Serious blow to dark matter theories? New study finds mysterious lack of dark matter in Sun's neighborhood

Apr 18, 2012
This annotated artist’s impression shows the Milky Way galaxy. The blue halo of material surrounding the galaxy indicates the expected distribution of the mysterious dark matter. New measurements based on the movements of stars show that the amount of dark matter in this region around the Sun is far smaller than predicted and have indicated that there is no significant dark matter at all in our neighbourhood. The blue sphere centred on the Sun’s position shows the approximate size of the newly surveyed volume, but not its precise shape. Credit: ESO/L. Calçada

(Phys.org) -- The most accurate study so far of the motions of stars in the Milky Way has found no evidence for dark matter in a large volume around the Sun. According to widely accepted theories, the solar neighbourhood was expected to be filled with dark matter, a mysterious invisible substance that can only be detected indirectly by the gravitational force it exerts. But a new study by a team of astronomers in Chile has found that these theories just do not fit the observational facts. This may mean that attempts to directly detect dark matter particles on Earth are unlikely to be successful.

A team using the MPG/ESO 2.2-metre at ESO's , along with other telescopes, has mapped the motions of more than 400 stars up to 13 000 light-years from the Sun. From this new data they have calculated the mass of material in the vicinity of the Sun, in a volume four times larger than ever considered before.

"The amount of mass that we derive matches very well with what we see — stars, dust and gas — in the region around the Sun," says team leader Christian Moni Bidin (Departamento de Astronomia, Universidad de Concepcion, ). "But this leaves no room for the extra material — dark matter — that we were expecting. Our calculations show that it should have shown up very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not there!"

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Credit: ESO/L. Calçada

Dark matter is a mysterious substance that cannot be seen, but shows itself by its gravitational attraction for the material around it. This extra ingredient in the cosmos was originally suggested to explain why the outer parts of galaxies, including our own Milky Way, rotated so quickly, but dark matter now also forms an essential component of theories of how galaxies formed and evolved.

Today it is widely accepted that this dark component constitutes about the 80% of the mass in the Universe [1], despite the fact that it has resisted all attempts to clarify its nature, which remains obscure. All attempts so far to detect dark matter in laboratories on Earth have failed.

By very carefully measuring the motions of many stars, particularly those away from the plane of the Milky Way, the team could work backwards to deduce how much matter is present [2]. The are a result of the mutual gravitational attraction of all the material, whether normal matter such as stars, or dark matter.

Astronomers' existing models of how galaxies form and rotate suggest that the Milky Way is surrounded by a halo of dark matter. They are not able to precisely predict what shape this halo takes, but they do expect to find significant amounts in the region around the Sun. But only very unlikely shapes for the dark matter halo — such as a highly elongated form — can explain the lack of dark matter uncovered in the new study [3].

The new results also mean that attempts to detect dark matter on by trying to spot the rare interactions between and "normal" matter are unlikely to be successful.

"Despite the new results, the certainly rotates much faster than the visible matter alone can account for. So, if dark matter is not present where we expected it, a new solution for the missing mass problem must be found. Our results contradict the currently accepted models. The mystery of dark matter has just become even more mysterious. Future surveys, such as the ESA Gaia mission, will be crucial to move beyond this point." concludes Christian Moni Bidin.

Explore further: New radio telescope ready to probe

More information: This research was presented in a paper, "Kinematical and chemical vertical structure of the Galactic thick disk II. A lack of dark matter in the solar neighborhood", by Moni-Bidin et al. to appear in The Astrophysical Journal.

Notes

[1] According to current theories dark matter is estimated to constitute 83% of the matter in the Universe with the remaining 17% in the form of normal matter. A much larger amount of dark energy also seems present in the Universe, but is not expected to affect the motions of the stars within the Milky Way.

[2] The observations were made using the FEROS spectrograph on the MPG/ESO 2.2-metre telescope, the Coralie instrument on the Swiss 1.2-metre Leonhard Euler Telescope, the MIKE instrument on the Magellan II Telescope and the Echelle Spectrograph on the Irene du Pont Telescope. The first two telescopes are located at ESO's La Silla Observatory and the latter two telescopes are located at the Las Campanas Observatory, both in Chile. A total of more than 400 red giant stars at widely differing heights above the plane of the galaxy in the direction towards the south galactic pole were included in this work.

[3] Theories predict that the average amount of dark matter in the Sun's part of the galaxy should be in the range 0.4-1.0 kilograms of dark matter in a volume the size of the Earth. The new measurements find 0.00±0.07 kilograms of dark matter in a volume the size of the Earth.

Related Stories

Missing Milky Way dark matter

Nov 09, 2010

Although dark matter is inherently difficult to observe, an understanding of its properties (even if not its nature) allows astronomers to predict where its effects should be felt. The current understanding ...

Dark matter mystery deepens

Oct 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Like all galaxies, our Milky Way is home to a strange substance called dark matter. Dark matter is invisible, betraying its presence only through its gravitational pull. Without dark matter ...

Dark matter could provide heat for starless planets

Apr 01, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- In a recent paper posted at arXiv.org and submitted to Astrophysical Journal, Dan Hooper and Jason Steffen, physicists at Fermilab in Illinois, present the theory that cold and dark planet ...

Study sheds light on dark matter

Feb 06, 2006

British astronomers say they have, for the first time, determined some of the physical characteristics of dark matter.

Recommended for you

Big black holes can block new stars

19 hours ago

Massive black holes spewing out radio-frequency-emitting particles at near-light speed can block formation of new stars in aging galaxies, a study has found.

POLARBEAR seeks cosmic answers in microwave polarization

19 hours ago

An international team of physicists has measured a subtle characteristic in the polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation that will allow them to map the large-scale structure of the universe, ...

New radio telescope ready to probe

22 hours ago

Whirring back and forth on a turning turret, the white, 40-foot dish evokes the aura of movies such as "Golden Eye" or "Contact," but the University of Arizona team of scientists and engineers that commissioned ...

Exomoons Could Be Abundant Sources Of Habitability

Oct 20, 2014

With about 4,000 planet candidates from the Kepler Space Telescope data to analyze so far, astronomers are busy trying to figure out questions about habitability. What size planet could host life? How far ...

User comments : 164

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shane_Steinman
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2012
You can't look for dark matter in a specific place because it only exists relative to the whole. Also, the ratio given for the quantitative comparison of dark matter and 'normal' matter seems to be off by almost 15%.
dtyarbrough
1.7 / 5 (19) Apr 18, 2012
Just more proof that the universe is not expanding. http://www.scribd...XPANDING
casualjoe
1 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2012
I've been perusing the theory that dark matter is any volume of space in which time runs slower relative to our time on Earth due to galactic time dilation effects. Not observing the dark matter effects locally fits in nicely with this idea.
Yellowdart
2.4 / 5 (14) Apr 18, 2012
You can't look for dark matter in a specific place because it only exists relative to the whole.


Also known as, imagination. :)
Tuxford
1.5 / 5 (24) Apr 18, 2012
So how is our galaxy held together??? It supposes to be rotating, right, although all the stars are moving radially outward toward the galactic anti-center? Just more support for LaViolette's continuous creation model.

http://phys.org/n...ays.html

And, as I predicted March 3rd, dark matter will be found to be largely absent within galaxies, being located instead in the halos surrounding galaxies. See my comment:

http://phys.org/n...axy.html

Go ahead and downgrade my posts. Doesn't stop them from being correct, however inconvenient.
Shane_Steinman
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2012
Also known as, imagination. :)


The inferred presence of "dark matter" is simple proof of the old axiom that a whole exceeds the sum of its parts.
casualjoe
4.8 / 5 (16) Apr 18, 2012
Tux..
No one is correct yet, there is not enough evidence. That's the beauty of science, theories can be overturned by new evidence, being wrong is nothing to be embarrassed or ashamed about, we're only human after all.
hemitite
3.8 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012
It will be interesting to see how this result comports with the gravitational dipole of spacetime that would result if antimatter is anti-gravitational (should know that soon!)
panorama
5 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2012
Just more proof that the universe is not expanding. http://www.scribd...XPANDING

Are you a Neal Adams fan? http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html
mharratsc
1.4 / 5 (17) Apr 18, 2012
Electrodynamics, not gravity. How much more friggin proof is needed here? Invisible gravity-inducing matter, or proven electrodynamics??

Jeez, people...
hemitite
5 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2012
"There is not dark side of the moon - it's ALL dark!"

- Pink Floyd
dogbert
2.7 / 5 (20) Apr 18, 2012
About time we recognize that we can't find this imaginary substance.
Our formulas describing gravity remain insufficient to account for our observations, but creating imaginary mass is not a solution.

Kudos to these astronomers.
Tuxford
1.4 / 5 (18) Apr 18, 2012
This is great news for CERN! They now have cover for failure.
chardo137
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2012
I echo hemitite, I would like to know what the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum predicts in this instance as this may, if true, be the most fundamental finding in physics in a long, long time.
Lurker2358
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2012
I made the same argument in the past, which was pretty damn obvious just from observations of the dynamics of the solar system. If 80% of the mass of a galaxy is Dark matter, then about 80% of the mass of stars and solar systems should be Dark Matter, but we know for a fact that isn't the case (through seismology and such we know the interactions of ordinary matter, etc).

There has to be some sort of error in the math or the reasoning or the understanding, or else the instruments of the people supporting the Dark Matter theory, at least as it applies within Galaxies.

But then the next question becomes, if not Dark Matter, then how do they explain the inter-galactic gravitational lensing observed, such as in the article that was posted a few days ago?
joefarah
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2012
There is nothing wrong with the theory of Dark Matter, as long as we understand it is a theory. If its untestable, then the theory is of no value. We have some sort of tests defined - great.

