HADES searches for dark matter

May 12, 2014
HADES at the GSI in Darmstadt/Germany searches for dark matter candidates. Credit: 3-D Rendering: A. Schmah/HADES

Although Dark Energy and Dark Matter appear to constitute over 95 percent of the universe, nobody knows of which particles they are made up. Astrophysicists now crossed one potential Dark Matter candidate – the Dark Photon or U boson – off the list in top position. This is the result of recent HADES experiments, where researchers from the Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR) and from 17 other European institutes try to pin down the nature of Dark Matter. These negative results – recently published in Physics Letters B – could even lead to challenges of the Standard Model of particle physics.

The interpretation of current astrophysical observations results in the striking mass-energy budget of matter in the universe: 75% Dark Energy and 20% Dark Matter. Only about 5% of the universe consists of "ordinary", baryonic matter.

Many attempts have been made to explain the nature of Dark Matter. Researchers believe that Dark Matter is comprised by hitherto unknown particles which do not fit into the Standard Model of . The Standard Model is a theoretically sound quantum field theory with fundamental matter particles, such as quarks (bound in hadrons, e.g., baryons) and leptons (e.g., electrons and neutrinos), which interact via exchange of force-carrier quanta, called gauge bosons (e.g., photons). Some of these species acquire their masses by the interaction with the Higgs boson. While evidences for the Higgs boson were found recently at CERN, the Standard Model looks now complete when supplemented by some neutrino masses, and nothing else seems to be needed to understand the wealth of atomic, sub-nuclear and particle physics phenomena. Nevertheless, Dark Matter appears not to be explained by any of the constituents of the Standard Model. This status of the affair has initiated worldwide efforts to search for Dark Matter candidates.

Beyond the Standard Model

Searching a needle in the haystack is simpler: one knows both the wanted object (the needle) and the place (the haystack). In the case of Dark Matter the object is unknown, and the localization, e.g. in galactic halos, is also not constraining the loci of interest. To specify the search goal one can envisage diverse hypothetical candidates, such as certain hypothetical particles beyond the Standard Model, which fulfill requirements qualifying them as constituents of Dark Matter.

Dark Energy drives the presently observed accelerated expansion of the universe. Dark Energy is homogeneously distributed and can be attributed to a cosmological constant or vacuum energy. In extreme cases it may cause, in the future, such a sudden expansion that anything in the universe is disrupted - this would be the Big Rip. Dark Matter, in contrast, is bumpy and is needed to explain the formation of the observed density distribution of visible matter in the evolving universe, evidenced by the hierarchy of structures from (super)clusters of galaxies, galaxies, stars, planets and other compact objects such as meteorites, etc.

Among the lists of candidates of Dark Matter is a hypothetical particle, often dubbed U boson or Dark Photon. These nicknames refer to the underlying theory construction: a second unitary ("U") symmetry allows for quanta which are, in one respect, similar to photons - namely gauge bosons - but in another respect different from photons - namely attributing to these quanta a mass, making them to Dark Photons because of a very weak interaction with normal matter. Very similar to photons the Dark Photons can decay into electron-positron pairs, if they have the proper virtuality. Combining the chain of hypotheses one arrives at a scenario, where an "ordinary" virtual photon converts into a Dark Photon which decays afterwards into an electron-positron pair.

Needle and Haystack

If a Dark Photon or U boson would exist with the assumed properties mentioned above and would have a mass, a certain width and a certain coupling strength to the photon, then the "needle" is specified: a resonance-type signal showing up at an invariant electron-positron mass equal to the U boson mass. The "haystack" is specified too: invariant mass spectra, i.e. electron-positron distributions. A prerequisite is an understanding of the overall shape of these distributions.

Up to now the search for such a signal of a U boson as a candidate for Dark Matter has remained unsuccessful. Together with many other searches for the other candidates of Dark Matter the situations becomes more and more intricate. Cosmology on precision level requires the existence of Dark Matter; however, the various experiments have not found any positive hint. The negative results on the U boson by HADES and other experiments make the hunt for new physics beyond the Standard Model more challenging. For instance, high-precision experiments on the magnetic moment of the muon delivered hints for a discrepancy with predictions by the Standard Model. The discrepancy has been proposed to be resolved by the U . But the recently achieved negative search results seem to exclude such an option. This gives the impression that the tension of the Standard Model and cosmological request of extensions as well as small deviations of the Standard Model predictions and data, such as the muon magnetic moment and other observables, is increasing, thus making this frontier of physics very fascinating with high discovery potential.

The HADES collaboration

HADES is an acronym of High-Acceptance Di-Electron Spectrometer. It is an optimized detector system operated by a European collaboration of about hundred physicists at GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung/Darmstadt. HADES is aimed at investigating virtual photon signals emitted as electron-positron pairs off compressed nuclear matter to understand the origin of the phenomenon "masses of hadrons" and test it in some detail.

The HADES collaboration has accumulated more than ten billion analyzable events during the last years. The notion "events" means that in collisions of energetic protons with target protons or atomic nuclei or in collisions of atomic nuclei with target nuclei, among other final-state particles, an electron-positron pair could occur. Sources of these pairs are, e.g., unstable hadrons being transiently produced in these collisions. The highly sophisticated apparatus HADES has the capability to select out of a huge background of other particles such electron-positron pairs which can be attributed to primary sources.

Explore further: Glimmer of light in the search for dark matter

More information: G. Agakishiev et al. (HADES Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 731, 265 (2014) dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.02.035

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Could 'Higgsogenesis' explain dark matter?

Oct 22, 2013

(Phys.org) —The recently discovered Higgs boson is best known for its important role in explaining particle mass. But now some physicists are wondering if the Higgs could have played an equally significant ...

Glimmer of light in the search for dark matter

Feb 27, 2014

The Leiden astrophysicist Alexey Boyarsky and his fellow researchers may have identified a trace of dark matter that could signify a new particle: the sterile neutrino. A research group in Harvard reported ...

Possible evidence for dark matter particle presented

Mar 11, 2014

(Phys.org) —Dark matter, the mysterious substance estimated to make up approximately more than one-quarter of the mass of the universe, is crucial to the formation of galaxies, stars and even life but has so far eluded ...

What's next for particle physicists, post-Higgs?

Jul 17, 2013

In March of last year, scientists working with the Large Hadron Collider at the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Geneva, Switzerland, identified the Higgs boson, the last elusive particle in the Standard Model ...

Recommended for you

New terahertz device could strengthen security

Nov 21, 2014

We are all familiar with the hassles that accompany air travel. We shuffle through long lines, remove our shoes, and carry liquids in regulation-sized tubes. And even after all the effort, we still wonder if these procedures ...

CERN makes public first data of LHC experiments

Nov 21, 2014

CERN today launched its Open Data Portal where data from real collision events, produced by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will for the first time be made openly available to all. It is expected ...

New technique allows ultrasound to penetrate bone, metal

Nov 20, 2014

Researchers from North Carolina State University have developed a technique that allows ultrasound to penetrate bone or metal, using customized structures that offset the distortion usually caused by these ...

User comments : 121

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

arom
1 / 5 (7) May 12, 2014
Many attempts have been made to explain the nature of Dark Matter. Researchers believe that Dark Matter is comprised by hitherto unknown particles which do not fit into the Standard Model of particle physics...While evidences for the Higgs boson were found recently at CERN, the Standard Model looks now complete... Nevertheless, Dark Matter appears not to be explained by any of the constituents of the Standard Model. This status of the affair has initiated worldwide efforts to search for Dark Matter candidates.

It seems that we forget something—Higgs field (which give rise to Higgs boson) – not 'particle' which may be interpreted as the Dark Matter/energy we are searching …
http://www.vacuum...=9〈=en
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) May 12, 2014
Is this SUSY (U) group ?
Pejico
May 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Nanowill
1.7 / 5 (6) May 13, 2014
There is no such thing as Dark Matter, neither particulaten or otherwise. The issue arises because the nature of gravity is not sufficiently understood to explain empirical observations. The issue is resolved by fully reconciling Newtonian and Einstein gravity.

Please consider this a prediction: the amount of "Dark Matter" is 5.1556 that of normal matter.

Wild Will.
Nanowill
1 / 5 (6) May 13, 2014
There is no such thing as Dark Matter, neither particulate nor otherwise. The issue arises because the nature of gravity is not sufficiently understood to explain empirical observations. The issue is resolved by fully reconciling Newtonian and Einstein gravity.
The ratio of CDM to normal mater is easily calculated once you understand how gravity works.

Please consider this a prediction: the amount of "Dark Matter" is 5.1556 that of normal matter.

