A dark matter bridge in our cosmic neighborhood

July 14, 2015, Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam
The figure shows the current stream of galaxies - the flow along in the cosmic super-highway and on the bridge to Virgo, in the region around the Milky Way, Andromeda and Centaurus A

By using the best available data to monitor galactic traffic in our neighborhood, Noam Libeskind from the Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam (AIP) and his collaborators have built a detailed map of how nearby galaxies move. In it they have discovered a bridge of dark matter stretching from our Local Group all the way to the Virgo cluster—a huge mass of some 2,000 galaxies roughly 50 million light-years away, that is bound on either side by vast bubbles completely devoid of galaxies. This bridge and these voids help us understand a 40 year old problem regarding the curious distribution of dwarf galaxies.

These are often found swarming around larger hosts like our own Milky Way. Since they are dim they are hard to detect, and are thus found almost exclusively in our cosmic neighborhood. A particularly fascinating aspect of their existence is that near the Milky Way and at least two of our closest neighbors—the Andromeda and Centaurus A galaxies—these satellites don't just fly around randomly, but are instead compressed on to vast, flat, possibly spinning, planes. Such structures are not a naive outcome of the cold model that most cosmologists believe is responsible for how the universe forms galaxies. These structures are thus a challenge to the current doctrine.

One possibility is that these echo the geometry of structure on much greater scales. "This is the first time we have had observational verification that large filamentary super highways are channeling dwarf galaxies across the cosmos along magnificent bridges of dark matter," Libeskind says. This cosmic "super highway" gives the speeding satellites an off ramp along which they can be beamed towards the Milky Way, Andromeda and Centaurus A. "The fact that this galactic bridge can affect the dwarf galaxies around us is impressive, given the difference in scale between the two: the planes of dwarfs are around 1 percent of the size of the galactic bridge to Virgo."

A Dark Matter bridge in our cosmic neighborhood
Current stream of galaxies (detailed).

Explore further: Astronomers measure weight of galaxies, expansion of universe

More information: "Planes of Satellite Galaxies and the Cosmic Web," Noam Libeskind et al., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/452/1/1052 , Arxiv: arxiv.org/abs/1503.05915

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 ...

Where are all the dwarfs?

February 1, 2013

Astronomers of the international CLUES collaboration have identified "Cosmic Web Stripping" as a new way of explaining the famous missing dwarf problem: the lack of observed dwarf galaxies compared with that predicted by ...

Satellite galaxies put astronomers in a spin

July 24, 2014

An international team of researchers, led by astronomers at the Observatoire Astronomique de Strasbourg (CNRS/Université de Strasbourg), has studied 380 galaxies and shown that their small satellite galaxies almost always ...

Image: Hubble captures galaxy PGC 18431

June 15, 2015

There are many galaxies in the universe and although there is plenty of room, they tend to stick together. The Milky Way, for example, is part of a large gathering of more than fifty galaxies known as the Local Group. Galaxy ...

Recommended for you

Matter waves and quantum splinters

March 25, 2019

Physicists in the United States, Austria and Brazil have shown that shaking ultracold Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) can cause them to either divide into uniform segments or shatter into unpredictable splinters, depending ...

How tree diversity regulates invading forest pests

March 25, 2019

A national-scale study of U.S. forests found strong relationships between the diversity of native tree species and the number of nonnative pests that pose economic and ecological threats to the nation's forests.

235 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Returners
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 14, 2015
Lies:

A very thorough investigation into the mass of the Milky Way has shown that there is no Dark Matter in the Milky Way, nor anywhere near it for that matter, as its entire mass is exactly what you would expect it to be if no Dark Matter existed at all.

Citation? A month-older article and paper detailing how the exact mass of the Milky Way has been measured to a margin of error of 20%, which is more than good enough to rule out Dark Matter.

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

The Milky Way is found to be between 1/4th and 1/8th the mass cited in most modern physics texts and in Encyclopedias (r.e. Dark Matter) which shows that the previous scientists FAKED their data about the Milky Way's mass.

Dark Matter theory is a FRAUD.
Returners
1 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2015
Whatever it is you think you are observing, it is NOT some hidden massive particle permeating galaxies or galaxy clusters, because direct measurement of the mass of the Milky Way proves no such "Dark Matter" exists.

Come up with some other, more rational explanation which holds for all of space and time, instead of repeating the lies started 80 years ago by one astrophysicist who couldn't even calculate Newton's Laws correctly for a rotating disk.
Returners
1 / 5 (14) Jul 14, 2015
Jeantate:

The original article is behind a pay wall.

I'm not paying any of these crackpots anything, whether their findings support or oppose my position. They aren't worth it, and they already receive far too much public funding through the university system.
Returners
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2015
It's dishonest for a paper funded by public university money to be behind a paywall.
TehDog
5 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2015
From Returners link;
" they were able to infer the mass of the Milky Way within a radius of 60,000 light years to be 210 billion times the mass of the Sun with an uncertainty of only 20 percent."
So, an estimate, not definitive, using a subset of the MW, accurate to +/- 20%.

I found this, looks like a good introductory text on DM, it even has numbers in it;
http://hendrix2.u...ass.html
Doubt any skeptics will bother checking it :(
Stevepidge
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2015
It's dishonest for a paper funded by public university money to be behind a paywall.


Paywalls for "science knowledge" have no place in ANY society that espouses beliefs of humanitarianism or the "betterment" of humanity as a whole.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2015
There is no DM bridge, the filamentary "bridges" are most likely the galactic Birkeland currents which power the galaxies and give the Universe it's structure. The filaments and voids was predicted by Alfven decades ago.

These structures are thus a challenge to the current doctrine.


To say the least...
carlo_piantini
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2015
Oh, wow, another piece of the universe built on an undiscovered form of exotic matter to solve another failed prediction...that's neat.

"Such structures are not a naive outcome of the cold dark matter model that most cosmologists believe is responsible for how the universe forms galaxies. These structures are thus a challenge to the current doctrine."

Thank god that we've got axions, WIMPs, sterile neutrinos - hell, even multi-componential dark matter models where you get to have all three at once! - to come and solve the problem. It would be nice to have a model that could *actually* predict things like this, but, at least we've got unobservable superglue to come patch it up.
carlo_piantini
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
"The theory of relativity is a fine example of the fundamental character of the modern development of theoretical science. The hypotheses with which it starts are becoming steadily more abstract and remote from experience. The theoretical scientist is compelled in an increasing degree to be guided by purely mathematical, formal considerations in his search for a theory, because the physical experience of the experimenter cannot life him into the regions of highest abstraction. The predominantly inductive methods appropriate to the youth of science are giving place to tentative deduction." -
Albert Einstein, Essays in Science, Philosophical Library, New York, 1934, p. 69

Maybe we should have stuck with what actually worked from ~1700-1915, the inductive method of conducting science. Where you don't allow incorrect assumptions like the homogenous distribution of matter to be the foundation of your cosmological models.
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2015
their synchrotron radiation would be screamingly obvious,


And we've had the discussion where your assumption is moot. Not only can plasma flow in dark mode current, but there is a the likelihood that this emission would be absorbed and re-emitted to resemble the CMB. Oh, and stop being a lazy POS and continually remarking about primary sources, you are quite capable of looking it up yourself. Try Peratt's website, Google, or any number of other resources which link to the science.
carlo_piantini
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2015
Actually, it's exceedingly unlikely that there are such currents ... their synchrotron radiation would be screamingly obvious, and show up in any number of large-scale surveys (e.g. FIRST, NVSS).


Yes, remember everyone, rely on only what can be observed...like dark matter...

There's no possible mechanism or object in the thousands, or millions, of light years between us and distant galaxies that could absorb and re-emit something like synchrotron radiation. Best to rely on something more concrete - like exotic, undiscovered and laboratory falsified particles that regularly contradict themselves as a model. This is much more sound, empirically.
carlo_piantini
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
Here's the thing: as Jean so aptly demonstrated in our last argument, when it comes to my scope of scientific literature or my understanding of high-level mathematics, yes, I'm out of my depth.

Here is what you don't need those two things for:
- The ability to read the scientific works of the greatest minds in the field, and to learn the principles of the scientific method.
- The ability to study the history of science, including its political contexts, social contexts, and the historical oscillation between Platonism, or the deductive method, and Ionian, or the inductive method.
- The ability to scrutinize the present history of a model and critique its constant failures.
- Or, as Faraday demonstrated, the ability to conduct absolutely flawless scientific research. Go crack open Faraday's magnum opus, "Experimental Researchers in Electricity." You're not going to find math in it. JT would've called it "looks like a duck" science...
docile
Jul 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
Why does the Dark Matter hypothesis need to be "Matter" at all?

Once you assume space and time can be warped (Einsteins Gravity) then you have a problem. If space and time can be warped by matter....can they be warped by something else?

Even if "Dark Matter" exists, without actual direct detection of the substance how is it a scientific statement to claim that the substance is "matter" at all?

That is conjecture.

Conjecture DOES have a place in intellectual discourse, because we can't know everything about everything, however it is not right to call it a THEORY and then DEMAND that everyone except it at face value, even in the face of conflicting evidence.

I would ask the authors of the study a simple question:

"If matter can bend space and time, what else can bend space and time? Does "Dark Matter" need to be "Matter" at all?"

the answer to both parts of this question is "yes, something else could conceivably bend space and time" and "no, it doesn't need to be"
Returners
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
Can you prove that the creation event of the universe didn't leave some regions of space and time slightly more curved than others, producing the appearance of phantom matter or phantom forces?

Answer: No, you can't prove that isn't the case.

If all matter, space, and time once existed in a singularity, then that implies the density of the universe and the "shape" fo space and time can hold pretty much any configuration from infinite in every direction or zero width/length in every direction. Thus it is no large leap of logic to notice that some regions of space and time may be inherently curved WITHOUT the pressence of an invisible phantom particle that perpetually evades direct detection.

See, if the "Dark Matter" is a particle, we should be able to detect it with all the particle detectors that have been made looking for it,b ut so far not even one particle confirmed to be a DM candidate has ever been discovered in a detector, nor even accidentally made in a collider.
carlo_piantini
1.8 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2015
this idea would ensure there'd be no internet, no smartphone, no tablet computers ...


