Dark matter might cause fundamental constants to change over time

November 19, 2015 by Lisa Zyga feature
Figure showing the limits on the interaction strength between dark matter and standard model particles such as photons, electrons, and quarks. In the present work, the researchers greatly improved these limits by deriving constraints from the helium abundance during big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), spectroscopy measurements of the rare element dysprosium (Dy), and measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Previous research has derived constraints from supernova data and fifth-force searches. Credit: Stadnik and Flambaum. ©2015 American Physical Society

(Phys.org)—The fundamental constants of nature—such as the speed of light, Planck's constant, and Newton's gravitational constant—are thought to be constant in time, as their name suggests. But scientists have questioned this assumption as far back as 1937, when Paul Dirac hypothesized that Newton's gravitational constant might decrease over time.

Now in a new paper published in Physical Review Letters, Yevgeny V. Stadnik and Victor V. Flambaum at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, have theoretically shown that can cause the fundamental constants of nature to slowly evolve as well as oscillate due to oscillations in the dark matter field. This idea requires that the weakly interacting dark matter particles be able to interact a small amount with particles, which the scientists show is possible.

In their paper, the scientists considered a model in which dark matter is made of weakly interacting, low-mass particles. In the early Universe, according to the model, large numbers of such dark matter particles formed an oscillating field. Because these particles interact so weakly with standard model particles, they could have survived for billions of years and still exist today, forming what we know as dark matter.

Although these low-mass dark are weakly interacting, they are thought to still interact with standard model particles to some extent, but it's unclear exactly how much. By using data from experiments that have measured the amount of helium produced during big bang nucleosynthesis, as well as measurements of the rare element dysprosium and the cosmic microwave background, Stadnik and Flambaum have derived the most stringent limits to date on how strongly such interact with photons, electrons, and light quarks, improving on existing constraints by up to 15 orders of magnitude.

The new limits on the dark matter interaction strength allow for the possibility that an oscillating, low-mass dark matter field coupled to standard model causes variations in the fundamental constants. As the scientists explain, this could have important implications for understanding life's origins.

"The fundamental constants are 'fine-tuned' to be consistent with the existence of life in the Universe," Stadnik told Phys.org. "If the physical constants were even slightly different, life could not have appeared. The discovery of varying fundamental 'constants' may help shed important light on how the physical constants came to have their life-sustaining values today. We simply appeared in an area of the Universe where they are consistent with our existence."

Whether or not the fundamental constants actually do vary due to dark matter is still an open question, but the scientists hope that future experiments with atomic clocks, laser interferometers, and other devices may help test out the new idea.

"We have shown that linking dark matter and variation of the of Nature leads to a major breakthrough in the sensitivity of dark matter searches," Flambaum said. "We plan to continue searching for other novel signatures of dark matter that may lead to the direct detection of dark matter for the first time."

Explore further: Dark matter dominates in nearby dwarf galaxy

More information: Y. V. Stadnik and V. V. Flambaum. "Can Dark Matter Induce Cosmological Evolution of the Fundamental Constants of Nature?" Physical Review Letters. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.201301

Also at arXiv:1503.08540 [astro-ph.CO]

Related Stories

Dark matter dominates in nearby dwarf galaxy

November 18, 2015

Dark matter is called "dark" for a good reason. Although they outnumber particles of regular matter by more than a factor of 10, particles of dark matter are elusive. Their existence is inferred by their gravitational influence ...

Physicists suggest new way to detect dark matter

November 18, 2014

For years physicists have been looking for the universe's elusive dark matter, but so far no one has seen any trace of it. Maybe we are looking in the wrong place? Now physicists from University of Southern Denmark propose ...

Recommended for you

Uncovering the secrets of water and ice as materials

December 7, 2016

Water is vital to life on Earth and its importance simply can't be overstated—it's also deeply rooted within our conscience that there's something extremely special about it. Yet, from a scientific point of view, much remains ...

Blocks of ice demonstrate levitated and directed motion

December 7, 2016

Resembling the Leidenfrost effect seen in rapidly boiling water droplets, a disk of ice becomes highly mobile due to a levitating layer of water between it and the smooth surface on which it rests and melts. The otherwise ...

The case for co-decaying dark matter

December 5, 2016

(Phys.org)—There isn't as much dark matter around today as there used to be. According to one of the most popular models of dark matter, the universe contained much more dark matter early on when the temperature was hotter. ...

107 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

hemitite
3.6 / 5 (23) Nov 19, 2015
Perhaps this paper has to do more fundamentally with the much stronger interaction of Dark Matter with potential sources of grant money.
jalmy
3.5 / 5 (19) Nov 19, 2015
This idea requires that the weakly interacting dark matter particles be able to interact a small amount with standard model particles, which the scientists show is possible.

How in the fk are they doing this when they cant even prove dark matter itself is real. Now they are showing hypotheticals based on other hypotheticals? Thats like saying if there were fairies then there theoretically there would also be fairy dust. WTF.
KBK
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 19, 2015
There has always been an inconsistency in certain 'fundamental constants', that science has tried to fudge out of existence, to forget about these inconsistencies.

If the inconsistencies exist, then even the fundamentals are likely to be shown as local, to at least some extent.

Such a premise and rumination point..really wreaks havoc with the idea of permanence in the universe, ie the 'monkey looking out from-while ensconced within' thought of a universally applicable frameworks.

This puts the kibosh on some of the more insistent components of enforced and prosecuted dogma that is hiding in the halls of science and academia.

The horror of a misapplied, misunderstood, and enforced Descartes as a limit in human endeavor and thinking in science...finally takes a monumental well deserved wallop on his glass ceiling based chin..and hits the carpet, finally going down to never be raised up again.

Good fucking riddance. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
zorro6204
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2015
The way they describe it is similar to the "brane" solution for gravity, that gravity exists in another brane and interacts with matter in this brane, explaining the relative weakness of the force. If dark matter worked the same way, that would fit, it interacts gravitationally, and possibly very weakly in other fields, but we can't find out what it is, because it's not present with us in this brane, all we have is the evidence of the interactions.
KBK
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2015
There is always an equal sign in all these equations. One equation on one side, the equals sign, and the equivalence on the other side.

