Dark matter half what we thought, say scientists

October 9, 2014, International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research
Artist’s impression of the Milky Way and its dark matter halo (shown in blue, but in reality invisible). Credit: ESO/L. Calçada

A new measurement of dark matter in the Milky Way has revealed there is half as much of the mysterious substance as previously thought.

Australian astronomers used a method developed almost 100 years ago to discover that the weight of in our own galaxy is 800 000 000 000 (or 8 x 1011) times the mass of the Sun.

They probed the edge of the Milky Way, looking closely, for the first time, at the fringes of the galaxy about 5 million billion kilometres from Earth.

Astrophysicist Dr Prajwal Kafle, from The University of Western Australia node of the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research, said we have known for a while that most of the Universe is hidden.

"Stars, dust, you and me, all the things that we see, only make up about 4 per cent of the entire Universe," he said.

"About 25 per cent is dark matter and the rest is dark energy."

Dr Kafle, who is originally from Nepal, was able to measure the mass of the dark matter in the Milky Way by studying the speed of stars throughout the galaxy, including the edges, which had never been studied to this detail before.

He used a robust technique developed by British astronomer James Jeans in 1915—decades before the discovery of dark matter.

Dr Kafle's measurement helps to solve a mystery that has been haunting theorists for almost two decades.

"The current idea of and evolution, called the Lambda Cold Dark Matter theory, predicts that there should be a handful of big satellite around the Milky Way that are visible with the naked eye, but we don't see that," Dr Kafle said.

This animation shows a supercomputer simulation of a galaxy like the Milky Way and its invisible dark matter halo. We zoom in to the galaxy and can see knots of dark matter where we would expect to see many satellite galaxies, but they don’t exist in the real Universe. That’s the missing satellite problem. Credit: Prof Chris Power and Dr Rick Newton, ICRAR. Music by Reuben Christman

"When you use our measurement of the mass of the dark matter the theory predicts that there should only be three satellite galaxies out there, which is exactly what we see; the Large Magellanic Cloud, the Small Magellanic Cloud and the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy."

University of Sydney astrophysicist Professor Geraint Lewis, who was also involved in the research, said the missing satellite problem had been "a thorn in the cosmological side for almost 15 years."

"Dr Kafle's work has shown that it might not be as bad as everyone thought, although there are still problems to overcome," he said.

The study also presented a holistic model of the Milky Way, which allowed the scientists to measure several interesting things such as the speed required to leave the galaxy.

"Be prepared to hit 550 kilometres per second if you want to escape the gravitational clutches of our galaxy," Dr Kafle said.

"A rocket launched from Earth needs just 11 kilometres per second to leave its surface, which is already about 300 times faster than the maximum Australian speed limit in a car!"

Explore further: Interactive dark matter could explain Milky Way's missing satellite galaxies

More information: 'On the Shoulders of Giants: Properties of the Stellar Halo and the Milky Way Mass Distribution' P. R. Kafle, S. Sharma, G. F. Lewis, and J. Bland-Hawthorn. Published in the Astrophysical Journal October 10th, 2014. Available at: iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/794/1/59/ . arxiv.org/abs/1408.1787

Related Stories

Astronomers measure weight of galaxies, expansion of universe

July 30, 2014

Astronomers at the University of British Columbia have collaborated with international researchers to calculate the precise mass of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies, dispelling the notion that the two galaxies have similar ...

Image: Hubble sees spiral in Serpens

September 8, 2014

(Phys.org) —This new NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows a beautiful spiral galaxy known as PGC 54493, located in the constellation of Serpens (The Serpent). This galaxy is part of a galaxy cluster that has been ...

Recommended for you

Brown dwarf detected in the CoRoT-20 system

July 16, 2018

An international group of astronomers has discovered a new substellar object in the planetary system CoRoT-20. The newly identified object was classified as a brown dwarf due to its mass, which is greater than that of the ...

'X'-ploring the Eagle Nebula and 'Pillars of Creation'

July 13, 2018

The Eagle Nebula, also known as Messier 16, contains the young star cluster NGC 6611. It also the site of the spectacular star-forming region known as the Pillars of Creation, which is located in the southern portion of the ...

Observatories team up to reveal rare double asteroid

July 13, 2018

New observations by three of the world's largest radio telescopes have revealed that an asteroid discovered last year is actually two objects, each about 3,000 feet (900 meters) in size, orbiting each other.

151 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (29) Oct 09, 2014
That was a nice resolution of large remaining stresses between different observations. What DM density appends to teh Milky Way appends to other galaxies too. And having more of the 25 % DM in the voids outside the mass concentrations should help keep the number of satellites down too, at a guess.

@mahi: You don't make sense. This increase the trust in the 25 % DM that is seen in the CMB, since it diminish LCDM stresses between it and other observations. Note that the lead researcher keep to the LCDM number, meaning it is closer to 100 % certain than before his group made this research.

And please don't link to personal or fringe nonsense ideas in a discussion of the current science. It is useless, except for making you out to be a fool.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (28) Oct 09, 2014
..........uh, oh.......the DM buffs living on this site won't like this report. The quantity of Observable Matter just quadrupled because DM has been cut by 50%.
Tec12
1.8 / 5 (23) Oct 09, 2014
It seems, when no DM particles will be found after twenty years of extensive (and expensive) search, then the DM will be claimed as non-existing and the problem will be solved...

Do you think such a scenario is impossible? Never say never... The black holes were already doubted and the gravitational waves are underway... These ideas already made enough of money to their proponents, so they can be replaced with no mercy.
tadchem
1.8 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2014
DM within the galaxy is one thing, extragalactic DM is another. DM cannot be directly observed, only inferred by its gravity.
Newton's Shell Theorem tells us that extragalactic DM should be largely without net gravitational effect.
Tec12
1.9 / 5 (23) Oct 09, 2014
don't link to personal or fringe nonsense ideas in a discussion of the current science
His ideas aren't personal, fringe the less. It's actually part of current science. Your comment is offtopic & personal instead and mentoring the other posters here even violates the forum rules.
Shootist
1.5 / 5 (17) Oct 09, 2014
so many nails, so little time.
greg1357
1.7 / 5 (18) Oct 09, 2014
The concepts of dark matter and dark energy seem fishy at best. Basically we have a nice observable universe and the laws of physics as we understand them. Since our observable universe seems to be doing things that it shouldn't based on how we understand the laws of physics scientists claim there area things that can't be observed which account for the discrepancies. These things can only be observed in the sense that they cause the discrepancies (for example, not enough mass to account for various things going on, so dark matter is there and "observe" its gravity). While its certainly logical to think there are some things in the universe that our technology cannot yet allow us to "see", that some things don't fit into our natural perception based on light/sound/mass, it seems just as likely that it is not that we can't observe things (dark matter, dark energy) but that our understanding of the laws of physics are off. Newtonian physics was once immutable until the day it wasn't.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (29) Oct 09, 2014
His ideas aren't personal, fringe the less
@Zephir
anti-relativity not fringe? aw/daw not personal or fringe? they are both pseudoscience and therefore a religious philosophy moreso than any science anything
It's actually part of current science. Your comment is offtopic & personal instead and mentoring the other posters here even violates the forum rules.
no, it is NOT science, and no, it is NOT off topic. the poster thought to bring pseudoscience into a science thread. saying it is pseudoscience is NOT OT as proven here with your arguments FOR aw/daw: http://phys.org/n...ght.html

and more to the point: this link PROVES that your aw/daw is a faulty logic premiss faith to which any ether wind/drag link can be considered aw/daw pseudoscience

http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

so that makes YOUR comment personal, off topic and supporting pseudoscience all in one whack!
and that is why you were deleted from the other thread too
Andrew Palfreyman
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
That's Sir James Jeans to you, mate.
IMP-9
4.6 / 5 (27) Oct 09, 2014
The quantity of Observable Matter just quadrupled because DM has been cut by 50%.


This is one galaxy. The density of dark matter in the universe is not determined like this which mostly comes from clustering and BAO. This is about the uncertainty of the mass of the galaxy, not the matter density of the universe.
dumpsta101
1.5 / 5 (12) Oct 09, 2014
ok so i'm not 100 percent sold on this dark matter work. id love for somebody to sell it to me though, perhaps you could change my mind. my problem is that if it is only gravity that propagates through these extra dimensions and onto our 4 dimensional "membrane" and not any other field. (including light) energy is equal to mass x the speed of light squared. this equivalence being the basis of determining how much dark matter and energy are effecting our membrane.(also being based on observable gravitational effects) if that's the case and light doesn't seem to be allowed to propagate through or even exist in the same "realm" of dark matter then how can we be sure that E=mc2 is even the right equation to use when it comes to figuring out how much dark matter and energy is effecting our 4 dimensional membrane.? does dark energy=dark mass times the speed of light squared?
Benni
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 09, 2014
The quantity of Observable Matter just quadrupled because DM has been cut by 50%.