Right, because the only possible way this could have happened is through deductive reasoning. Go ahead and exclude the fact that the history of electrical engineering, from Franklin to Priestley to Faraday to Tesla, is firmly rooted in the inductive method. Never mind that I'm not sure how the application of abstract mathematical thinking to cosmological models has anything to do electrical or computer engineering. But I'll go let Tesla know that when he developed the first logic gates, or discovered the principles of superconductivity, that his method of inductive reasoning wasn't getting him very far...

When you graduate to third year undergrad level, you'll realize just how ignorant this claim is ...


I'll wait with bated breath until then, it should be very exciting...
docile
Jul 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
carlo_piantini
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
However, from his extensive reading, carlo_piantini should be able to give a very good account, at least for the first three ...


Nope! Can't do that just yet, going to take a bit more time and a bit more reading - heaven forbid, someone educating themselves. I've already admitted that I am a novice, in just about every thread I've posted in. No one has to look to me as an authority for anything, which is why I include quotations from people who *are* authorities.
carlo_piantini
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
I do have some different questions though, if you're in a teaching mood:
http://sci.esa.in...lky-way/
http://www.news.c...79756018
http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

Why, with all of the perfectly objective research that goes on in the completely unbiased vacuum of scientific research, did your model not predict any of these things? And better yet, why was I, a 23-year old web developer who has had exposure to PC ideas, expecting them? Along with everyone else on the TB forum.

The same question goes for the falsified prediction mentioned in the article, or the seemingly endless list of contradictions with dark matter. Why so many slip ups?
Returners
1.3 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
Why isn't more work done on studying the "self-similarity" of the universe?

The cosmic computer models I have seen produce filaments and streams of galaxies passing along loosely gravitationaly bound chains, which criss-cross at nodes which astronomers call "super-clusters" when the analogous structure is observed in a telescope, but in the model, these galaxies are not bound to one another at all, they just happen to be flying through the same space at about the same time because that happens to be the direction the chain of galaxies was pointed in. No real explanation is given for why this "monster" develops.

I think Fractal geometry may hold a clue, because it looks like a 4th dimensional extension of the seirpenski carpet. What we have in such a structure is inherent curvature, before mass is even considered.

I am not saying that the universe is a fractal, but I am just pointing out the similarity. I'll post a link to one such model if I find it.
docile
Jul 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2015
Better yet, I'm just going to ask flat out: what is the value of your model? Why should I give it any measure of credit when it constantly - and yes, I have 40+ pages of notes that demonstrate how constant it is - runs into observations that it did not predict, and cannot explain, from the scale of superclusters all the way down to our own solar system.

Likewise, what is the value of models like General Relativity? A model is evaluated one two credentials: it's ability to make accurate predictions, and it's ability to be effectively useful. On the first count, GR is a fairly solid success. On the second count, it's a complete failure. There is barely anyone who can even conceptualize GR mechanically in their head, let alone understand the insanely complex mathematics it uses. The general population has no understanding of it whatsoever, a complete betrayal to the idea that science should be disseminated to the common working man. You have a tool that no one can use.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2015
The problem is that scientists, much like yourself, have transitioned from the idea that they are building useful models to describe and manipulate Nature, to thinking that they are somehow *actually* unraveling the secrets of the Universe, and reading God's mind. GR isn't considered a useful model, it's considered a fundamental aspect of Nature itself, which is complete bullshit. It's math, it's a tool that *we* built, and which has nothing to do with how Nature actual works. Yes, it works - sometimes very well, other times not so much. That doesn't make GR gospel.

Your constant condescension and arrogance betrays how little humility you have, or understanding that you, nor I, nor anyone else will ever genuinely understand nature. We're engineers, building models that we can use to make things happen. Your models are horrible at doing that.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
"Scientists using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have discovered that the immense halo of gas enveloping the Andromeda galaxy, our nearest massive galactic neighbor, is about six times larger and 1,000 times more massive than previously measured. The dark, nearly invisible halo stretches about a million light-years from its host galaxy, halfway to our own Milky Way galaxy. This finding promises to tell astronomers more about the evolution and structure of majestic giant spirals, one of the most common types of galaxies in the universe."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

In light of the fact there is a recently observed Visible Matter Halo emanating so distantly from Andromeda, then our MW must also have one as must all others. Wouldn't we see gravitational effects of so-called DM on these VM Halos?

Depending on which DM expert you read, one says DM is homogenous with VM while another says it segregrates itself from VM. How?
docile
Jul 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
Notice the self-similarity.

https://www.youtu...VDeUHMSA

Interesting Quasar outbursts from colliding galaxies and galaxy clusters in this model. I haven't seen that modeled in other universe models, so I was a bit surprised to see it in this one.
docile
Jul 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2015
BBC "What happened 'before' the Big Bang?"

https://www.youtu...ieSdbyZ8
carlo_piantini
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
Even #1 says so (and the primary sources on this number in the hundreds, if not thousands, of papers)


"The greatest surprise was the ubiquity of filaments in these nearby clouds and their intimate connection with star formation," explains Philippe André from CEA/IRFU, France, Principal Investigator for the Herschel Gould Belt Survey.

"But there is more: these observations revealed that filaments, which may extend to several light-years in length, appear to have a universal width of about one third of a light year. This suggests that something fundamental is lurking underneath."

You may wanna let Philippe know that then, apparently he's not well versed in the literature either.

Then we've got this awesome one, from 2012: The sun's convection was measured to be anywhere from ~20-100X too weak to transfer the heat from the core to the surface. As Duvail himself said, "the sun's interior now requires a complete overhaul." How did this one happen?
carlo_piantini
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
Just picking randoms out of my notes. Here's this one:
http://esciencene...iven.sun

Predictions about the structure of the heliosphere - wrong. And from my understanding of Alfven's/Juergen's work, they *did* predict this twin jet structure as part of the solar system's electric circuity. Of course, I want to read more about that too...
liquidspacetime
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
'Dark mass' fills 'empty space'. The dwarf galaxies are moving through and displacing the dark mass.

"This is the first time we have had observational verification that large filamentary super highways are channeling dwarf galaxies across the cosmos along magnificent bridges of dark matter"

What is really being witnessed is the state of displacement of the dark mass caused by the dwarf galaxies.

The dark mass on each side of the super highway is more at relativistic rest than the dark mass connected to and neighboring the dwarf galaxies which is displaced by the dwarf galaxies.

Think of the dwarf galaxies as moving through and displacing a supersolid. Where there is no matter the dark mass is not displaced. Where the dark mass is not displaced it is more at relativistic rest. Where the dark mass is at relativistic rest it is harder to detect.
docile
Jul 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
liquidspacetime
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2015
Your displacement model cannot explain the dark matter filaments, not even approximately. It's a completely different geometry.


The "dark matter filaments" is actually the state of displacement of the mass which fills 'empty space'.

The mass which fills 'empty space' is called the 'dark mass'.

The dwarf galaxies are moving through and displacing the dark mass, analogous to a caravan of submarines moving through and displacing the water.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2015
The "dark matter filaments" is actually the state of displacement of the mass which fills 'empty space'.

The mass which fills 'empty space' is called the 'dark mass'.


So, what would you like to do with the VM halos spanning 50% of the distances between larger galaxies such as Andromeda & MW?

"Scientists using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have discovered that the immense halo of gas enveloping the Andromeda galaxy, our nearest massive galactic neighbor, is about six times larger and 1,000 times more massive than previously measured. The dark, nearly invisible halo stretches about a million light-years from its host galaxy, halfway to our own Milky Way galaxy. This finding promises to tell astronomers more about the evolution and structure of majestic giant spirals, one of the most common types of galaxies in the universe."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
docile
Jul 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
Is everything we know wrong?

https://www.youtu...UTAy0ATo
liquidspacetime
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2015
So, what would you like to do with the VM halos spanning 50% of the distances between larger galaxies such as Andromeda & MW?


Andromeda and the Milky Way are moving through and displacing the dark mass. The halos are the state of displacement of the dark mass.

Think of two submarines moving through and displacing the water.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
*You* may evaluate a "model" that way only; hardly any of the great scientists you mention (and the ones you don't) did/do

They didn't evaluate their models based on their predictive efficacy and utility? Lol, okay dude...
Also, you keep putting "model" in quotes, as if I'm using it suspiciously. For clarity, I mean the generalized theoretical framework through which scientific research is directed. For example, the LCDM model, the nuclear-fusion model of stellar evolution, the accretion disk model of planetary formation, the one-fluid/two-fluid model of electricity from the 1700s, Newton's mathematical model describing force and gravity - a model.

Horsefeathers. You are projecting your own inadequacies and ignorance

"If we do discover a theory of everything...it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would truly know the mind of God." - Stephen Hawking. I let scientists speak for themselves. See again the above quote from Einstein.
liquidspacetime
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2015
Is everything we know wrong?

https://www.youtu...UTAy0ATo


Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

Our Universe is a larger version of the following artist's image of a galactic polar jet.

http://discoverma...3015.jpg
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2015
So, what would you like to do with the VM halos spanning 50% of the distances between larger galaxies such as Andromeda & MW?


Andromeda and the Milky Way are moving through and displacing the dark mass. The halos are the state of displacement of the dark mass.


What do you mean by "state of displacement"? The VM Halos completely surround the galaxy. So does this VM halo somehow push DM out of the way preceding the entrance of the galaxy to the perimeter edge of DM? Or is it the perimeter of the galaxy that sort of pushes DM out of the way? If it's the latter, then the VM Halo is homogeneously mixing with DM, but there is no such observation.

carlo_piantini
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
Yet more projection and ignorance ... why don't you, yourself, try a bit of humility?

More humility than being able to readily admit that mankind can never empirically understand that nature of reality and existence?...Okay. You seem to be a very well educated person, with a strong reservoir of scientific research.

Per what you've written, why don't you read up on 'the great scientists'? See what they have to say about basing all your inputs on unreliable sources?


