgrading of matter from a fundamental to a derivative gives more options for the nature of matter and antimatter, ie less reason why there should be (or have been) the same amount of both.  Assume however that there is no such thing as anti or negative mass, but connect the fact that when antimatter and matter particles collide they disappear and release their mass in the form of energy.