This is one galaxy. The density of dark matter in the universe is not determined like this which mostly comes from clustering and BAO. This is about the uncertainty of the mass of the galaxy, not the matter density of the universe.


OK, you know so much more about the Laws of Gravity & Energy than what Einstein calculated in his General Relativity, then you must have the math to prove there is a 4:1 ratio of discrepancy in Einstein's math? Let's see your counter differential equations proving 75% of what Einstein calculated is factually wrong. Oh, now you want to know where my differential equations are proving Einstein was right? They're all in his GR, you can download it for free on the internet.

Mind you now, your differential equations need to show how differently gravity acts on DM as opposed to the Observable Matter so as to create a 4:1 ratio of segregation of the two.

indio007
2.2 / 5 (20) Oct 09, 2014
Capt. Stumpy declares anti-relativity pseudo science . He must be right because he has declared it.

Fact, General relativity does not match observation. That's why we are talking about invisible matter and invisible energy.

The emperor has no clothes, sorry you can't accept it.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (19) Oct 09, 2014
Capt. Stumpy declares anti-relativity pseudo science . He must be right because he has declared it.

Fact, General relativity does not match observation. That's why we are talking about invisible matter and invisible energy.

The emperor has no clothes, sorry you can't accept it.


El Stumpo is a retired firefighter living in Texas, probably no math beyond high school algebra, but claims to know how to perform "pinging" to hack IP accounts right to anyone's "doorstep". I guess because he thinks he can do that he must be smarter than Einstein who never had access to a computer to derive his field equations for gravity

So I'm just anxiously awaiting Stumpos field equations defining the other 75% of gravity that is different than the 25% that can only act on DM. Possibly IMP9 would be a more than capable assistant with his retirement expertise.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (18) Oct 09, 2014
does dark energy=dark mass times the speed of light squared?
Yes, even if they really existed.

It doesn't matter what prefix "energy" or "mass" is tagged with, the prefixed stuff must all abide by the same laws of gravity & energy or the universe simply comes apart very quickly. Gravity cannot act differently on one kind of mass as opposed to another kind of the same density to segregate & isolate it into distinguishing clumps. To do this would require another kind of gravity which can function in a manner that it interacts only with DM, and then of course the other kind of gravity that can only interact with Observable Matter. Each type of gravity would function in accordance with its own set of GR field equations which would be in opposition to one another.
bluehigh
1.6 / 5 (16) Oct 09, 2014
Gotta love Friday arvo with some spare time. A wise sage known as Vendicar the Amazing, once winked upon me some dark matter. I have it in my backyard somewhere. It's a bit hard to find.

ARTHUR: Please go and tell your master that we have been charged with a sacred quest, and if he will give us food and shelter for this night he can join us in our quest for Dark Matter

MAN: Well, I'll ask him, but I don't think he'll be very keen. He's already got some, you see?

ARTHUR: What?

GALAHAD: He says they've already got some!

They are stunned.

ARTHUR: Are you sure he's got some?

MAN: Oh yes. It's very nice.

dumpsta101
1 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2014
thanks for commenting benni :D you gave me some things to ponder...
Bob Osaka
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
This is a very dramatic announcement, the same week as the ones about Nobel prizewinners. Its essence is: "You all are only half as clever as you think yourselves," or "We are twice as clever as everyone else." Agree to the former, having doubts about the latter.
It should be noted that James Jeans work was incompatible with the standard statistical basis of Max Planck's. Applying the equipartition theorem and Brownian motions to the Milky Way as if it were the entire (closed system) universe seems dated. Maybe.
The good news is, the dark matter we haven't found yet...well, there isn't as much of it to look for anymore. Wait, that's not good news.
IMP-9
4.5 / 5 (16) Oct 10, 2014
OK, you know so much more about the Laws of Gravity & Energy than what Einstein calculated in his General Relativity, then you must have the math to prove there is a 4:1 ratio of discrepancy in Einstein's math?


You're talking complete and utter nonsense. When did I claim Einstein was wrong? Nowhere. I said nothing like that. What I said is this this measurement applies to one galaxy which we have difficultly observing. This is not how the matter density of the universe is calculated.

Secondly you're an idiot. GR alone doesn't prove GR is correct, GR is correct only if it's principles are which you can't prove from just the equations of GR. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Benni
1 / 5 (15) Oct 10, 2014
OK, you know so much more about the Laws of Gravity & Energy than what Einstein calculated in his General Relativity, then you must have the math to prove there is a 4:1 ratio of discrepancy in Einstein's math?


You're talking complete and utter nonsense. When did I claim Einstein was wrong? Nowhere. I said nothing like that. What I said is this this measurement applies to one galaxy which we have difficultly observing. This is not how the matter density of the universe is calculated.

Secondly you're an idiot. GR alone doesn't prove GR is correct, GR is correct only if it's principles are which you can't prove from just the equations of GR. You have no idea what you are talking about.

You retired old Trekkies need to find more suitable "retirement occupations", science is not for those who like to get warm & fuzzy about nuclear physics but who've never seen a differential equation in Einstein's GR they could solve.

shavera
4.6 / 5 (18) Oct 10, 2014
ITT: People with little to no understanding of physics, basic physics concepts, relativity, etc. feel COMPELLED to tell us how much they doubt the whole "dark matter" idea that actual experts in the field are really pretty sure of.

Why does physics attract such crackpottery? Really? Does it actually matter whether there's dark matter or not? Why is it so important to so many people that physicists are totally wrong about dark matter, and it's actually ? Why not just take experts at their word?

Or, if nothing else, spend 10 years in school getting a doctorate in the field and then, once you know the basics, then try to critique the current state of the art.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2014
Or, if nothing else, spend 10 years in school getting a doctorate in the field and then, once you know the basics, then try to critique the current state of the art.

Well, you know how it is. There are people who think they can just wing it better than people who've spent a decade (or more) on a subject 8 hours a day in an environment where proficiency is continually put to the test. Those same people think they can wing it despite the fact that they are way dumber than anyone who has the mental wherewithall to go through with this newfangled 'education' stuff.

So, yeah, whiel I agree with you I don't think that these people are even able to understand the shere scope of proficiency they are trying to pass off here (and how hugely ludicrous that seems to the rest of us).
Benni
1 / 5 (15) Oct 10, 2014
So, yeah, whiel I agree with you I don't think that these people are even able to understand the shere scope of proficiency they are trying to pass off here (and how hugely ludicrous that seems to the rest of us).


Are you referring to retired firefighters living in Texas to whom you've been pandering? Or maybe even yourself with a totally irrelevant PhD leaving you as incapable of understanding Einstein's GR as they?
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2014
Are you referring to retired firefighters living in Texas to whom you've been pandering?

At least he's currently getting the education and is not trying to pass off knowledge that he has gleaned from other sources as his own. And he's able to spot a logical argument or what is and what isn't scientific - which is a HELL of a lot more than can be said of you.
IMP-9
4 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
You retired old Trekkies ...


Still not an answer. I admit I expected more nonsense and not just a blatant Ad Hom but the fact you would deflect was expected. Please oh mighty wizard show us how this result affects the desnity of matter of the universe calculated via the CMB, BAO and structure growth.
Benni
1.1 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
You retired old Trekkies ...


Still not an answer. I admit I expected more nonsense and not just a blatant Ad Hom but the fact you would deflect was expected. Please oh mighty wizard show us how this result affects the desnity of matter of the universe calculated via the CMB, BAO and structure growth.

Me? First you learn how to spell the word then prove this stuff exists, then YOU come up with the density old trekkie boy. Its easy to see why you keep having difficulties with Einstein's GR, you won't read it, but that wouldn't matter anyway would it?
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2014
DM within the galaxy is one thing, extragalactic DM is another. DM cannot be directly observed, only inferred by its gravity.
Newton's Shell Theorem tells us that extragalactic DM should be largely without net gravitational effect.
That's only true at the galactic center. At the outskirts, it should make a lot of difference.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2014
Or, if nothing else, spend 10 years in school getting a doctorate in the field and then, once you know the basics, then try to critique the current state of the art.

Well, you know how it is. There are people who think they can just wing it better than people who've spent a decade (or more) on a subject 8 hours a day in an environment where proficiency is continually put to the test. Those same people think they can wing it despite the fact that they are way dumber than anyone who has the mental wherewithall to go through with this newfangled 'education' stuff.