I have been, exclusively. What you're saying is not what they've said. That's my problem. I realize that the progress of science is a spectrum of time, but there are also massive breaks as the direction of inquiry moves from a dominance in deductive thinking to a dominance in inductive thinking. You, someone who appreciates QM and GR, I'd qualify as the former. Faraday, Tesla, Newton, and the many other's I've mentioned before, were not. And I agree with their method.
liquidspacetime
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2015
What do you mean by "state of displacement"? The VM Halos completely surround the galaxy. So does this VM halo somehow push DM out of the way preceding the entrance of the galaxy to the perimeter edge of DM? Or is it the perimeter of the galaxy that sort of pushes DM out of the way? If it's the latter, then the VM Halo is homogeneously mixing with DM, but there is no such observation.


There is evidence of dark mass every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2015
What do you mean by "state of displacement"? The VM Halos completely surround the galaxy. So does this VM halo somehow push DM out of the way preceding the entrance of the galaxy to the perimeter edge of DM? Or is it the perimeter of the galaxy that sort of pushes DM out of the way? If it's the latter, then the VM Halo is homogeneously mixing with DM, but there is no such observation.


There is evidence of dark mass every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.

I didn't ask anything about that. You seem to be answering questions I'm not asking.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
I don't think Dark Matter is "Matter" at all, even if it is a "thing".

The problem is that if Dark Matter is a "thing" it nevertheless has NONE of the properties of "real" things we know, except Gravity (assumption*).

*The assumption in the standard model is that Dark Matter is a massive particle which interacts only via the gravitational force. However, there is no evidence to corroborate that "gravity" is involved in the interaction at all! For all you know, it could be a "fifth force" instead of a massive, invisible gravitational particle.

Occam's Razor?

Who knows what is simpler?

Invisible massive particle that has never been directly detected?

or

Fifth force?

Well, a fifth force is actually simpler, because we don't need to invent invisibility and dark matter halos, etc. We don't need to explain away why DM doesn't become trapped in Black Holes in the center of galaxies, or in the center of globular clusters. With a fifth force you can explain in one step.
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2015
IN that BBC video I posted, they compared the galaxies to the Solar System and claimed that the orbital curve for galaxies should be the same as the solar system.

This claim is FALSE, because in the solar system 99% of the mass is in the Sun, which we can treat for simplicity as a single point. In a Galaxy about 70% of the mass is distributed in the DISK, and this means that Newton's Law predicts that the orbital velocity curve should level off instead of decreasing.

Why? Because in a disk as you go out from the center the MASS increases as the square of radius. Well gravity decreases as the inverse square of radius. So square of radius divided by square of radius equals ONE, which represents a FLAT LINE.

GOD HELP ME THIS IS SO SIMPLE IT'S STUPID THAT THE PEOPLE WHO GET PAID TO THINK ABOUT THIS CAN'T SEE IT.

NEWTON'S LAW, CORRECTLY APPLIED, PREDICTS A FLAT STELLAR ORBITAL VELOCITY IN AN EVENLY DISTRIBUTED DISK, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR PHANTOM PARTICLES.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
THE ALLEGEDLY SPHERICAL DARK MATTER HALOS, WHEN PLUGGED INTO NEWTON'S LAW, DOES NOT PRODUCE A FLAT LINE. IT PRODUCES A CURVE WITH A POSITIVE SLOPE (THINK ABOUT PLANETS AND STARS INTERNAL GRAVITY AND SURFACE GRAVITY) AND THEREFORE WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE OUTER STARS IN A GALAXY ORBITING FASTER THAN THE INNER STARS, WHICH IS NOT OBSERVED.

THE PEOPLE INVENTING THIS THEORY DO NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND THE GEOMETRY OF NEWTON'S LAW, NOR DO THEY UNDERSTAND THE GEOMETRY OF THEIR OWN THEORY.

I'm so sick of having to show how the math of this works. I totally disproved the dark matter halo theory several years ago, with mathematics, and was banned from two physics sites just for posting the argument.
carlo_piantini
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2015
@Returners: Can this idea be tested experimentally? If you can engineer a mechanical model that proves it, that would be pretty awesome.
carlo_piantini
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2015
Fuck it, email me what you're talking about: carlo.piantini@gmail.com
liquidspacetime
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015

I didn't ask anything about that. You seem to be answering questions I'm not asking.


You appear to be stating the dark mass is not observed here on Earth.

The physical effects of the dark mass are observed when a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.
liquidspacetime
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2015
Who knows what is simpler?


'Empty' space has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

The mass which fills 'empty' space is call the 'dark mass'.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, the dark mass.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality, both are waves in the dark mass.

Dark mass displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
carlo_piantini
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
Jesus, you are just an endless round of semantics aren't you? You've suggested before that it's meaningless whether astrophysicists use the words "Birkeland currents," "field-aligned currents" or "magnetic flux ropes" - despite the objectively obvious effect it would have on directing attention away from Birkeland's ideas, and the astrophysical community's screw up - but I'm apparently suspect because I afford myself flexibility between model/framework/theory. Well done dude, you've tired me out today. Pat yourself on the back for the win.

Returners, I'm serious, if your mathematics can produce a testable lab model, I'll give it a fair chance. Email me.
carlo_piantini
3 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2015
Really?!?!? Sorry, I simply do not believe you ... any scientist who bases/based ALL their inputs on unreliable sources cannot be called a scientist ...


How are the works of Alfven, Peratt, Bostick, Birkeland, Tesla, or any other person within the scientific community unreliable? You keep missing the entire point, which is why you're getting so frustrated: I'm not interested in just reading the Thunderbolts blog and taking them at *their* word either. The scientists I mentioned above, I have all of the work they've published that I can get my hands on. I want to read all of it, understand all of it, and even more, replicate it in my lab. In what way does that infuriate you so badly?

My entire point, is that I *don't* believe that scientific community has given their research a fair chance. I don't believe that because I've read it out of their own mouths.
carlo_piantini
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
Go read Alfven's acceptance speech notes from his Nobel Prize ceremony. http://www.nobelp...ture.pdf

Those are all his words, and not mine. Or yours. So I guess neither one of us believes each other. The only difference is that you have a bizarre insistence that the work of these people not be included into astrophysical debate or research in their totality - which you have said, it is not. Despite the amount of work from Alfven already accepted and used in the present model.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
Mathematics is a sub-set of logic, so it stands to reason that since mathematics is a sub-set of logic, it is inherently incapable of completely describing the universe.

If I ask you the question "Did you go to the grocery store today?"

Well, that isn't a mathematical question. It's a logical question. Now in computers they use 1 and 0 to represent true and false respectively, but that doesn't mean that the condition of "true" has an actual mathematical value.

You'll never be able to describe a super-set using only a sub-set. Such a proposition is an absurdity.
docile
Jul 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2015
Oh, and stop being a lazy POS and continually remarking about primary sources, you are quite capable of looking it up yourself

Your claims, you back them up


They are not my claims, they are the in the scientific literature. Or you can choose to continue to ignore it. What's amazing is you can be so sure about something when you haven't read the science.

Further, they often contain "quotes" which are not the words spoken/written by those to whom they are attributed (and often the scientists being "quoted" do not get to read a draft, with their fake quotes, before it's published!) Outrageous? Yes; sadly, though, it's all too common

Sounds like the scientist should boycott the media, being that they make appear so stupid and ignorant all the time...
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2015
NEWTON'S LAW, CORRECTLY APPLIED, PREDICTS A FLAT STELLAR ORBITAL VELOCITY IN AN EVENLY DISTRIBUTED DISK, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR PHANTOM PARTICLES.


This is known to be true for Ellipticals. The Inverse Square Law is an observed feature of Ellipticals such that the orbital velocities of the outermost stars varies in strict accord to the distance from the centers of those galaxies, Newtonian gravity if you please.

Spirals degrade to form Ellipticals. Ellipticals function very well absent the need for DM gravitational dynamics, so how does it become such a magical moment in time that DM should appear & disappear based on the stage of galactic evolution from Spirals to Ellipticals? Where did the DM go after Spirals merged to form Ellipticals? How about that the DM was never there in the first place.

docile
Jul 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2015
Miles Mathis on dark matter at http://milesmathi...avli.pdf ...

---

They don't want answers, they want big fake questions that require big fake searches, preferably searches costing in the billions – which they can then milk from the treasuries.

That is why the mainstream never seems to make any headway on the dark matter problem (or any other problems), and why Scientific American is telling you this very week on its cover that "Dark matter may be much weirder than physicists thought."

Weirdness is very convenient when you are selling open-ended searches for manufactured things: it prevents logical questions and rational critique.

---
docile
Jul 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2015
But IMO their elongated shape is native consequence of rich dark matter content


Plainly speaking, you simply do not understand why the Earth's orbit around the sun is elliptical. It is for the same reason that the stars of Elliptical galaxies have elliptical orbits. The Earth has a perihelion & an aphelian in it's orbit about the sun, so does the Moon in its orbit about the Earth, this orbital eccentricity is in the geometry of an ellipse. Do you seriously think this principle changes as soon as we leave our solar system?

Maybe you believe, as do so many DM Enthusiasts, that there is this transition quality beyond our solar system that has been labeled "cosmological distance factor". This unfounded belief that as soon as some "cosmological distance" is reached, all the gravity rules start changing. How so? You mean that what works in our solar system is not the way the rest of the Universe operates? How come only our solar system is subject to that exemption?


Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2015
@ Returnering-Skippy. How you are?

I totally disproved the dark matter halo theory several years ago, with mathematics, and was banned from two physics sites just for posting the argument.


You did not get the boot for disproving any thing. You got the boot because you went off the deep end when nobody would listen to you tell them the 6 or 5 times over and over that your proof was proof. You filled up all the postum discussions with dozens and more dozens of your ponderings all day long and would not stop when the moderators ask you too.

You couldn't sell your idea to anybody and that caused you to have one of your melt-down things caused by your mental conditions.

That is the only thing you proved over there, that you have the serious mental condition.

Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2015
The Inverse Square Law is an observed feature of Ellipticals such that the orbital velocities of the outermost stars varies in strict accord to the distance from the centers of those galaxies, Newtonian gravity if you please.


I already explained here, that the dark matter content in elliptical galaxies is not only high, but also extended outside the perimeter of galaxy
Sure, you've explained it alright, "tidal forces"? As JT would ask: Have you....(well, you know the rest of the litany).