This means that resonance and oscillation as a grouped energy pattern can alter the fundamental constants in the given local area. Or at least energetically oscillate their elastic functions in a polarized aligned grouping...and then gate the situation.

Suddenly, all those stories about alternative technologies, from anti-gravity to dimensional crossing, dimensional craft, whatever weird story from black ops or the past ancient times that you've ever heard.....they all become very very possible and very very real.

Odd how one little change in thought and position..... can enable so much....

The given forces are not weak. our interaction with them seems to be, but we are a bubble of self interaction - formed from them - as a genesis point. Like a hopping drop of water on a hotplate.
dogbert
3 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2015
If you insist that imaginary matter exists and can't find it, everything looks like an imaginary matter signature.
Bob Osaka
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2015
Well, so much for living in a static universe. Thankfully these notions are testable.
JohanVDMeer
2.6 / 5 (19) Nov 19, 2015
And so astronomy/cosmology/cosmogony/Astrophysics enters the Dark Ages.....who knows when it will emerge to face reality again?????
Let's take a simple look at reality - take "blue" stars for instance. From observations and calculations these stars are burning their fuel at a ferocious rate that will see it depleted in about a million years, roughly speaking.
We currently do not see ANY new stars forming or coming into existence all by themselves. There just have not been ANY documented and verified sightings of such events in the whole history of astronomy.
Which of course produces a small conundrum for the thought that the universe is about 13-14 billion years old as it means that those blue stars should be recent formations and indeed there should still be new ones 'forming", except that we don't see any.

So we're left with the problem of having them form everywhere except where we are looking...same as seeing Darwinian evolution taking place.
Shootist
3.2 / 5 (18) Nov 19, 2015
So, dark matter is like global warming, is there nothing it cannot do?
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2015
"The fundamental constants are 'fine-tuned' to be consistent with the existence of life in the Universe,"

That's not a supportable statement
a) we don't know what forms life can take
b) we don't know how many universes there are

a) could mean that life could exist under many circumstance (though it may seem bizarre from our point of view...but we would seem bizarre to it no less so)...B) means it could just be chance (cf. anthropic principle)
ECat
Nov 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ECat
Nov 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
OdinsAcolyte
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2015
So if we have a delta added into a 'constant' then the constant isn't.
Am I right or Amarillo?
Steve 200mph Cruiz
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2015
I don't understand how you could change the constants, aren't they just defined algebraicly?
I know they have measurable values, but I thought in all previous studies I've read that attempted to measure a change, they were just confirmed accurate to greater order of magnitudes.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2015
Johan,
We see new stars forming all the time, they are called nebulae.
Stars don't "explode" into existence, they are like snow balls rolling in the snow growing bigger.
But I don't know what you think, you sound like your either 10, or just crazy, astronomy can't be entering the dark ages, the science itself is only about 100 years old, we learn new things every single day.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 19, 2015
Now they are showing hypotheticals based on other hypotheticals?


You have explained the entirety of the standard theory of cosmology in one single sentence. Congratulations, you win the prize!
BartV
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2015
Without knowing our base and foundation, everything we see or try to see on top of it is unsure. If the base is different that what we think it is, then the way we think the house is built is not correct.

yep
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2015
I don't understand how you could change the constants, aren't they just defined algebraicly?
I know they have measurable values, but I thought in all previous studies I've read that attempted to measure a change, they were just confirmed accurate to greater order of magnitudes.

This is a great talk that explains how these constants were decided!
I hope everyone takes a few minutes to see this.
http://youtu.be/zamrs3nE9ys

viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2015
"So, dark matter is like global warming, is there nothing it cannot do?"

No. Like a pure magic can do everything. The ambitious theory of everything must adopt such flexible magical phenomenas.
Osiris1
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2015
ISIS is dork matter
Spaced out Engineer
2 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2015
We are pretty sure dark matter is not just a fudge factor. There exist ways to eliminate it via field theories that do no comply with homogenous space or strength, but galaxy formation models and the macroscopic structures make more sense with dark matter. This being said Boltzmann might be right about locally emergent principles.

So what is dark matter? Computational complexity? A means of preserving our ever displacing ripple as anthropic in a table? Alternatives unseen, over written, or never existing? A statistical solution to why from instrumentalism or Qubism the zeta function is so damn useful?

It is comedic if we take Bell's terminology of concepts that could have innate ambiguity:
"Here are some words which, however legitimate and necessary in application, have no place in a formulation with any pretension to physical precision: system, apparatus, environment, microscopic, macroscopic, reversible, irreversible, observable, information, measurement."
Spaced out Engineer
1 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2015
Metastable? How? Oscillating, dampening, spiraling(in or out), eternal return? Perhaps uncertainty is the very relaxation and interoperability we seek. The game has never been so hard to grasp to throw away to see the underlying play.
Spaced out Engineer
1 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2015
We need the anarchy Paul Karl Feyerabend mentioned in the design of experiments! Good luck and god speed!
vlaaing peerd
not rated yet Nov 20, 2015
So what they are basically saying, low mass DM interacts with normal matter and this might cause gravity to be stronger than usual?
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2015
recent research confims neutrino has measurable mass. This means neutrinos build dark matter itself.
Eikka
4.1 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2015
"The fundamental constants are 'fine-tuned' to be consistent with the existence of life in the Universe," Stadnik told Phys.org. "If the physical constants were even slightly different, life could not have appeared.


That depends on how you define "life".

We wouldn't appear, certainly, but you can't really claim that life-like organization can't appear in any configuration except this one. That would be a statement of faith.