Wild Will.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 13, 2014
supersymmetric U-boson acting in SU 3⊗SU 1⊗U 1⊗U' like normal axion, which could also be at the origin of the 511 keV line from the galactic bulge. The principle of its search is similar to search of Higgs boson in dilepton channel.
@zeph
references?
where are you getting this from?
Mimath224
3 / 5 (4) May 13, 2014
@Captain Stumpy, various places I think, here's one quote;
In the supersymmetric SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) × U'(1) model the new gauge group U'(1) enforces the introduction of mirror fermions...' from Science Direct. One should remember that SUSY (you could start with this in your search) is considered 'Beyond the Standard Model' (could use this also in you search). As I understand it 'renormalization cutoff' in the SM helped to seed the need for new ideas. In SUSY each particle has a 'super partner', selectron, squark etc. There are various models proposed but basically are connected to TOE. When the LHC confirmed a Higgs particle of around 125GeV which was consistent with the SM it caused a bit of a problem in SUSY which apparently suggested <114GeV. Also there is a requirement of extra dimensions in the theory.
But then this is a layman's view and I'm sure another post will be more helpful
George_Rajna
May 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
swordsman
1 / 5 (1) May 13, 2014
George, the Planck Distribution Law is not based on "...asymmetry between the mass of the electric charges". It is based on electromagnetic radiation produced by heat (Planck called it "Black Radiation". However, it is also based on his energy state equation which also resembles the well know electrical noise equation. It is also based on the energy states of atoms and probability theory. It is heavily based on the laws of thermodynamics. As to the asymmetry, I covered this thoroughly in my book ("Planck's Columbia Lectures", pp. 215-230). In comparing the distributions of the observed radiation and the actual energy states, "Radiation occurs in ray, and these rays spread out with distance, whereas the state energy is a function of the movements of the molecules over a very small distance." This analysis was based on a comparison of Planck's Energy State equation to his radiation equation. It has much to do with probable energy states of thermodynamics and the entropy equation.
swordsman
1 / 5 (1) May 13, 2014
As to dark matter, I predict that it will some day be discovered that the dark matter of the universe can exert either a positive force of attraction, or a negative force of repulsion. It can also be a combination of the two. Therefore, the observations from our point on the earth can be very complex. More on the later (perhaps).
Porgie
1 / 5 (3) May 13, 2014
There is no dark matter or dark energy. Its like using magic as an explanation for lightening. The missing mass is out there, we only have not found it yet. What about the content of black holes? There confiscation of matter has not yet been addressed?
Porgie
1 / 5 (3) May 13, 2014
There is no dark matter or dark energy. Its like using magic as an explanation for lightening. The missing mass is out there, we only have not found it yet. What about the content of black holes? There confiscation of matter has not yet been addressed?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 15, 2014
various places I think
@Mimath224
yeah... I looked up SUSY but what I need from him is a specific reference. I want to know if he is posting something specific about SUSY or an interpretation or (worse yet) a tie into AW/DAW philosophy. that's why I need specific references...

cannot argue or understand a point unless you see everything in context. and everything else and the connect is what I was looking for.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) May 15, 2014
Just a thought experiment...
"Empty" space has some miniscule portion of "charge" (Casimir effect is an example). There is a LOT of space out there - therefore, adding up all that "charge" might give us the "Dark" crap we are looking for. It might even be reverse calculated to determine how large the Universe really is...
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) May 15, 2014
@Captain Stumpy, Ha, I actually I think it's a quote from direct from one of the many SUSY artlicles with Pejico having nothing particular in mind.
Pejico
May 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) May 16, 2014
@Pejico seems to me that as SUSYis mentioned in the Hades proposal and SUSY has problems in becoming mainstream, are we in danger here of having to admit other SUSY 'particles' which might throw a shadow over the whole thing. I relize there are several models of SUSY, had you a particular model in mind, e.g. MSSM etc.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) May 16, 2014
Just a thought experiment...
"Empty" space has some miniscule portion of "charge" (Casimir effect is an example).

Problem is that it doesn't seem to be uniformely distributed.
Writela
1 / 5 (2) May 16, 2014
and SUSY has problems in becoming mainstream
This is rather diplomatic language, as the SUSY was essentially disproved in LH collider experiments and the existence of heavy WIMPs has been nearly excluded at terrestrial detectors. So that the SUSY is definitely less significant, than the physicists (proponents of string theory) expected. It describes the mirror symmetry of universe, which is blurred with quantum noise and broken with extradimensions heavily. But SUSY theory is rather complex and poorly defined, so that some aspects of SUSY in light energy sector can be still revealed. For example, the SUSY predicted five Higgs bosons and five peaks are actually visible at the diphoton channel at LHC - they're just too noisy. IMO they were ignored so far because of five sigma rule and for not to interfere the smooth appraisal of Englert and Higgs by Nobel prize. But the proponents of SUSY still have a good reason for not to ignore it.
iFujita
1 / 5 (2) May 17, 2014
Searching a needle in the wrong haystack gives researchers good jobs which will never end.

Nanowill said on May 13, 2014, "There is no such thing as Dark Matter, neither particulate nor otherwise. The issue arises because the nature of gravity is not sufficiently understood to explain empirical observations. The issue is resolved by fully reconciling Newtonian and Einstein gravity."
I think so, too.
We need the Modified Einstein Field Equation ( MEFE ).
http://www.geocit...y01.html
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) May 17, 2014
The likely outcome is they will find DM...In Hades...Right next to the leprechauns and unicorns...
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) May 17, 2014
@Writela, yes appreciate your point(s). Thanks for the post
With regard to the latter posts on DM aren't we forgetting that DM/DE are just 'place names' for that which we do not understand yet? Indeed, DM/DE may be accounted for by some modification of present theories...as long as they can be tested!
Pejico
May 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Pejico
May 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mimath224
not rated yet May 17, 2014
@iFujita, far be it from me to dispute the mathematics presented MEFE but one must remember that EFE were derived using Poissons equation as a starting point (basically). The MEFE either need to be worked backwards to discover what addition is required to Poissons eq and examine whether that addition is a valid quantity. Alternatively,working from the beginning(Peq.) and then show where it is valid to add separate mass stress and energy tensors.
Perhaps one should be talking about different FE and showing that mass and energy are not equivalent (SR). Just a thought, that's all.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) May 18, 2014
Nanowill said on May 13, 2014, "There is no such thing as Dark Matter, neither particulate nor otherwise
@iFujita
Oh! well, that settles it then! You've got a quote AND a link to a Geocities site WITH quotes from the bible. we should all just go home and forget about empirical data and reality, fuji has the answers
@Stumpy: This is a common definition of U-boson and no AWT physics is about it
@zeph
reading the links
I'll get back with you
IMO they were ignored so far because of five sigma rule and for not to interfere the smooth appraisal of Englert and Higgs by Nobel prize
conjecture without evidence
why not just ASK the authors?
dogbert
1 / 5 (2) May 18, 2014
If your models do not match your observations, simply make up imaginary stuff. It is a lot easier than correcting your models.
yyz
5 / 5 (2) May 18, 2014
"If your models do not match your observations...."

Whereas the recent Illustris simulation, which includes dark matter and supernova/AGN enrichment of the IGM, does a decent job of reproducing the variety, distribution and metallicity of galaxies seen in the Hubble Ultra-deep field(HUDF left, Illustris right): http://www.illust...ated.png

Cosmological simulations that do not include DM and IGM enrichment fail miserably at reproducing a universe similar to ours (hint: MOND theories will NOT save you here).
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) May 18, 2014
So, the article says
The interpretation of current astrophysical observations results in the striking mass-energy budget of matter in the universe: 75% Dark Energy and 20% Dark Matter. Only about 5% of the universe consists of "ordinary", baryonic matter.

Surely the problem is the general acceptance of these figures as being correct. They are derived based on the existence of GRAVITY which is itself a pure invention to explain our observed universe without really thinking about it. Gravity is this invisible, unstoppable, unshieldable, etc., etc. force.... no, it doesn't actually exist! So all these figures based on the movement of galactic bodies (which require DM and DE if gravity exists) are wrong.
There are several models of our universe that do not require the invention of gravity, of which mine is only one. Surely it is time to THINK about alternatives to gravity rather than spend vast amounts chasing gravity waves, gravitons, gravitinos, DM, DE, etc. etc.
dogbert
1 / 5 (3) May 18, 2014
yyz,

So you can create simulations which include dark matter. So what? I'm sure you can create models where angels are responsible for the observed movements of stellar masses. Such imaginings simply allow us to remain in our ignorance.

Dark matter was invented over 80 years ago when it was discovered that stars and galaxies do not move according to our models of gravity.