TehDog
5 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2015
"GOD HELP ME"
I wish some $deity would... :(
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2015
Just an artist's viewpoint, here - magnetic field interactions?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2015
You really should take a course in reading comprehension; seriously, how you spin this kind of complete poppycock from what I write is quite beyond me ...
@JeanTate
it is actually fairly explainable, if you look at it from a psych perspective: he is defending his religion and/or delusion and/or conspiracy ideation -(however one wants to call it)

see also:
http://jspp.psych...443/html

and
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

this isn't too bad either
http://web.missou...ange.pdf

when you're a member of a cult, or you've been taken by a con-man... you don't want to admit this while trying to break even, or at least sucker someone else to assuage your own chronic/painful blows to your ego... so you lash out and use transference to lessen the impact in a primitive dispersion of pain (all psychological, mind you, not physical)
docile
Jul 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (12) Jul 15, 2015
it is actually fairly explainable, if you look at it from a psych perspective: he is defending his religion and/or delusion and/or conspiracy ideation -(however one wants to call it)

I think he's just suffering from general's delusion: Everyone wants to be a general (scientist) - no one wants to be a footsoldier (student).
But he doesn't realize that to be a good general you actually have to go through the footsoldier-regime (i.e. you actually have to KNOW what you're talking about and have actually have done some work and produced some results)...otherwise you're just a guy with delusions of grandeur.
docile
Jul 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2015
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die

The thing is, tho: The same reasonming goes for cranks who defend a wrong theory without the cranial capacity to understand that its wrong. Crackpots eventually die, too.

So just defending something that isn't 'mainstream' (as if such a thing as mainstream even existen in science) doesn't tell you whether you got it right or wrong. And iof you're playing the odds: you're far more probably wrong than right.
Good theories tend to be replaced every few decades. Bad ones shatter a hundred a day.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2015
Dude, you yourself have admitted that you do not read primary sources (i.e. published papers); you yourself cited - as primary sources! - popsci articles; I pointed out that these are not reliable; you claimed that the greats who you have read base ALL their inputs on unreliable sources; ... etc.


From my posts, on this article: http://phys.org/n...ant.html
"...while independently studying everything I can, as I complete my studying of calculus, geometry, trigonometry and statistics. Likewise, I'm interested in strictly analyzing, revisiting, and scrutinizing the entire history of the currently accepted model, while in tandem researching and contrasting it to alternative models. I plan to start at with the works of Francis Bacon, as well as the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Institute, The Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineering, and The Plasma Physics Journal of IEEE.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2015
Likewise, and also from that thread:
"Again, I genuinely have to marvel at the irony. First, because I am not "majoring" in anything - I'm a 23yr old working in web-development as a programmer. I'm independently studying physics by reading the direct published works of Descartes, Newton, Huygens, Leibniz, Franklin, Boscovich, Priestley, Goethe, Faraday, Young, Helmholtz, Hertz, Tesla, Maxwell, Heaviside, Steinmetz, Lodge, Langmuir, Alfven, Bostick, Peratt, Birkeland, JJ Thompson, and William Thomson, to name of a few. If you're suggesting that by reading their work, and conducting their experiments, that I'm somehow "doing science wrong," by all means let them know that."

In my other posts, I've also directly sourced:
- Chen et Al's Paper on Plasma Redshift
- Lerner's Paper on the UV Brightness of Galaxies from the Local Universe
- Kronberg's Measurement of Electric Currents in Galactic Jets
And in this very thread, a the paper about from '12 about the Sun's convection.
carlo_piantini
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
It's *extraordinarily* depressing to learn from you that none of these are primary sources within the scientific community. Guess I should toss my copy of "The Principia" out the window...maybe I can use it as a paper weight...
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 15, 2015
You & Benni should get together & share tips on how to forget what you write, how to misquote


Dude, you yourself have admitted that you do not read primary sources (i.e. published papers); you yourself cited as primary sources popsci articles; I pointed out that these are not reliable; you claimed that the greats who you have read base ALL their inputs on unreliable sources


Please, try to keep you story straight, OK?


There are no straight stories about the DM Narrative, it changes on a weekly basis because new observations like the Andromeda Halo demand it. Vaunted "published papers" have become popsci because they push narratives in total defiance of observations, the same as you do, & you do it because they do it.

The gravity in our solar system is 100% accounted for by it's observable visible matter, yet you claim 75-99% of the mass of the Universe is missing, then your explanations morph into unintelligible buzzwords like "Cosmological Distance".

docile
Jul 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
carlo_piantini
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
Enough with the, um, distortions, please!


Okay, I'll stop directly quoting entire comments that I've made on articles, two days before this thread even began. Distortion...meanwhile, you were unaware that I've cited four primary sources, as well as a detailed an *extensive* syllabus of scientific literature, and yet you're raving that all I'm interested in is reading the TB blog, or that I want to exclude any actual scientific papers.

Now, back to whether you are prepared to read primary sources, in general: if you have yet to finish "calculus, geometry, trigonometry and statistics", how will you interpret what you read?


To the best of my ability. Then I will learn more math, and read it again. Then learn more math, and read it again. Rinse and repeat.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2015
@cp: while we're on the topic, how about you consider replying to my questions on how you intend 'to scale' lab experiment results to linear dimensions of, say, 1 to 1,000,000,000 pc?


Don't know, but given that *doing so* would be the best possible and primarily inductive method to creating an accurate picture of the mechanics and mathematics involved in our Universe, *someone should fucking figure it out.* I hope to be the person to do it, from working every day in a plasma lab. I plan to use the research from Alfven, Langmuir, Peratt, Bostick, Tesla, and *any other* laboratory plasma physicist's research to get it done, in a lab. If I can't, then I can't, so be it. But the idea that this is somehow the *wrong* approach, and that we should just continue deriving mathematics and then blindly throwing it into the LCDM without replicating what we *actually* see in the lab, is something I vehemently disagree with.

Experiments first, then the math. Not the other way around.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2015
All: My AV has been telling me, for several days now, that there is software on some PO pages that likely contains malware. I suspect it's embedded in some of the ads (an apparently bespoke 'player' in one, IIRC). I've contacted PO, and unless I hear from them soon re this, I'll be logging out, and deleting my PO account.

AFAIK, malware embedded in ads - in sites like PO - is a popular tool used for phishing and a route to take control of your computer; it's particularly effective because you do not necessarily need to click on the ad for the malware to work.

That's the best news I've heard all day! Here's to hoping PO continues to ignore like usual.
docile
Jul 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
carlo_piantini
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2015
I ask because you seem to have little-to-no understanding of what actually happens, in today's science ...


Quite contrary to the entire history of the scientific field, JT affirms very ardently - at least in implication, if not explicitly - that every scientist is 100% objective at all times; that the peer-review system offers no possibility for centralized thinking, consensus science, or monopoly on theory; that there is no group think, internal or external politics involved in science, and that every scientist will give objective research a fair chance.
carlo_piantini
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
Of course, then we have this:

Ms Loi told news.com.au that her research was initially dismissed as being based on imperfections in the telescope images.

"They had never seen this type of thing before. No one had looked at the data in this way before," she said. A lot of the people were pretty convinced is was some problem with the imaging, that it was nothing to get excited about. But, I guess being a student and being a bit stubborn, I was so curious, so mystified. I was careful about what had happened, and that's how everyone came to be convinced that it had to be something else." - http://www.news.c...79756018

But then again, no science news website can be trusted, and quotes from scientists themselves are fabricated.
docile
Jul 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2015
he's showing you how easily you can be conned by a con artist, without explicitly saying so
@JeanT
i looked at his pi paper re: Newton & Leibniz "and everyone since who has been doing the calculus wrong" ROTFLMFAO
it's not limited to cp ... HA ...the same problem
the bulk of those cult members (say "got conned") come out in astrophysics/physics posts (eu), but you can also find many in the climate change (which zephir & cd et al tend to also post in)

Watch how they post and how defensive they get when you post source materials which directly refute them- especially when they can't comprehend the source material (and you explain it to them)-this is especially true of those who claim high education, like benni

conspiracy ideation is only one common trait- note they all argue against mainstream anything, but they all also have poor scientific literacy skills & are easily manipulated/conned- they are religious (they replaced science wi/ cult belief)
carlo_piantini
3 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2015
@Captain: Last time we got into it, you decided to stoop to the level of saying I have dyslexia, which 1) is unfathomably insulting to people who genuinely have learning disabilities, and 2) discredits those same people, suggesting they can't conduct scientific research well.

Frankly, I find you appalling a person.

Keep calling it conspiracy theories. Other's call it a willing recognition within the history of science of patterns of subjective bias and monopolistic frameworks narrowly directing the creation of models and the route of scientific thinking. If the work of PC scientists stands on its own, as JT says, then exactly what is wrong with me studying it right along side mainstream frameworks, as I've already mentioned many times is my plan. Shouldn't I arrive at the same conclusion anyway?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2015
@JeanTate cont'd
All: My AV has been telling me, for several days now, that there is software on some PO pages that likely contains malware
it is most definitely in the ad-ware
there are certain things you can try, starting with using a HOSTS file: http://winhelp200...osts.htm

this will protect you from the bulk of the automated phishing and ad mal-ware, but not specifric targeted attacks when you specifically visit a site with phishing attacks, like jvk's personal web pages or the thunderbolts/eu personal pages (just a warning)
you can eliminate much of that risk with anonymizer software, firewall and good anti-Virus... mostly because they're typically not computer literate enough due to the time/challenge of code (much the same reason they don't study actual physics)

i've been using this HOST file for a long time with no ill effects after being hit on PO and thunderbolts - keep the antiV and other stuff!

any questions: e-mail me
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
I thought it was funny on that BBC documentary that none of the physicists believed in the Standard Model, including several of the physicists who contributed to the Standard Model.

Michio Kaku doesn't want to accept "division by Zero" in an acceptable model, and his attempts to merge QM and GR produced another equation that had a division by zero term, which he rejects. He also wants us to re-define "Nothing". That is to say, Dr. Kaku (like me) does not believe existence could arrive from a state of absolute nothing. However, he is agnostic and can't accept the proposal of a creator God either, thus he continues to search for the answer in purely mathematical models.