But let's not fix on this theory - observation to date suggests there's probably other better theories to explain expansion rates of the universe, etc. Some have been put forward AND SHOULD BE GIVEN EQUAL PROMINENCE until such time as observations contradict them. The physics community of the 21st century has not, to date, done this, and as such it has become Political Physics. Let's clean up the act.

Lurker asks "if not Dark Matter, then how do they explain the ...". Great question, but do not give a preference to dark matter just because there's no explanation given satisfactorily.
phillip_hooper2
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2012
I was thinking, if there was a defined limit to the amount of visible matter in the universe, would the outer bounderies of the unverse wrap in on itself like a sphere? As the matter in universe moves away, its actually collapsing, and as we get closer, we are speeding up because we are now closer in proximty of ordinary matter? Imagine a ball, its size is determind by a single density point. Then all the matter is realeased and scatteres in all directions, eventually all matter would start collapsing on the oppisite side of the sphere. Just an idea to this stupid thing they call dark matter.
krundoloss
4 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2012
It is obvious that we don't have the answers to the nature and structure of the universe. I think it is something that we cannot conceive of (yet) or that we simply cannot measure or test against as it goes beyond our ability to interact with it (other dimensions, etc). I think the solution will turn out to be simpler than we think, or more complex than we can imagine.
krundoloss
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2012
What about the black holes at the center of each galaxy? How can we be sure of its mass, or the effects it might have on observed gravity?
casualjoe
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012
To get some sort of handling on the universe it's necessary to imagine the relative nature of time. I can't seem to stop thinking that it is possible for the event horizons of black holes to 'grow' faster than light if say, many black holes collided with each other. A very scary thought indeed!
The very fact that mass is in a space throughout a time means this time is somehow, used up by the mass purely to 'exist'.

Yellowdart
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2012
The inferred presence of "dark matter" is simple proof of the old axiom that a whole exceeds the sum of its parts.


You mean like unicorns and dragons? :) Science can only prove that the whole equals the parts. Any excess is just the inferred imagination.

Study after study has failed to find dark matter/energy. Why do scientists continue to imagine missing matter, rather than dealing with the matter at hand that we can test and study?

Lurker2358
2 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2012
The inferred presence of "dark matter" is simple proof of the old axiom that a whole exceeds the sum of its parts.


You mean like unicorns and dragons? :) Science can only prove that the whole equals the parts. Any excess is just the inferred imagination.

Study after study has failed to find dark matter/energy. Why do scientists continue to imagine missing matter, rather than dealing with the matter at hand that we can test and study?



DM and DE may just be additional "fields" just like EM, gravity, and the nuclear force.

Just because it wasn't previously described doesn't mean it doesn't exist in some form.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (14) Apr 18, 2012
The problem of course, is that there are studies that clearly imply it's existence, although not it's form.

"Study after study has failed to find dark matter/energy" - YellowTard

"Why do scientists continue to imagine missing matter, rather than dealing with the matter at hand that we can test and study?" - YellowTard

Why continue to look for your car keys if you can't seem to find them? You have no evidence that they still exist.

There is considerable missing matter at the center of our galaxy. We can see stars orbiting around it, but there is nothing detected at the point they are orbiting.

This missing matter is being called a "black hole", and with any luck, sometime at the end of this year and through the next several years, it should reveal itself.

zhang22
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2012
I never liked the idea of dark matter, and personally don't believe that it exists. I find it more reasonable that our understanding of phenomena at very large scales is lacking. Unfortunately young physicists will not take the risk to do research in areas that are not mainstream so progress on alternative theories will be slow.
Yellowdart
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2012
Just because it wasn't previously described doesn't mean it doesn't exist in some form.


So next week you will be developing a Vishnu detector? Description is only so good in science as long as you can observe it.

Why continue to look for your car keys if you can't seem to find them? You have no evidence that they still exist.


Historical observation. You have ZERO historical observation of dark matter/energy. Besides, because one can no longer observe something puts the discussion into Schrodinger's cat thought experiments...which is more philosophy than science.

This missing matter is being called a "black hole", and with any luck, sometime at the end of this year and through the next several years, it should reveal itself.


So your one hope is luck now? Hmmm sounds eerily religious at this point.
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012
If 80% of the mass of a galaxy is Dark matter, then about 80% of the mass of stars and solar systems should be Dark Matter


Are you serious? Why are you assuming homogeneity?
EverythingsJustATheory
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2012

Historical observation. You have ZERO historical observation of dark matter/energy. Besides, because one can no longer observe something puts the discussion into Schrodinger's cat thought experiments...which is more philosophy than science.


Zero historical observation? Directly yes, but indirectly there is observation. As a previous poster noted, what about the gravitational lensing that we can observe that only fits if there is 5 more times added to the visible mass. What about the rotational velocity issue with galaxies. These most certainly are observations of dark matter, just not direct ones.
zhang22
2.2 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012
Although the theory needs further work to resolve some issues, MOND and TeVeS predict gravitational lensing, and predict rotational velocity of galaxies by modifying F = MA.
zhang22
1.3 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2012
The accelerating expansion of the universe could also be due to a number of things besides dark energy/matter. Time, for example may not be a constant as some notable physicists have recently suggested.
Shinichi D_
3 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2012
What about the black holes at the center of each galaxy? How can we be sure of its mass, or the effects it might have on observed gravity?


In that case, the stars closer to the center should move much faster, and stars towards the "edges" much slower. But that's not the case. They move at more or less uniform orbital velocity. That is one problem, not just the too high speed. We are not looking for a pointlike concentration of mass, but a halo of it.
agref
1 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2012
This extra ingredient in the cosmos was originally suggested to explain why the outer parts of galaxies, including our own Milky Way, rotated so quickly


Obviously, this is caused by the Zones of Thought.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2012
As a previous poster noted, what about the gravitational lensing that we can observe that only fits if there is 5 more times added to the visible mass.


Only fits what?
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2012
So next week you will be developing a Vishnu detector? Description is only so good in science as long as you can observe it.


Idjit, we detect "invisible" forces, waves, and particles all the time through technology and observing their effects, and have even learned to quantify and distinguish the different invisible particles and waves from one another.

But that's not the case. They move at more or less uniform orbital velocity.


I've explained away the majority of this is quite literally being caused by people using an incorrect, over-simplifed application of gravitational formula.

Which is to say, if you treat all matter in a Galaxy as orbit a point mass at the center of the galaxy, then you get an INCORRECT curve for what star motion should look like.

A proper explanation takes several pages to describe, which I have done countless times and it obviously accounts for most, if not all of the discrepancy.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012
If I could describe my explanation to some of these guys with access to super computers for modeling, I'd be happy to see if they can prove me wrong.

Believe it or not, the majority of the so-called "Dark Matter" phenomenon WITHIN Galaxies can be explained by a faulty application of Newtonian dynamics, which is so damn simple that it's embarrassing the scientific community has never figured this out.

Now I can explain it graphically, but it's hard on this forum, and gets annoyingly complicated by hand, but the concept is simple. It just that working out the centers of mass by hand for more than a few bodies gets too complicated.

But the gist is that a proper application of a sub-set of Newton's Shell theorem actually explains away most of the DM phenomenon.
350
3 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2012
I love this site, I enjoy the mental fitness it gives me and most of the comments are good, but sometimes I am disapointed by the back and forth between people. I have been guilty of it too, but if nothing else, we should all be thankful that "ignorant" theories people make are around. I am not lending credance to their claims, but if you ask me, the whole world could use more critical thought. Thinking outside the box really does wonders for how people percieve their own reality because it may lead them to question so called truths. Without this attitude, science would stagnate. Sure there are trolls, sure there are people who think on the fringe, but ultimately this is the beauty of individuality and it contributes far more to our whole society than just some wrong ideas about how something works.

We all should be more unified in providing helpful criticism rather than attacks on those people, because the only way to not be "wrong" is to never try to be right by never questioning.
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2012
Aren't we in a big bubble from a previous supernova that makes the region of the galaxy we are in emptier compared to other places? Perhaps the missing Dark Matter is mirroring the missing normal matter? Once our star passes through the bubble, maybe we'll get more dark matter around the Sun?
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2012
Lurker2358,
which is so damn simple that it's embarrassing the scientific community has never figured this out.

Of course, that's it. It couldn't just be that lots of people did figure it out and moved on once they realized it was (1) stupid, (2) bullshit, or (3) damn what was I drinking last night when I thought of this.

I mean, obviously, it can't be that you were just wrong, everyone else HAS to be stupid.
casualjoe
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012

But the gist is that a proper application of a sub-set of Newton's Shell theorem actually explains away most of the DM phenomenon.


So, you're saying that astronomers currently predict the gravity of a galaxy by treating its shape as spherically symmetric? Surely they must know already how to take the shape of the galaxy they have observed into account a bit better.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2012
"Grandiose delusion or delusions of grandeur is principally a subtype of delusional disorder (GD) that can occur as a wide range of mental illness, including in two thirds of those in manic state of bipolar disorder, half those with schizophrenia and a substantial portion of those with substance abuse disorders. GDs are characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent, wealthy, or otherwise very powerful [or knows science better than 100s of real scientists]. The delusions are generally fantastic and typically have a supernatural, science-fictional, or religious theme."

Exhibit A:

"...can be explained by a faulty application of Newtonian dynamics,which is so damn simple that it's embarrassing the scientific community has never figured this out."

You have tried celestial mechanics before and have been woefully embarrassed before havent you QC? As if errancy would ever register in that tortured brain of yours-
brodix
1 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2012
What is gravity? It's a contraction of space associated with mass. When we turn mass into energy, it creates expansion. Think nuclear explosion. So what happens when energy converts to mass? Does it create a corresponding contraction? Maybe gravity is not simply a property of mass, but the creation of it and galaxies are mass creation processes, so that the flatness of the rotational speed is due to the creation and consolidation of mass into ever more dense structure being a fairly even process.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012
You have tried celestial mechanics before and have been woefully embarrassed before havent you QC? As if errancy would ever register in that tortured brain of yours-


Actually, nobody has ever once proven me wrong.