If the fundamental constants were different to the point that e.g. atoms couldn't form, that's only saying that nothing the sort we would recognize as atoms can form. We simply don't know whether the interaction of the fundamental laws would simply generate a different set of elements capable of supporting a different mechanism for life because our understanding of fundamental physics isn't strong enough to take the universe from a different starting point to extrapolate what would happen.

antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2015
This means neutrinos build dark matter itself.

Erm...whut? Care to explain how you got to this -rather astounding- conclusion?

recent research confims neutrino has measurable mass.

Not so fast. Neutrino oscillations predict that the neutrino *should* have mass. Neutrino oscillations have been observed. However neutrino mass has not (yet) been observed. The KATRIN experiment, which would measure it and give it stringent lower bounds, is still ongoing.
Eikka
4.2 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2015
Basically, the argument that the fundamental constants are fine-tuned is like arguing that if Pi wasn't exactly Pi then we couldn't have circles. But that's getting the whole thing backwards. Pi is Pi because our space is flat. If it wasn't flat, then Pi would have a different value.

If we try to force a different value on the fundamental constants then of course the laws of physics break down and none of this could exist, but as the constants are a result of the relations of things in our particular configuration - instead of being a cause for the things - whatever the configuration the fundamental constants change along with it.

So to say if e.g. the electroweak force would be different we wouldn't have atoms is also getting it backwards. Having the constant AT ALL - no matter what its value - implies that we have some kinds atoms to be held together by the force, which is what makes up the relationship that manifests as a fundamental constant of nature.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2015
Yep,
Thanks for the link, but I'm not interested in what that guy has to say, I could just go to the phys.org comment section if I wanted to hear that kind of stuff.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2015
Without knowing our base and foundation, everything we see or try to see on top of it is unsure. If the base is different that what we think it is, then the way we think the house is built is not correct.


You are boring again.
my2cts
3 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2015
"So, dark matter is like global warming, is there nothing it cannot do?"

No. Like a pure magic can do everything. The ambitious theory of everything must adopt such flexible magical phenomenas.

Then dark matter is serious competition for your "creator" !
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2015
Dark matter began as a kludge because stars move to fast around their galaxies according to our models of gravity. It remains a kludge.

After all this time, it's embarrassing to keep using a kludge to 'fix' our models.

It is possible we could find out why if we stopped trying to find imaginary matter and spent that time and resources on understanding what is happening.
my2cts
3 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2015
Dark matter began as a kludge because stars move to fast around their galaxies according to our models of gravity. It remains a kludge.
After all this time, it's embarrassing to keep using a kludge to 'fix' our models.
It is possible we could find out why if we stopped trying to find imaginary matter and spent that time and resources on understanding what is happening.

So you are stuck with dark matter like the rest of us.
And your point being ?
dogbert
2 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2015
Point? Simply that we should try to understand what is happening rather than searching for imaginary matter which has always been a kludge.
my2cts
3 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2015
You reject DM without any argumentation and you offer no alternative.
Is that your point?
I'll tell my point. Dark matter is a viable hypothesis.
Enthusiastic Fool
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2015
Point? Simply that we should try to understand what is happening rather than searching for imaginary matter which has always been a kludge.


Here's a point as well. Feynman considered his path integral formalism a kludge for dealing with inconvenient infinities for many years. It wasn't until after his Nobel that he finally accepted that the reality of his highly successful QED.

Quantum Man by Lawrence Krauss is a great bio of his professional life for Feynman fans.

Today's "kludge" may be vindicated by greater understanding tomorrow; only time will tell.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2015
Point? Simply that we should try to understand what is happening rather than searching for imaginary matter which has always been a kludge.
@dogbert
it's not a kludge, it is a placeholder name for what we've observed...

consider this:
in the past, how was wind speed measured before the Anemometer? it was inferred by watching the effects wind had upon the environment (it couldn't be directly measured or seen)

this is what is happening with DM... we observe effects and inferred the results (much like seeking out a planet by watching a star)

then we formulated a hypothesis... we are now testing it
as Enthusiastic notes
Today's "kludge" may be vindicated by greater understanding tomorrow; only time will tell
well said EF
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2015
my2cts,
You reject DM without any argumentation and you offer no alternative.


What argument do you want? Dark matter is simply imaginary. None of it has ever been detected though the hypothesis of dark matter is over 80 years old. I don't have to offer arguments that dark matter is not real any more than I need to offer arguments that fairies and ogres are not real.
Anyone who wants to claim that fairies are real needs to support that argument with evidence of fairies. In the same manner, anyone who wants to claim that imaginary matter is real needs to find some.

I'll tell my point. Dark matter is a viable hypothesis.


Why is is viable? We have not found any in over 80 years of searching. We don't find any in high energy collisions and it is not a part of our standard model.

you offer no alternative.


I did offer an alternative. We should stop chasing after imaginary matter and try to discover why our observations do not match our models.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2015
it's not a kludge, it is a placeholder name for what we've observed


The problem DM Enthusiasts have is discerning why Zwickey proposed envelopes of DM around Spiral Galaxies in the first place & did not apply the same dynamics of rotation to Elliptical Galaxies which make up 2/3 of the mass of the Universe.

The rotation rates of the radial arms of typical Spirals is about 100-300 km/s, speeds considered inconsistent with the dynamics of Newtonian gravity. By contrast, the speeds of outer orbital stars in Ellipticals is about 2 km/s, an orbital rate consistent with Newtonian gravity dynamics.

Therefore, knowing 2/3 of the mass of the Universe is found in Ellipticals not requiring an envelope of gravitational matter to keep to keep them from self destructing, how does the math work contending that 80% of the universe is "missing" when almost 70% of the universe has no use for this cosmic fairy dust?

I get it, we need to have "faith" the ideologues know best.
yep
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2015
Yep,
Thanks for the link, but I'm not interested in what that guy has to say, I could just go to the phys.org comment section if I wanted to hear that kind of stuff.

You asked a question so I gave you a link to a person that researched that very question, just because you may not like the facts he presents does not change them. This is a perfect example of why faith and egos need to step aside because consensus science based on a popularity contests is pseudoscience.
my2cts
3 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2015
my2cts,
You reject DM without any argumentation and you offer no alternative.