As I have explained, mathematics is only a sub-set of logic, and therefore cannot, in itself, explain the super-set which is reality.

Simply put, Reality has some laws which are not purely mathematical, and this means no mathematical equation would ever fully describe reality.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2015
which 1) is unfathomably insulting to people who genuinely have learning disabilities, and 2) discredits those same people, suggesting they can't conduct scientific research well
@cp
1- i personally have dyslexia
2- please re-read the comment for comprehension
3- dyslexia often manifests itself in reading/comprehension problems in youth and if you don't learn how to combat it (learn techniques to help yourself) then you will continue to manifest comprehension problems in your maturity... you show signs of having a problem that is NOT dealt with and is manifesting in serious comprehension issues, as well as "economy of truth", while being defensive and transference when you are debunked with actual source material, especially when said poster is demonstrating intelligence and logic far beyond your capacity to comprehend (see JeanTate above-elsewhere)
Keep calling it conspiracy theories
you are the one demonstrating conspiracy ideation
docile
Jul 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
@cp cont'd
Other's call it a willing recognition within the history of science of patterns of subjective bias and monopolistic frameworks narrowly directing the creation of models and the route of scientific thinking
your reasoning is spoken like a true conspiracy theorist: see also
http://phys.org/n...ies.html

what is wrong with me studying it right along side mainstream... Shouldn't I arrive at the same conclusion anyway?
that depends on your ability to comprehend and process logically, and stay objective
rule 1- learn the right way before taking on the questionable stuff

go here: http://ocw.mit.ed...=physics

its FREE... it also includes plasma physics, and you will learn how to use the scientific method to continue research - then you can learn to be objective and use real physics to discern the pseudoscience, and NOT GET CONNED
docile
Jul 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2015
Proof that reality has some non-mathematical laws.

We have the axiom which states that the laws of physics are the same for all of space and time.

While this statement deals with mathematical concepts, it is not a mathematical statement. It is an axiomatic, metaphysical statement, and it is an assumption which is made on the basis that if the laws are not the same for all of space and time then they would be too hard to understand, and science wouldn't be as reputable as it is.

The speed of light postulate is not a mathematical statement, even though it deals with a mathematical expression.

While Newton's gravity formula can show a relationship between two masses, it cannot explain what actually causes this relationship, nor does GRT, BECAUSE there are laws and relationships which are non-mathematical which produce mathematical results.

Theoreticians have barely even scratched the surface of trying understand these "background laws". Nobody even works on it.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2015
If you want to understand whatever Dark Matter and Dark Energy allegedly are, you might want to start asking the question "Why does Newton's Gravity exist, and Why does it follow this particular relationship, and the same for Einstein?"

It is one thing to show a geometrical and mathematical relationship, it is quite another to answer the question fo why the reality we know should have that law instead of some other law.

IF you cannot answer that question, then how can you hope to understand "entities" which can never be directly observed?

I still favor the theory that DM and DE are more likely ERROR than actual "things".

The burden of proof is supposedly on the person making the positive affirmation. Therefore DM proponents must PROVE that there is actually a massive, invisible, non-interacting particle producing gravity....instead of some other alternative explaination....they aren't close to that, because not even one candidate DM particle has ever been detected
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
Moreover, the local evidence in our own Galaxy shows that the (corrected) Milky Way's mass is what you would expect it to be if no Dark Matter existed at all.

Therefore the only direct evidence we have concerning Dark Matter is actually opposed to the alleged DM phenomenon being caused by an invisible massive particle.

To explain motions like the virgo super cluster or the so-called "Dark Flow" problem, there are alternatives.

In Brane theories, for example, you can imagine brane collisions which are slightly "wrinkled" in parts of the branes, and this would produce space-time which is curved more heavily in some locations even in the absence of mass. You can physically model this idea with two pieces of paper or two bed sheets. Everywhere they touch one another continuously would be a surface that represents a "universe", and if they are wrinkled, then the space-time in that wrinkle's region will be curved regardless fo mass content.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2015
I am not using Brane theory to support Brane theory, I am just showing that there are models with conceivable relationships which can explain warped/biased space-time without the need for invisible, undetectable particles.

I don't know whether Brane theory is true, and even if it is true it still does not answer the fundamental question it is supposed to be answering: Where did everything come from?

The problem with Brane Theory is it fails Occam's Razor, because the theory of one Omnipotent creator God is much simpler than the theory of an infinite number of infinite Brane surfaces, and there are actually fewer serious arguments against the existence of God than there are against the existence of Branes.

The Brane theorists admit that at least two Branes are needed in their model.

IN creationist philosophy only one infinite Being is needed.

Therefore in the absence of any other information, Occam's Razor favors one Creator God, because it's at least twice as simple.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2015
he's showing you how easily you can be conned by a con artist
@JeanT
one of the most interesting things about the home page of MM comes down to this: "buy my book" because i don't have published papers/research in a reputable peer-reviewed journal

wonder where that puts him on the Baez index?
i know it is Bingo again for me here: http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

LMFAO

the funniest thing about cp that i am noticing is his defensive reaction to being proven wrong, especially WRT his reading/comprehension skills
Feels dumb; has poor self-esteem; hides or covers up weaknesses with ingenious compensatory strategies; easily frustrated and emotional about school reading or testing
http://www.dyslex...toms.htm

cp seems to exhibit a lot of symptoms (on the link)
...stoop to the level of saying I have dyslexia...discredits those same people, suggesting they can't conduct scientific research well
cant comprehend what i said, either
interesting
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2015
Just so that I'm clear, you do not plan on doing any other lab experiments, such as a modern-day version of Pound-Rebka, right?


...What are you talking about? How can you possibly come here and suggest that I have a comprehension problem, and then post this? The *entire* point of *everything* that I've said is that I want to get in a lab, and conduct every possible experiment I can. Anyone who reads any part of this thread should clearly be able to see that - my entire premise is that lab work should *exclusively* drive the construction of models. In what possible world would there be an experiment that I *don't* want to replicate? How can someone miss the point of what I'm saying this badly, and then turn around and I have a reading comprehension problem.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2015
Feels dumb; has poor self-esteem; hides or covers up weaknesses with ingenious compensatory strategies; easily frustrated and emotional about school reading or testing


Right...which is why I've chosen to self-educate myself - after graduating from high school and college with a degree in english/creative writing and a minor in philosophy - in possibly the hardest academic field there is, by reading the works of the arguably some of the smartest people who've ever lived...my shot self-esteem.

It's called the Higgs boson, not the Brout-Englert-Higgs boson; the Hubble relation, not the Slipher relation; the "Period-Luminosity Relation" not the "Henrietta Swan Leavitt Relation"; ... (there are thousands, possible hundreds of thousands, of such) ...


But the distinction between model/framework/theory offers zero flexibility, in the way I've used it? Fair enough I suppose.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2015
Honestly, cp, are you deliberately setting out to grossly misunderstand what I write? If so, why?


No, I understand. I just disagree with your opinion that published scientific news has no reflection on the scientific community, relevant new discoveries, or the culture that science is conducted and presented within. I haven't misunderstand any part of your discussion thus far. We just feel differently on a great number of things.
carlo_piantini
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2015
So you add cap-locks into my comment, and the tell me to chill? Dude...alright, I'm done guys. JT, Captain, thank you for the resources you've provided. I have bookmarked them, and they're included in my reading list.

Yes JT, I know it's a ten-year plan. I want it to be a life-long plan. I want to spend every day that I possibly can in a lab, and hopefully make that perfectly galaxy I've told you about before. I think it can be done, and I think it will be helpful to our understanding of the Universe. If, as you say, all the PC scientists I've mentioned can't help, then I guess all I will have ended up losing is a resource I believe will be helpful. I disagree that they will end up being unhelpful, but for me it's ultimately meaningless either way. The goal still stands - build a solar system, and galaxy, in the lab.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2015
which is why I've chosen to self-educate myself - after graduating from high school and college with a degree in english/creative writing and a minor in philosophy
@cp
so are you saying you graduated college? or are you being "economical with the truth" again? or being satirical re: my post here: http://phys.org/n...ant.html

please note: your reading comprehension demonstrations specifically refute your claim here
I understand. I just disagree
there has been troubles understanding on your part. hence my inquiry re: dyslexia

.

somehow garner a bevy of 5 star votes
@bschott
the difference: we KNOW Whyde is an artist seeking to understand in his own way, and is willing to accept correction: the pseudoscience posters here tend to be very deliberate in their exclusion of acceptance of evidence, anything which refutes their chosen pseudoscience, & unable to accept actual science over BS
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2015
you add cap-locks into my comment, and the tell me to chill?
@cp
from what i see, the caps were to point out a specific question WRT your post, which was the reason for caps, IMHO
hopefully make that perfectly galaxy I've told you about before. I think it can be done, and I think it will be helpful to our understanding of the Universe
actually, i hope you do this as well... but as JT pointed out, it will require scalability (heavy mathematics) and intense physics knowledge, not just of electrical engineering (as you seem focused on) but also of plasma physics, astrophysics, and everything else (plus more, likely) in that list i gave you from MIT

i hope you DO get to the MIT site and take the free courses, starting with undergrad up through the graduate level!

it will help a lot... it will also make you comprehend some of what JT (et al) have been saying about sources, information, evidence and much more

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2015
I haven't misunderstand any part [sic]
@cp
one last very cogent point: your comprehension infers fanatical acceptance of your own personal delusional beliefs
case in point- your quote
If, as you say, all the PC scientists I've mentioned can't help
i don't see ANY post above where this is stated: only that you should not accept blogs/articles/pop-sci/self-published etc over validated, peer reviewed reputable journal publications where there is evidence- PRIMARY SOURCE is the key!

this intentional misinterpretation of what JT et al has been saying is why i think you should consider counseling or diagnosis re: reading/comprehension

it is imperative that you can actually comprehend what is being said before you start clinging to a theory or interpreting what is being written.

.