Rather than finding new, better models, we created imaginary matter. Eighty years later, we are still basing our misunderstanding of the universe on imaginary matter.

Not scientific at all.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 19, 2014
the existence of GRAVITY which is itself a pure invention to explain our observed universe without really thinking about it. Gravity is this invisible, unstoppable, unshieldable, etc., etc. force.... no, it doesn't actually exist
personal conjecture based upon stupidity and delusions as well as a belief in a known fallacious, self-admitted philosophy which is unsupported by rational science or empirical data, as well as easily proven wrong
there are no links that can provide proof, and the only reference is a book that has been read by physics professors on the site and deemed worthy of only toilet paper or laughs

Given the lack of evidence for this continued spam-assault of "no gravity", I would caution you to stop posting SPAM and known PSEUDOSCIENCE as it is considered trolling
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 19, 2014
Dark matter was invented over 80 years ago
@dogbert
sorry. Dark Matter is a placeholder name for an UNKNOWN substance that has gravitational effects that are observed and measured (where the "matter" part of the name comes from) but it doesn't react with light and we cannot see it (where the "dark" part of the name comes from). it is called Dark Matter because calling it "that weird sh*t that we see the effects of and we know it is there because we can measure those effects but it doesn't interact with light so we can't see it" was too long to keep repeating and considered offensive and in poor taste in certain company
it is not imaginary (it is measured, and it has effects we can see/use/measure) we just haven't figured out what it is yet.

Also... it was those models of gravity that showed us that something was there. it also showed us why our galaxies didn't fly apart under the known laws with known matter distribution.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) May 19, 2014
Also... it was those models of gravity that showed us that something was there. it also showed us why our galaxies didn't fly apart under the known laws with known matter distribution.

Operative word - KNOWN...:-)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) May 19, 2014
How come that a dickhead like Cap'n Grumpy can consider himself the arbiter of what is acceptable in this forum? You are an absolute A***H**E, Cap'n, with the IQ of a frog. The PROOF for the non-existence of gravity is EXACTLY the same as the proof for the existence of gravity, i.e. NONE!
Show me ONE proof of the existence of gravity, and don't come up with your usual drivel about dropping a rock on your foot. Otherwise, shut up until you can contribute something sensible to a debate rather than your stupid childish insults.
bluehigh
3 / 5 (2) May 19, 2014
Off topic, ad hominem, annoying rant from someone who should know better ...

personal conjecture based upon stupidity and delusions as well as a belief in a known fallacious, ... unsupported by rational science or empirical data, ...


Aggressive pointless diatribe ...

How come that a dickhead like Cap'n Grumpy .... You are an absolute A***H**E, Cap'n, with the IQ of a frog.


Chill guys, you betray yourselves.

Remember Voltaire,

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Just smile and wave.

dogbert
1 / 5 (4) May 19, 2014
Captain Stumpy,
Dark Matter is a placeholder name for an UNKNOWN substance...


Of course, it is unknown. It has been unknown for the full 80 years since it was imagined.

Imaginary matter is necessarily composed of unknown substance.

Basing our models on imaginary matter for over 80 years is just sad.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) May 19, 2014
@dogbert ha you made laugh

Captain Stumpy,
Dark Matter is a placeholder name for an UNKNOWN substance...


Of course, it is unknown. It has been unknown for the full 80 years since it was imagined.

Imaginary matter is necessarily composed of unknown substance.

Basing our models on imaginary matter for over 80 years is just sad.

You obviously haven't read Alice in Wonderland. Imaginary items can be made up of whatever you wish and from what I've read there's a lot of it going on. But then if we stop using our imagination then...
The importantant point is that, in mainstream science, there appears to be a big discrepancy in what is expected to that which is observed. So it seems that until someone comes up with an acceptable answer/alternative DM/DE names will be used.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) May 19, 2014
@dogbert ha you made laugh

Captain Stumpy,
Dark Matter is a placeholder name for an UNKNOWN substance...


Of course, it is unknown. It has been unknown for the full 80 years since it was imagined.

Imaginary matter is necessarily composed of unknown substance.

Basing our models on imaginary matter for over 80 years is just sad.

You obviously haven't read Alice in Wonderland. Imaginary items can be made up of whatever you wish and from what I've read there's a lot of it going on. But then if we stop using our imagination then...
The important point is that, in mainstream science, there appears to be a big discrepancy in what is expected to that which is observed. So it seems that until someone comes up with an acceptable answer/alternative DM/DE names will be used.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) May 19, 2014
You are an absolute A***H**E, Cap'n, with the IQ of a frog.

That is quite the insult to frogs...
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) May 19, 2014
your usual drivel about dropping a rock on your foot
@spaz mundy
I've never used this reference. I just thought it was funny when it was used. guess reading and comprehension is not your strong suit. are you illiterate?
How come ...Cap'n Grumpy can consider himself the arbiter of what is acceptable in this forum?
who said I considered myself arbiter? only you
shut up until you can contribute something sensible to a debate rather than your stupid childish insults
lets see: 1- I've not insulted you because 2- I pointed out FACTS, proven by 3- http://phys.org/n...ong.html
in the above thread you offer ZERO explanations to support your self admitted philosophy, and only tried to sell your book, ad you are continuing the same here with your conjecture, which means, by definition, that you're a spamming troll.

see above "stupid childish insults" in your post for further proof.
Reg Mundy
2.3 / 5 (3) May 19, 2014
So, Cap'n, "spaz" isn't an insult,uh? Presumably, it is a derogatory term for spastic, and it is just like you to use it as an insult despite the hurt caused for those afflicted with this dreadful illness - you really are a prize specimen of humanity. You should just stick to driving your truck.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) May 19, 2014
Basing our models on imaginary matter for over 80 years is just sad.
Well theres no evidence for jesus and a great deal of evidence which says all those bible stories were fairy tales. And after 2000 years you turkeys still think its real so ??

I guess if heaven was made of dark matter youd have no problem with it.
and it is just like you to use it as an insult despite the hurt caused for those afflicted with this dreadful illness
Actually no, this depends on whether youre a tard from britain or not.

"Colloquially, the word spastic can be, but is not necessarily, pejorative; largely this depends on whether one understands the word as it is used in the United States or the United Kingdom. In British English today the mention of the word spastic is typically extremely inappropriate, as in the UK it is considered an offensive way to refer to disabled people"

-Its like in the US, bloody has nothing to do with the virgin mary or any particular time of the month.

See?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) May 19, 2014
Sorry for thee double post, my browser doesn't always accept the 'submit' icon.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) May 20, 2014
"spaz" isn't an insult
@spaz mundy
the first post had no insult
dreadful illness
Clinically, spasticity is defined as velocity-dependent resistance to stretch or spontaneous firing of deep tendon reflexes as in clonus. much like Tardive dyskinesia, it is often involuntary. it is NOT some dreadful illness.
It most commonly indicates a rapid twitching that may or may not be voluntary, much like your propensity to post unsupported conjecture or claims that have no valid basis in reality. I would say that it is more descriptive than derogatory. you must have some personal issues with this as you seem entirely too self concious about it...
you really are a prize specimen of humanity
Why thank you

So I guess you ARE illiterate?
now, considering you cannot define or explain your philosophy to prove your insistence that gravity isn't real, even with all the posts on that link I supplied, then your continued posting is nothing more than trolling, and an attempt to obfuscate the issue and sow FUD
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2014
Sorry for thee double post, my browser doesn't always accept the 'submit' icon.

just refresh after 1st submission.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) May 20, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
now, considering you cannot define or explain your philosophy to prove your insistence that gravity isn't real, even with all the posts on that link I supplied

Well, Cap'n, I have defined and explained my philosophy many times, you are just too dumb to understand it. You can't even see how expansion explains orbits! And none of the links you post have any relevance to the subject, just meanderings around the topic. All you do is hurl insults and make remarks about a book you have never read and wouldn't understand if you did. You really should stick to truck driving, Cap'n, its the only way you can contribute to society apart from your advising us all to hang about outside fire stations....any luck, by the way?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 21, 2014
you are just too dumb to understand
@reg spaz
two known physicists here @phys.org also dont understand it. MOST people state that what you HAVE posted is more like either:
violations of physics
OR rubbish nonsense
how expansion explains orbits
and you couldn't explain it either, so I guess that makes us even see: http://phys.org/n...ong.html
none of the links you post have any relevance to the subject
the previous link is relevant to your post and ignorance of gravity as it directly supports my position that you are a troll and it holds some of your "philosophy"
your advising us all to hang about outside fire stations
I've never advised this, and especially not to you. Fire stations are for real men, not you, reg. you would get hurt. better stick to your crayons and bib, little guy

Since you posted
the existence of GRAVITY which is itself a pure invention
please explain your philosophy (at least for others) and don't forget the DM in it
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 21, 2014
It has been unknown for the full 80 years since it was imagined
@dogbert
observed, not imagined. http://today.slac...tter.asp
you can read about dark matter here for a good start: http://science.na...-energy/

http://www.space....ter.html
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) May 21, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
observed, not imagined.