What argument do you want?

A counter argument. You have none, the theory is viable.
Dark matter is simply imaginary. ...

Or DM is "simply" hard to find. You don't know.
I'll tell my point. Dark matter is a viable hypothesis.


Why is is viable?

Because there is no valid counter argument.
you offer no alternative.

I did offer an alternative.

To "stop" is not an alternative. The alternative has to be a direction of scientific research.
viko_mx
2.1 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2015
""I did offer an alternative. We should stop chasing after imaginary matter and try to discover why our observations do not match our models.""

The theories of GR and Big Bang are sacred cows for the theoreticians of biological evolution. They will try to udjust the reality to these theories. The revision of these theories is taboo.
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2015
it's not a kludge, it is a placeholder name for what we've observed


DM Enthusiasts

Meaning those who agree that it is a viable idea.
Zwickey

Zwicky.

The rotation rates of the radial arms of typical Spirals is about 100-300 km/s, speeds considered inconsistent with the dynamics of Newtonian gravity. By contrast, the speeds of outer orbital stars in Ellipticals is about 2 km/s, an orbital rate consistent with Newtonian gravity dynamics.

True.
how does the math work contending that 80% of the universe is "missing"

So you admit that dark matter can explain spiral galaxy rotation.
Note that you should also take galaxy clusters into consideration.
cosmic fairy dust?

Then why do you keep claiming it does not exist?
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2015
""I did offer an alternative. We should stop chasing after imaginary matter and try to discover why our observations do not match our models.""

The theories of GR and Big Bang are sacred cows for the theoreticians of biological evolution. They will try to udjust the reality to these theories. The revision of these theories is taboo.

DM is totally unrelated to the GRT and to the big bang.
Substantiated revision of theory is highly appreciated.
Religion, however, is taboo.
So wrap up your "lake of fire", your "creator" and your holy Matrix and get lost.
jsdarkdestruction
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2015
The theories of GR and Big Bang are sacred cows for the theoreticians of biological evolution. They will try to udjust the reality to these theories. The revision of these theories is taboo.

The big bang theory has underwent numerous revisions and both are being studied and tested looking for the next big revision still. So your argument is hogwash.

dogbert
2 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2015
my2cts,
Religion, however, is taboo.
So wrap up your "lake of fire", your "creator" and your holy Matrix and get lost.


Why does your argument have to devolve to religion? This is a science site and this article is not about religion. But go ahead and keep your imaginary matter.

In the end, your imaginary matter does not matter.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2015
Dogbert viko himself is the one always bringing up divine matrixs and "the creator" and massive evolutionist conspiracy theories .
my2cts
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2015
my2cts,
Religion, however, is taboo.
So wrap up your "lake of fire", your "creator" and your holy Matrix and get lost.


Why does your argument have to devolve to religion? This is a science site and this article is not about religion. But go ahead and keep your imaginary matter.

In the end, your imaginary matter does not matter.

Dogbert, viko is a religious fundamentalist, hadn't you noticed. Think before you interfere.
Also, think before you criticise DM. You have no case against it. Your personal whims are not interesting until you have.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2015
You reject DM without any argumentation and you offer no alternative
Here's the "alternative":

Knowing 2/3 of the mass of the Universe is found in Ellipticals not requiring an envelope of gravitational matter to keep to keep them from self destructing, how does the math work contending that 80% of the universe is "missing" when almost 70% of the universe has no use for this cosmic fairy dust?

DM Enthusiasts will never accept an "alternative" because they've invested so much of their "faith" in the mindset of the narrative that it has become their biggest stumbling block.

Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2015

The rotation rates of the radial arms of typical Spirals is about 100-300 km/s, speeds considered inconsistent with the dynamics of Newtonian gravity. By contrast, the speeds of outer orbital stars in Ellipticals is about 2 km/s, an orbital rate consistent with Newtonian gravity dynamics.

True.


how does the math work contending that 80% of the universe is "missing"


So you admit that dark matter can explain spiral galaxy rotation


Nope, that is simply your twisted spin to imply I said something I never stated. Because 70% of the mass of the universe is found in Elliptical Galaxies & does not require DM to prevent them from self destructing, by what manner of mathematical logic can it be imputed that 80% of the mass of the universe is composed of a material that can only be found in the remaining 30% of the universe?

Note that you should also take galaxy clusters into consideration
Where would you like to start?
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2015
Benni,

A large problem with dark matter, other than the fact that it was simply made up, is that there is always just enough of it in just the right places to account for whatever gravitational anomaly we perceive.

Stars in spiral galaxies move very fast, so we must imagine a lot of dark matter for spiral galaxies. Elliptical galaxies' stars move at a slower pace, so we don't have to imagine dark matter for them.

Dark matter appears in just the right amounts wherever it is needed to correct our models of gravity. This is not how science should work, but it is the mode that scientists force it into today.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2015
Benni,.

Dark matter appears in just the right amounts wherever it is needed to correct our models of gravity. This is not how science should work, but it is the mode that scientists force it into today.


Right on the money dogbert, but here's the real kicker to the hypothesis:

In Einstein's thesis of General Relativity in 1916, he calculated the exact angle of bending (gravitational lensing) of starlight as it passes the immediate peripheral disc our Sun, measurements done a few years later proved his calculations were absolutely correct.

In 1916 there was never any discussion of unobserved gravitational forces that Einstein needed to factor into his gravitational lensing calculations as a correction factor to the mass of our Sun for his thesis to be accurate. It was Zwickey who came along 20 years later who came up with his concept of DM envelopes enshrouding Spiral Galaxies, but he was at least smart enough to keep his DM beyond the bounds of the radial arms.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2015
cont'd from previous:

When Zwickey proposed his DM enshrouding Spiral Galaxies, he by that time realized DM could not exist within the radial arms of Spiral Galaxies, because he realized Einstein's calculations for the mass of the Sun would have thrown off calculations for gravitational lensing. So what Zwickey did was to be clever enough to place DM in a position outside Spiral radial arms so that he would not run into conflict with Einstein's already observed proofs for his calculations of gravitational lensing.