@JeanTate
most likely he meant: plasma cosmology
it is a common shortcut used here by the electric u clan
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2015
This site seems to have a "downvote on general principle" philosphy
@bschott
I can't speak for others, only myself. i vote on content- if you are not showing primary sources, and haven't made a case for your argument...
What you label pseudoscience, like the EU guys for instance, still may have valid scientific principles
i never said they didn't... SOME do... but are misinterpreted, like SOME eu claims

however, the eu promotion w/o evidence and in the face of refutation is PSEUDOSCIENCE, not science

they [eu] refuse to accept this
vote should reflect it
some of their posts are simply repeated diatribes from elsewhere, and until you can actually find said origin, you shouldn't complain about those who downvote. just sayin'

also: mixing science with pseudoscience is not science
it is NOT the scientific method
when you try to explain, say, the BIBLE with science, you will always fail (& vice versa)
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2015
Damn, can't possibly believe that through this whole thing I forgot to post this:
Alfven's Programme in Solar System Physics, Stephen G. Brush, 1992 - IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science

Abstract:
According to some scientists and philosophers of science, a theory is or should be judged by its ability to make successful predictions. This paper examines a case from the history of recent science-the research of Alfven and his colleagues on solar system physics-in order to see whether scientists actually follow this policy. Tests of seven predictions are considered: magnetic braking, MHD waves, field-aligned ("Birkeland") currents...It is found that the success or failure of these predictions had essentially no effect on the acceptance of Alfven's theories...

http://ieeexplore...serType=
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2015
I would guess one out of a hundred have seen the inside of a lab, some people make poor choices with their beliefs.

The weird thing is - it's not that hard to do. Most universities and research labs have a day of the year where the public can get in.
And even on any other day you can actually go and have a chat with scientists. It's not like they are hidden behind walls. Their email is publicly available on the university sites (and also on most all papers they write).
If you have a genuine interest in any particular paper (because it's hidden by a paywall) you can always go and ask the author direct. I have yet to meet one who has refused to hand out at the very least a preprint verion (mostly they send you the actual pdf of the paper). Scientists actually LIKE it when you're interested in their work.

Go figure.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2015
Just an artist's viewpoint, here - magnetic field interactions?
Discerning eye, those are indeed field lines, but not magnetic. What you're seeing is the cosmic velocity field for the local universe.

From the "Summary and Conclusions" section (arxiv link):
"Spin and halo shape are directly built by the stresses and strains due to the gravitational deformation of the cosmic velocity field. This is clearly seen in numerical simulations of structure formation and now for the first time demonstrated for the local universe, a region whose velocity field we are able to probe with high accuracy."
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
Fair thee well Jean Tate, fair thee well...
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
Fair thee well Jean Tate, fair thee well...

Fare... Stinkin' iPhone autospell
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2015
Just an artist's viewpoint, here - magnetic field interactions?
Discerning eye, those are indeed field lines, but not magnetic. What you're seeing is the cosmic velocity field for the local universe.

From the "Summary and Conclusions" section (arxiv link):
"Spin and halo shape are directly built by the stresses and strains due to the gravitational deformation of the cosmic velocity field. This is clearly seen in numerical simulations of structure formation and now for the first time demonstrated for the local universe, a region whose velocity field we are able to probe with high accuracy."

So what you're saying is...
various galactic size lumps of matter are gravitationally slowed or sped up by other differently "charged" lumps in a fluid like manner? Kinda like water in a stream?
Interesting...
bluehigh
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2015
I'll be logging out, and deleting my PO account. - chatterTard

> 5 stars.

I meant what I said; if I don't hear from PO fairly soon, .... I'll be gone from here, permanently. ... do not treat reports of it - like mine - seriously enough.

> self important, right?

Be gone and take some of the other narrow minded tools with you.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2015
Fair thee well Jean Tate, fair thee well...

Fare... Stinkin' iPhone autospell

Actually CD, either works.
However, I question the sincerity of your adieu, in that it fared sarcastic...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
various galactic size lumps of matter are gravitationally slowed or sped up by other differently "charged" lumps in a fluid like manner? Kinda like water in a stream?

Where do you get the 'differently charged' part? There's only one 'charge' at work here: gravitational attraction.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (12) Jul 16, 2015
Fascinating isn't? That this Cosmic Fairy Dust is only detectable at "cosmological distances" of billions of light years yet the article makes a claim that 85% of the Universe is composed of this stuff.

Then of course there is the "clumpy" aspect they discuss in the article. Selectively clumpy, so much so that it cannot enter our solar system. The hyper-special gravity this stuff features carries such innate flavors of gravitons that it can figure out how to enshroud whole giant Elliptical galaxies & never get sucked in.

Yeah, real special stuff whose special gravity prevents it from showing up in our solar system where it would be easy to measure all those daunted gravity characteristics. But wait, if it makes up 85% of the Universe, isn't our solar system also located in the same Universe? That must only mean 85% of our nearest star is missing, but darn, all it's visible mass accounts for all it's gravity. Well, on to the next fairy tale I guess.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
Fair thee well Jean Tate, fair thee well...

Fare... Stinkin' iPhone autospell

Actually CD, either works.
However, I question the sincerity of your adieu, in that it fared sarcastic...

Am I that transparent? The degree of sarcasm intended was neither a county fair or even a state fair level, but to the degree of the World's Fair.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2015
various galactic size lumps of matter are gravitationally slowed or sped up by other differently "charged" lumps in a fluid like manner? Kinda like water in a stream?

Where do you get the 'differently charged' part? There's only one 'charge' at work here: gravitational attraction.

Maybe I meant direction and speed... or maybe densities...
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
Fair thee well Jean Tate, fair thee well...

Fare... Stinkin' iPhone autospell

Actually CD, either works.
However, I question the sincerity of your adieu, in that it fared sarcastic...

Am I that transparent? The degree of sarcasm intended was neither a county fair or even a state fair level, but to the degree of the World's Fair.

That was ruff. you need to work on a fairing...
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
Fascinating isn't? That this Cosmic Fairy Dust is only detectable at "cosmological distances" of billions of light years yet the article makes a claim that 85% of the Universe is composed of this stuff.

Maybe it's just the density of the stuff and it takes that big of a volume to actually see it...
"Space is a mighty big place"... Jody Foster in Contact...
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
Fair thee well Jean Tate, fair thee well...

Fare... Stinkin' iPhone autospell

Actually CD, either works.
However, I question the sincerity of your adieu, in that it fared sarcastic...

Am I that transparent? The degree of sarcasm intended was neither a county fair or even a state fair level, but to the degree of the World's Fair.

That was ruff. you need to work on a fairing...

Fair to say, however, it's funny you should say so, the fairing on my wife Ninja is cracked from when she laid it down. I in fact do need to work on a fairing, but it maybe a sorted affair since I'm an amateur epoxyist. But when I do we may once again fare forth, she on her Ninja, myself on my S4R...

cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
Fair thee well Jean Tate, fair thee well...

Fare... Stinkin' iPhone autospell

Actually CD, either works.
However, I question the sincerity of your adieu, in that it fared sarcastic...

Am I that transparent? The degree of sarcasm intended was neither a county fair or even a state fair level, but to the degree of the World's Fair.

That was ruff. you need to work on a fairing...

Fair to say, however, it's funny you should say so, the fairing on my wife Ninja is cracked from when she laid it down. I in fact do need to work on a fairing, but it maybe a sorted affair since I'm an amateur epoxyist. But when I do we may once again fare forth, she on her Ninja, myself on my S4R...


Sordid damn iPhone, sordid...
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 17, 2015
@JT,

In spite of the sarcasm, I want you back. I want you back because it is so entertaining following your convoluted explanations about how "nothing+nothing= infinity". We need you're presence here because you are the perfect example of why mainstream physics has become such a twisted fantasy as it becomes more deeply embedded inside the purview of the political classes.

You can put on Ad-blocking if you don't want advertisers following you all over the place. You should also put on Flash-blocking as well so that you don't get those pesky auto-start videos which often circumvent Ad-Blocking & chew up your bandwidth allotment.

Puleeeeeeeeeze, JT, we desperately need popsci entertainment here & you've been so much fun for it.

By the way Stumpy, Ira, & the rest of JT's 5 Star voting clique, you guys just ignore this because your boorish language has no entertainment value.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 17, 2015
According to the DM Narrative, the best way to work out where the dark matter lies is through gravitational lensing—the distortion of the Universe's fabric by gravity, which deflects the light coming from distant galaxies far beyond the dark matter.

So let's just back up here about a hundred years. When Einstein published General Relativity in 1916, he produced the calculations for exact angle of gravitational lensing when starlight passes by our Sun. He didn't need to come up with missing matter to supply gravity in addition to the Sun's gravity. This being the case, why is there this constant referencing to DM causing gravitational lensing? It is done because they are either abysmally ignorant of GR or they are trying to put over a false concept that gravitational lensing cannot occur except in the presence of so-called Dark Matter.

Now with the narrative put forward that DM can be mapped simply by looking for "lensing", voila, DM everywhere they point a telescope.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
Benni:

What's more, Einstein's calculations could be compared to the non-lensed apparent position of the stars, because they used stars which were close enough to know where their "straiter-line" positions were via Parallax measurements.

These modern bozos with the DM clan are observing things which are millions of times farther away and cannot be corroborated via alternative distance measurements. This means there is no "reference observation" to say what a "straight line" position/apparent position ought to look like. Therefore they have no basis in calculating the amount of supposed "lensing" that is happening.

In short, it is very, very bad science.

As recent, more precise measurements of the Milky Way have shown, the DM crowd flat out lied and fabricated their data regarding the mass of the Milky Way, as the stellar orbital velocity of hte milky way predicts a mass of 210 billion Suns within 60kly radius, NOT 0.8 to 1.5 trillion Suns as claimed by DM theorists.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
If 85% of "stars" have half the mass of the Sun, and the upper limit on the estimates of the number of "stars" in the milky Way is 400 billion, then:

400 billion stars in galaxy * 0.5M per star = 200billion M per Milky Way

200 billion M is well within the 210 Billion M +/- 20% measurement from observing globular cluster orbital characteristics.

Thus both methods of estimating the Milky Way's mass come up with about 200 Billion M.

Since the second method measures the total gravity of the system and the first method estimates the number of stars and then averages their mass, and these two methods agree with one another almost PERFECTLY, it is very safe to say that there is ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH THING AS DARK MATTER in the Milky Way Galaxy.