Observed, was it? What did they do, catch it in a jam jar? This is typical of you, stating as fact what is mere conjecture....bit like gravity. Dickhead!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 22, 2014
mere conjecture
@regtarded
you mean like
Surely the problem is the general acceptance of these figures as being correct. They are derived based on the existence of GRAVITY which is itself a pure invention
or
There are several models of our universe that do not require the invention of gravity, of which mine is only one
or
You can't even see how expansion explains orbits
(apparently neither can you) you can't explain it, and according to one physicist who read your book
He's a moron. His book is moronic babbling. The stuff you see here at physorg? That's what you get when you buy the book
it lacks any means of computing the dynamics. It is a word salad "way of looking at it". So for the purpose of predicting, measuring, and relating, it's not very useful
facts
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 22, 2014
Observed, was it? What did they do, catch it in a jam jar?
@regtarded
I am sorry, reg, I thought "Hooked on Phonics" might have done you some good...
those links didn't help you at all, huh?
Let me see if I can explain it monosyllabically for you: The name Dark Matter is used to describe an observed phenomenon in which we SEE certain things happening and so we describe what is going on with a name placeholder because we can observe its effects, but not the mass or stuff directly (yet). We see stuff like lensing and we can calculate amounts based upon some of these observed effects

http://lsst.org/l...k_matter

http://www.cfhtle...-lensing

http://www.space....tos.html

I made sure these links had plenty of pretty pictures for you, reg...
you can print them out and color them
dogbert
1 / 5 (2) May 22, 2014
Captain Stumpy,
The name Dark Matter is used to describe an observed phenomenon in which we SEE certain things happening and so we describe what is going on with a name placeholder because we can observe its effects, but not the mass or stuff directly


Dark Matter was created when our observations failed to match our models. On stellar scales, matter does not move like our models say it should, so, rather than make better models, we simply created imaginary matter.

At every observance of gravitational anomalies, such as your link to the bullet cluster, we again affirm our creation of imaginary matter.

We have not seen this imaginary matter as you assert. You cannot actually see a fantasy.

When a theory fails to predict and our observations do not match our theories, the scientific method would tend toward the development of better theories which do match the observations and which do predict.

After 80 years, a kludge gets tiresome.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) May 22, 2014
@dogbert
You are wasting your time trying to explain things to the Cap'n, he's too thick to understand logic.
I've tried to point out to him that, if the laws of gravity don't work without the existence of DM, then you can't prove that gravity exists using DM, and vise versa.
To the Cap'n and his fellow dogmatists, using logical argument is a bit like pi****ng into the wind.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) May 22, 2014
It's just space, Reg. Moving, not expanding. We(matter) happen to be moving with it, albeit a little slower (due to density). That gives the APPEARANCE of expansion. Just remember what Albert showed us - relativity.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 22, 2014
When a theory fails to predict and our observations do not match our theories, ... which do match the observations and which do predict
@dogbert
DM was not "invented" or "created", but it was pointed out that the imbalance we saw 80 yrs ago could only work with a certain amount of matter/mass as well as with a certain type of distribution, which is then modeled supporting the conclusion. Then tests were done to support or negate those conclusions
http://www.scienc...2c35d5da
again... what we have is "a known amount of mass/matter which has certain gravitational effects (which would display itself in a prescribed manner) that is observed and known through inference as well as observed effects but unknown through direct observation due to its lack of interaction with light"
but it was shortened to DM to save time and space when writing
-this is how science works

if you've (legit) data to the contrary, please link it
dogbert
1 / 5 (2) May 22, 2014
Captain Stubby,

Dark Matter was created over 80 years ago as a kludge because our models of gravity did not match our observations. It is still a kludge today.

The problem with a kludge is that people start believing it.

Let me ask you, if there is 5 times as much dark matter as matter in the Universe, why aren't Sol or the planet's 6 times as massive as they are or alternately, why is our solar system devoid of.dark matter?
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) May 22, 2014
Let me ask you, if there is 5 times as much dark matter as matter in the Universe, why aren't Sol or the planet's 6 times as massive as they are or alternately, why is our solar system devoid of.dark matter?


Letting ol Ira show you up on the physorg is something you should avoid because most peoples will have the fun with you over it. So if you are going to ask such a stupid question you should wait until I am not around and don't see it.

Who says the DM isn't around the Sol and planets? If you google up the dark matter on the google it will tell you that it is spread sort of even around and in the galaxies and that we are are in a halo of it everywhere.

Now don't you feel ashamed of you being shown up by the Ira-Skippy, dog-Skippy?
dogbert
1 / 5 (1) May 22, 2014
No Ira, you have not shown me up.

We don't use dark matter to compute the movements of planets in our solar system. If it were here, we would need to take it into consideration in our computations. I'll ask you as I asked Stumpy, why is our solar system devoid of.dark matter?
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) May 22, 2014
I'll ask you as I asked Stumpy, why is our solar system devoid of.dark matter?


Why you ask the question that I just gave you the answer for? It is not devoid of the dark matter, don't believe me, just google the google about it. It is all around us Skippy but it just flows and floats through and around us without doing anything with us. The google will explain it a lot better than I can tell you. It don't mix it up with the regular stuff so you can't notice it doing anything.

I am pretty sure I am reading it right, but maybe I am reading about it wrong me. Maybe the Captain-Skippy or the Maggnus-Skippy or the xyz-Skippy or one of the other smart peoples will come along and tell it better. But watch out in case one of the Really-Stupid-Skippys comes along and tries to tell you about it because they will just get you a lot more confused about it.
Pejico
May 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) May 22, 2014
I'm thinkin' DM is the SPACE... There's a LOT more of it than matter.
Just my humble opinion...
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) May 22, 2014
I'm thinkin' DM is the SPACE... There's a LOT more of it than matter.
Just my humble opinion...


I don't understand what you are saying there Whydening-Skippy. I give the five karma points because you are nice when you say it. Do you know where the Captain-Skippy or the Maggnus-Skippy or the xyz-Skippy are? They can explain this dark matter stuff about as good as anybody I see here so far, especially the xyz-Skippy he always has the linkups to explain it more.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 22, 2014
why is our solar system devoid of.dark matter?
@dogbert
how do you know it is?
why aren't Sol or the planet's 6 times as massive as they are
this assumes that we are innundated with DM as we speak, something that you cannot prove or disprove, so it is an irrelevant comment meant to distract from the issue at hand
The problem with a kludge is that people start believing it
where are you having the comprehension problem here? You seem hung up on kludge... the observations are empirical, the explanation is relevant, it fits, it matches observation as well as makes a prediction which was then verified (lensing as well as amounts of mass)

your kludge seems to be in your head... I would gladly hear an alternative that fits better but you are not offering THAT either... you here to troll like reg?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 22, 2014
If it were here, we would need to take it into consideration in our computations
@dogbert
you mean like our use of relativity when plotting planets and determining the path of an orbiter to Mars?
again, trying to be nice... I point out that DM is not fully defined, NOR is it known, NOR currently visible to us in any form. Pejico-Zephir has a good answer. There are people in both camps. personally, I reserve the right to make a judgment when more data is available for perusal.
Ira has it right... we COULD be smack in the middle of a DM concentration... One thing they are testing for now is the possibility that we ARE in a band of DM, which is apparent in Zeph's links
DM is the SPACE
@Wydening Gyre
IMHO - this seems unlikely as space is not known or shown to have mass, which means it can be ruled out as DM... what you may be referring to is DE, and the Casimir effect
https://en.wikipe...r_effect
http://physics.ab...fect.htm
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2014
Do you know where the Captain-Skippy or the Maggnus-Skippy or the xyz-Skippy are?
@Uncle Ira
Sorry, Ira... I've been doing some research lately... it is distracting
I don't understand what you are saying there Whydening-Skippy
WG is an artist ... but IMHO I think he is referring more to dark energy than dark matter. He can correct me if I am wrong. See the links in my last post regarding the Casimir effect...

Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) May 22, 2014
Ira has it right... we COULD be smack in the middle of a DM concentration...


@ Captain-Skippy. That was nice for you to say that. I have trouble with the right words to explain this thing. I can understand a lot of it better than I know how to say it. It was my idea from reading on it that most of the astrophysicist-Skippys seem to think this dark matter stuff gathers into something like the big clouds that the galaxies sit in.