The only thing you've ever done is insult me, and more often than not whenever you attempt to make me look foolish, I have, in the past even been able to cite scientific references both in papers and videos which you claimed didn't exist.
simplicio
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2012
But only very unlikely shapes for the dark matter halo such as a highly elongated form can explain the lack of dark matter uncovered in the new study

I read some time before that DM halo was elongated like a rugby ball and not like a soccer ball (sphere). This study makes too much assumptions about DM properties. There is much more evidences for DM from other observations and simulations.

Thadieus
4 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2012
Reality is not only stranger than you think, its stranger than you can think. Arthur Eddington
Urgelt
5 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012
Huh. So the plot thickens. The region our sun is in does not seem to be affected by unexplained sources of gravitation located in that region of space.

To sum: we observe gravitational behaviors on large scales - but not nearby - that cannot be explained by matter we have thus far detected.

So either there is undetected matter exerting gravity, but not nearby, or gravitational phenomena are manifesting whose origins are not matter (quantum vacuum perhaps?), but also not nearby, or our understanding of gravity fails on large scales.

Or any two, or all three, actually. There isn't yet any evidence yet pointing to a particular solution set.

It's a fun time to be interested in gravity, that's for sure.

A reminder: anyone who posits that he or she has an answer to this question and is *certain* of it, that's a crank. Admitting to uncertainty where no certainty exists is what distinguishes science from nonscience.
Sulfuric72
1 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2012
Keep your eyes peeled on the Bering Strait. Recent quake activity is making a Megathrust Scenario very probable for that area as each day passes by. If you live on the West coast near the Sea I would prep a Bugout bag just in case. As our earth's rotational period slows so shall our Gravity and Magnetoshpere weaken as well. Earthquakes are about to increase drastically worldwide as a result and force people to consider that Gravity is Time forcing a localization upon mass.
eachus
1 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2012
MorituriMax said:
Aren't we in a big bubble from a previous supernova that makes the region of the galaxy we are in emptier compared to other places? Perhaps the missing Dark Matter is mirroring the missing normal matter?


It is possible, but think about neutrino oscillation for a bit. If Dark Matter consists of WIMPs, DM won't interact with light, or with electromagnetic fields, but it will get pushed around by muon neutrinos (or more to the point, muon antineutrinos).

It is not necessary for the reaction cross-section between muon antineutrinos and WIMPs to be much greater than that between normal matter and electron antineutrinos.

On a small scale what we should expect to see (or not see) is that any DM in a star forming dust cloud will get pushed away when the stars start burning hydrogen. Similarly, DM will get pushed away from the centers of galaxies into a DM halo surrounding the galaxy.

Interesting side effect of neutrino oscillation, what?

unknownorgin
1 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2012
They used to invent gods to explain what is not understood, now we have dark matter to do the same thing. Ideas based on faith is not good science, maybe it is time to look at the link between time, velocity and gravity.
theon
1 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2012
Another homerun for gravitational hydrodynamics!

According to gravitational hydrodynamics the dark matter of the Galaxy consists of a few million Jeans clusters, fragmented in earth mass MACHOs. They may well be the dark radio clouds that are being found now regularly, already 3000 in the plane of the Galaxy. This picture explains many surprising properties.

The true dark matter of galaxy clusters consists probably of (sterile) neutrinos.
Ian_Coleman
4 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2012
Reading through the comments here, I find I'm generally rather curious just how many of the regular contributors have any real background or training in physics at all :-).

The concept of dark matter wasn't invented on a whim, very little in physics is. Simply claiming that it's an unsupported idea doesn't make it so. There is actually substantial evidenciary support for what is basically a useful and essentially necessary 'working hypothesis' to explain certain anomalies between what we actually observe and what the best theories we have available predict that we should see. No-one, in physics at least, is claiming that it's the only possible explanation, but for the time being, it's the best explanation we have.

For instance, when we apply the best gravitational theory we have, which would be General Relativity, by the way, because Newton's ideas don't cut the mustard :-), to the motion of galaxies, we find 1) there isn't enough visible mass, and 2) it's in the wrong place...
Ian_Coleman
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2012
To extend on my previous comment, in terms of DM, as with a lot of physics, the issue of what we don't know outweighs what we do know. For instance, we don't know what DM is, or how it should behave, or even really where we should expect to find it. The evidence we have suggests that it's associated in some sense with galaxies, but as the article here suggests, that doesn't necessarily mean 'within galaxies', because there are plenty of reasons to believe that it doesn't behave like ordinary matter at all. The halo idea is reasonable in terms of explaining galactic motion and gravitational lensing, but it depends on assumptions that suggest it behaves like normal matter, and even with this assumption in play, there are other DM distributions that will suffice. Beyond that, not knowing how it behaves, for instance, we can't rule out that it might be 'repelled' by ordinary matter, which would explain it's absence within galaxies...
TimESimmons
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 19, 2012
This is because there is no such thing as dark matter.
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
Ian_Coleman
3 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2012
My apologies for the number of comments, but the character limits here are insanely short for any serious discussion on issues of this type :-).

By 'repulsion', we could infer relatively normal interactions, like those someone mentioned with respect to anti-neutrinos, which push the DM away from regular matter, or as someone else suggested, we could be dealing with something innately stranger and wilder, such as 'anti-gravity' or large scale exclusion. Not knowing what DM actually is, we can't really know.
Ian_Coleman
2.2 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2012
On the other hand, we DO know that our understanding of gravity is incomplete. GR is a large scale theory, which we assume can be applied on the grand scale. With a better theory, we may find that GR is really only a mid range theory, and that the issue of DM vanishes in an appropriately large scale theory.

What we KNOW we're missing in gravitational theory, though, is a small scale theory, quantum gravity, and this is extremely relevant to the issue of DM, because we don't know how ANY particle interacts gravitationally at all, even when we're dealing with relatively ordinary matter, and the one thing we do know about dark matter is that it ONLY interacts gravitationally...
popaduhu
1 / 5 (1) Apr 19, 2012
I'm curious, how much mass has all the electromagnetic radiation in the galaxy ? Perhaps is negligible, but still i am curious.
TimESimmons
1 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2012
Ian Coleman see my link:-
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
Ian_Coleman
1.5 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
Thanks for the link, Tim :-). It's nice to see that someone (else :-)) has their thinking cap on... :-) It's a nice idea, though it doesn't actually invalidate the idea of DM, just provides an interesting alternative explanation for what it might be, and how it might actually work. While the idea is sound, the mathematical and physical development you've applied to the mechanism of anti-gravity leaves a lot to be desired, and I suspect this will be a significant issue with respect to 'selling' it to the physics community at large. That's not a trite criticism, because I've been working on a similar idea for around 30 years, and when I publish (hopefully sometime in the next few years :-)) you'll see exactly where I'm coming from :-).
Shinichi D_
1 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2012
beforehand: sorry for my english, and be warned, that this is going to be very unorthodox.
I think maybe we should consider a different point of view with gravity, and DM and even DE. I think gravity should be described as a property of quantum field. It could be simply viewed as quantum pressure, like Teneca described it few days ago:

the gravity force results in similar way, like the shielding force, which collides the boats together at the stormy sea. .And the shielding of .. waves corresponds the gravity force.

So gravity is a one way force but its not something that radiates out of massive objects, in form of the virtual particle called graviton. Gravity is constantly flowing into massive objects. A gravitational well is not generated from inside of massive objects. That is why black holes can have a gravitational field at all. What we are looking for, has always been outside. Its vacuum. -
Shinichi D_
1 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
cont.
Vacuum has negative density. If we stretch vacuum, it will get denser. If vacuum is expanded, its getting more and more vacuum-like, not less and less, as one would expect. And the other way, if we compress vacuum or divide a given space to smaller parts, vacuum density would decrease.
If we look at a massive object in space, like a planet, away from it, towards the empty space vacuum density increases, and towards the planet, its declining.
And in this way, we can view wery large structures, like galaxies, and galaxy clusters as solid objects, if they are surrounded by large enough space. Whithin these structures, the stars, and other form visible matter kinda apportions the space, and decreasing vacuum density troughout the entire streucture, compared to the vacuum density of their surroundings.
What seems to be the dark matter content of these structures, would correspond to how much they "thin out" vacuum compared to the surrounding space.
TimESimmons
1.9 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012
Thanks Ian can you be a bit more specific about what else is required? I am keen to get any guidance I can.
brodix
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2012
My idea got a couple of 1's, but some others have brought up variations on a vacuum effect, so I will put it out for those who apparently know enough to know it's wrong, to explain why:
Energy has both wave and particle aspects, but the wave functions tend to get dismissed as statistical. As energy does expand out when released from mass, alternatively might it collapse when absorbed by mass, such that gravity is a vacuum created by the collapse of energy(wave) into mass(particle).
I'm certainly not making any claims, other than putting it out for discussion, so those who wish to give it a low score might at least give some explanation for what they see wrong with the idea.
rubberman
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2012
Ian Coleman see my link:-
http://www.presto...ndex.htm


Points 1 and 7 conflict under the "Evidence" tab. Point 1 states that AGM is repelled by normal matter. If that is so then how can the drag mentioned in point 7 occur?
casualjoe
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2012
..gravity is a vacuum created by the collapse of energy(wave) into mass(particle).
..at least give some explanation for what they see wrong with the idea.
~ brodix

your theory seems to suggest that gravity only exists when a mass is illuminated by an energy source, which clearly isn't the case.

(i didn't score you low by the way)
SteveL
not rated yet Apr 19, 2012
Since we detect DM by its gravitational interaction with surrounding masses, could it simply be that where suns or other gravity sinks exist they may have drawn in any local DM available, while in the depths of space where individual gravity sources don't exist the DM may still be abundant?