Returners
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2015
Now, DM proponents:

Since we can easily PROVE using the scientists own data, that there is NO DARK MATTER IN THE MILKY WAY, you guys are left with egg on your faces.

How do you explain the phenomenon of a substance that allegedly makes up 85% of the universe's mass simply not existing ANYWHERE inside the Milky Way, but conveniently being proclaimed to exist "where ever it's needed" in other galaxies and galaxy clusters?

Your theories are wrong.

Also:
Either your measurements are wrong OR if the measurements are correct, then your INTERPRETATION of the measurements are wrong.

As I have explained regarding the alleged DM in the interior and "halo" of galaxies, Shell Theorem only works for a uniform spherical shell. For anything else, it is improper to use Shell Theorem.

However, if you apply Shell theorem to a uniform Disk, you get a result which closely resembles the actual flat curve of stellar orbital velocities.

If you model the N-body; even closer match
Returners
2.2 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2015
That is to say, a Galaxy's stellar orbital curve should NOT look like the planets of the Solar System. Anyone who thinks it should look like the Solar system has misunderstood BOTH Newtons Laws and General Relativity.

The Solar System has 99.7% of its mass in the central object, so the approximation of Newton's Shell Theorem is nearly indistinguishable from reality.

The galaxy has 30% of its mass in the Hub (which is itself 10kly radius or so) and 70% of its mass in the disk. Therefore the approximation of treating all mass as a central point does not work.

If you do not believe this then model it with about a 5, 9, or 13 points on a piece of graph paper in 1, 2, and 3 rings respectively, and use Newton's Laws to calculate the gravitational acceleration on a point 1 unit outside each respective ring.

If you use the "everything in one point" approximation you get LESS acceleration than you get if you do the correct N-body and sum the individual accelerations.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
When you do the correct N-body and sum the individual acceleration vector components, you get AN APPROXIMATELY FLAT VELOCITY CURVE NO MATTER HOW MANY POINTS AND RINGS OF MASS YOU INTRODUCE.

I'VE DONE IT MYSELF OUT TO 10 RINGS OF MASSES, BY HAND AND DOUBLE-CHECKING THE VECTOR SUMS OF ALL ACCELERATIONS, AND THE MORE "GALAXY LIKE" THE MODEL BECOMES THE MORE FLAT THE CURVE BECOMES.

The astrophysicists DO NOT understand the gravity equations.

It's that fucking simple.

For example, the Milky Way's real mass is probably slightly less than 210 Billion Suns (the number measured most recently using stellar orbits) because they probably treated the Galaxy's mass as a point mass, which as I have proven above, will give a slight over-estimate of the galaxy's mass...as using the correct vector sum of a distributed disk of point-masses,due to inverse squared law, provides more acceleration than a single point-mass, given the same total mass.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
Don't take my word for it.

Get a piece of graph paper and plot out some masses:

Scenario 1:

14 units of mass in a central point, and calculate the acceleration 2 units of distance away.

Scenario 2:

10 units of mass in a central point, 1 unit of mass one unit away from the center in each cardinal direction. Calculate the acceleration 2 units of distance away from center in any of hte cardinal directions... This number will be HIGHER because of the counter-intuitive way inverse square law works. 1 unit of mass will have 4 times stronger attraction than it did while in the center, equally all of the 4 units in the center, but you still have 3 other units of mass, each providing a smaller amount of attraction than they did when they were in the center in scenario 1....but this totals to more attraction.

Next compare 18 units of mass in one central body to 18 units of mass with 10 in the central body and 4 in a ring 1 and 2 units away,respectively, Take A @ 3 units.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
Finally, try what I did...

PUt 10 units of mass in the central body, and make 4 "arms", one in each cardinal direction, with 1 unit of mass at every 1 unit of distance from the center.

This gives a total mass of the system @ 50 units of mass.

Now calculate the NET acceleration, using all vector sums of all points, at every distance from the center, from 1 unit of distance to 11 units of distance along any of the 4 "arms".

Take note that some of the masses attract in a direction opposite the center for some positions.

The resulting curve is mostly flat, but slightly wavy after the first few points.

This model decreases in "density" as you go out from center, like real galaxy.

Dark Matter disproven.

1) Direct observation finds no Dark Matter in the milky Way.
2) Stellar number estimates combined with stellar average mass gives the same mass as direct measurement.
3) Correct vector sum model shows no need for DM to duplicate the flat curves.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
So in summary:

Approximating all the mass of the galaxy as a point mass (like SS approximations) is incorrect because most of the mass of the galaxy is distributed.

2) Newton's Shell theorem does not hold for calculating the internal gravitational acceleration (and therefore stable stellar velocity curve) in a distributed disk, such as a galaxy. Although this approximation IS closer than whatever the hell it is scientists are doing.

3) Real Vector Sum model of a galaxy works absolutely nothing like the Solar System.

If you look at the wiki article on Dark Matter you will be shocked to find claims that the Galaxy stellar orbital velocity curve should "look like the orbital patterns of the Solar System".

Whoever said that knows NOTHING about gravity and vector sums, and has certainly NEVER tried the actual calculations to find out the difference between the real calculation and a piss-poor approximation.

End argument. I'm sick of this stupidity.
Stevepidge
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2015
Nonsense. If you think otherwise, demonstrate how this is possible, in *quantitative* detail


Quantitative detail is just volumetric obsequious dogma. I'll take Qualitative ANY day.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
To my DOUBTERS:

Don't knock it until you try it.

I have photo evidence of the calculations I did, and I once posted it on Youtube.

I took it down because nobody who watched the video could believe/understand the fact that High School level vector sums disprove Dark Matter theory.

I intentionally didn't use any short-cuts or approximations, nor any calculus, differentials, tensors, etc, because I wanted the math to be as simple as possible...yet nobody who watched it could understand it, even though they are supposed to know how to do that math in order to graduate High School.

Go read a few books from the library, and do some REAL freaking maths for yourself.

Your educations are WORTHLESS, because you only learned to parrot other people. You didn't learn how to learn on your own.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
This is the best Galaxy formation model I have ever seen:

https://www.youtu...a1CP9ImA

Yet it does not produce the results you would expect if there was an invisible ball of non-interacting Dark Matter particles co-located with the galaxies.

The non-interacting DM should "over-shoot" collisions and pass millions of light years away, causing the ejection of most of the mass of the two colliding galaxies, etc, and causing counter-intuitive "rebounds" and attraction of the ordinary matter to "phantom mass concentrations" which have over-shot the collisions of the ordinary matter, and this rebounding should happen for several oscillations until a new equillibrium is achieved. The model fails to produce that result at all, and behaves as if there is no DM present.

So either they didn't model DM and got a very realistic result...

Or they modeled the alleged DM particle INCORRECTLY, treating it as ordinary matter, and got a very realistic result.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
What causes galaxies to merge is the EM force, namely collisions of dust, gas, and stars transferring relative momentum until they are in equilibrium.

If they only interacted gravitationally then it would take the age of the universe before a merger happened, because they'd only decay in their orbits by perhaps a gravitational wave method or something similar. This would take forever at the distances galaxies initially approach one another.

If you watch that model, in the last big merger around 5.8Gy simulated, the alleged DM "halos" should over-shoot the merger by millions of light years, and most of the stars should get ejected PERMANENTLY from the system due to a lack of internal gravity...but this does not happen.

Moreover, there should be oscillations throwing the merged galaxy from side to side, and ejecting more stars, etc, as the alleged DM halos attract back and re-collide with the ordinary matter....this does not happen.
Stevepidge
3 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2015
This is the best Galaxy formation model I have ever seen:

https://www.youtu...a1CP9ImA



It looks like a swirling mass, with no visible arms or structure.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2015
various galactic size lumps of matter are gravitationally slowed or sped up by other differently "charged" lumps in a fluid like manner? Kinda like water in a stream?

Where do you get the 'differently charged' part? There's only one 'charge' at work here: gravitational attraction.

Yes, I get that. However I see gravity as corresponding to the amount of mass in a given volume.
That said, gravitational "charge" in any given volume varies from other, adjacent volumes (unless they are EXACTLY alike).
Ergo, "charge" differential...
docile
Jul 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
Look how stable the final merged, simulated galaxy is from about 7Gy to 11Gy...where the hell are the "collisions" with the ejected dark matter halos which should have over-shot the original merger, and should be oscillating back and forth, passing through the merged galaxy repeatedly?

The answer is the theoretical DM particle was either not modeled, or it was not modelled correctly (was treated much the same as OM) and they got a realistic-looking result anyway.

This means something is definitely wrong with DM theory.

Their model proves there is something wrong with DM theory.

Two cosmic scale models produce a paradox, as they emulate real observations well, using the same laws allegedly used in the galaxy simulation, but the two results contradict one another.

https://www.youtu...qEzBG9OI

and

https://www.youtu...sySs3RGU

There is a HUGE problem with Dark Matter theory and the Standard Model.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
This is the best Galaxy formation model I have ever seen:

https://www.youtu...a1CP9ImA



It looks like a swirling mass, with no visible arms or structure.


That's because the computer cannot model the formation of actual stars as spherical objects and do the true vector sum calculations for every "point-like mass". Even though what it is doing is close, it is nevertheless an approximation...like a hurricane model. It models regions of gas and approximates where they should move. It doesn't have enough computer power to model chains of stars and gas in "arms" like true spiral galaxies. You would need a computer perhaps millions of times more powerful in order to do that correctly for 200 billion to 400 billion objects.

That's not going to happen in either of our life-times.

The global structure of the galaxies are correct. You aren't going to see it model sprial arms correctly because the "resolution" needed is impossible.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
The reason there is a problem with the Standard Model, and especially Dark Matter, is because computer simulations using all of these laws shows that the Standard Model cannot predict local evolution of galaxies and galaxy clusters and cosmic scale evolution correctly simultaneously.

A correct model has to be able to correctly predict the evolution of systems at all scales, without tweaking it or changing initial conditions from one scale to the other.

The Standard Model does not do this, and Dark Matter, what ever it allegedly is, contributes to the problem, rather than solving the problem.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
Reference to Hawking talking about "Imaginary space time being just as valid as normal time".

https://www.youtu...4Sv0qS1w

As I recall, the formula describing the formation of Neutrinos in nuclear reactions uses an Imaginary time component, however, this imaginary component is "canceled" via math-magics any time the Neutrino actually interacts with "real" matter as we know it.