So, yeah, whiel I agree with you I don't think that these people are even able to understand the shere scope of proficiency they are trying to pass off here (and how hugely ludicrous that seems to the rest of us).
This is called Dunning-Kruger Syndrome: people who don't know much are much more likely to doubt the experts because they can't understand what they're saying.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2014
The mass of the galaxy according to this is 800 billion times the mass of the Sun. Since there are about 300 billion stars in the galaxy, they account for only thirty eight percent of the galaxy's mass (300/800 = 0.375). And that assumes they're all the mass of the Sun; of course, there are more small stars than big ones. And keep in mind that this only accounts for mass *within* the *visible* Milky Way; the dark matter halo extends a lot further than the visible stars do. This reduces the visible matter to around 25%, which is just about right according to cosmologists and astrophysicists for the universe; visible matter 4%, dark matter 25%.

So, no, they haven't halved the dark matter in the universe; all they've done is get a more accurate reading of the total mass, dark + visible matter, within the visible portion of the Milky Way galaxy. And lo and behold, now it seems that the Milky Way's ratio of dark to visible mass is about average. Big surprise. Not.
indio007
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2014
ITT: People with little to no understanding of physics, basic physics concepts, relativity, etc. feel COMPELLED to tell us how much they doubt the whole "dark matter" idea that actual experts in the field are really pretty sure of.


Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and the most oft one used in comments on physorg.
indio007
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2014
Or, if nothing else, spend 10 years in school getting a doctorate in the field and then, once you know the basics, then try to critique the current state of the art.

Well, you know how it is. There are people who think they can just wing it better than people who've spent a decade (or more) on a subject 8 hours a day in an environment where proficiency is continually put to the test.

A lot of time was spent of epicycles by real smart people too.
How much time and effort was spent on on DNA by experts that called 90% of it junk?

An elaborate and well study version of wrong is still wrong.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2014
ITT: People with little to no understanding of physics, basic physics concepts, relativity, etc. feel COMPELLED to tell us how much they doubt the whole "dark matter" idea that actual experts in the field are really pretty sure of.


Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and the most oft one used in comments on physorg.
Appeal to *false* authority is a logical fallacy; the entire scientific physics community is a *real* authority. Read this: http://www.nizkor...ity.html

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.


Are you seriously claiming that millions of physicists are all wrong? Really? So, paranoid much?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2014
A lot of time was spent of epicycles by real smart people too.
Logical fallacy: false analogy. The scientific method wasn't even invented then, and there were no telescopes. The only data they had was what they could see with their eyes. There is no such deficit of data about dark matter. We've been able to see the effects of dark matter since the 1930s.
dumpsta101
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
This is called Dunning-Kruger Syndrome: people who don't know much are much more likely to doubt the experts because they can't understand what they're saying.

I agree people do this, but there are a lot more people who don't question things and just take the experts at there word even when things have not been proven. that being said people do need to educate themselves before they start to claim that mainstream science is wrong, but blindly taking experts at there word is much more detrimental to science then disagreeing because of lack of information.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2014
I agree people do this, but there are a lot more people who don't question things and just take the experts at there word even when things have not been proven. that being said people do need to educate themselves before they start to claim that mainstream science in wrong, but blindly taking experts at there word is much more detrimental to science then disagreeing because of lack of information.
Finding out an expert was wrong can win you a Nobel Prize. Believe me, the other experts salivate at the chance. It's the Big Cigar.

But there is also another problem: people have trouble understanding the difference between a theory and a brute fact. A brute fact is the outcome of an experiment; a theory predicts what will happen when the experiment is run, and is deemed correct if it successfully does so, and discarded if it does not. This is part of the scientific method, which is designed to eliminate these sorts of things. Judging by refrigerators and jets, it works pretty well.
dumpsta101
1.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
this is correct but considering that this theory use's aspects of quantum theory and relativity, and since there is no theory that successfully combines the two. its hard to believe that the main stream scientific community is right about this (at least not yet) and although it would explain a lot, it kind of reminds me of Einstein's cosmological constant which made his theory more appealing mathematically, but even he would tell you that he fudged the equations. so in short im saying that dark matter could very well exist and would explain a lot but I need better proof before im sold.
dumpsta101
1.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
also the burden is not on me to prove them wrong, the burden is on them to prove there theories correct. (considering that im not being paid tax money to come up with these theories.) so until then I remain a skeptic (but I don't claim to have a better theory or to be able to prove accepted theories wrong)
saposjoint
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2014
ITT: People with little to no understanding of physics, basic physics concepts, relativity, etc. feel COMPELLED to tell us how much they doubt the whole "dark matter" idea that actual experts in the field are really pretty sure of.


Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and the most oft one used in comments on physorg.


Zephir, you ignorant slut. How many more socks do you have?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2014
At least he's currently getting the education ... And he's able to spot a logical argument or what is and what isn't scientific
@AA-P
Thank you... I am trying... that is one reason i am here on PO
that is also why i dislike benni, btw!
he doesn't show work, lies, can't read, apparently, and has a bad habit of quote mining and cherry picking... worst still, he is claiming to be a NOOclear engineer and scince advocate, but has YET to provide evidence that he knows science or link/support arguments against topics at all
El Stumpo is a retired firefighter living in Texas
@benniandthetards
nope. nice guess though... try again
i do live near TX, and have friends there, but not in it
the rest of your drivel is just BAITING/FLAMING/TROLLING
and proves you can't read too!
ARTHUR:
Bluehigh
gave you stars for the Holy Grail reference
but WTF are you talking about?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2014
ITT: People with little to no understanding of physics, basic physics concepts, relativity, etc. feel COMPELLED to tell us how much they doubt the whole "dark matter" idea that actual experts in the field are really pretty sure of.


Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and the most oft one used in comments on physorg.
@]@indio007
not a logical fallacy when the argument against science refuses to support the claim with empirical evidence etc
people who deny it should provide evidence like the scientists who are proposing it above, IOW.

i agree with Shavera

Zephir, you ignorant slut. How many more socks do you have?
@Sapo
i don't think this is Zeph
this poster knows better english and doesn't use tiny.url
saposjoint
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
OK. The name Indio raises my hackles for many reasons, but I'll take your word for it.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2014
that is also why i dislike benni, btw!
he doesn't show work, lies, can't read, apparently, and has a bad habit of quote mining and cherry picking... worst still, he is claiming to be a NOOclear engineer and scince advocate, but has YET to provide evidence that he knows science or link/support arguments against topics at all

Stumpo, Where's your work? You claim you can "ping" your way into my IP account & trace me all the way to my "doorstep". That was almost three months ago, then last week you stated you could do it via "cookies". Is your lack of success proof that you really are not "learning" or are you still endeavoring to make unlawful threats a reality? I get it, you simply lack a meager amount of computer science expertise to get the "pinging" work accomplished. Take a Boolean Algebra course, maybe you'll find an idea or two there that will enhance your computer science skills to come up with a methodology to accomplish your "pinging" braggadocio..........waiting.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2014
OK. The name Indio raises my hackles for many reasons, but I'll take your word for it.

@Sapo
not 100% sure, mind you.... just know that Indo has been here since 2010 (not usual for Zephir) and that he uses far better english...

Is your lack of success proof that you really are not "learning" or are you still endeavoring to make unlawful threats a reality?
@benni-tard
why would i want to visit you?
you are an idiot. there is no need to go to your house unless you are offering some serious hard cash

tell you what. Put down a deposit with Sapo above. Give him at least $30,000 and then I will! how is that?
Once I VERIFY that he has it, i will tell you on-line
you give me a reasonable amount of time (say- 1 week) to get your address
I will post it on line here
then I get paid

sounds like a plan, right?

Sapo, i will give you 1/3rd for acting as moderator and holding the cash
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2014
Take a Boolean Algebra course, maybe you'll find an idea or two there that will enhance your computer science skills to come up with a methodology to accomplish your "pinging" braggadocio..........waiting.
@benni-tard
NO CHECKS
if Samp gets a check, I will tell him to CASH it, and once there is cash on hand, I will then let you know
and the MINIMUM I will need to get to your house is $30,000 (travel expenses and recompense for having to put up with you while paying for a moderator to hold the cash)

Perhaps there is something above you will refute?
do you have any studies that are rebuttal to my posts?
do you have evidence that supports your conclusions and undermines mine?
Are you telling me the aether is real? you can prove it?
you support daw/aw and zephir?

by all means, provide them for everyone to see... after all, I gave studies, you should too.
Tit-for-tat, benni
not just wordy diatribe telling us how smart you are
prove it
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2014
this is correct but considering that this theory use's aspects of quantum theory and relativity, and since there is no theory that successfully combines the two. its hard to believe that the main stream scientific community is right about this (at least not yet)
Actually this is pure GR. There's no particle in the Standard Model of Particle Physics that "fits" dark matter, but we can see its effects on the rotations of galaxies; if they didn't have dark matter in them, they wouldn't have enough mass to make enough gravity to hold together. Fritz Zwicky discovered this in the 1930s.

and although it would explain a lot, it kind of reminds me of Einstein's cosmological constant which made his theory more appealing mathematically, but even he would tell you that he fudged the equations.
The thing is, you see, when Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe, then it became clear what the cosmological constant is. But these are two separate subjects.

contd
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2014
also the burden is not on me to prove them wrong, the burden is on them to prove there theories correct.
Actually that's incorrect.