Of course if this were the case then "new" solar systems could still have large quantities of local DM in their systems, while older and more massive solar systems could have conusumed any available local DM.
brodix
1 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
your theory seems to suggest that gravity only exists when a mass is illuminated by an energy source, which clearly isn't the case.

Thanks for the reply. I did leave that impression, but to go out on a limb here; What if, in intergalactic space, light cools to a point where it spontaneously collapses? Such that there is a cosmic convection cycle of expanding energy and collapsing mass. This could explain the evenness of the CMBR as due to a phase transition. As well as redshift being due to received photons being samplings of this wave front, not particular quanta of light traveling for billions of years. So to the extent space is curved inward by gravity, it is curved outward by energy. We only see the light which travels this outward curvature, so the universe appears to expand, but it's only the space between galaxies, balanced by what falls into them. If expansion is essentially an optical effect of curved space, not galaxies receding, there is no need for dark energy either
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2012
Actually, nobody has ever once proven me wrong.
Oh yes, indeed, they have. I do recall one case in particular where you attempted orbital mechanics and somebody cited only one of many aspects which you did not consider because you were unaware of it.

But common sense alone would tell you that these flashes of brilliance you come up with are things that are routinely considered by any scientist with a modicum of competence. You can prove this to yourself by doing only a little research. Might I cite your idea of dry ice in the arctic? Were you as sure of that as well?
The only thing you've ever done is insult me
Yah that was a goody wasnt it? Its what I do. But lots of people insult you. This should be telling you something.
A2G
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2012
When I was a kid the older smartest guys told me we were going on a hunt...They showed evidence of the creature that we were going to hunt for and the damage that this creature would do. They gave all the areas we could look for this creature and all of this creature's characteristics.

They did all they could to prepare me for the hunt that first night and guaranteed that we would find this creature.

I was given a flashlight and a bag that we would put the creature in when we got it. But as hard as we tried that night of the hunt we never found that creature. I believe that even now many people are still looking for it, but I am given up.

I am fully convinced that there is no such thing as a snipe.

And there is no such thing as dark matter.

Just misguided people who were conned into a snipe hunt.
rubberman
2 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
I caught three snipes my first hunt....maybe I should look for dark matter in the same forest.
A2G
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2012
Tim Simmons...for your own sake, Please stop...your AGM theory makes far less sense than DM theory and that is a load of BS as I know you would agree.

A quote from your own website should tell you something.

BEGIN QUOTE

"It makes no attempt to explain what anti-gravity matter is"

ENDQUOTE

Seriously?

Besides Tim, I have seen evidence of a competing theory with actual working models of it in the lab..Not simulations..actually working models that explain all that you have on your website and much much more. I cannot say more than that due to NDAs that I have signed. I just want you to get on with life, stop wasting your time and avoid future embarrassment.

There is even patent pending tech based on this that actually works and will shock the world..No one is ready for it.

You seem like a good guy and very intelligent from reading your posts and your website.. Your theory is just wrong.
A2G
1.6 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2012
Rubberman...Really? you caught some snipes..Holy S**t! that is awesome...I still have my flashlight and my snipe bag...let me know when you are going to go to that forest and I will join you..

Do you think my cotton bag will hold the dark matter? or should I get one made from a different material?
Pyle
1 / 5 (2) Apr 19, 2012
Why would anybody go on a snipe hunt? They are pretty useless birds. http://en.wikiped...ki/Snipe

At least a Jackalope has a rack on it you can put in your trophy case.

This study seems like a good one to put MOG up against. I wish I could do the math. If observations of our neighborhood could show some deviation from GR in favor of MOG, MOG would be further supported by this study and I think my pet theory might gather some attention. (Note: Moffat tried to use an early version of MOG to explain the Pioneer Anamoly. Fail!)
rubberman
2.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2012
Rubberman...Really? you caught some snipes..Holy S**t! that is awesome...I still have my flashlight and my snipe bag...let me know when you are going to go to that forest and I will join you..

Do you think my cotton bag will hold the dark matter? or should I get one made from a different material?


Ironically enough, it is now my theory that the snipes feed on dark matter so as long as your cotton bag can contain the snipe...YOU GET A TWOFER!!

Did Brodix just say that dark matter is essentially dead photons?
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2012
Dark matter is from the Bible. Heb 11:3, Col 1:17. The bb theory was also developed based on Genesis by priest Lemaitre. Cosmology more and more proves God exists, such as singularity and hidden dimensions can never be explained without God.
Shinichi D_
2 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
... can never be explained without God.


We explained how earth isn't flat. We'll cope, somehow.
coolsaint
1 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2012
There is no dark matter , It's energy . Pure energy which is heterogeneous through out the entire universe , perhaps a little more here than there and so forth , or the sun is using this energy to run it's furnace . This energy can be used as energy(to power the universe) OR it can be converted to mass(matter) per Einstein's equation , E=mc2, which means that there is still a very large amount of potential matter .Think about it.
brodix
1 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2012
Did Brodix just say that dark matter is essentially dead photons?

Not exactly. I said gravity is contracting space and asked if it could be due to energy condensing into mass, rather than just the existence of mass.
The issue of dark energy is there is a flat rotational speed to galaxies, in that generally all the stars are orbiting it at the same speed, yet there isn't enough mass on the perimeter to hold the furtherest ones in orbit. This suggests some standard accretion process though. Since photons are the quanta of light absorbed by mass, what if it actually starts at much less energy. Such as where do neutrinos come from? Could they be an initial wave collapse, creating the initial vacuum, then accumulating ever more density as this vacuum gets stronger. So since the vacuum created is proportional to the mass created, the resulting effect scales up creating an even speed of spin across the radius of the galaxy, with the youngest and therefore lightest stars on the perimet
jsdarkdestruction
3.6 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2012
"Cosmology more and more proves God exists"
No, no it does not. We have found absolutely no evidence to even hint at the existence of a god, much less prove it. Some religious people do try to justify their religion by cllaiming evidence supports it when it doesnt though.
"such as singularity and hidden dimensions can never be explained without God."
Math and physics might very well do so. we havent reached that point yet but its no reason to assume because we are not advanced enough to now that we never will be and a magical all knowing entity must of created us and be responsible for all existence.
rubberman
1 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2012
Did Brodix just say that dark matter is essentially dead photons?

Not exactly. I said gravity is contracting space and asked if it could be due to energy condensing into mass, rather than just the existence of mass.

Damn! As a non physicist I really liked that one because it made sense. Because some of the properties of light demonstrate those of a particle (as in the photoelectric effect), and a photon with no energy or momentum inside a super conductor still has a mass greater than zero, your collapse of energy into mass (as far as a photon is concerned) would leave a weakly interacting particle that is undetectable with current tech....and an aweful lot of them....possibly enough to generate a gravity field which would be detecable...even though the source isn't.....man I hate when I say things that real scientists laugh at.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2012
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2012
we havent reached that point yet but its no reason to assume because we are not advanced enough to now that we never will be and a magical all knowing entity must of created us and be responsible for all existence.


By the same token, perhaps you are just not advanced enough yet to detect a god either...
brodix
1 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2012
collapse of energy into mass (as far as a photon is concerned) would leave a weakly interacting particle that is undetectable with current tech....and an aweful lot of them....possibly enough to generate a gravity field which would be detecable...even though the source isn't...

So it would be "dead photons."
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2012
Idjit, we detect "invisible" forces, waves, and particles all the time through technology and observing their effects, and have even learned to quantify and distinguish the different invisible particles and waves from one another.


Hmmm kinda hypocritical of you to call me a name, and then turn around and complain about others calling you names.

That aside, I never said invisible. I said observed. Yes, we observe things our eyes can't readily see. But no one has done either with dark matter/energy.

Dark matter/energy was originally made up to balance the accelerating expansion problem. Something is needed to provide energy/expansion while holding the universe together at the same time. Yet, it hasn't been observed, and I'm willing to bet it won't be in halos around galaxies either as some have hypothesized.
brodix
1 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2012
In the "dead photons" category:
http://phys.org/n...ues.html
"For example, it shows that the density of cosmic rays is higher than anticipated in the outer regions of the galaxy and beyond the central galactic plane. In addition, the total amount of gamma radiation from cosmic ray electrons due to interactions with infrared and visible light which consist of photons of much lower energy than gamma rays is larger than previously thought."
rubberman
1 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2012
If only it were testable.....
rikvanriel
5 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2012
There is nothing wrong with the theory of Dark Matter, as long as we understand it is a theory. If its untestable, then the theory is of no value. We have some sort of tests defined - great.


If it is untestable, it is not a theory, but merely a hypothesis.

But let's not fix on this theory - observation to date suggests there's probably other better theories to explain expansion rates of the universe, etc.


Dark matter does not explain the expansion rate of the universe. That would be dark energy, for which there are indeed some alternative theories.

Dark matter explains the rotation rate of galaxies. Observations of M94 suggest that some galaxies do not have dark matter, while others do. Getting a handle on exactly what it is and where it is will be interesting.
brodix
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2012
If only it were testable.....

We can strike a match to turn matter into energy, but the reverse pushes the boundaries of what's measurable.
jsdarkdestruction
4.5 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2012
we havent reached that point yet but its no reason to assume because we are not advanced enough to now that we never will be and a magical all knowing entity must of created us and be responsible for all existence.


By the same token, perhaps you are just not advanced enough yet to detect a god either...

sure. that doesnt mean their is any evidence of it though. science and math have explained things si far, why assume a magic entity created all because we cant explain it yet?
verkle
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2012
The problem of course.....has failed to find dark matter/energy" - YellowTard


VD--Please do refrain from using the retard name at others. Not only is it demeaning, but it takes away from anything you are trying to say.

Please!

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2012
The problem of course.....has failed to find dark matter/energy" - YellowTard


VD--Please do refrain from using the retard name at others. Not only is it demeaning, but it takes away from anything you are trying to say.

Please!