Nowadays however, what do we find? DM is everywhere, so much so that it has evolved into such a convoluted thesis that it is far beyond anything Zwickey proposed. Zwickey today would not even recognize his own hypothesis as it is explained by this generation's DM Enthusiasts.

Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2015
You asked a question so I gave you a link
@yep
that was to a youtube video: not research papers
just because you may not like the facts he presents does not change them
1- it's a video, not facts

2- there are NO links in the description to validate the claims

3- even TED deleted this because it failed to meet criteria- and considering the more outlandish sounding claims i've heard on TED, that means the talk was proven absolutely false with evidence

4- http://www.scient...sonance/

5- facts are things that can be validated- what you linked was a series of claims that are not validated and are (in my link above) refuted by the evidence

6- this is called confirmation bias: you accept a known pseudoscience, therefore anyone who challenges the status-quo must be correct in doing so, therefore his work must also be correct
(even though the evidence says otherwise)

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2015
When Zwickey proposed his DM
of course benni-the-TROLL will downrate anything that argues against his delusional beliefs

this wouldn't be so sad except that he truly believes in his "superior" intellect (and in his delusion) to the exclusion of factual evidence... you may call us names, benji, but at least we can take the 3 seconds to spell Fritz Zwicky's name correctly (and considering that my2cts already corrected you above, 7 hours ago, this is even more telling as to your confirmation bias as well as delusional beliefs)

https://en.wikipe...z_Zwicky

at least there are some who can produce facts here
http://www.auburn...ion.html
my2cts
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2015
You reject DM without any argumentation and you offer no alternative
Here's the "alternative":

Knowing 2/3 of the mass of the Universe is found in Ellipticals ....

DM Enthusiasts will never accept an "alternative" because they've invested so much of their "faith" in the mindset of the narrative that it has become their biggest stumbling block.


I will reiterate.
1) you should take into account galaxy cluster dynamics and gravitational lensing.
2) You are not explicitly denying that DM exists, only that the bookkeeping is wrong.
3) Your idee fixe of "DM enthusiasts" is really becoming annoying. You mean people who do not discard DM out of hand. That is other more sensible people, since DM is a viable theory.
4) which "alternative". You nor anyone else, crank or sensible, has one unless it were MOND, which has its difficulties. However you never brought it up.
Read this a few times, so I do not have to repeat.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2015
When Zwickey proposed his DM
of course benni-the-TROLL will downrate anything that argues against his delusional beliefs

.....and the best rebuttal you can post is a carrying on about a presumed misspelling & more name calling?

Rather than spending so much time searching for presumed misspellings, perhaps you can find an online course in General Relativity & study some of Einstein's Differential Equations & give us periodic updates on your progress.
my2cts
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2015
When Zwickey

No Disneyfication of cosmology please.
It is Mickey Mouse, but Fritz Zwicky.
my2cts
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2015
perhaps you can find an online course in General Relativity & study some of Einstein's Differential Equations & give us periodic updates on your progress.

Of all the clowns here, you are the most pathetic.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2015
4) which "alternative". You nor anyone else, crank or sensible, has one unless it were MOND, which has its difficulties.

That is a decidedly narrow minded viewpoint.

https://medium.co...sex92lhq
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2015
Of all the clowns here, you are the most pathetic.


......did you find this rebuttal somewhere in Einstein's GR?
my2cts
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2015
I rest my case.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2015
Oh, and the dark matter has already been found in the lab. Electrodynamic magnetized nanodust created in plasma processes displays a skeletal effect on the matter.
http://uni-skelet...main.htm
This effect suggest the galaxy as a solid disk such as in a Faraday motor; https://www.youtu...TyRBfeF4
As the Sun oscillates on this galactic disk it regulates the solar cycle and also explains the polarity change of the Sun due to Lenz Law, explained at about the 10 minute point in the following video.
https://www.youtu...bA2jwkWI

All this supports the galactic electric field as well.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2015
One of the criticisms of EU is this claim of "where's the battery?" The video explains how these circuits are created only by moving magnetic fields.
https://www.youtu...bA2jwkWI

We know plasma flowing across magnetic fields creates EMF, it's all the battery that is needed. Electric fields completely eradicate the need to invent magical fairy dust.
SuperThunder
3 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2015
Until there is a measured difference in the Stupidity Constant, I will remain skeptical. I'm siding with Einstein on this one.

"The fundamental constants are 'fine-tuned' to be consistent with the existence of life in the Universe,"

"Consistent with the existence of life."
"Consistent."
I don't get how that word works in this sentence.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2015
presumed misspelling
@benjiTROLL
so you spelled it wrong in purpose?
perhaps you can find an online course ... study blah blah benni's full of sh*t
Ok, mr i-say-i-can-do-ODE's-except-i-can't-prove-it... lets get down to facts

1- my argument was VERY specific WRT yep insisting that a youtube video is somehow equivalent to evidence found in studies

Where am i wrong in said argument?

2- i proved with a news article that also refers to the 2000 J. Colwell experiment that refuted Sheldrake that yep is pasting a blatantly false claim (it is a false claim when the Statement about the real world is refuted by the evidence)

can you prove Sheldrake (or yep) correct?

3- you misspelled (even after correction) Zwicky's name, even though you posted partial Zwicky arguments

why can't you do a 3 second search for spelling even after correction?