Theories (formal, scientific ones, that is- not the type of "theory" that is meant in colloquial usage) go through an extensive vetting process. They must not contradict any known fact, such as an observation or experiment, and they must accurately predict the results of new observations and experiments before they are accepted. Scientists don't just come up with some explanation for something and then call it a "theory;" in fact, they call it a "conjecture." Only when a test of the conjecture is devised, usually a prediction of something no one has ever looked at or for, often an experiment, is the conjecture promoted- and it's still not a theory, it's only a hypothesis. Once the hypothesis has been tested, and once everyone in the science community involved has looked to see if it contradicts any observation or experiment, THEN it's a theory.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2014
So as you can see, a theory is in fact the most certain thing a scientist can talk about. There is no additional "proof" required, and in fact no theory is ever "proved." It's not possible to do so.

Dark matter is a theory because it makes predictions that turn out to be true, and doesn't make any that aren't. And it has been since the 1930s; 80 years, more or less, and no one has ever found anything that contradicts it, and they've looked. Hard. Very hard.

So they have already met their burden of proof; now it's your turn.

What evidence would you accept, dumpsta101? Be realistic; it needs to be things we *can* find out, or look at, or an experiment that can actually be conducted. Keep in mind that you are unlikely to come up with something doable that has not been done; that's how the theory got to be a theory in the first place.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2014
I should emphasize that proofs are a mathematical thing, not a scientific thing. And remember always that mathematics logically begins with axioms; these are *assumptions*. As anyone who remembers geometry, and the fact that the parallel postulate (AKA parallel axiom) is denied in various ways by elliptical and hyperbolic geometry and Riemann geometry, as examples, should know, axioms are not cast in concrete. So really, at the end, the "proof" is only as good as the axioms it's based upon; for example, you cannot prove some of the Elements in elliptical or hyperbolic geometry. They have different Elements.

So in the end, mathematics is no more rigorous than physics. But it hides it better.
mahi
1 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2014
So as you can see, a theory is in fact the most certain thing a scientist can talk about. There is no additional "proof" required, and in fact no theory is ever "proved." It's not possible to do so.

Dark matter is a theory because it makes predictions that turn out to be true, and doesn't make any that aren't. And it has been since the 1930s; 80 years, more or less, and no one has ever found anything that contradicts it, and they've looked. Hard. Very hard.

So they have already met their burden of proof


If one resort to weird reasoning anything can claimed as proof of any silly theory. Just because a weird assumption is endorsed by the authorities and accepted by the masses, that doesn't become an axiom or a theory. And just because people adorned some weird theory for centuries, a rational mind doesn't succumb to that. If that was so, religions wouldn't have let science to step in.

http://debunkingr...ematics/
Benni
1 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2014
Take a Boolean Algebra course, maybe you'll find an idea or two there that will enhance your computer science skills to come up with a methodology to accomplish your "pinging" braggadocio..........waiting.


Perhaps there is something above you will refute?
do you have any studies that are rebuttal to my posts?
do you have evidence that supports your conclusions and undermines mine?
Tit-for-tat, benni
not just wordy diatribe telling us how smart you are prove it


My,my, El Stumpo, getting a little testy here aren't you? So far the only thing your postings have proven is how little retired firefighters know about science. Every housewife in the country knows how to Copy & Paste & that's about the limit of anything you've done since posting to this site at anytime in the past.

Do something useful for the remainder of your retirement years & download a copy of Einstein's GR & study it (drat, forgot, it's those pesky differential equations isn't it ?).
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2014
Stumpo, getting a little testy here aren't you?
@benni-tard
at you?
nope... i know that you have special needs so that tempers my testiness
So far the only thing your postings have proven is how little retired firefighters know about science
so, does that mean you have nothing that will refute the above and are trying to redirect away from that?
Every housewife in the country knows how to Copy & Paste & that's about the limit of anything you've done since posting to this site at anytime in the past
well, then... it should be easy for you to refute the above, then, benni
after all, those studies i linked above directly prove aw/daw to be a pseudoscience and debunked faith based religious like belief

all you are doing, at this point, is showing that you cannot refute the post and that you are unable to comprehend science yourself

nice try at redirecting the conversation from the origin, but I will keep bringing you back
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2014
Do something useful for the remainder of your retirement years & download a copy of Einstein's GR & study it (drat, forgot, it's those pesky differential equations isn't it ?)
@beni-tard
you know... you like to throw around big words like "differential equations" like you know what it means
I also noticed you gave NO proof... just more "wordy diatribe" alluding to us "how smart you are"

BUT
you still haven't been able to refute the science above with any kind of reputable science or links (one reason is that you can't- it really does prove daw/aw dead)

tell you what, mr NOOclear engineer, I will leave you with the above request AGAIN (better ask someone to translate it for you since you're illiterate)
Perhaps there is something above you will refute?
do you have any studies that are rebuttal to my posts?
do you have evidence that supports your conclusions and undermines mine?
Tit-for-tat, benni
not just wordy diatribe telling us how smart you are prove it
Benni
1 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2014
.........yeah Stumpo, retirement sure leaves you with a lot of time on your hands. Now that you're discovering science commentary is not your forte, you've been reduced to Copy & Paste.

Jeepers El Stumpo, Einstein never had access to your vaunted computer skills of Copy & Paste but he still came up with his vaunted General Relativity. With the superior computer skills with which you claim to be able to "ping" & "cookie" your way to my IP Account & from there to my "doorstep" what a genius you must have been learning Boolean Algebra......at least its easier than Differential Equations.
dumpsta101
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2014
What evidence would you accept, dumpsta101? Be realistic; it needs to be things we *can* find out, or look at, or an experiment that can actually be conducted. Keep in mind that you are unlikely to come up with something doable that has not been done; that's how the theory got to be a theory in the first place.

well im glad you asked. since most of dark matter evidence is based on lack of visible mass to equate to the gravitational effects that we can observe. Dark matter would be a very logical solution to this problem. however if dark matter was real if would have the properties of weakly interacting massive particles. IF one of the many experiments happening right now can detect this I would gladly accept the dark matter theory. (all have come up ziltch zip nadda)
dumpsta101
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2014
but since that dang uncertainty principle makes it so dang hard to create a successful quantum gravity theory, I don't believe that they will find anything. if they did find this however it would be a connection between relativity and quantum theory,(so yes it is a combination of both theories) while also explaining the mass discrepancy in our visible universe. no one is disputing that based on relativity alone its a no brainer that dark matter exists but guess what relativity isn't the whole picture. finding quantum evidence is just as important. So until then im not buying it.
dumpsta101
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2014


* if dark matter was real it would have the properties of weakly interacting massive particles. which would interact with other particles which we are monitoring.* sorry wrote too fast :D
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2014
Stumpo, retirement sure leaves you with a lot of time on your hands. Now that you're discovering science commentary is not your forte, you've been reduced to Copy & Paste
@beni-tard
I ask again, what science or posts/links do you have refuting the above sceintific publications that I posted supporting my conclusions that aw/daw is a pseudoscience?
I see that you are refusing to answer
Einstein never had access to your vaunted computer skills
True, but he would have been willing to learn computers, unlike you, who have demonstrated, time and again, that you can't comprehend them at all (do we need ro bring up the whole "you can't PM the site admin if the PM function is down" argument you gave?)

Tell you what, benni-tard
Just post SOMETHING scientific refuting my publications I linked above
since you are all brilliant and a NOOclear engineer and all... you should be able to throw out some equations showing your faith in aw/daw is legit, right?
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2014
well im glad you asked. since most of dark matter evidence is based on lack of visible mass to equate to the gravitational effects that we can observe. Dark matter would be a very logical solution to this problem. however if dark matter was real if would have the properties of weakly interacting massive particles. IF one of the many experiments happening right now can detect this I would gladly accept the dark matter theory. (all have come up ziltch zip nadda)
It may not be WIMPs. That doesn't eliminate all particles.

Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2014
but since that dang uncertainty principle makes it so dang hard to create a successful quantum gravity theory, I don't believe that they will find anything.
This appears to be a non sequitur. First, the uncertainty principle isn't what makes a quantum gravity theory difficult to find. Second, neither the uncertainty principle nor quantum gravity has anything to do with dark matter, nor with the missing mass problem it is suggested as a solution for.

if they did find this however it would be a connection between relativity and quantum theory,
Sorry, I don't follow this at all, see above.

no one is disputing that based on relativity alone its a no brainer that dark matter exists
No, that's not based on relativity at all. It's based on gravity, period. I only mentioned relativity because it's the current most powerful theory of gravity; however, even if we were using Newtonian TUG, there would still be a mass discrepancy.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2014
no one is disputing that based on relativity alone its a no brainer that dark matter exists
No. It's not based on relativity. Any consistent gravity theory (such as Universal Gravitation, as I pointed out above) would discover a mass deficit. The mass deficit is a brute physical fact, not a theory. Dark matter is the theory, and at this point, it's only a hypothesis that it's made out of WIMPs. It's the most likely hypothesis, but not the only hypothesis; for example, this could work like the Higgs, where it's not the particles themselves that create the effect but their effect on the vacuum.

Discovering WIMPs in the lab would be a major triumph for the WIMP hypothesis of the dark matter theory; but not finding them only eliminates WIMPs, not dark matter.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2014
It's very important to distinguish between theories, hypotheses, and conjectures; it's also very important to distinguish between all of these and the brute physical facts they are intended to explain. What you've done, dumpsta, is confuse the brute physical fact of the missing mass with the theory of dark mass that accounts for it, and then confuse both of those with the WIMP hypothesis that says what this dark mass is: WIMPs.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2014
So as you can see, a theory is in fact the most certain thing a scientist can talk about. There is no additional "proof" required, and in fact no theory is ever "proved." It's not possible to do so.

Dark matter is a theory because it makes predictions that turn out to be true, and doesn't make any that aren't. And it has been since the 1930s; 80 years, more or less, and no one has ever found anything that contradicts it, and they've looked. Hard. Very hard.

So they have already met their burden of proof


If one resort to weird reasoning
Funny, it seems to work fine for inventing jet aircraft, heart transplants, refrigerators, computers, cell phones, and GPS satellites.

Just sayin'.

As far as debunking relativity, the physicists have been trying to do that for over a hundred years and no one has succeeded.

Again, just sayin'.
katesisco
1 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2014
Well, whether you call it aether, dark matter/mass, or charge, it is all the same thing and what we should be asking ourselves is why, after 300 years of 'progress,' we are still barking up the tree.
Bear in mind that the scientific principle that is lacking here is that info has to be reproducible and with a magnetar sun that kicks down a notch every reversal, nothing is reproducible. Might I recommend EXTREME COSMOS by Brian Gaensler, astronomer.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2014
Well, whether you call it aether, dark matter/mass, or charge, it is all the same thing
Errr, not particularly. That's like saying baseball and basketball are "the same thing."
big_hairy_jimbo
4.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
Now I'm going to get caned for this, but it's just a thought, nothing more.
I still suspect that galactic black holes affect spacetime far more than we realise. To me it would seem like their gravity is diluted, MAYBE through other dimensions and is thus capable of reaching further at strengths not associated with relativity. Surely black holes are the smoking guns in this Dark Matter story. They are extreme objects which the whole galaxy and satellites orbit around. So if the rate of objects orbiting is the problem, then re-examine the mysterious, extreme object they are all locked to!!!!
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
LOL, actually, great question. I gave you 5. :D

That's not possible because the galaxies are not solid but fluid, in dynamic terms. That is, their different parts can orbit at different speeds without necessarily tearing them apart. As a result, the action of gravity is more complex than in a solid. Because of this, attempting to just put all the missing mass in the black hole at the center doesn't work; it's not enough. Furthermore, we can measure the masses of the black holes by observing stars orbiting them, so the missing mass can't be there.

But it was a good guess!
TEP320
Oct 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
IMP-9
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2014
http://debunkingr...ematics/


Let's have a look at this webpage.

The whole purpose of this weird formula is to 'prove' that SOL is same to every observer.


No. Relativity assumes that is so, which is a consequence of classical electrodynamics.

Snail Relativity


This is really his only argument against relativity and it doesn't work. The rocket can be measured to travel faster than a snail by a third observer, relativistic time dilation and length contraction don't change that. A simple clock experiment would rule it out.

This man does not understand relativity, nowhere does he actually prove it is flawed. He calls it stupid and then sets two criteria a model must meet, but he ignores the fact relativity does meet these. a) the fact the speed of light is constant is a consequence of Maxwell's equations under Lorentz transformation. It is derived. b) it has been experimentally tested thousands of times. This debunking has no substance.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2014
Well, whether you call it aether, dark matter/mass, or charge, it is all the same thing
@katesisco
Not really, this is like saying that football and Polo are the same because there is a ball and lots of movement
If you consider that aether has been proven wrong with experimentation to a very high degree, then you cannot even consider that aether is in the same ball-park as a scientific theory, let alone hypothesis. it would be more of a faith based belief like religion starts out as
we are still barking up the tree
Not sure about this either:
if we consider that we search until we either disprove it or find supporting evidence, then we are still "barking" because we've found evidence supporting the hypothesis, etc
which etc
Might I recommend EXTREME COSMOS by Brian Gaensler, astronomer
Got any studies by him you can link?
(not being facetious or trying to say that the book is not empirical evidence, i would just rather see a study than have to go buy a book)
mbee1
1 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2014
The point of this story seems to have escaped the authors attention. When you want to tell a whopper tell a big one. Nobody has a clue if dark matter and dark energy actually exist. They are mathematical constructs to attempt to explain some data, mostly the apparent speed of rotation of the stars in our galaxy and others in the apparent absence of enough gravity to hold things together based on the stars and gas which give off energy we can detect.. That of course leaves out a whole bunch of matter that is simply to cold to detect including a whole bunch of possible small black holes and dwarf suns to say nothing of dust and ice. It also leaves out how much matter is there we can detect as that itself is a best guess figure. When these people can come up with actual proof dark matter and dark energy exist and proof of the amount of both than you can believe them, otherwise they are hucksters with a degree.
mbee1
1 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2014
I might add the theory of dark matter and energy rest on a shaky foundation that space is not changing as one moves through the field. Gravity is assumed based on rather a small volume of measurement to exist out millions of light years, billions of light years as a constant from the center of the source, ie the galaxy center or mass concentration center. Since mass appears to depend on the Higgs, you should at least try for some long distance measurement of the Higgs before claiming you know everything about the major assumption built into these claims. Nobody actually knows if gravity is a constant or not, it is simply assumed to be true.. What I am trying to say absent a lot of math is the models are based on a lot of assumptions, change a tiny bit of that assumption and the whole thing has a different result. We need a lot more data and thought before claiming dark matter is X amount and dark energy is Y amount much less if they actually exist.
dumpsta101
3 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2014
Discovering WIMPs in the lab would be a major triumph for the WIMP hypothesis of the dark matter theory; but not finding them only eliminates WIMPs, not dark matter.

im not saying that WIMP's are the make or break experiment. im just looking for an experiment that shows applied results. and so far this is the best one that I have come across.(I would however like to hear of other experiments if you know of any that I could look up :) ) DM is a concept in theoretical mathematics just like the higgs boson was. but they had the particle accelerator, which eventually got results. (taking the leap from theatrical to applied) once I see an experiment that has applied results then I say let the theory survive. but they very well could find something in the next couple of months or years to get results and if that was the case I would gladly admit im wrong and be happy that there was such an amazing scientific breakthrough. (also what would it take to convince you that DM wasn't real?)
phxmarker
1 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2014
The only dark matter there is is that which is between yours ears!

In other words, there is no dark matter, just a misunderstanding on how to look at the universe.

Add torque and spin to Einstein's Field Equations (EFE - General Relativity), and the appropriate structure for the fabric of space-time, and viola', a more complete picture comes out.
I Have Questions
3 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2014
Neil deGrasse Tyson said one of the possibilities could be that dark matter is a residual effect from another universe acting on our own universe in the multiverse.
I Have Questions
3 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2014
The only dark matter there is is that which is between yours ears!

In other words, there is no dark matter, just a misunderstanding on how to look at the universe.

Add torque and spin to Einstein's Field Equations (EFE - General Relativity), and the appropriate structure for the fabric of space-time, and viola', a more complete picture comes out.

Yes there is no dark matter just unexplained gravity which we CAN see.

What do you think is causing this gravity?
gravitational_aether
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2014
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the aether. The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime.

What is referred to as the deformation of spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.
I Have Questions
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2014
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the aether. The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime.

What is referred to as the deformation of spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime? What do you think is causing the deformation of spacetime? It's not the galaxy itself because we can easily account for the galaxy's gravity effects.
theon
1 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
" the missing satellite problem had been "a thorn in the cosmological side for almost 15 years.""