Maybe I got it wrong, it's just there and we don't know how to test on it yet until we learn more about how to get ahold to some of it, no? The one place I was reading was about how it is cold so it won't clump up like stars and planets but just stays like a cloud, I think. I think that is what they mean by the "halo" but I might read that wrong maybe.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) May 22, 2014
I hate to shove my elbow into this mutual admiration society, but can't we just stick to facts? The laws of gravity do not work unless DM exists. DM exists because the laws of gravity say it does. Ergo, they are both true! Or, just maybe, they are both false, illusions we use to explain the behaviour of our universe. So, we can't find any gravity waves, gravitons, gravitinos, DM, DE, and so on.........and IMHO we never will.
So, Cap'n, Ira, and the rest of the gravity acolytes, stop calling me names and denigrating my theories (which you do not understand) detailed in books you have never read, until science comes up with ANY of the missing stuff, then you can say "I told you so!" and I will eat crow. Meanwhile, try to be scientific and logical in your approach and just THINK ABOUT WHAT I SAID!
dogbert
1 / 5 (2) May 22, 2014
Captain Stumpy
why is our solar system devoid of.dark matter?

how do you know it is?

If our solar system had 6 times its known mass due to dark matter, then the movements of the planets, moons and asteroids would be affected by the dark matter and we would have to modify our calculations to account for the increased mass.
The problem with a kludge is that people start believing it

the observations are empirical, the explanation is relevant, it fits

See, you believe the kludge is real.

We would know if there were extra mass in the solar system. We would have to notice it because our calculations would be off. But our calculations are very accurate in the solar system. Therefore, we can be certain that there is no large amount of extra mass here.

We are not special in the universe.

Dark matter was and is a fantasy, a kludge.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) May 22, 2014
So, Cap'n, Ira, and the rest of the gravity acolytes, stop calling me names and denigrating my theories


You hold on to your mule there Skippy, I didn't call you no names me. So get your mind straight. And I did not do that other thing there to your theories. I don't know what your theories are saying and I didn't say nothing about them. Ol Ira didn't even know you had a theory. What this theory about Cher?

Now if you just want to make the trouble with me I will be glad to call some names and say mean things about your theories, you hear me Skippy?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2014
When SR & GR accepted DM/DE weren't thought of so I ask that we put ourselves in that situation now. Would those of us who refute GR now, refute it when the early 'tests' appeared to confirm? Since that time many other learned people have rather taken over and have expanded GR horizons. Have gone too far? Although I can read the equations I am not expert enough to argue one way or the other so I leave it those who can, then try to form an opinion of my own. I do think that is remains true that we are 'fearful' of what we don't understand and wonder if some see DM/DE theories as something that could shake the foundations of their own convictions. I think we need to pool our concepts to solve the problem rather use them as stones to throw.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) May 22, 2014
try to be scientific and logical in your approach and just THINK

Those two are the least capable thinkers in these threads...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2014
stop calling me names and denigrating my theories (which you do not understand)
@reg
1-you only assume we don't understand
2-we could never understand given your inability to describe them to date
3-don't dish if ya can't take it
detailed in books you have never read
1- I dont buy fiction
2-your book is not recommended by those I know who've read it and are physicists
try to be scientific and logical in your approach
this is, in fact, why you and I have never found anything to agree on. You've never provided anything that can be measured, proven, logically shown, or even given some legitimate math to describe the possibility that you may be correct even circumstantially, which is why I don't agree with your philosophy. Even CD makes this effort (though fails miserably). There is NOTHING to date explaining it with anything like scientific precision, even considering your charts/graphs you've continually referenced.
by the way... you CAN publish those as JPG or GIF and link them. you should already have at least two copies...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2014
you believe the kludge is real
@dogbert
ok, then prove it wrong.
I believe it is a logical assumption with the available evidence that has been provided as well as the observations
given its ability to make predictions as well as explain observations (see above), then it is a valid theory just as is other physics
We would have to notice it because our calculations would be off
by how much? don't you think this issue has been discussed? you are assuming that we are in the middle of DM all the time
We are not special in the universe
true
Dark matter was and is a fantasy
I will ask again: please provide the proof that it is wrong.
I guarantee if you have a logical well founded proof (or math) of this that was not thought of, you would become famous as well as vitally important to the physics community
even a well thought out set of calculations showing that it is improbable would suffice to give you some well deserved publicity
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2014
See, you believe the kludge is real
@Dogbert
tell you what... I will give you MY reasons for my "belief" as you put it, and you can give me the same... please provide as much data as you can, including empirical data, studies, links (from reliable sites, not blogs or pseudoscience like EU) etc

Here is ONE reason that I can believe in DM: A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter
http://iopscience...8/2/L109
We present new weak-lensing observations of 1E 0657-558 (z = 0.296), a unique cluster merger, that enable a direct detection of dark matter, independent of assumptions regarding the nature of the gravitational force law
now it is your turn:
provide something similar proving it does NOT exist, other than comments or references to "measure the solar system"
give something hard or calculable for a direct refute or support.
dogbert
1 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
Captain Stumpy,

tell you what... I will give you MY reasons for my "belief" as you put it, and you can give me the same...


Yes, you continue to cite gravitational anomalies observed in the universe and create imaginary matter to explain the observational anomalies. This does nothing to prove dark matter. It does prove that dark matter has been used as a kludge for over 80 years with no sign that imaginary matter will ever be discarded.

you can give me the same...


I just did. There is no dark matter in our solar system or if there is, there is too little of it to affect our measurements. We sent human beings to the moon without calculating for dark matter. We have sent probes all over the solar system without adjusting our calculations to include dark matter. This is because dark matter does not exist in our solar system. But you assert that it exists everywhere else we look in the universe. We are not unique.

Dark matter is a fantasy you believe.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
@Cap'n
Sorry to butt in again, Cap'n, but your
A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter
is based on gravity/gravitic lensing (GL) being true. Cursory logic regarding GL shows an extraordinary flaw transparent to any student of optics, currently ignored by the powers that be. A photon passing by an object A of large mass at distance X is, by GL, deflected towards A by an amount inversely proportional to the square of X, i.e. G/XX where G is the gravitic constant. Similarly, another photon passing A at a slightly greater distance, say X + Y, is deflected towards A by a LESSER amount, i.e. G/(X+Y)(X+Y).
This has the effect of SCATTERING the light, rather than focussing it. As the distances involved are so great, and the angles of deflection so small, there is no reason to assume that the lensing effect is not caused by a low concentration of gas around A compared with "interstellar" space, and light is known to bend when transiting a boundary, i.e. lensing.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) May 23, 2014
Dark matter is a fantasy you believe.


So Cher, you think that is as scientific as the scientist article that the Captain-Skippy put the linkum for? So far he the only person offering anything to back up what he believe is right. Even ol Ira could find some peoples on the google saying that the dark matter isn't really real. But they all seem like the aluminum wrap hat type and not the really science type of Skippys.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
@Wydening Gyre
IMHO - this seems unlikely as space is not known or shown to have mass, which means it can be ruled out as DM... what you may be referring to is DE, and the Casimir effect
https://en.wikipe...r_effect

My Bad... I think I might be referring more to DE. However, I still think there is something simple being overlooked. Like - space is FILLED with photons. Put enough of them together and they exhibit mass-like behavior.
Put enough of something together and it becomes - something else...
It's just the way the Universe works.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) May 23, 2014
Reg Mundy&dogbert, as Uncle Ira put it 'So far he the only person[Captain] offering anything to back up what he believe is right' and you are (R&d that is) disputing the Captains ideas. OK lets try a different approach. Let's say that DM does not exist what are you (R&d) going to put in its place to explain grav discrepancy? (and don't forget to name your idea too). I'll start you off with say, GM/r^(2+ α ) which is one alternative.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
Reg Mundy&dogbert, as Uncle Ira put it 'So far he the only person[Captain] offering anything to back up what he believe is right' and you are (R&d that is) disputing the Captains ideas. OK lets try a different approach. Let's say that DM does not exist what are you (R&d) going to put in its place to explain grav discrepancy? (and don't forget to name your idea too). I'll start you off with say, GM/r^(2+ α ) which is one alternative.