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2015
@banjiTROLL cont'd
Rather than spending so much time searching for presumed misspellings
if you had even a modicum of education, you would know that the foundation of a decent argument is the ability to validate a claim

if you can't even take the few seconds to check a spelling of a name that you are referencing even after correction, how can we assume that your arguments are valid?
Especially considering your historical failures (in math), like here: http://phys.org/n...ood.html

&
http://phys.org/n...als.html

your trend: grand statements but no validation (not even in your chosen "math" subjects - much like all the other pseudoscience trolling posters here)

the BEST rebuttal would be to point out the inconsistencies, except that it is already being done by everyone else (except you can't comprehend the points being made)

epic Alzheimer's, beni
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2015
The video explains how
@cd
right... the video
when "this peer reviewed journal study" can't be used, you think it is appropriate to link Youtube as an original source?
and you really don't understand why this attitude is inconsistent with the scientific method?

none of your other links are to peer reviewed journals either... youtube and narod.ru
why is that?

and why would anyone take a chance opening a link that is unknown...
to a site that is supported by a known pseudoscience crackpot...
who has posted links to phishing sites and malicious software in the past...
and who hates anyone who supports validated information?

link the specific references and journal studies and then we'll talk about your other BS
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2015
why can't you do a 3 second search for spelling even after correction?
......only because it is so entertaining watching you & your neophyte compadres become so apoplectic over of all things, a (presumed) misspelling, you guys are a hoot a post. I won't even grade you a 1 Star, because I want your response ratings to be so high on the filter, without dilution, so as to reach the maximum number of readers possible as to what petty neophytes the Stumpo crowd is on this site.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2015
only because it is so entertaining watching you & your neophyte compadres become so apoplectic over of all things, a (presumed) misspelling
@beniTROLL
so, you are admitting to TROLLING??
thanks for finally admitting it!
admitting you have a problem is the first step
I won't even grade you a 1 Star
that's a shame, because that is how i know when i am doing it right... when the trolls downrate me

so.. bunjiTROLL...
you said earlier
and the best rebuttal you can post is a carrying on about a presumed misspelling & more name calling?
yet when i give factual validated rebuttal, you choose to instead use ad hominem (name calling), red herring, OT rant and trolling?

so..."did you find this rebuttal somewhere in Einstein's GR?"

or was it cleverly disguised in your ODE texts?

is that your rebuttal to my post, or can i expect something more factual or scientific next?

Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2015
......awwww Stumpo, so the apoplexy continues. Do you really plan to spend your remaining retirement life in this state? As a suggestion, enroll in an online course for General or Special Relativity & actually learn something about science & don't allow those pesky Differential Equations be an impediment to your learning process.
SuperThunder
4 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2015
Do you know what amazes me most (and is a telling sign of moonhowlertosis for all you young budding rationalists out there) about pseudoscience? It's delightful rhetorical symmetry. I call these kinds of arguments Biblical Cherries. F'r'instance :

In 1916 there was never any discussion of unobserved gravitational forces that Einstein needed to factor into his gravitational lensing calculations as a correction factor to the mass of our Sun for his thesis to be accurate.

This is presented as an argument as to why dark matter cannot exist, but is it? Let's pretend up a parallel universe where the roles are reversed : (CONT)
SuperThunder
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2015
(CONT)
Imagine a place where science insists dark matter doesn't exist, and the moon howlers insist it does. CaptainStumpy says there is only so much observable matter, and that gravity must be caused by pheremones or electricity, and that's why you can't see it. Benni then responds with:
In 1916 there was never any discussion of unobserved gravitational forces that Einstein needed to factor into his gravitational lensing calculations as a correction factor to the mass of our Sun for his thesis to be accurate.

ParallelBenni can use the same quote to argue for the existence of dark matter, since it has to be matter for the equation to work. There is no flirting in Einstein's equations, therefore, ParallelStumpy is wrong.

The point is, if you can use an argument, without changing a word, to argue for its opposite by dressing the context differently, it's hogwash and is ignoring the important details.
Reg Mundy
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2015
You reject DM without any argumentation etc.

I will reiterate.
1) you should take into account galaxy cluster dynamics and gravitational lensing.
2) You are not explicitly denying that DM exists, only that the bookkeeping is wrong.
3) Your idee fixe of "DM enthusiasts" is really becoming annoying. You mean people who do not discard DM out of hand. That is other more sensible people, since DM is a viable theory.
4) which "alternative". You nor anyone else, crank or sensible, has one unless it were MOND, which has its difficulties. However you never brought it up.
Read this a few times, so I do not have to repeat.

4) Which alternative? There are many, including Expansion Theory, which is explained with irrefutable logic in "The Situation of Gravity".
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2015
@ST, I like those last two posts of yours. But there's just one problem with them that fail me: Why didn't you include some Differential Equations?
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2015
@CS
I conclude that Benni is a psychopath.
plasmasrevenge
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2015
There are forces which only act locally -- such as the Van der Waals force. Gravity will likely turn out to be much the same. We can have a situation where gravity dominates at the small scale, but not at the large. This sort of stuff is actually quite common in nature (like with a glass of water), so it is perplexing why astrophysicists and cosmologists seem to ignore the possibility.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2015
@CS
I conclude that Benni is a psychopath.


.....is this a quote from Einstein's GR?
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2015
Benni,
Elliptical galaxies do have dark matter though.
Dark matter isn't just about explaining galaxy shapes, it is also needed for galaxies interacting with another galaxy.
Galaxies orbit eachother, for specific orbits to exist, they need specific masses.

Elliptical galaxies are formed from spiral galaxies colliding, in that process some dark gets thrown out into space because of its weak interaction, but they still contain dark matter even if it's more of a few blobs in the general vicinity of the galaxies
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2015
including Expansion Theory
@reg
FALSE CLAIM - it's not a theory... it's not even a hypothesis, for several reasons:
1- no math, no evidence & no predictability
2- already falsified (see link in #3)
3- your epic failure here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

which is explained with irrefutable logic
if this were true, you would have a Nobel and be able to link those graphs here as evidence
but as we can see, this is just another FALSE CLAIM
http://www.auburn...ion.html

.

......aww
@bunjiTROLL
i stopped there because you didn't have any differential equations in your argument.
and no Einstein quotes
the rest: TL;DR
OT
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2015
Benni,
Elliptical galaxies do have dark matter though
Are you saying somebody has actually isolated some DM? I didn't know that, when did this happen?