They figured out how to save LCDM by adding epicycles. It doesn't impress. Wonder how they're gonna explain star formation at z=15 (to be tested by the JWT) and possibly since z=25.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2014
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space
@gravitational_aether
aether has also been empirically and experimentally proven false for a century
the latest experiments that prove this to a very high degree of accuracy is here: http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf
published in the physical review papers: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

so thinking that
What is referred to as the deformation of spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether
is the same thing as thinking rustling bushes at night are because Bugs Bunny is visiting your shrubbery
rgw
1 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2014
Rather than half as much dark matter, maybe there is twice as much volume - ;)
rgw
1 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2014
What do you think is causing this gravity?


Weighty matters...
indio007
1 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2014
ITT: People with little to no understanding of physics, basic physics concepts, relativity, etc. feel COMPELLED to tell us how much they doubt the whole "dark matter" idea that actual experts in the field are really pretty sure of.


Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and the most oft one used in comments on physorg.
@]@indio007
not a logical fallacy when the argument against science refuses to support the claim with empirical evidence etc
people who deny it should provide evidence like the scientists who are proposing it above, IOW.

In order to be evidence, an event must be experienced with the senses.

There isn't ANY PHYSICAL evidence for dark matter.

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
im not saying that WIMP's are the make or break experiment. im just looking for an experiment that shows applied results. and so far this is the best one that I have come across.(I would however like to hear of other experiments if you know of any that I could look up :) )
How about the fact that all galaxies rotate too fast to hold together unless there is more mass in them we can't see? The evidence is all over the sky.

DM is a concept in theoretical mathematics just like the higgs boson was.
No, it's not. It's an observable fact that causes galaxies to hold together when there's not enough visible mass in them to do so.

but they had the particle accelerator, which eventually got results.
And astrophysicists have telescopes that got results. You're confusing the hypotheses with the theory, and confusing both with the real brute physical facts again. This is a bad habit.

contd
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
once I see an experiment that has applied results then I say let the theory survive.
The observation-- it's not an experiment-- that had applied results was done in the 1930s by Fritz Zwicky, and every observation in this area has confirmed it ever since.

but they very well could find something in the next couple of months or years to get results and if that was the case I would gladly admit im wrong and be happy that there was such an amazing scientific breakthrough.
No, actually they could find something that confirms the WIMP hypothesis in months or years; or something that refutes it, or another effect (perhaps not even fermions (i.e. matter), but bosons (i.e. energy)) that shows where the missing mass comes from in quantum terms. The missing mass is obvious and has been since we got telescopes powerful enough to observe its effects, which was in the 1930s.

contd
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
Part of your confusion is caused by the fact that the shorthand reference for this has been embedded in the public consciousness for decades as "dark matter." In fact, the real correct name for this is "missing mass." "Dark" is correct, and "mass" is correct; "matter" may not be. It may not be "matter" at all. Had they stuck with "missing mass" or "dark mass" this would be much easier, but someone said "dark matter" and it stuck.

Keep in mind that they discovered the acceleration of the expansion of the universe later, and someone called it "dark energy" and that stuck too; and it's even more confusing than "dark matter." The accurate term is "cosmic energy" or "vacuum energy." And vacuum energy has been detected in the lab as well as from the expansion rate of the universe over time; see the Casimir Effect.

contd
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
(also what would it take to convince you that DM wasn't real?)
Extraordinary evidence that proved that in fact the visible mass WAS enough to hold the galaxies together, which would not only overturn relativity but also Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation from the seventeenth century. Or evidence that all the astrophysicists had been lying for almost a hundred years about the observed rate of rotation and/or the amount of visible mass in all the galaxies they've ever looked at and checked these two simple parameters for.

Keep in mind anyone who has a telescope and knows relativity (or even Newton's TUG) can just look for themselves. If you cared to take the time, several years minimum, and spend the money, probably in the neighborhood of a couple million bucks, to build an observatory and learn how to run it, and then the several more years to learn relativity, you could check for yourself.

Good questions, though. Keep thinking. It's good for you. :D
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
Neil deGrasse Tyson said one of the possibilities could be that dark matter is a residual effect from another universe acting on our own universe in the multiverse.
That's correct. It might not be "matter" at all, as we understand it; such a universe might not have the same laws of physics as ours.

And the eternal inflation hypothesis remains viable 20 years after it was first suggested, and eternal inflation results in a multiverse.

In fact, eternal inflation is a feature of the leading hypotheses in inflation theory at this time. See Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape for a really good overview for the non-physicist reader. Then go look up Linde's and Guth's and Vilentkin's papers that post-date it. You'll have a pretty good idea of the current state of the inflationary universe theory of the Big Bang theory, and what the current hypotheses are.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2014
The only dark matter there is is that which is between yours ears!

In other words, there is no dark matter, just a misunderstanding on how to look at the universe.
Yes there is no dark matter just unexplained gravity which we CAN see.

What do you think is causing this gravity?
Correct. And an excellent question.

Aether has mass.
The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime? What do you think is causing the deformation of spacetime? It's not the galaxy itself because we can easily account for the galaxy's gravity effects.
And correct yet again. That's why they call it "dark matter." (Although as I pointed out a couple times above, "missing mass" or "dark mass" might have been better choices.)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
There isn't ANY PHYSICAL evidence for dark matter.
Wrong. There is physical evidence all over the sky; trillions and trillions of data points. They're called "galaxies." We've known that since the 1930s. Almost a hundred years.

We can separate the components of the red shifts of stars caused by the motion of the host galaxy from the components caused by the rotation of the stars around the center of their host galaxy by polarization, so we can measure their rotation rates separately. These rotation rates depend only on the mass of the star, and the mass of the galaxy and its distribution. We can then compare that mass of the galaxy with the mass we observe, in gas and dust, and in stars that illuminate it. We can then calculate whether there is sufficient mass *visible* in the galaxy to account for those stellar motions.

There is not.

Simple as that. Brute physical fact.
I Have Questions
1.8 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2014
It's funny how the comments from religious conservatives here indicate that they believe dark matter is an actual substance. LOL You guys are a bunch of morons.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2014
It might be an actual substance... but it might not. We haven't discovered any candidate particles so far. But we're looking.

And we're a long way from out of possibilities for that hypothesis (that dark mass is a substance, i.e. fermions). Neutrinos, for example, are still in the race, and so are some types of Majorana particles and axions, and in fact these classes may overlap one another.

And there are still (as I and others have pointed out) other possibilities, such as undiscovered vacuum fields and other universes and so forth.

*Something* is making galaxies behave anomalously, and eventually we will figure out what it is.
I Have Questions
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2014
It might be an actual substance... but it might not. We haven't discovered any candidate particles so far. But we're looking.

And we're a long way from out of possibilities for that hypothesis (that dark mass is a substance, i.e. fermions). Neutrinos, for example, are still in the race, and so are some types of Majorana particles and axions, and in fact these classes may overlap one another.

And there are still (as I and others have pointed out) other possibilities, such as undiscovered vacuum fields and other universes and so forth.

*Something* is making galaxies behave anomalously, and eventually we will figure out what it is.


You had me at fermions.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2014
You had me at fermions.
You surprise me. I figured you knew the Laws of Spin and Statistics.
nikola_milovic_378
Oct 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Oct 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2014
In order to be evidence, an event must be experienced with the senses.|
There isn't ANY PHYSICAL evidence for dark matter
@indio007
Since when is observation not considered physical evidence or one of the senses?
we've observed the effects as Schneib says
There is physical evidence all over the sky; trillions and trillions of data points. They're called "galaxies." We've known that since the 1930s. Almost a hundred years
Here is another example from ancient history: air
you cannot see it directly
you can only see the effects it has on the environment around you
so are you now going to tell me that there is no air because you've never directly observed it etc? Are you going to say that the extensions of our senses with instrumentation and technology is not a viable observation?

Keep reading Da Schneib's posts and learn a bit
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2014
it is a basic substance that fills the infinite universe, and that we call ether
@nikola_milovic_378
No, it is not ether
ether philosophy has been proven false by science and experimentation, as proven (yet again) here: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf
and here: http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

Adding some mystical quality like
This substance can never be measured by means of matter
is the same thing as invoking god in the scientific argument
There is no basis for your belief other than the reaching and scrambling in an attempt to justify your faith and belief in a failed and outdated philosophy, sorry

just like there is no empirical evidence for your claims of
absolute consciousness of the universe (ACU)
This is simply a faith or belief which is AKA not science
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2014
And the eternal inflation hypothesis remains viable 20 years after it was first suggested, and eternal inflation results in a multiverse.
In fact, eternal inflation is a feature of the leading hypotheses in inflation theory at this time. See Susskind,


Because there is a limited supply of mass that can be transformed to energy it is impossible to have "eternal inflation". Inflation requires energy, when the fuel (mass) to supply that energy is exhausted (100% of mass is transformed) the Laws of Conservation of Energy will cause expansion (inflation) to to go to zero, analogous to shutting off an air compressor while inflating a tire will prevent the tire from continuing to expand.