I got no idea if that is right, but at least you put up something for the peoples to think on.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
This does nothing to prove dark matter
@dogbert
I disagree
It does prove that dark matter has been used as a kludge for over 80 years with no sign that imaginary matter will ever be discarded
personal conjecture without evidence
There is no dark matter in our solar system or if there is, there is too little of it to affect our measurements
1-this is personal conjecture, not evidence
2-I already pointed this out
Dark matter is a fantasy you believe
this is a statement, not proof, and given the lack of evidence for the support of said statement, is the same as saying "Chupacabra intestinal disorders cause hurricanes"
dark matter does not exist in our solar system. But you assert that it exists everywhere else we look
not everywhere. in case you missed the last 4 bazillion articles on it, it is found in clumps and not necessarily everywhere. the everywhere is YOUR assumption. see: http://www.space....led.html
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
[Even ol Ira could find some peoples on the google saying that the dark matter isn't really real. But they all seem like the aluminum wrap hat type and not the really science type of Skippys.

Personally? I'd go with a grounded copper screen....
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
..saying "Chupacabra intestinal disorders cause hurricanes"

I was WONDERing what caused 'em...
dogbert
1 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
Mimath224,
OK lets try a different approach. Let's say that DM does not exist what are you (R&d) going to put in its place to explain grav discrepancy?


Do you understand that it is perfectly acceptable to point out there is no invisible elephant in the room without replacing the invisible elephant with something else?

MOND seems to closely predict in dwarf galaxies but not for larger systems. I suppose we might find that a modification of our gravity models is in order and that something else might be affecting movements other than gravity such as magnetic fields. The point is that we will never find the truth as long as we continue to accept imaginary matter.

The problem with a kludge is that people begin to believe the kludge and that stands in the way of finding the real solutions.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
The problem with a kludge is that people begin to believe the kludge and that stands in the way of finding the real solutions
@dogbert
and as that is the case, then MOND has its own shortcomings and is also no better than a kludge in itself. see Problems for Modified Newtonian Dynamics in Clusters and the Lyα Forest? http://iopscience...61/2/550

therefore you suggest only that you, in your terminology, trade kludge for kludge. Whereas there is likely more support for DM due to the fact that it fits the data, rather than re-writing physics that are fairly well known
we will never find the truth as long as we continue to accept imaginary matter
and without exploring all available leads, you also cannot know the truth. ignoring DM as a possible due to your personal aversion only shows that the kludge lies with YOU, not the theory. MOND is still being studied. DM is studied. etc

your anti-DM stance seems to be more personal than anything else
dogbert
1 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
Captain Stumpy,

It is clear you have accepted DM as fact. It is not, but you will not be moved.

I won't continue to argue with you as you have nothing to add to the discussion. I pointed out that out solar system had no significant amount of dark matter while you propose that it exists just about everywhere there is mass elsewhere in the universe. I also pointed out that there is no reason to expect that our solar system is unique. You ignore this because it is not congruent with your fantasy.

Continue in your fantasy. Others will doubtless eventually discover the truth despite the DM kludge. It would be better if we did not consume another 80 years in fantasy land.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
your anti-DM stance seems to be more personal than anything else


@ Captain-Skippy, speaking of just little bit, guess what ol Ira did a couple of weeks ago me? You know that Sean Carroll-Skippy you and the maggnus-Skippy was talking about awhile back? He's the one that the Really-Skippy kept telling us that confirmed something about his theory. I read on some of his stuffs to find out if Really-Skippy was just making that part up and he was. Sean-Skippy has some real theories.

But guess what ol Ira did? I wrote the Sean-Skippy an email to ask him something about universes and big bangs. He even wrote me back the email, he told me he didn't know quite how to take me, but after I wrote him again he answered some of my questions about people like the Really-Skippy and the Reg-Skippy and the cantdrive-Skippy.He is a really nice man after he figures out you don't mean no trouble with him. If you have the serious question for him you could probably get you an answer from him
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
It is clear you have accepted DM as fact. It is not, but you will not be moved
@dog
actually, I have accepted it as a theory, and if presented with empirical data showing it is not a viable or acceptable substance, then I also will accept that it has been refuted
I won't continue to argue with you as you have nothing to add to the discussion
actually, I was thinking this about you
I pointed out that out blah blah blah is unique
and I pointed out that other than conjecture, you've offered NO studies, links, nor references supporting your position, making it no better than claiming ownership of Unicorn Coprolites
Continue in your fantasy
Hmm. which is FANTASY? the argument backed by FACTS and STUDIES or the one with CONJECTURE and OPINION? hard one...

I will say it again: PROVIDE PROOF. LINKS/STUDIES/SOMETHING EMPIRICAL other than your PERSONAL CONJECTURE... ya got nothing, sparky.

therefore the delusional one is you, not I.
at least I am open to other ideas
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) May 23, 2014
@ P.S. For you Captain-Skippy.

I had me more questions to ask him about but I figured since he is the real scientist-Skippy with the real science job he probably is to busy to spend a lot of time on me no. But he was nice in the two emails he send. He seems to think this dark matter stuff is a done deal and real. He said nothing that anybody has come up with explains it so good and that a lot really smart Skippys have been thinking on it for 30 or 20 years and everything they have tried doesn't work out in the end. That was the part about the not-to-smart-Skippys we got so many of here. He said whenever they get really annoying just tell them that their coo-coo ideas has already been thought of and examined by the pros, and they ain't smarter than the pros even if they do have the wild imagination about how smart they are.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
It would be better if we did not consume another 80 years in fantasy land.
@dog
and lastly, should you consider learning in the future, please try looking me up. It appears that you are capable, but a little lost and a whole lot confused on certain issues: You've offered NO PROOF to support your conjecture, and I've offered studies. This makes YOU the in the position of failing to comprehend the argument.
sorry for getting snippy, but it appears that you are being intentionally disingenuous
If you have the serious question for him you could probably get you an answer from him
@Ira
yep! one of the reasons that I gave the link to him. and I continue to share it.
He is a pretty sharp person as well as very willing to share, clarify and converse on many topics. One reason I read his blog as well. He also has some books out... check them out. pretty good stuff.
Another sharp one is Tim Thompson http://www.tim-thompson.com/
he's pretty cool too.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
He said whenever they get really annoying just tell them that their coo-coo ideas has already been thought of and examined by the pros, and they ain't smarter than the pros even if they do have the wild imagination about how smart they are.
@Ira
VERY good point. I was trying to be nicer about it, but essentially it is true... He also spells out a great deal about the flaws on MOND as well as other theories competing with DM in his books. In fact, he is critical as well as explanatory in his books, and tries to give all sides as well as the pro's and con's of each.

I recommend his books, as well as his blog!
is that the same Tim-Skippy that comments on the articles here
YES
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) May 23, 2014
@ Captain-Skippy is that the same Tim-Skippy that comments on the articles here? He seems like he knows the science and ain't looking to make the spectacle of himself by putting up the odd ball theories.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2014
@ Captain-Skippy is that the same Tim-Skippy that comments on the articles here? He seems like he knows the science and ain't looking to make the spectacle of himself by putting up the odd ball theories.
@Ira
yes, the same one.
Invited here to clear up his name and respond to blatant lies from cantdrive about physics as well as other posts...

he is sharp! and a good person too... like Sean Carroll, he will clear up stuff when you ask. I've sent Mr. Thompson things and gotten a LOT of help, as well as with Mr. Carroll. Both are friendly, helpful and fun.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) May 23, 2014
@dogbert
Do you understand that it is perfectly acceptable to point out there is no invisible elephant in the room without replacing the invisible elephant with something else?....

Which was the point I was making. But you didn't answer my question unless you are suggesting that any theory you have is as meaningless as what you think DM is. And that, I have to say, proves what Captain has been posting here.

Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2014
sorry more browser problems, this was a duplicate that I have now deleted
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) May 24, 2014
@Cap'n
@Ira
I'm really impressed by your choice of advisors, perhaps you could ask them to comment on my earlier posting {q]we can't find any gravity waves, gravitons, gravitinos, DM, DE, and so on.........and IMHO we never will. and provide ANY logical explanation for the complete absence of ANY PROOF that gravity exists (evidence which equally supports expansion theory doesn't count!).
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) May 24, 2014
I'm really impressed by your choice of advisors, perhaps you could ask them to comment on my earlier posting {q]we can't find any gravity waves, gravitons, gravitinos, DM, DE, and so on.........and IMHO we never will.
and provide ANY logical explanation for the complete absence of ANY PROOF that gravity exists (evidence which equally supports expansion theory doesn't count!).


Everybody already commented commented on your silly idea. The expansion theory is not the theory because you can't use it for anything but something to talk about. But you keep trying couyon you. What it is this thing with you? You get paid by how many of the smart peoples you can get to answer you? You never explain your theory, all you ever do is say that you already explained your theory.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Why you only come around when the Really-Skippy is banneded at the other place? You do better Cher.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) May 24, 2014
@Ira
Twaddle again, can't you answer sensibly just for once? Nobody has answered the question, if you think someone has please direct me to their answer!
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) May 24, 2014
@Ira
Twaddle again, can't you answer sensibly just for once? Nobody has answered the question, if you think someone has please direct me to their answer!