But that is his thing. It's like 'hockey puck'.
theon
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2012
Exactly this behavior is predicted by the gravitational dynamics scenario: in the Galaxy the dark matter being normal matter locked up in MACHOs of earth mass, grouped in Jeans clusters; in galaxy clusters active and sterile neutrinos of 1.5 eV. The approach also solves other problems, like the missing baryon problem, the missing dark matter problem, the Helium-3 problem, the reionization problem, the very-early galaxy problem. Thus it is time to give up on LCDM and move on.
markeagleone
1 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2012
I guess people forget about Einstein's theory that mass, such as our own sun, bends space/time. It was proven. We can see stars behind the sun on solar eclipses. Now, for that to be true, something must be distorting(space itself). Dark matter was a joke. Anything that has gravity has to be able to be proven. You can't have an effect without the presence of the source. I think they need to head down the path of what is space itself. We have proven effects so now we need to find the source. If space can be distorted, what is actually being distorted. If space can be defined, with or without the presence of matter, and it has characteristics such as it can be distorted by mass, I believe it would leave dark matter as a brain-fart. Space, itself may have physical aspects without having a physical form.
casualjoe
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2012
You can't have an effect without the presence of the source.


We have proven effects so now we need to find the source.

Kind of answered yourself there.

Space, itself may have physical aspects without having a physical form.


So a bit like, say.. dark matter then. Dark matter is a name used to describe the effects that are seen, nothing more.
migbasher
1 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2012
I just flushed "real" dark matter down my porcelain singularity about 10 mins ago.
PS3
1 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2012
"Cosmology more and more proves God exists"
No, no it does not. We have found absolutely no evidence to even hint at the existence of a god, much less prove it. Some religious people do try to justify their religion by cllaiming evidence supports it when it doesnt though.
"such as singularity and hidden dimensions can never be explained without God."
Math and physics might very well do so. we havent reached that point yet but its no reason to assume because we are not advanced enough to now that we never will be and a magical all knowing entity must of created us and be responsible for all existence.

There seems to be a good amount of evidence showing everything could have been designed by GOD. You have hidden codes being found in stuff and all the digital physics stuff.
jsdarkdestruction
3.6 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2012
"There seems to be a good amount of evidence showing everything could have been designed by GOD. You have hidden codes being found in stuff and all the digital physics stuff."
Oh, what scientific evidence do you have? Have you submitted your proofs to any scientific journals yet? If youve found evidence for god you are going to be extremely famous and change our whole world. Can you explain how the evidence proves a god exists(scientifically, no god of the gaps arguments please)?
CardacianNeverid
4.1 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2012
There seems to be a good amount of evidence showing everything could have been designed by GOD -PS3Tard

Tard boy makes a sweeping dumbass statement - but could it be true?

First, define what god is - qualities, abilities, limitations, origin, what sets it apart from a non-god?

Second, define the difference between design and natural processes.

Third, show that everything has been designed and could not be produced through natural processes.

Fourth, only if you can establish the first three unambiguously, will you be able to make any such claim, because without doing so you're just another nutter who believes in sky ghosts.
MaxwellsDemon
5 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2012
Last year Dragan Hajdukovic (a CERN physicist) published a fascinating paper attributing the "dark matter effect" to vacuum polarization of virtual gravitons:
http://phys.org/n...uum.html

Now using the same set of theoretical postulates, he has recently derived the correct magnitude of the "dark energy effect":
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4594

When the AEGIS consortium determines antihydrogen's interaction with the Earth's gravitational field, we'll know if he's right:
http://www.mpi-hd...tter.htm
Irukanji
1 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2012
Dark matter is like global warming, sometimes it's here, sometimes it's not.

Oh wait, it's called "climate change" now(because the climate changes by itself anyway, and it's all regulated by the sun).

So basically, we have this "dark matter", which - if it does exist - should be detectable simply by the different radio signature it emits when it gets hit by various forms of radiation. But naturally it is a large, invisible particle which can only be affected by gravity, which may suggest it is a single building block of common particles. Perhaps with no charge at all, and only capable of being detected through the interactions between multiple particles of this "dark matter".

Or maybe it is only dark matter when it exists in a cloud of predominately dark matter, otherwise it takes on the appearance of common particles and makes identification imposisble.

Or maybe I'm on the wrong track. Inb4downvotes.
PS3
1 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2012
"There seems to be a good amount of evidence showing everything could have been designed by GOD. You have hidden codes being found in stuff and all the digital physics stuff."
Oh, what scientific evidence do you have? Have you submitted your proofs to any scientific journals yet? If youve found evidence for god you are going to be extremely famous and change our whole world. Can you explain how the evidence proves a god exists(scientifically, no god of the gaps arguments please)?


what about this?
http://being.publ...er.shtml

jsdarkdestruction
3.3 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2012
That article was interesting, some of it was above my head. However one thing im certain of is that it does not mention their being a god. they talk of codes being behind everything and something about a matrix. Reality being incredibley complex would not be proof of an intelligent creator. You are trying to twist that article to say something it doesnt.
PS3
1 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2012
That article was interesting, some of it was above my head. However one thing im certain of is that it does not mention their being a god. they talk of codes being behind everything and something about a matrix. Reality being incredibley complex would not be proof of an intelligent creator. You are trying to twist that article to say something it doesnt.

"How could we discover whether we live inside a Matrix?". One answer might be "Try to detect the presence of codes in the laws that describe physics."

The quote above is exactly what they did,find codes.They could be natural,but could be designed too.Designed is funner to think about:p
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2012
New study finds mysterious lack of dark matter in Sun's neighborhood
Is this result really so mysterious? The dark matter has been searched around Sun - i.e. NOT at the boundary area of Milky Way, where the dark matter effects are supposed to manifest itself in most pronounced way. It's well known, the dark matter affects the rotational curves of stars at the PERIMETER of galaxies, not at the central areas of it. http://ircamera.a...anim.gif
cyberCMDR
5 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2012
Dark matter is a conceptual placeholder to represent observed phenomena. We don't know what dark matter is, or even if it is matter. All we can do at this time is the measure the effects, and do more experiments to test our hypotheses. That is why we do science, to fill in those gaps in our knowledge.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 22, 2012
Dark matter is a conceptual placeholder to represent observed phenomena. We don't know what dark matter is, or even if it is matter.


Redefining dark matter as simply as place holder is no more reasonable that the concept of dark matter in the first place. Dark matter was imagined because our models of gravity do not match our observations. Many years and countless research dollars have been spent trying to prove the existence of dark matter.

Our time would be better spent trying to determine why our models do not match our observations and perhaps developing better models. Playing games with imaginary matter is counter productive. Saying "We really don't mean it but we are going to keep saying it" is not productive either.

Dark matter is a kludge. It has always been a kludge and this article points out a significant lack of it in a large area of space.
Iourii Gribov
1 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2012
The DM in the Gribov Periodical Multiverse (GPM) is gravity of the nearest two dark Universes, consisting of the same SM galaxy arms particles, shifted in the 4-th D. It is distributed irregularlylike the Milky Way arms and is minimal via tiny OrionCygnus Arm. The GPM solves interrelated DE&DM&SUSY&Higgs problems: Gribov 2012. Dark Matter as Pico-Windows to physically equal Multiverse Worlds with Myriads Civilizations Around Us (in extra dimension).http://www2.hu-be...bov.pdf. THE GPM density is ~10000000000/cm4 of identical gravity/antigravity Universes with Lo4 = Compton length of electron. It shows waveguided nature of the united Einsteinian SR & Equivalence Principle - GR & Diracian QM, as basic sides of the same wave-interference. It explains the DE&DM & flatness & bubbles structure (theoretical DE/(DM + OM) ~74%/26%, near to observations); predicts antigravity in the antimatter - CERN / positronium - Mills lab gravity tests; absence of elementary Sparticles & Higgs bosons.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2012
That article was interesting, some of it was above my head. However one thing im certain of is that it does not mention their being a god. they talk of codes being behind everything and something about a matrix. Reality being incredibley complex would not be proof of an intelligent creator. You are trying to twist that article to say something it doesnt.

"How could we discover whether we live inside a Matrix?". One answer might be "Try to detect the presence of codes in the laws that describe physics."

The quote above is exactly what they did,find codes.They could be natural,but could be designed too.Designed is funner to think about:p

sure, however you said you found evidence for god. I didnt see any of that though. Scientific evidence needs to be stronger than "their isnt any evidence against it, so that must be evidence for it."
PS3
1 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2012

sure, however you said you found evidence for god. I didnt see any of that though. Scientific evidence needs to be stronger than "their isnt any evidence against it, so that must be evidence for it."

I said there seems to be some good evidence,certainly enough to hint at and not deny the possibility.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2012
The presence of Dark Matter is *inferred* from observing gravitational effects, but not proved to exist. What is needed is a refinement of quantum-loop gravity theory. I agree with the granular nature of space, but a complete understanding of it is lacking. Lee Smolin does not mention the displacement of space by objects - they do not occupy space so much as displace it. I do not believe that gravity waves exist, because they imply a frame of reference which underlies the granular scale of space. There is none. I believe that Dark Matter is inferred from the behaviour of gravity fields adapting to the dynamics of mass-mass relationships. The process involves the cancellation of these tiny units of space - gravitons - when their phase relationships are out of sync by 180 degrees, such as in the direct line of sight between two masses in space, and they pop into existence between them when the masses are pulled apart. We are only analysing the dynamics of space.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2012
Temporal relationships as outlined in special relativity, as well as the "attraction" of masses in space, wherein the net effect of graviton cancellation is to remove a volume of the space between the objects with the logical result of decreasing the physical distance between them in the process, are to me a couple of the strange accommodations that make existence possible and reality perpetuate.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2012
In the final analysis, what appears to be dark matter are time delayed gravity field accommodations to the dynamics of objects in space due to the immense distances and collossal spatial volumes of the observed environment. That is the reason we do not detect dark matter in our immediate vicinity.
Sean_W
1 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2012
The video shows an imagined halo of dark matter as being a spherical halo. It there a reason why this would (if dark matter exists) be more likely or more descriptive than a continuation of the disk shape of the galaxy? I think I have heard that all early galaxies are sphere/globular clouds and only later evolve toward spiral disks so is it assumed that the dark matter would not evolve the same way as normal matter even if the normal matter was starting to carve out a disk shaped gravity well?