A small of amount of mass (fuel) is continuously transformed throughout the stellar energy generating systems of the universe, this results in continuously changing entropic conditions until such a time unity is reached & expansion will halt, the perpetual motion universe is a fantasy.

mahi
1 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2014
Whenever a body moves through a stationary fluid medium, the body experiences fluid wind and the fluid particles get dragged by the body. So the scenario of a body (Earth) experiencing a fluid wind (e.g. Ether wind) but not dragging the fluid doesn't simply exist. And so is the scenario of a body dragging the fluid medium but not experiencing the fluid wind. The wind effect and the drag effect are inseparable because they result from the same fundamental mechanism i.e. collisions between the body and the medium's particles.

So if one looks for Ether drag to explain the lack of Ether wind, that obviously shows one's lack understanding about both Ether drag and Ether wind. If that someone, who wrongly believes that Ether drag could occur in the absence of Ether wind, claims to disprove Ether, and if the 'saviours' of science embrace those claims, what else could be more shameful for the discipline of science?

http://debunkingr...er-drag/
nikola_milovic_378
Oct 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Oct 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Oct 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dumpsta101
5 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2014
It's time for science to move to accept the existence of spiritual entities of the universe, to avoid trying to get in some unnatural way retracted there as some deceptive. And it's all under video surveillance spiritual and it will not go.


oooooooooooooooooookay...
dumpsta101
5 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2014
It might be an actual substance... but it might not. We haven't discovered any candidate particles so far. But we're looking.

And we're a long way from out of possibilities for that hypothesis (that dark mass is a substance, i.e. fermions). Neutrinos, for example, are still in the race, and so are some types of Majorana particles and axions, and in fact these classes may overlap one another.

And there are still (as I and others have pointed out) other possibilities, such as undiscovered vacuum fields and other universes and so forth.

*Something* is making galaxies behave anomalously, and eventually we will figure out what it is.


I like this description of the mass discrepancy of our visible universe (with respect to the visible gravitational effects) much better :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2014
I thought you might. ;)
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2014
Hi Schneid,

Just curious.......have you ever taken a course in Thermodynamics that you can imagine a universe perpetually expanding with zero energy input ?
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2014
Oh, NOM, you know how to do it...........lead me to the math, this engineer with six years of engineering school education missed the thermodynamics course you must have had?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2014
Hi Schneid,

Just curious.......have you ever taken a course in Thermodynamics that you can imagine a universe perpetually expanding with zero energy input ?
Hi Lenni,

Ever hear of the "Casimir effect?" You should study up on it.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2014
Hi Schneid,

Just curious.......have you ever taken a course in Thermodynamics that you can imagine a universe perpetually expanding with zero energy input ?
Hi Lenni,

Ever hear of the "Casimir effect?" You should study up on it.


You ever hear of ENTROPY? You should study up on it because energy distribution requires it & I've studied a lot of thermodynamics that you obviously haven't.
big_hairy_jimbo
5 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2014
Here's me thinking that Thermodynamics was a rule of thumb, and not an actual law of physics. As I understand it, thermodynamics is not understood at the quantum level, and there is certainly no explanation for thermodynamics at the Big Bang level either. So thermodynamics is something which is VERY USEFUL, and seemingly correct, and therefore a tool, but by no means a law.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2014
Hi Schneid,

Just curious.......have you ever taken a course in Thermodynamics that you can imagine a universe perpetually expanding with zero energy input ?
Hi Lenni,

Ever hear of the "Casimir effect?" You should study up on it.


You ever hear of ENTROPY? You should study up on it because energy distribution requires it & I've studied a lot of thermodynamics that you obviously haven't.
Immaterial to the cosmological constant, Lenni. You should study relativity if you want to know any cosmology.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2014
Here's me thinking that Thermodynamics was a rule of thumb, and not an actual law of physics. As I understand it, thermodynamics is not understood at the quantum level, and there is certainly no explanation for thermodynamics at the Big Bang level either. So thermodynamics is something which is VERY USEFUL, and seemingly correct, and therefore a tool, but by no means a law.
Yes. Have you heard of the Fluctuation Theorem? It says the 2LOT becomes less and less true the smaller the objects you deal with, and the faster. They proved it in the lab by making a fluid behave anti-entropically with a laser about ten years back or so.

Lenni's apparently never heard of that before. So much for his thermodynamics "courses."
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2014
Seriously Schnneib, take at least one Thermodynamics course & learn something about energy & its distribution.

Casmir Effect: The problem of an infinite vacuum energy is a serious one. Einstein's theory of gravitation requires that this energy must produce an infinite gravitational curvature of spacetime--something we definitely do not observe. The resolution of this problem is still an open research question. And what you don't understand Schneib is that "infinity" does not exist in any of Einstein's field equations in his GR. You don't believe me? You can download a free copy of it over the internet. After you've done that maybe you can point out Einstein's "infinite math"?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2014
It's not infinite vacuum energy, Lenni.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2014
It's not infinite vacuum energy, Lenni.

You won't answer my question about your education........Have you ever taken a Thermodynamics course? Pass it? Get a final grade?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2014
I'm not here to talk about my education, Lenni.

Why are you changing the subject, Lenni?

If you know so much thermodynamics, how come you don't know what the FT is and won't talk about it, Lenni? Seems to me it's about the most important result in thermodynamics in a century.

Anybody can lie about their education on line, Lenni.

So when exactly do you claim you took these courses, Lenni? The 1930s?
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2014
Just another Stumpy "pinging" his way around on the internet looking for friends he can't find at home.

I'm not here to talk about my education, Lenni.

Why are you changing the subject, Lenni?

If you know so much thermodynamics, how come you don't know what the FT is and won't talk about it, Lenni? Seems to me it's about the most important result in thermodynamics in a century.

Anybody can lie about their education on line, Lenni.

So when exactly do you claim you took these courses, Lenni? The 1930s?

gravitational_aether
1 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2014
The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime? What do you think is causing the deformation of spacetime? It's not the galaxy itself because we can easily account for the galaxy's gravity effects.


The matter the Milky Way consists of is displacing the aether. What is referred to as the deformation of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

Displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2014
So, no FT, and your "courses" were forty or fifty years ago, if they even exist.

That was what I figured.

Bye Lenni.
gravitational_aether
1 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2014
What do you think is causing this gravity?
Correct. And an excellent question.


Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

What is referred to as the deformation of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2014
I'm constantly amazed people still pretend "aether" has anything to do with reality.

It was only disproved in the late nineteenth century, you know. And replaced only a mere hundred and ten years ago next year.

Do try to keep up.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2014
See, Lenni, this is the problem with posing: you don't know any modern developments in the field you're blabbing about. Why bother posing as a thermodynamicist if you don't know any modern thermodynamics?
gravitational_aether
1 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2014
I'm constantly amazed people still pretend "aether" has anything to do with reality.

It was only disproved in the late nineteenth century, you know. And replaced only a mere hundred and ten years ago next year.

Do try to keep up.


"The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2014
What he's talking about and what you're talking about have nothing to do with each other, Zeph.
gravitational_aether
1 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2014
What he's talking about and what you're talking about have nothing to do with each other, Zeph.


"Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of W, arise from the interaction of the particle with a "subquantic medium" which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call "empty space"." - Louis de Broglie, Nobel Laureate

The "subquantic medium" is the aether. Aether has mass and is what waves in a double slit experiment.

I am not Zephyr.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2014
Dark matter effects are like a methanol fire. You can't see the fire but it sure will burn you.

Just to add fuel to the fire ... most Dark Matter is Hydrino gas.

Proof? You can't handle the proof.

If you are chewing on life's gristle, don't grumble just whistle ..

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2014
See, Lenni, this is the problem with posing: you don't know any modern developments in the field you're blabbing about. Why bother posing if you don't know any modern thermodynamics?


If you think you can get an "infinitely expanding universe" with a Casmir Effect, your concept of Thermodynamics is no different than AWT & EU......... perpetual motion. You should at least make an attempt at a serious study of Einstein's GR before you continue making diatribes about what I know compared to what you obviously don't know about Conservation of Energy and the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

My only goal in posting to this site is my love for science, and as an Engineer with six years of engineering school education it is so obviously transparent the numbers of people posting to this site who have fallen for the concept of "perpetual motion".