Okayeei. Apology accepted. I'm trying to the be nice new Ira so we let the past stuffs slide.

What your theory Cher? If you tell me about it, I will try to give you the sensible answer, but don't ask me to buy no book, eh? Ira don't buy stuffs unless he has a good idea of what he getting for his money.

Oh, yeah, I almost forget another thing, how much this book is? And can I go into the library or the book store to have a look at it? Sometimes I need the diagrams and drawings to understand the reading parts. That's because I'm not really the scientist-Skippy even though they make that mistake around here alot. I use the google before I answer and ask the question.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) May 24, 2014
perhaps you could ask them to comment on my earlier posting
@reg
(earlier posting as in your insistence on lack of gravity as well as expansion) already have. already told you about the results. you didn't like it then, what makes you think you will like it now?( too many threads to pull all the links and put them here) But I will ask them again... the question I have is this: why aren't you arguing the point to them directly, given your expertise in your philosophy and their expertise with physics? Mr. Carroll *does* have a public blog that he regularly posts to, and Mr. Thompson also tends to publicly debate certain other science (or claimed science).
can't you answer sensibly just for once?
Actually, there was a lot of sense to his answer. You've been answered already, as well as debated on comments here ( http://phys.org/n...ong.html ) so what is the beef with the way he put it?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) May 25, 2014
Actually.... To be specific, there is only empirical evidence to support the EFFECT of "DM"...
Pejico
May 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) May 25, 2014
@Ira
Okayeei. Apology accepted.

What apology? I didn't offer one! If you think I did, you are mistaken, and probably suffer delusions of adequacy.
This article, if you can cast your mind back, is about people who are looking at the sky and seeing Dark Matter. Thousands of years ago, the Chinese looked at the sky and saw Dragons. The Ancient Greeks looked and saw Gods and Heros. Many of my generation saw Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. Currently, another bunch are seeing Gravity Waves.
Well, if that's what they want to think, good luck to them, but I am not included amongst the believers. You and the Cap'n etc. can stick with your god of gravity if you want, I'm done arguing with you.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) May 25, 2014
You and the Cap'n etc. can stick with your god of gravity if you want, I'm done arguing with you.


You bump your head this morning Cher? Ol Ira is not arguing with you no. That is like the mistake you make up there accusing me of calling you names and doing something to your theories. All I said is I don't know what you have for a theory.

But I think it is rude for you offer an apology and then just snatch him back on the next post-up. That's why I ask if you bump your head, you need to make up your mind about that and when you make the apology stick with him.

So can Ira-Skippy go to look at your book in the library so I can give you the sensible answer which you ask for? Or at least look at it in the bookstore when I go into Town?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) May 25, 2014
@Reg Mundy,say why are you 'up tight', man?People are asking you to invalidate their conviction with your theory. Now, if you CAN'T offer them something of your own to be examined OUT IN THE OPEN then don't mention or post in the first place. There is quite a bit of mainstream science (various topics) that I'm doubtful about but If I haven't something to argue with I stay quiet until I have, or at least until I have a greater degree of understanding.
If you don't think DM is causing the grav discrepancy tell us what YOU think is. Stand up and be counted...you never know you might get a good score!
(As Uncle Ira posted earlier, Uncle Ira is trying to nice (is that correct Uncle Ira?) but I think you're making it very difficult for him...)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) May 25, 2014
(As Uncle Ira posted earlier, Uncle Ira is trying to nice (is that correct Uncle Ira?) but I think you're making it very difficult for him...)


Yeah that is correct, but I'm getting confused whenever I try to talk with this Skippy and the Really-Skippy. They both throw out some really weird stuffs and then get mad with me for asking for them to tell me again in more plain words or more simple details. They act like I did some terrible thing because I never can tell what they got going in their head from one post to the next post. One of the smart Skippys with the odd name said that they are the same person, but I can't remember who said that. They sure have the lot in common about jumping around with their science theorizing and their conspiring theories too. Both of them been nothing but the trouble with me from day one but I'm really am trying to nicer about it now. The Q-Skippy says that the Really-Skippy has the mental condition so I sometime feel sorry for him now.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) May 25, 2014
You and the Cap'n etc. can stick with your god of gravity if you want, I'm done arguing with you
You've already promised this, but still you come back and post your claptrap and unsupported conjecture based upon your personal delusions. Promised, promises...
you are not good for your word
People are asking you to invalidate their conviction with your theory. Now, if you CAN'T offer them something of your own to be examined OUT IN THE OPEN then don't mention or post in the first place
@Mimath224
I've already tried this tactic on reg... she still has yet to provide any evidence... she will post thousands of words talking about nothing, but has YET to post a SINGLE thing that would prove her theory. In fact, Q even said the book she published was total crap word salad; reg's personal journey to self-induced stupidity. check out reg's posts here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html
dogbert
2 / 5 (4) May 25, 2014
Captain Stumpy,
You've offered NO PROOF to support your conjecture, and I've offered studies. This makes YOU the in the position of failing to comprehend the argument.
sorry for getting snippy, but it appears that you are being intentionally disingenuous


No, I've asked you to think and tell us why there is no dark matter in our solar system if dark matter is so ubiquitous in the universe. There are many articles about the lack of dark matter in our solar system, you need only do a Google search. But since you will only believe something published, try this link:

http://www.techno...-action/
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) May 25, 2014
@dogbert,

That link is an op-ed piece which refers to a paper by Pitjev and Pitjeva which is the result of a study they did of existing observational data collected over the past century. While it is true that "it can not find the predicted amount of DM in the solar system", that is only true if ya stop there & don't include the fine print, the context that is necessary before ya judge the value of their paper. (Which is why it didn't pass referring in the mainstream journals, the paper finally found a home in Springer.)

The truth is, the observations & measurements they working with, are not precise enough to find DM. The predicted dark matter can't be combed out with the numbers they were using. We don't possess the technology yet to measure with certainty the n-body solutions of a solar system size volume for DM, not on that small a scale.

It is like arguing over missing meters in a measurement of the distance between NYC & LA made using an automobile odometer.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 25, 2014
But since you will only believe something published, try this link:
http://www.techno...-action/
@dogbert
see Q-Star's post above
also... I said
LINKS/STUDIES/SOMETHING EMPIRICAL other than your PERSONAL CONJECTURE
as well as
You've offered NO PROOF to support your conjecture, and I've offered studies
which is true as well as a legitimate gripe. You have studies/peer reviewed data posted from me, and only argument for opinion from you
next time skip the site and go straight for the arxiv publication (or didnt you read it?)
again, see Q-star
[/It is like arguing over missing meters in a measurement of the distance between NYC & LA made using an automobile odometer


The truth is, the observations & measurements they working with, are not precise enough to find DM
@Q-Star
haven't seen you around a lot lately. Thanks for the help. if you're ever on www.sciforums.com look me up
PEACE
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) May 25, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
@Q-Star
haven't seen you around a lot lately.

Yeah, he tends to avoid threads which I'm on, 'cos he was forced to admit he "reviewed" my books without reading them, and then was constrained to rubbish them afterwards in self justification of his despicable conduct. He knows that I know what an a***h**e he is. He eventually read the books, which either melted his brain or left him bereft of his previous beliefs which he now no longer defends. In either case, he noticeably failed to point out any errors or illogic in my theories.
Anyway, I'm relieved to know the Illuminati didn't get him, which he used to be paranoid about.
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) May 25, 2014
@ Reg-Skippy, where you at Cher? Since we are getting off a new start maybe you would answer the questions for me?

The first question is about the theory that you and the Captain-Skippy and some of the other Skippys keep talking about. Since you see from what I wrote up there about me never saying nothing bad on your theory, and apologized to me, would you tell me about the theory some?

And the another question is sort of touchy, I don't mean no harm me, but catching bits and pieces of the comments someone-Skippy, I don't remember which one, said you are the Really-Skippy.Is that true? Because it got me to thinking about something, I'm not stupid, just ignorant on somethings with the science words, the Really-Skippy make some trouble over Zephir and peoples, then he make the trouble over cantdrive-Skippy and peoples. You both say you from the Australia and both don't like the regular-Skippys, why he not help you out like he did the Zephir and cantdrive Skippys? That is odd.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 26, 2014
failed to point out any errors or illogic in my theories
@reg moron
reviewed them publicly on the threads AFTER he read them, http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
from his posts
He's a moron. His book is moronic babbling. The stuff you see here at physorg? That's what you get when you buy the book
means you only published crap. most likely the reason you couldn't get a peer reviewed study published and went with a vanity press
it lacks any means of computing the dynamics. It is a word salad "way of looking at it". So for the purpose of predicting, measuring, and relating, it's not very useful
which is what you CONTINUE to post. therefore you have a PHILOSOPHY, not a theory, or even a hypothesis. there is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for your expansion crap.