While still open to dark matter, I am beginning to gain some confidence in the possibility that a modification to gravity might be in order.
SteveL
5 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012
There seems to be a good amount of evidence showing everything could have been designed by GOD. You have hidden codes being found in stuff and all the digital physics stuff.

"Codes" are nothing but patterns and we should expect some patterns to be repeated simply because they work in nature. Patterns which don't work are simply temporary mutations. Biology exists within the template of chemistry, which exists within the template of physics. If, as we have seen, biology follows certain patterns of success through selection, I wouldn't bet against the concept of chemistry and physics also following certain patterns simply because they work. The trick is in understanding those patterns (that you may label as codes). Nature provides all the reasoning needed for codes or patterns to exist, even if we have yet to detect them, much less understand them.
Yellowdart
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2012
Dark matter was imagined because our models of gravity do not match our observations.


Well, it's more like it didn't match assumptions...which are rooted in needing to explaining the universe on a billion year time scale.

Science over the years has chosen to hold onto the timescale and challenge gravity instead. Perhaps gravity is just fine, and it's the timescale that should be revised.

Yellowdart
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2012
sure. that doesnt mean their is any evidence of it though. science and math have explained things si far, why assume a magic entity created all because we cant explain it yet?


Why assume no entity was the first cause? Assuming there is nothing outside the system to define the system, it would not allow us to be dependent upon science and the laws we study, for without that stability, the rules could change tomorrow. We in science, study order and depend upon it to study the unknown.

Secondly, it can be reasoned because many claim witness to the Son of God, bleeding, dying, and rising again. Watched him eat, and touched the nail scars. In essence, if God transcends to this dimension, then religious truth is as pertinent as science.

The irony of science is wanting you to believe in invisible, unmeasured dark matter, while denying the invisible, unmeasured God.

Man can't live by science alone.
Pyle
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012
Perhaps gravity is just fine, and it's the timescale that should be revised.
Right because the universe is really a sky fairy fart. But it was a very smart sky fairy who set up all these rules of nature to give the appearance that the universe is billions of years old, but really it is just all his grand plan. Oh, and he listens to you and talks to you in your head just like he told the authors of your book the story of everything.

Or maybe there really is something out there (i.e. dark matter) contributing its gravitational influence to galaxies. Or maybe anti-matter has negative gravitation and the vacuum can exhibit gravitational polarization (e.g. Hadjukovic). Or maybe there are more fundamental forces than the four we are familiar with that explains our observations (e.g. MOG).
Pyle
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2012
The irony of science is wanting you to believe in invisible, unmeasured dark matter, while denying the invisible, unmeasured God.
No. The idiocy of the creationist is thinking science has anything at all to do with "believing". It doesn't. It is all about evidence and observations. If we don't know we call it a guess or hypothesis. After it is tested and confirmed it is a theory.
Never is it a Truth to believe in with faith alone.

That is the realm of the collective delusion called religion. Not science.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012
I'm sure this is wrong, but I can't figure out why, so could someone tell me why "dark matter" can't simply be things like rogue planets and meteors and dust and shit that we can't observe because it does not emit light and is too small to reflect enough light for us to "see" (on any spectrum, visible and otherwise).

Perhaps there are thousands of times more rogue planets than their are planets orbiting stars? We'd never be able to observe them, they wouldn't closely transit stars or have any gravitational affects on stars like normal planets do, which is how we find most extrasolar planets.
Pyle
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2012
DC:
I'm sure this is wrong
Yup. That was wrong. It CAN simply be those things, kind of. Baryonic forms of dark matter rank right up there with the non-baryonic ones. Usually they come up with more exotic forms than your list, but your list, excrement excluded, is on it too. MACHOS are still a leading contender. Another is WIMPS, non-baryonic. Right now what dark matter is is unknown. It is a placeholder for "something adding to the gravitation of the visible universe that explains our observations of galaxy rotation, gravitational lensing, CMBR, et al."

Ultimately we are stabbing in the dark. Or rather sifting through the photon haystack for the needles that point to the right theory?

Whatever the case, google Dark matter and there are loads of reputable sources with great information out there. (Best to rely on the ones with references you can cross check.)
Pyle
4 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012
I think deuterium ranks up there with the reasons people are looking for non-baryonic DM. Deuterium is destroyed by stars, so the thought is the creation of it was during the Big Bang so its presence tells us the approximate amount of baryonic matter created during BB. This restriction suggests DM is not baryonic.

Another telling point is looking at the large structures in the universe. While you only need a little unseen gravitational bump (DM) to explain what we see of the Milky Way, you need more to explain nearby galaxies, even more to explain galactic clusters, and WAY more to explain the larger superclusters and filaments in the universe. The thought is we should observe something if DM were baryonic, but we don't.

Ultimately something is causing gravity to behave in this way, and the leading thought is that DM fits the bill. What it is remains unknown. I, personally, feel an alternative solution is possible, but what the heck do I know.
brodix
1 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012
Earlier I made the argument that gravity could be a vacuum created by energy collapsing into mass. As such, this posting on fusion made some interesting points:http://phys.org/n...ion.html
An in-depth analysis by scientists from the U.S. Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) zeroed in on tiny, bubble-like islands that appear in the hot, charged gasesor plasmasduring experiments. These minute islands collect impurities that cool the plasma. And it is these islands, the scientists report in the April 20 issue of Physical Review Letters, that are at the root of a long-standing problem known as the "density limit" that can prevent fusion reactors from operating at maximum efficiency.

Could it be these formations amount to mass forming in the process of fusion?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
While we are guessing through hypothesis and extrapolating with imaginary gravitons as fictional tachyons whiz through time, I wonder how all this is not just a matter of belief.

Perhaps its not dark at all. Have we found evidence of gravitational force that exists without any associated Mass? That would be interesting.

Hypothetically speaking (a guess) ... A distortion of spacetime geometry that has not yet sprung elastically back into shape? Maybe spacetime gets warped so much by galactic movement that it stays bent out of shape for a while. I like pineapples.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2012
So here's a notion (it's just a suggestion):

If dark matter is comprised of WIMPs, as expected,

And if these WIMPs are micro black holes,

And if these WIMPS form in cosmic ray collisions with ordinary matter,

Then over time dark matter halos would form in and around galaxies, behaving much as we perceive.

They'd have one peculiar trait that an origin based WIMP cloud would not have. They'd generally be virtually undetectable (gravitationally) within the visible portion of the galaxy.

The reason being, is an origin based hypothesis supposes dark matter existed as part of the Big Bang and therefore the galaxies formed in situ with/within the dark matter.

But if DM particles formed in the universe over time, many of them would be captured by the galaxies in which they formed, where'd they'd generally exhibit chaotic, elliptical orbits.

The appearance of a dark matter halo (and its behavior) would arise from innumerable particles at aphelion, in their galactic orbits.

cont...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2012
continuing...

As their motion would generally be perpendicular to the ordinary galactic mass/bodies orbital paths (and a bit chaotic as they navigate through the galactic pinball machine of galactic mass centers/gravity wells), they'd have no apparent influence on the orbits of the visible galactic media (in a local sense). Ergo, they'd not be gravitationally detectable in a random sampling of visible galactic mass motion.

Or, it could just be something else entirely...

Anyway, it was just a suggestion ...a passing notion ...a wild hair of an idea (if you will).
bluehigh
1 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
What evidence that space-time is homogeneous. During the eternity of time the geometry could be twisted and scarred, have hills and valleys. The winds of entropy blow to smooth, as matter rips and distorts. Did i tell you that I like ..
Auge
1 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2012
NO need of Dark Matter
The mass of the Solar system is roughly equivalent to the mass of 333.000 earths
If Dark Matter accounts for 80% of the Universe
Then the total amount of mass of our Solar System is 333.000 x5 1.665.000 times the mass of earth

So there is a 1.332.000 rogue earths lost and invisible in between the Solar system and the nearest stars.
Auge

Auge
1 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2012
If 80% of the mass of a galaxy is Dark matter, then about 80% of the mass of stars and solar systems should be Dark Matter


Are you serious? Why are you assuming homogeneity?


The mass of the Solar system is roughly equivalent to the mass of 333.000 earths
If Dark Matter accounts for 80% of the Universe
Assuming homogeneity then the total amount of mass of our Solar system included Dark Matter is 333.000 x5 1.665.000 times the mass of earth

So there is a 1.332.000 rogue earths lost and invisible in between the Solar System and the nearest stars

As some scientist state that there are some 100.000 invisible rogue planets for each planet in a Solar system
this would seem overall correct. If not locally
Benjamin_Winters
1 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2012
Maybe it's electro-magnetism causing the observed effects not gravity?

Science has turned into a religion when observations are assumed to preserve theories.
CardacianNeverid
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2012
If Dark Matter accounts for 80% of the Universe -AugeSockpuppetTard

No tard boy, it constitutes about 23% of the universe. Fail.

Assuming homogeneity then... [irrelevant] -AugeSockpuppetTard

DM is not homogeneously distributed. Fail again.
CardacianNeverid
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 24, 2012
What professional scientists don't often want to understand is that science can become subject to all the pitfalls we usually associate with religion -obviousSockpuppetTrollTard

Another fucking retard.
Benjamin_Winters
1 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2012
Dark matter = epicycles.