Download Einstein's GR & actually read it, until you do that you won't understand the difference between yourself, AWT & EU.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
can you or anyone like you to try to record a dream
@nikola_milovic_378
can you or any of your cohorts actually do some real science and record and publish empirical evidence suporting your conclusions? no
why? you are talking pseudoscience as well as a belief or faith, of which there is no way to prove or disprove to you given your need and desire to cling to the false reality you have constructed
this is a science site, not a religious forum
go talk that nonsense elsewhere
try HERE: http://www.religi...m/forum/

You won't answer my question about your education
@lenni and squiggy
he is an engineer
why aren't you answering him, lenni?
Why are you changing the subject, Lenni?
If you know so much thermodynamics, how come you don't know what the FT is and won't talk about it, Lenni? Seems to me it's about the most important result in thermodynamics in a century
perhaps because by answering you prove yourself a fraud
again
or still
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space
@gravitational wind bag
aether has also been empirically shown tp be a false belief
http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf
and
http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

Your belief in aether is no different than a religion, or lenni's belief that he is educated, or that he knows squat about physics or Schneib

This has already been demonstrated (including the lenni info above)
therefore your continued posts are nothing more than pushing pseudoscience and outdated philosophy which is empirically debunked
as an Engineer
@lenni-and-the-jets
sorry nuke boy, but you cannot prove that you have any education
you have not proven you have it
and i know Schneib- he actually HAS an education
and you still don't answer his questions
gravitational_aether
1 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2014
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space
@gravitational wind bag
aether has also been empirically shown tp be a false belief
http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

Your belief in aether is no different than a religion, or lenni's belief that he is educated, or that he knows squat about physics or Schneib


Not understanding the particle is always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit is why mainstream physics is so completely screwed up.

To think the particle doesn't travel through a single slit when you don't detect it is a religious belief.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2014
Not understanding the particle ...is why mainstream physics is so completely screwed up
@gravitational_aether
Not understanding the accuracy of an experiment that empirically proves you wrong and shows you WHY aether is dead is even MORE screwed up
http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

believing in a failed century old faith that was proven wrong at 10^-17 degree level is even MORE screwed up
http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

it doesn't matter how many Einstein quotes you bring up... just like quoting zephir will not save the aether either
what matters is empirical evidence
you have none
the evidence debunks aether
end of story
saposjoint
3 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2014
Stumpy, I inadvertently downvoted you in the process of giving the trolls their breakfast. My apologies.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2014
See, Lenni, this is the problem with posing: you don't know any modern developments in the field you're blabbing about. Why bother posing if you don't know any modern thermodynamics?
If you think you can get an "infinitely expanding universe" with a Casmir Effect, your concept of Thermodynamics is no different than AWT & EU
FT, Lenni.
gravitational_aether
1 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2014
Not understanding the particle ...is why mainstream physics is so completely screwed up
@gravitational_aether
Not understanding the accuracy of an experiment that empirically proves you wrong and shows you WHY aether is dead is even MORE screwed up
http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf


In the following article the aether has mass and is what waves in a double slit experiment.

'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2014
In the following article the aether has mass and is what waves in a double slit experiment.
@gravitational_aether
sorry... peer reviewed reputable journal with an impact in physics and astrophysics trumps random internet post (even from arXive)
http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

has your aether faith been published in a reputable journal that is peer reviewed and has an impact in physics?
no
why?
is has been debunked. simple.
the above link debunks your faith to the 10^-17 level... which is an incredibly high degree of accuracy

aether is PSEUDOSCIENCE
regardless of what your idiot mentor Zephir says

BTW - there are pictures of Bugs Bunny on the internet too... that don't make him any more real, though
try inviting him out for a game of basketball
nikola_milovic_378
Oct 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gravitational_aether
1 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2014
In the following article the aether has mass and is what waves in a double slit experiment.
@gravitational_aether
sorry... peer reviewed reputable journal with an impact in physics and astrophysics trumps random internet post (even from arXive)
http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf


"The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2014
Ummm, the article says, "We find no evidence for an isotropy violation at a 1σ uncertainty level of 0.6 parts in 10¹⁷ (RMS) and 2 parts in 10¹⁷ for seven of eight coefficients of the SME."

In other words, no aether. It's a repeat of the Michelson-Morley experiment using different techniques. As you would know if you had actually read the paper.
Rutzs
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2014
I am so happy Phys.org implemented a comment rating threshold so I don't have to read the pseudo nut job's stories.....
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2014
distinguish spirituality from religion
@nikola_milovic_378
spirituality is the belief in a faith, which is the belief in something without the need for evidence, whereas religion is the tenets or dogma that grows up around a faith that allows those in the lead to control others with the rules set up randomly, and to force people into line with threats of excommunication from the peer group for not believing correctly, which incites segregation and forces friction between others- IOW religion is the strict rules/dogmatic institution that grows from a faith (without evidence) used to control the masses of followers
Your science is the most dangerous form of religion
science is not a religion, it is a means of differentiating reality from fantasy and separating provable conjecture from faith based speculation

i believe in the methods of science which prevent any unfounded conjecture from taking hold as a belief
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2014
're Indoctrinated opinions of others who have never been any proven true, because, again, your shared spirituality is zero, because you love a science that is based on your unspirituality
@nikola_milovic_378
1- you have no idea what my "spirituality" is because i have never shared anything that would indicate anything about it or even if i had one
2- your comment is garbled and difficult to understand, you should be more clear and concise
3- regardless of ANYONE's spirituality, there is NO ROOM for that in science
science is about empirical data and being able to "prove" something by various methods, from repeatable experiments to mathematical descriptions of reality like GR/SR and QM
Science is NOT about unproven conjecture nor is it about a faith in something without any evidence

if it were, there would be more money in it and we would have scientists being "called back to god" unless they raised millions of dollars / sarcastic satirical hyperbole/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2014
If you want, I'll teach you what is true to the cause of the spin of the planet.
@nikola_milovic_378
unless you have EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE you are going to look like a complete idiot
i don't want your faith or spirituality
save it for the offering plates

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
@gravitational_aether
empirical, repeatable, provable evidence refutes appeal to authority
http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

your appeal to authority is debunked
AGAIN (or STILL - however you want to view it)
you didn't read the studies, did you?
you should pay attention to Schneib's post
you might learn something
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2014
LOL, the planet spins because it has momentum, and almost no friction.

Where do they come up with this stuff? "Cause of the spin of the planet?" Wow, how clueless.
gravitational_aether
1 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2014
@gravitational_aether
empirical, repeatable, provable evidence refutes appeal to authority
http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

your appeal to authority is debunked
AGAIN (or STILL - however you want to view it)
you didn't read the studies, did you?
you should pay attention to Schneib's post
you might learn something


"The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2014
You can repeat it all you like, but what Laughlin means by "aether" has nothing to do with your half-baked BS and never did.
gravitational_aether
1 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2014
You can repeat it all you like, but what Laughlin means by "aether" has nothing to do with your half-baked BS and never did.


"It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids." - Laughlin

Matter, solids and fluids have mass and so does the aether.

There is no such thing as dark matter anchored to matter.

Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2014
The fnortner rods power the muffler bearings. You have to use a left-handed monkey wrench to get them to stop.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2014
Matter, solids and fluids have mass and so does the aether.
@gravitational_aether
There is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that proves that there is NO AETHER
http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf
you've produced NO empirical evidence that proves there IS aether
you give quotes and repetition... which proves only that you have NO PROOF WHATSOEVER

your argument is invalid and irrelevant as it contains NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER

your repetitious argument without evidence is no more relevant than supporting your argument with:
a member of the paraphyletic group of organisms that consist of all gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits being utilised for battery in a cultural art form that generally involves movement of the body, often rhythmic and to music

https://www.youtu...Qp-q1Y1s
gravitational_aether
1 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2014
Matter, solids and fluids have mass and so does the aether.
@gravitational_aether
There is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that proves that there is NO AETHER
http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf


There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.
indio007
1 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2014
In order to be evidence, an event must be experienced with the senses.|
There isn't ANY PHYSICAL evidence for dark matter
@indio007
Since when is observation not considered physical evidence or one of the senses?
we've observed the effects Here is another example from ancient history: air
you cannot see it directly
you can only see the effects it has on the environment around you
so are you now going to tell me that there is no air because you've never directly observed it etc?


air can be detected with the senses i.e. the sense of touch, the sense of hearing, the sense of smell, even the sense of taste. vision of the only sense that can't detect it.

dark matter has never been detected with any human senses, whether they are amplified by machines or not. Dark matter is an abstraction, invented by mathemagicians for the purpose of saving general relativity.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2014
Actually dark matter was first proposed by Fritz Zwicky to explain the anomalous rotation of galaxies.

On Earth.

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.