I thought you said
I'm done arguing with you
we really don't mind if you go away since PSEUDOSCIENCE SPAMMING LYING TROLLS are not welcome here
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) May 26, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
we really don't mind if you go away since PSEUDOSCIENCE SPAMMING LYING TROLLS are not welcome here

For a moment there, Cap'n, I thought you were talking about me!
I said I was done arguing with you, I didn't say I was going away. I wouldn't want to abandon this site to a***h***s like you, who think that hurling insults and being generally abusive can replace logic and win arguments.
@Irate
No, Ira, I'm not Reality-Check, nor cantdrive, nor anybody else, just little old me. I have been accused of being at least 20 different people on this site, ranging from patent lunatics to sensible scientists with proven track records and multiple published papers. And all this because I state my belief that gravity does not exist as a force. What we call gravity is actually the force needed to accelerate bodies away from each other to prevent them coalescing as they expand. That's why gravity appears to be impossible to shield against, deflect, generate, etc., and no waves!
Mimath224
4.2 / 5 (5) May 26, 2014
@Reg Mundy '...And all this because I state my belief that gravity does not exist as a force. What we call gravity is actually the force needed to accelerate bodies away from each other to prevent them coalescing as they expand. That's why gravity appears to be impossible to shield against, deflect, generate, etc., and no waves!'
Your belief is that, quote, '..gravity is not a force...' then you say, quote, '...gravity is actually the force...' That's a pretty good way of having your cake and eat too ha!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) May 26, 2014
@Mimouth22thesametoyou
I said "What we call gravity..." and that gravity does not exist as a force. Why don't you THINK about it?
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) May 26, 2014
@Mimouth22thesametoyou
I said "What we call gravity..." and that gravity does not exist as a force. Why don't you THINK about it?


Well Reg-Skippy, I see you have withdrawn your apology and go back to calling me names. You back on with the silly looking pointy cap until you can explain how that "no gravity" theory can work. Ol Ira suspect you just the silly troll who enjoy to argue with peoples and really don't care so much for your "theory", that's why you remind me of the Really-Skippy, it you are no him, you sure have a lot in common.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 26, 2014
I said "What we call gravity..." and that gravity does not exist as a force. Why don't you THINK about it?
@regtarded
nope. Mimath had it right... likely he re-read some of your posts here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html]http://phys.org/n...ong.html[/url]
your philosophy needed gravity to be functional
I said I was done arguing with you, I didn't say I was going away
proof of illiteracy as well as blatant lie. You said you were done, and here you are. I am the one who said
we really don't mind if you go away
but I guess when you spuriously make up reality it gets hard to remember all the lies
who think that hurling insults and being generally abusive can replace logic and win arguments
your "logic" was destroyed in the link above. all you have left is abuse and insults. What I am doing is pointing out the obvious: YOU are a TROLL spamming us with PSEUDOSCIENCE

@Uncle Ira
just read the post in the link http://phys.org/n...ong.html]http://phys.org/n...ong.html[/url]
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) May 26, 2014
@Uncle Ira
just read the post in the link


@ Captain-Skippy, yeah I already enjoyed that gem of the science theory discussing, three or two times so far. It is a good one yes?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) May 26, 2014

Well Reg-Skippy, I see you have withdrawn your apology and go back to calling me names. You back on with the silly looking pointy cap until you can explain how that "no gravity" theory can work. Ol Ira suspect you just the silly troll who enjoy to argue with peoples and really don't care so much for your "theory", that's why you remind me of the Really-Skippy, it you are no him, you sure have a lot in common.

What planet you on, Ira? I never apologised to you, its all in your mind. I cannot withdraw an apology I never made in the first place.
While we are on, how have I gone back to calling you names? Point it out to me.
Anyway, I think you are a sock puppet intended to stimulate the site, some of your come-ons are really childish. Your good ole boy/redneck persona is crap. Do you actually write the stuff or do you do it in English and pass it thru' Googles Oki-Fenoki translater?
Reminds me of Q-Stars similar redneck/Irish persona, do you share the same computer?
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) May 26, 2014
What planet you on, Ira? I never apologised to you, its all in your mind. I cannot withdraw an apology I never made in the first place.


You did apologize I thought. If you want to take it back you can do that Cher. It means you got to wear the silly looking pointy cap for good now you.

Your good ole boy/redneck persona is crap. Do you actually write the stuff or do you do it in English and pass it thru' Googles Oki-Fenoki translater?


I am not the good ole boy/redneck me. I am coonass and proud not to be from up the the bayou. You are the second person I see on here trying to tell me about a google translator for the Cajuns, where you see this at? I can't find it and since the Really-Skippy told me about it I been looking hard for it.

Reminds me of Q-Stars similar redneck/Irish persona,


There is only one other thing that is as silly as that one that I ever heard here. Benni-Skippy said I was a moderator. Like anybody would trust ol Ira the keys to this ride?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) May 26, 2014
Uncle Ira, maybe Reg Mundy was talking about 'Rednex' and actually I think Rednex are good...they make more sense than Reg Mundy ha!
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) May 26, 2014
Uncle Ira, maybe Reg Mundy was talking about 'Rednex' and actually I think Rednex are good...they make more sense than Reg Mundy ha!


Well I'll give just a little bit of help, he needs it, I don't think he was calling me the redneck to call me a name. He said he is in the Australia so he probably don't know much about different peoples from different places in America. Maybe if I get the time one day I'll try to write him something to explain the redneck, the hilly-bill, the coonass, the creole, the cracker, and the cowboy and how they are all different. So for this one time it is not his fault to get that confused.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) May 27, 2014
@Irate
Well, whichever planet you are on, Ira, it ain't planet Earth. Where did you get this stuff about Australia? I have never said I was from Australia, you must be away with the fairies. I would cut down on the weed if I was you.
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) May 27, 2014
@Irate
Well, whichever planet you are on, Ira, it ain't planet Earth. Where did you get this stuff about Australia? I have never said I was from Australia, you must be away with the fairies. I would cut down on the weed if I was you.


You had the Tasmania on your profile page back before they changed them around. What did you think nobody could remember that? I look on the google and it says Tasmania is at the Australia and it also say that is on the planet Earth. But we know you make up so much stuffs that it is not so strange that you forget about some of it. So Cher I am sorry to be the man to tell you, you got to keep wearing that silly looking pointy cap.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) May 27, 2014
@Irate
You really are insane. I've never had Tasmania on my profile page, nor anything else to do with Australia. Anyway, what's all this got to do with the Hades project? Are you confusing yourself about Hades and the Tasmanian Devil? Try to get a grip on reality, Ira, and cut down on the LSD or whatever it is you are on.
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) May 27, 2014
@Irate
You really are insane. I've never had Tasmania on my profile page, nor anything else to do with Australia.


@ Reg-Skippy. That was a good try but you forgetting something. You and the Really-Skippy keep saying ol Ira is smart enough to build a coonass talking robot machine, You think that someone that smart is so stupid they could not call one the smart teenager-Skippys down the road and ask them if there is anyway for Ira to see what you wrote on the out of date profile page at the physorg? Yeah, I think to do that me. On your out of date profile page in the stash is where you say you are from the Tasmania. If you going to tell the BIG LIE maybe you should make sure the man you telling him to don't know some computer smart teenager-Skippys down the road.

Cher you determined to go to the grave still wearing that silly looking pointy cap without ever having a chance to take it off.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) May 29, 2014
Oki-Fenoki translater
@regtard
1- its Okeefenokee
2- "swampers" are predominantly English, not French, like LA and the Cajun Ira
https://en.wikipe...#History
3-Cajun is VERY different than redneck OR good-ol' boy

Oh yeah...how does your "expansion philosophy BS" (hereafter referred to as EPBS) explain "The deformation of the moon due to Earth's pull" (AKA Gravity)

even if your EPBS was mass dependent, then it would not explain the tides, nor would it explain how they coincide with the Moon and Sun. It would also not explain deformation in another body with mass (as they affect each other) this is per your descriptions here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

Therefore either your EPBS is valid ONLY WITH gravity (proving you wrong), or your EPBS is wrong as we OBSERVE physical distortion in the moon due to Earth, as well as OBSERVE tides coinciding with Earth/moon/sun

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.