It's the assumptions that need re-examination more than the data. If gravity can't explain the observed effects, it's probably not gravity causing them, and I think Occam would agree.
Auge
1 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2012
The mass of the Solar system is roughly equivalent to the mass of 333.000 earths
If Dark Matter accounts for 80% of the Universe
Assuming homogeneity then the total amount of mass of our Solar system included Dark Matter is 333.000 x5 1.665.000 times the mass of earth

So there is a 1.332.000 rogue earths lost and invisible in between the Solar System and the nearest stars

As some scientist state that there are some 100.000 invisible rogue planets the size of Jupiter 317.83 Earth mass for each Star in a Solar system
This would seem overall correct. If not locally
Auge
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2012
If 80% of the mass of a galaxy is Dark matter, then about 80% of the mass of stars and solar systems should be Dark Matter


Are you serious? Why are you assuming homogeneity?


This dark matter accounts for about 85% of the matter in the Universe. http://www.aspera...temid=98
CardacianNeverid
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012
This dark matter accounts for about 85% of the matter in the Universe -AugeTard

Matter yes, but that is not solely what the universe is made of and it is not what you originally claimed. Even with the correction, you are still wrong in your claim.
Auge
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2012
In answer to CardacianNeverid
As I started talking about mass of the solar system and was talking a the time about matter and mass i inferred it was self evident.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
Right because the universe is really a sky fairy fart.


Perhaps, but the sky fairy would not be considered a god then, much less capable of establishing said universe. This is a problem with religious notions like Gaia. A true God is not part of the process, but stands independent of it.

Much like the design engineer of a line of cars, the process on the factory floor for which the car is made is independent of his physical self. The factory's evidence for the designer can only be found if he wrote his name somewhere on it.

In other words a true God would be independent of his creation. The creation has no bearing on him.

the appearance that the universe is billions of years old


The rate at which a car is made, is different than the rate in which it later runs/operates. Also, those diagnosed with progeria would be happen to remind you that looks alone can be deceiving.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
It is all about evidence and observations. If we don't know we call it a guess or hypothesis.


So if you don't know you take a shot in the "dark"?

After it is tested and confirmed it is a theory.


You mean when enough people like your shot in the "dark"?

That is the realm of the collective delusion called religion. Not science.


Oh I just love nerdy atheists and their double standards :) I mean the science community has never, not once acted as a deluded collective bent on pressing it's views onto the population... (note this sentence is sarcasm)

Sorry kiddo, scientist's aren't immune to belief much less being as biased and dogmatic as religion.

Never is it a Truth to believe in with faith alone.


Whoever said it was?
Pyle
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2012
@YD: I love that you are seriously debating my contention that Creation is equivalent to the universe coming out of your ghod's backside.

In other words a true God would be independent of his creation. The creation has no bearing on him.
You said it. Not me.

So if you don't know you take a shot in the "dark"?
Hyperbole much?
You mean when enough people like your shot in the "dark"?
Nope I mean when our observations and measurements support the hypothesis. Yes there is some critical mass of support usually required, but it has nothing to do with "like" and more to do with rigorous testing and verification. But go ahead and keep clinging to your God of the gaps rather than joining science as we fill those gaps.

Blah blah ... double standard ... blah blah ... aren't immune to belief... biased dogmatic...

Are scientists perfect? No. But your nonexistent ghod isn't either, by virtue of his nonexistence.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2012
Nope I mean when our observations and measurements support the hypothesis.


But they haven't for over 40 years when it comes to dark matter. The observations are against it. It became the "standard" without any evidence or observation, just by the absolute will of the community to refuse to let go of the big bang. In essence, a religion, that once again, invented a mystical force to hold the universe together. They committed the same crime you accuse religion of.

But go ahead and keep clinging to your God of the gaps rather than joining science as we fill those gaps.


A capital G? Are you slipping? If you fill a gap in science, it wouldn't alter one way or the other, whether or not it was established by him.

Time to be a grown up, Pyle, and realize that two different approaches which believe in the same construct that the universe has order, means they can both study and conduct science. There are no gaps, just lack of revelation/knowledge.

Pyle
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2012
But they haven't for over 40 years when it comes to dark matter.
Nonsense. Observations of galaxy rotation, galaxy clusters and super clusters, filamentary structure of the cosmos, and gravitational lensing all support Dark Matter. Although other alternatives exist, it fits best for now.

It isn't a religion. It is a hypothesis/theory that has been subject to critical review by scientists and found to be a good fit to our observations.

Christianity is based on garbage. Some guys over a thousand years ago with obvious motives to gain power/control people wrote a book and you believe what was written in it? Silliness.

Captial G? Not slipping. I am consistently inconsistent when referring to the Noodly Appendage/ghod/God/sky fairy/etc. I believe my inconsistency demonstrates my lack of respect.

Grown up? Laughable coming from the guy who believes in a sky fairy.
panorama
5 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2012
In other words a true God would be independent of his creation. The creation has no bearing on him.

So commandments 1 - 5 are what...suggestions? I knew that christian ghod was a shyster.
Yellowdart
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2012
Nonsense. Observations of galaxy rotation, galaxy clusters and super clusters, filamentary structure of the cosmos, and gravitational lensing all support Dark Matter.


Go through the history in published articles. Dark Matter is hypothesized in order to fix accelerated expansion which the big bang did not originally predict. It has never been observed. It merely assumes it is the error in the timescale considering observations of gravity show nothing of the sort. As you called it, a gap filler, and frankly, that's no better than god.

Although other alternatives exist, it fits best for now.


The best fit should always be what is currently observed, not hypothesized to fix bad predictions.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2012
So commandments 1 - 5 are what...suggestions? I knew that christian ghod was a shyster.


Good question, but think of it this way. WHen you operate your computer, does it alter your genetic code? No it does not. However you can write whatever rules you require of it at any time you desire. So like the commandments, God can require them as he sees fit, and yet man can not require God to abide our wills instead. Anytime the creation would seek to make god equivalent or lower than the creation, is the moment it is no longer the definition of a true god.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2012
Some guys over a thousand years ago with obvious motives to gain power/control people wrote a book and you believe what was written in it? Silliness.


You think some guys wrote a book about an innocent man dying and rising again to gain power/control? They were persecuted, killed, and suffered until Constantine. They died for something that gave them no power whatsoever nor any reasonable person would have expected it to. To say that they tried to gain power and control with that message is like trying to get a red sox fan to preach to the yankees.
panorama
not rated yet Apr 27, 2012
So commandments 1 - 5 are what...suggestions? I knew that christian ghod was a shyster.


Good question, but think of it this way. WHen you operate your computer, does it alter your genetic code? No it does not. However you can write whatever rules you require of it at any time you desire. So like the commandments, God can require them as he sees fit, and yet man can not require God to abide our wills instead. Anytime the creation would seek to make god equivalent or lower than the creation, is the moment it is no longer the definition of a true god.

God requires the ten commandments as he sees fit? What a stupid god...and attempt at applying logic to the world of magical beings that flip flop on their convictions. Pathetic.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2012
God requires the ten commandments as he sees fit? What a stupid god...and attempt at applying logic to the world of magical beings that flip flop on their convictions. Pathetic.


Sees fit was not a reference to flip flop. It was meant that he can impact his creation as he wants to, the ten commandments were one of those. God didn't flip flop. If he had, Jesus would never have died much less come. The ten commandments were not abolished but fulfilled.

Tuxford
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2012
God requires the ten commandments as he sees fit?


Sounds a bit egotistical? Perhaps the off-planet father god is simply a creation of earthly egomanics. Afterall, egomania is a persistent worldwide disease.
Pyle
5 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2012
YD: Thank you. You have exposed yourself, as would be expected. You have no idea what you are talking about with respect to Dark Matter. You have made that quite obvious. DM, accelerated expansion, timescale? What are you talking about? Stop using words you don't understand.

All you care about it is clinging to your crumbling belief system. Go right ahead. I'd ask that you learn a little bit about what you are commenting on before offering your opinion though. All your babble distracts from issues at hand and leads us on quite unproductive tangents.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2012
You have no idea what you are talking about with respect to Dark Matter. You have made that quite obvious. DM, accelerated expansion, timescale?


I'm getting my info from published science kiddo:

James Glanz, Astronomers See a Cosmic Antigravity Force at Work, Science, Vol. 279, 27 February 1998

Ron Cowen, A Dark Force in the Universe, Science News, Vol. 159, 7 April 2001, p. 218.

Gordon Kane, The Dawn of Physics Beyond the Standard Model, Scientific American, Vol. 288, June 2003
Carlton Baugh, Universal Building Blocks, Nature, Vol. 421, 20 February 2003

The list goes on and on, so if you'd like more reading material, I'd be glad to provide it. And don't forget this article or the other one this week. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not being found...anywhere. That leaves an inflationary big bang with a major gap it can't fill.
Yellowdart
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2012

Sounds a bit egotistical? Perhaps the off-planet father god is simply a creation of earthly egomanics. Afterall, egomania is a persistent worldwide disease.


Why would any god, allow it's creation, to become equal or greater than him. he wouldn't be a god then. Egotistical men certainly don't do that. They make false gods that bend to their will.

In essence most men want a genie in a bottle or a deist, not an actual God. What is egotistical is assuming that the creation should have dominion over the creator. That's illogical. The creator will always have dominion over the creation. Whether we like it or not is not relative to the definition of God.

jsdarkdestruction
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2012
yellowdart, you still dont realize the error you made? You keep saying Dark matter in place of dark energy, ive seen you do it in multiple articles now and it doesnt seem like its an honest slip up. you seem to not know what you are talking about. these articles you keep posting in are about DARK MATTER, DARK ENERGY is what the expansion of the universe at an accelerating rate is caused by.
Michael_Rivero
1 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2012
"Dark Matter" is a theory invented to explain away why the mathematics of the Big Bang do not work out in terms of time and acceleration. There is no evidence that dark matter actually exists; it is just a useful construct to reconcile the theory of General Relativity with the underlying prime assumption of a moment of supreme creation. In this, Dark Matter is not unlike epicycles, another imaginary construct used to reconcile the observed motions of the planets with the concept of an Earth-centered universe.