Dark matter isn't just about explaining galaxy shapes, it is also needed for galaxies interacting with another galaxy
So when was DM isolated whereby proving its' existence?

Galaxies orbit eachother, for specific orbits to exist, they need specific masses


3rd law of harmonics: The square of a star or planet's orbital period is proportional to its mean distance from the center of mass cubed, it is this law that permits determining the mass of binary star & galactic star systems.

Steve, you need to get updated on the status of your talking points. You talk about DM as if it is no longer a hypothesis, ALL credible scientists only discuss its existence as HYPOTHETICAL. You need to do some serious studies into what I wrote in the previous paragraph before taking full faith leaps into the unknown.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2015
So far, Ira by his 1 Star vote, thinks DM has been isolated. We're simply waiting on the remainder of those voting compadres who show so much willingness to believe every mindless bit of tripe that's bandied about in the fictional world of pop-sci. Stumpo, don't leave Ira hanging in there all by his lonesome, VV, you too need to get aboard here. Maybe Stevo as well?
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2015
So far, Ira by his 1 Star vote, thinks,,,,,,,


,,,,,,,, Bennie-Skippy is the moron.
gculpex
3 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2015
And so with Dark matter aether is reborn again....
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2015
@ST, I like those last two posts of yours. But there's just one problem with them that fail me: Why didn't you include some Differential Equations?


DE's are Benni's version "dark matter". He knows they are out there (somewhere) - he just doesn't really know what they are...
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2015
Benni
http://steve.cool...on-2011/]http://steve.cool...on-2011/[/url]

Here is a picture from the article of dark matter being detected through gravitational microlensing after the collision:
http://steve.cool...on-2011/]http://steve.cool...on-2011/[/url]
The blue is measured dark matter, the pink is regular old matter
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2015
@ST, I like those last two posts of yours. But there's just one problem with them that fail me: Why didn't you include some Differential Equations?


DE's are Benni's version "dark matter". He knows they are out there (somewhere) - he just doesn't really know what they are...
......Methinks you're hiding all the proofs in one of your desk drawers, just being too selfish for sharing it with the rest of the world.....now it's time to spend the rest of the day enjoying the new snowfall with the kids out on the back trails.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2015
Sorry about the links
steve.cooleysekula.net/goingupalleys/2011/09/05/physics-in-collision-2011/

steve.cooleysekula.net/goingupalleys/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Astrophysics-DarkMatter.jpg

You can find other similar renditions on Google showing what I explained to you
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2015
Sorry about the links
steve.cooleysekula.net/goingupalleys/2011/09/05/physics-in-collision-2011/

steve.cooleysekula.net/goingupalleys/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Astrophysics-DarkMatter.jpg

You can find other similar renditions on Google showing what I explained to you

.....and you need to study Kepler's dissertations on the laws of orbital patterns & dynamics & remove your faith from the quagmire of all this Cosmic Fairy Dust no one can isolate. That's absolutely it, time to head out with the kids & enjoy some cross country stuff in the new snowfall, you science neophytes are on your own.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2015
I just showed you a picture of it being isolated man.
Have a nice day, stay warm
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2015
I just showed you a picture of it being isolated man.
Have a nice day, stay warm

You just showed a picture of inferred DM based upon fanciful imaginings.
my2cts
4 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2015
Definitely a psycho.
my2cts
4 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2015
@cd
One of your more retarded reactions.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2015
Hi Steve, Benni. :)

Except for few stars orbiting near Milky Way Dark Star central feature, NO really representative SIGNIFICANT/COMPLETE orbits for stars/galaxies have been 'observed' in reality, only EXTRAPOLATIONS of from SMALL 'paths' motion fractions in galaxies/clusters contexts;

Ie, wherever star orbits HAVE been observed long enough to determine 'closed/predictable' ACTUAL orbital behavior, it's been in contexts involving NO appreciable (hypothesized) DM (eg, around our galaxy centre's dark star). All other cases, around a galaxy as a whole or around clusters of galaxies etc, extrapolations NOT RELIABLE because we have no way of knowing FULL speed/orbital profiles involved (ie, could vary, be perturbed/turbulent etc).

So any such limited galaxies/clusters orbital/radiative datasets to date CANNOT be touted as 'valid observational support' for making any DM claims, since any dependent extrapolations/inferences for masses/gravities/orbits is likely GIGO.

Cheers. :)
my2cts
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2015
@ RC Be careful, astrophysicists are smart. They observe that the velocity along the line of sight behaves exactly as expected for rotation and they observed more stars and galaxies than you can imagine.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2015
@ RC Be careful, astrophysicists are smart.


And some of the peoples here really are physicists in real life like the 200mph-Skippy is. Bennie-Skippy and Really-Skippy is not, they just come here to play Scientist. Maybe Bennie-Skippy should try some of that Differential Equations stuffs on 200mph-Skippy. Choot, I think Bennie-Skippy should get Really-Skippy to help with that, hooyeei, that would be big fun.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2015
Hi my2cts. :)
Be careful, astrophysicists are smart. They observe that the velocity along the line of sight behaves exactly as expected for rotation and they observed more stars and galaxies than you can imagine.
Are these the astrophysicists who tried to perpetrate that 'publish or perish' fraudulent BICEP2 'exercise' in analysis/treatment/extrapolation etc of 'iffy' datasets?

Please understand once for all, mate: my comments/observations are made advisedly, based on cross-disciplinary/independent approach to actual data/observations/possibilities in real physical contexts; not in 'specialized/invested' assumptive/limited context/construct/exercise like in BICEP2, some recent 'astrophysicist offerings'.

Mainstream observations still too limited in temporal/spatial orbital/radiative info/paths when it comes to WHOLE galaxies/clusters (hypothesized DM context).

While observations for stars near our MW's central dark star are in Non-DM context.