Sooner or later someone is going to have to stand up and say that the Big Bang is just religion disguised as science, and all these imaginary constructs like the Higgs Boson and Dark Matter won't change that harsh reality. Like epicycles, they are doomed to be discarded as scientific hokum.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
There is lotta evidence for dark matter already. We should realize, whole the dark matter existence violates the standard physics, so it cannot be a product of mainstream conspiracy. What is missing is the evidence for WIMPS and baryonic (hot) DM. In dense aether model the gravity is a product of shielding of tachyons (gravitational waves) with massive objects and the cold dark matter is the product of the shielding of this shielding with neighboring massive objects. This shielding is particularly intensive, when massive objects get aligned during eclipses and planetary conjunctions, which leads into formation of dark matter fibbers along the alignment and into many interesting phenomena (Allais effect, fifth force). I even presume, the global warming is the consequence of the local abundance of dark matter, which is the consequence of the Milky Way core shielding with Great Rift at the galactic plane.
Pyle
3.8 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
@MR: Your initials are quite appropriate... But I digress, and insult, and infer a pejorative term. Bad me.

No. You seem to be doing what the creationist nitwit is doing. You speak of Dark Energy.

Dark Matter has mounds and mounds of observations supporting it. It is a plug to make our already overwhelmingly supported theory of General Relativity work for larger scale structures and to explain our observations of gravitational lensing around these structures.

Alternatives to Dark Matter are things such as EU theory, Anti-Matter polarization, Modified Gravity, etc. It really doesn't have much to do with BBT, but DM does fit within a Big Bang. If it didn't then we'd have a different set of problems.

Now to your problem with Accelerated Expansion. Yup. Dark Energy is not really that well understood. We just keep taking observations and refining our theories. I agree. It'll probably get tossed eventually. But not like epicycles. Very different.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
but DM does fit within a Big Bang
Dark matter was solely unexpected with Big bang theory. It has been introduced into it ad-hoc in similar way, like the dark energy later. The fact, standard model of cosmology is called L-CDM doesn't mean, it's able to explain or even predict these things at all.
Pyle
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2012
Zephir - Seriously? Surface of the water bad analogy, postdiction guy just said the standard model doesn't predict anything? Haven't you been reading the articles on this site? What do you think generates the results of all the simulations of the Big Bang? Are they using AWT? No, they base them all on L-CDM and come up with a universe with features similar to ours. They have used the theories in L-CDM to create models of spiral barred galaxies. They have used L-CDM to explain almost every observation we have made. It doesn't predict these things? What are you even talking about?

When you are asked to predict something with your theory it is because you haven't demonstrated it to be worthy of anything. Your "intuitive reasoning" babble "surface of the water" gobbleygook doesn't lead to anything demonstrably different than L-CDM, unless I'm missing something. You say it is different, but offer no new insights besides your intuitivity. Yes. I made that word up.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
You think some guys wrote a book about an innocent man dying and rising again to gain power/control? They were persecuted, killed, and suffered until Constantine.
And then things changed quite a bit didnt they? Power and control in gobs. An ideology which could persecute jews, unite disparate euro tribes before enslaving them in feudalism, and conquer the western hemisphere. Oh and cause germans to kill 1/3 of their own population in only 30 years.

We can consider pre-constantinian xianity as R&D.
They died for something that gave them no power whatsoever nor any reasonable person would have expected it to.
Martyrdom - causing oneself to be killed - is every bit as effective as killing others dont you think?
To say that they tried to gain power and control with that message is
-pretty obviously what the People who concocted it had in mind. And it worked spectacularly didnt it?
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 01, 2012
yellowdart, you still dont realize the error you made? You keep saying Dark matter in place of dark energy, ive seen you do it in multiple articles now and it doesnt seem like its an honest slip up. you seem to not know what you are talking about. these articles you keep posting in are about DARK MATTER, DARK ENERGY is what the expansion of the universe at an accelerating rate is caused by.


Following me around are you JS? :) Sweet! No, I agree with what you just distinguished, and I know I've said that dark energy was needed for expansion with dark matter to hold it together at the same time. My apologies if I misled you or didn't express it well in 1000 words. My potential error in terms doesn't negate the reason it was still posited as necessary. The big bang originally didn't account for DM much less DE. The lack of evidence for both also stands.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) May 01, 2012
We can consider pre-constantinian xianity as R&D.


Who is we? Do you have a split personality?

Martyrdom - causing oneself to be killed - is every bit as effective as killing others dont you think?


Not to the person dying. Martyrdom never leads the martyred to power. It's ineffective if your desire is to control/gain power.

Nor did there become a major growth in conversion for Jews after the Holocaust so mass matyrdom does not seem to be very reflective of a good way to gain power.

pretty obviously what the People who concocted it had in mind. And it worked spectacularly didnt it?


You really should step outside and take a look around. Men abuse whatever they can for power/control, often the most popular medium at the time is the easiest. Power corrupts. Religion is no worse than the lack of it because men are bad to begin with.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 01, 2012
Are they using AWT? No, they base them all on L-CDM and come up with a universe with features similar to ours.
The epicycle geometry of solar system worked perfectly with the geocentric model. If it didn't, then simply a new layer of epicycles has been added in similar way, which the L-CDM model is build: from red-shift the Big Bang singularity was deduced, but because it would lead into inhomogeneous universe, a new assumption of inflation has been added. Later, when it turned out, that the Universe is not as homogenous, as the inflation predicted a dark matter has been added into model. Later, when it turned out, that the expansion of Universe doesn't follow the relativity, the dark energy has been added. Neither inflation, neither dark matter or dark does follow from Big Bang model - they always served as an ad-hoc postulates, the main purposed of which was to achieved the agreement with observations.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 01, 2012
Because the epicycle model worked so well (due its excessive number of parameters it was always able to fit the practical observations), it served as a salary generator for ancient astrologers in the same way, like the L-CDM model is serving for contemporary generation of cosmologists (it enables them to pile the publications, which are formally correct, but all based on wrong logics). The ancient astronomers had used the epicycle model for successful prediction of solar eclipses and planetary conjuctions, which in turn served for construction of horoscopes. For example, Johaness Kepler wrote a horoscope based on epicycle model for Emperor Rudolph II and he made a huge money with it. This is what the successful application of contemporary cosmological model is called - now the situation just repeats at wider scope.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 01, 2012
The human understanding of Universe apparently evolves in dual cycles: at the beginning the people believed in prana, aether and the infinite Universe. Later the Earth has been put at the center of Universe and the Universe was considered a limited tabernacle. Later the another galaxies were found and the Universe was considered a steady state infinite again (even Einsteid did believe in it) - until Lamaitre brought another switch into this paradigm. Now the same conceptual switch proceeds again and the Universe will be considered infinite again in accordance to new results. The dense aether theory even predicts another switch, the final one - after which the Universe will be considered as a dual mixture of both models, because this is just the view, which corresponds the appearance of random Universe limited by human perspective.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) May 01, 2012
Not to the person dying. Martyrdom never leads the martyred to power. It's ineffective if your desire is to control/gain power.
Martyrdom is an effective demographic tool for tailoring populations, similar to pogroms, final solutions, and conscription. Thousands of idle, hapless young hotheads are being convinced as we speak to join the taliban and martyr themselves for allah by walking into coalition guns.

It was much the same in ancient rome. How many xians willfully became lion food? Lots. Those who survived were willing to believe exactly what the emperor and the pope told them to.

This is how one gains POWER. You dont argue with dissidents, you KILL them. Ask stalin.

Martyrdom is more convenient than purge - they actually deliver themselves to you. Hail jesus prince of love. He rode an ass right into jerusalem, walked up to the priests and said 'Kill me!' They could not refuse.

A premier Example for millions of dimwits the world over.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (3) May 01, 2012
Nor did there become a major growth in conversion for Jews after the Holocaust so mass matyrdom does not seem to be very reflective of a good way to gain power.
?? They did get a sizable chunk of canaan with which to reestablish israel. And 250 nukes. Thats some power there yes?
Religion is no worse than the lack of it because men are bad to begin with.
But is supposed to be so much better isnt it? You are right - religious oppression is indistinguishable from most other forms. A little more efficient maybe. Martyrdom remember? People agree to exterminate themselves.
Yellowdart
2 / 5 (4) May 07, 2012
Thousands of idle, hapless young hotheads are being convinced as we speak to join the taliban and martyr themselves for allah by walking into coalition guns.

It was much the same in ancient rome. How many xians willfully became lion food? Lots.


You equate dying by lions with suicidal bombings?

Those who survived were willing to believe exactly what the emperor and the pope told them to.


For over 300 years?

walked up to the priests and said 'Kill me!' They could not refuse.


Misquoting won't validate your arguments. Christ never said such.

They did get a sizable chunk of canaan with which to reestablish israel. And 250 nukes.


Israel can fit into Florida, 8 times. How is that sizable? Is that "power" worth millions dead?

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) May 07, 2012
dying by lions with suicidal bombings?
Martyrdom can take many forms. Knights Hospitaller butchers.
For over 300 years?
-And afterward, and throughout history, until the present.
Christ never said such.
Boy you ARE dense. I was paraphrasing. He said what he needed to say to get himself killed. So that millions of others would dutifully follow his lead and on cue.
Israel can fit into Florida, 8 times. How is that sizable?
How many Pentagons can fit into alaska? I am matching inanity for inanity here. Israel is the most POWERFUL nation in the middle east, both in terms of innate capability and in the strength of its allies. Yes or no?

Israel is a western bridgehead and a garrison state. Its position is strategically perfect for disrupting the reassembly of the caliphate and the emergence of a new islamic empire. The pea in the caliphs bed.
Is that "power" worth millions dead?
Is inaction and the enabling of an islamic empire and world destruction an option? NO