See the GIGO risk? :)
my2cts
4 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2015
Allow me to skip over your diversions, "only EXTRAPOLATIONS of from SMALL 'paths' motion fractions in galaxies/clusters contexts;"
You are saying that astrophysicists have no way of knowing intra- and intergalactic dynamics, but that is a false claim.
Why do you make such false claims ? To entertain narcissistic phantasies about everybody being wrong except you. And psycho benni. Snap out of it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2015
Hi my2cts. :)

No. I only point out the 'construct' for analysis/extrapolation of what they CAN see is rooted in 'exercises' which, as it were, "want it both ways".

Consider:

They 'see' (over a few days/months/years/decades) galactic/cluster motions which may take MILLIONS/BILLIONS of years to 'complete' one circuit. They 'see' some extrapolated motions/speed profiles which do NOT accord with standard gravitational explanations. They must assume DM etc hypothesis to CREATE a whole new 'analytical construct' wherein the 'seen' parts of the motions CAN be extrapolated anew, and declared 'ok' and 'valid'.

It's BICEP2 'exercise' type of circuitous self-selecting assumptive/extrapolatory/treatment/modification etc SYNDROME all over again.

GIGO danger arises here too; because they used standard model gravity to assume what 'should have been observed'; then had to assume DM to 'make it right'; then used THAT 'modified to fit DM' to 'confirm/extrapolate' for DM.

See? :)
NoStrings
3 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2015
"This idea requires that the weakly interacting dark matter particles"?? This idea also requires that there are dark matter particles. No one experimentally detected them with at least a dozen labs trying it continuously and simultaneously over the last 2 decades. Now at least for WIMPS - super symmetric particles, the chances of discovery are virtually 0.

Or, as hermite stated correctly in the first comment, all this idea requires is the existence of grant money to burn.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2015
I just showed you a picture of it being isolated man.
Have a nice day, stay warm


Interesting Stevo, the illusions you DM Enthusiasts create & try to pass off as "science", "the scientific method", & some of those other catch phrases you like to adorn yourselves with that have nothing to do with objectivity for the perpetuation of science......... airbrushing a picture to create an illusion.

And I thought among the Stumpo crowd here, that at least you might be one with some modicum of objectivity because you have never carried on with the name calling & foul mouthed vulgarities of the 2cts, VV, Iras, etc. I guess they have illusions this is what is found in Einstein's GR which is why they write like they do. Until they, like you, spend some time actually studying the methodology of the dialogue of science, the whole bunch of you will remain forever lost in your airbrushed illusions.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2015
airbrushing a picture
@benni
ah... you don't like the evidence so your reply is to simply call it airbrushed without evidence (false claim- AKA- lie)
the Stumpo crowd...you might be... objectivity
there is no "stumpo" crowd
there are those who follow the evidence and science
and there are those who lie and delude themselves (you're in this group)

and those who follow the evidence (science) tend to argue a point with evidence
those people are typically uprated because their arguments are supported and therefore it can be validated

your arguments to date are thus:
-study Einsteins GR/SR like i did
-i can do math, you can't
-you have a potty mouth, and i dont (despite the evidence to the contrary- it's ok if i do it because i'm old and [insert claim here] )
-i'm right because i'm an engineer (but i can't prove it with a PE, evidence, or even by demonstrating knowledge)
-you're stupid; i'm smart
-i'm perfect, despite my failures/flaws
my2cts
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2015
So, a psycho. Let it be. Ignore.
yep
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2015
[1- it's a video, not facts
3- even TED deleted
4- http://www.scientificamerican
5- facts are
6- this is called confirmation bias

Capitain, Steve's comment was on constants 1,2,5,6 had you taken a few minutes to watch the video you would have heard him cite the reasearch material as physics handbooks from 1928 onward. Facts are the speed of light dropped 20km per second from 1928-1945 then went back up until the speed of light was "fixed" in 1972 by having defined the meter by the speed of light so the units change with it. Gravitation varies widely so they average it out every ten years.
It is slightly humorous that this science article is based on something Rupert proposed in his talk but your dogmatic bias has blinded you to everything except what you believe, which brings us to 3,4. Zealots like you deciding what are acceptable facts for everyone else. No thanks Capitain belive in your dark matter magic and Big Bang miracles with out me. I do not have enough faith!
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2015
had you taken a few minutes to watch the video...
@yep
why on earth would i watch a video that even TED thought was crap enough to delete? i don't even watch video's that my grandkids post, and you want me to watch BS?
really?
you would have heard him cite the reasearch material as physics handbooks from 1928 onward
ok, this is a serious problem with you cult members and your conspiracist ideation
really, it is
... i can also produce proof that Galileo was persecuted by the church, does that mean i can justify bombing the Vatican?

i don't need a history lesson- it ISN'T relevant to the topic
physics is, and the eu doesn't do real physics any more than Mickey Mouse does real life
by having defined the meter by the speed of light so the units change with it
WTF??
this is like saying that your walking speed multiplies by 100 if you use centimeters over meters

this is the reason you eu fanatics are considered crackpots, you know
slash
1 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2015
For now, nobody knows what DM is. It is only a label put to whatever causes the gravitational lensing effect to exceed the GR-based predictions.

IMHO. that is a very similar situation as the perhelion shift of mercury's orbit that couldn't be explained by newton mechanics, but fitted very well with Einsteins relativity. I wonder, if Einstein hadn't explained away the issue, would at some point someone have invented a Dark Matter theory to explain that shift with a hidden gravitational effect?

Therefore I consider it a very real possibility that relativity isn't the end of it, that we may need an even more precise theory that can explain the unexpectedly strong lensing effects.

Maybe that theory doesn't exist, maybe it's really some form of matter that we just can't manage to detect directly. But as long as the only thing we see is an unexpected effect, we should consider the possibility that the theory predicting the effect is incomplete.
yep
1 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2015
this is the reason you eu fanatics are considered crackpots, you know

And your inability to comprehend the topic is stupefying. If you were less caught up in what you know you might learn something.

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.