The special Relativity formula predicts "Imaginary Time" and "imaginary mass" for objects moving faster than the speed of light (requires the assumption that something "somehow" obtains a super-luminal velocity at the moment of its creation without the need of being "accelerated" to said velocity.

What are the consequences of this?

If some form of "imaginary" time or "imaginary" mass does in fact exist, not too much of a stretch from Neutrino formulae, then there are types of "curves" in space and time which are not explained by "mass" or "gravity" as we know it including DM.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 17, 2015
What's more, Einstein's calculations could be compared to the non-lensed apparent position of the stars, because they used stars which were close enough to know where their "straiter-line" positions were via Parallax measurements
...on top of which there is a problem with serial-lensing. How many times has a target object been "lensed" before we see the final lensing effect ? Once, twice,.....?

These modern bozos with the DM clan are observing things which are millions of times farther away and cannot be corroborated via alternative distance measurements. This means there is no "reference observation" to say what a "straight line" position/apparent position ought to look like. Therefore they have no basis in calculating the amount of supposed "lensing" that is happening.


Everytime a photon passes by another body it's trajectory is bent, that's what Einstein proved in GR. Stack up a dozen galaxies in line of sight from earth, add up that gravity to get lensing.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
Why does "imaginary time" or "Imaginary Mass" matter?

It's another possible explaination of "Dark Flow" phenomenon which can also help explain the extra-galactic Dark Matter phenomenon. My proof above can exclude intra-galactic DM from the Milky Way and similar spiral galaxies, but it offers no explanation of extra-galactic DM, such as the alleged DM surrounding the Abel Super Clusters. For this observation we have to rule out ERROR in both observations and interpretations of observations.

Then, because we can DISPROVE intra-galactic DM by using true Vector Sum models, we then call into question the existence of "extra-galactic DM" simply because of hte common sense notion that if DM exists it should be both intra and extra-galactic.

But I have proven that intra-galactic DM does not exist and is not needed to explain anything.

Therefore Extra-galactic DM is not explained by a particle, because if it exists it should have been the same thing as intra-galactic DM.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 17, 2015
exclude intra-galactic DM from the Milky Way and similar spiral galaxies, but it offers no explanation of extra-galactic DM, such as the alleged DM surrounding the Abel Super Clusters. For this observation we have to rule out ERROR in both observations and interpretations of observations


Then, because we can DISPROVE intra-galactic DM by using true Vector Sum models, we then call into question the existence of "extra-galactic DM" simply because of hte common sense notion that if DM exists it should be both intra and extra-galactic


But I have proven that intra-galactic DM does not exist and is not needed to explain anything
.

These above points must be true because they are verified by observation. It is observationally verifiable that Spiral galaxies are little noted for lensing capability, only the much larger Ellipticals carry that claim to fame due to their 50-100 times greater content of mass providing the necessary gravity to create Einstein rings.

Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 17, 2015
It is a pre-supposition by DM Enthusiasts that there is a DM presence to supply gravity for holding Spiral Galaxies together. If this were the case, we'd see Spirals competing with Ellipticals for lensing capabilities & the presence of Einstein Rings. We'd see this because of all the additional undetectable mass not evident within the body of a Spiral, but we never see this Einstein Ring phenomena associated with Spirals, ONLY Ellipticals because of the tremendously diminutive masses of Spirals compared to the large Ellipticals.

So if there is all this DM surrounding Spirals, then they should be presumed to be as massive as giant Ellipticals after adding the DM mass & Einstein Rings would be the evidence for it. Additionally, photos of Spirals located line of earth site from one another show little lensing effects, but giant Ellipticals are another story.
Whydening Gyre
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
It is a pre-supposition by DM Enthusiasts that there is a DM presence to supply gravity for holding Spiral Galaxies together. If this were the case, we'd see Spirals competing with Ellipticals for lensing capabilities & the presence of Einstein Rings. We'd see this because of all the additional undetectable mass not evident within the body of a Spiral, but we never see this Einstein Ring phenomena associated with Spirals, ONLY Ellipticals because of the tremendously diminutive masses of Spirals compared to the large Ellipticals.

So if there is all this DM surrounding Spirals, then they should be presumed to be as massive as giant Ellipticals after adding the DM mass & Einstein Rings would be the evidence for it. Additionally, photos of Spirals located line of earth site from one another show little lensing effects, but giant Ellipticals are another story.

mass/matter density = gravitational "charge"...
Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (10) Jul 17, 2015
So in summary:


So in summary is a GREAT BIG LIE. Cher you posted up nine more postums after this one and for some reason I do not think you are done yet. How long it will be until you get the end?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 17, 2015
The Einstein cross is produced by a spiral galaxy: http://www.mpia.d...ics.html

Yeah, by the "bulge" of the Spiral where most of the mass is located, hence most of the gravity. You should try reading everything, not selectively picking & choosing according to your enthusiasm for fantasy.

For every Spiral you find producing diminutive Einstein Rings, there are photos of a hundred of Ellipticals doing the same thing in a hugely more spectacular fashion.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 17, 2015
The Einstein cross is produced by a spiral galaxy: http://www.mpia.d...ics.html

Yeah, by the "bulge" of the Spiral where most of the mass is located, hence most of the gravity. You should try reading everything, not selectively picking & choosing according to your enthusiasm for fantasy.


For every Spiral you find producing diminutive Einstein Rings, there are photos of a hundred of Ellipticals doing the same thing in a hugely more spectacular fashion.

You should stop being aggressive.
........that's sounds like a line that could have come from the mouth of the Pope to Galileo.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
@Returners
You claim that astrophysicists do not understand gravity.
Does that include Newton?


I used Newton's Gravity to dis-prove the existence of intra-galactic DM.

The astrophysicists are not doing the correct vector sums for a true gravitational environment.

they are treating galactic mass as a point mass, which we are NOT allowed to do in a realistic model.

That's the problem.

Dark Matter is simply "ERROR" and that's all that it is.

Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
MIchio Kaku on Systematic Error (R.E. the neutrion > C problem).

https://www.youtu...S4I4oQDY

What he doesn't seem to notice is systematic error in the alleged DM and DE observations.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
Imagining the tenth dimension:

https://www.youtu...qW3g8N2Q

In one of the videos, Rob Bryanton claims that "Anti-matter" is in fact ordinary matter moving in reverse time.

If true, this means there is no "mystery" where the missing anti-matter went in the universe: Just as I said (but for a different reason) the anti-matter moved in the "opposite direction" from us and is beyond our horizon of information.

However, this presents a problem if anti-matter is time-reversed matter.

Several nuclear physics reaction equations produce anti-matter particles, usually Positrons, and this includes some nuclear reaction equations believed to be happening in the Sun. IF anti-matter is time-reversed matter, how is it produced in a forward-time reaction, and how does it contribute to forward-time anihilation events which release some of the energy produced by the Sun?

To be sure, he wasn't the originator of the claim, he was quoting another physicist.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
Michio Kaku claimed that if a particle moves faster than the speed of light it would move in reverse time.

This is actually not what is predicted by special or general relativity. If you plug in the values you'll find that the particle instead moves in "Imaginary Time", and not "revere time". There is a difference, and anybody familiar with imaginary numbers would certain realize this. I think Dr. Kaku was simply over-simplifying the statement for laymen's terms, but there is a difference.

Neutrinos have an imaginary term in one of the equations that describes them.

If anti-matter is moving backwards in time then it could create paradoxes, such as destroying the source of its future creation. This produces nonsense such as "hyper-virtual-particles" and particles which are "real" but never actually exist to be observed, and so forth...and of course we wouldn't be able to verify their existence because they erase themselves from the timeline (once in a while).
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
While Bryanton's claim can explain what happened to the missing "primordial" anti-matter, it doesn't explain the "modern" anti-matter that exists here and now, created in stellar fusion reactions and in the Van Allen belt and elsewhere in the solar system and deep universe, because the "modern" anti-matter does not appear to be time reversed, and even if it is time reversed, it is done so in a way which conveniently never produces an observable paradox....just like the convenience of "Dark Matter which is always where it needs to be".

This is a fictitious force fallacy.

I believe any primordial anti-matter did in fact move in the "opposite direction," if it existed at all, but I believe it did so in a SPACIAL dimension, rather than time.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
For the record, I believe and know that "information" can and does move backwards in time, but I don't believe Anti-matter is time reversed.

I don't know what the hell Dark Matter is if it really does exist, but I know it doesn't behave the way physicists claim it behaves, because it can't predict the behavior of the universe on all scales simultaneously.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 17, 2015
The astrophysicists are not doing the correct vector sums for a true gravitational environment.

they are treating galactic mass as a point mass, which we are NOT allowed to do in a realistic model.


Do you mean by "point mass" as the Center of a Mass? I've seen many errors by people who think the center of a star (or any mass) is the "point" where it's gravity is at it's maximum, and because they erroneously think this they imagine matter can squashed to a single point due to gravity, or what some would define as "infinitely small".

I've had to correct several posters on this cite that gravity of a mass does not emanate from the center of it's mass, but rather from it's surface in perfect accord with the Inverse Square Law inwards toward the center & outwards beyond the mass itself. The same principle could be applied as it seems to me you are alluding to here?

docile
Jul 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
@Returners
The astrophysicists are not doing the correct vector sums for a true gravitational environment.
they are treating galactic mass as a point mass, which we are NOT allowed to do in a realistic model.
That's the problem.

You know, I have a very very hard time believing that. Can you point out a paper in the Astrophysical Journal that commits such an atrocious error?


Try the Wiki article on Dark Matter, in which it is claimed that a stellar orbital curve for the galaxy being similar to a planetary orbital curve for a star is what we should see without Dark Matter. This false conclusion is reached by treating the entire mass of the galaxy as a point-mass.

I proved this above, and explained to you how to replicate the proof for yourself to show you the difference between what they incorrectly calculated to get that graph, and what I correctly calculated to get the approximately flat stellar orbital velocity of real stars.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
Curve A is incorrect:

https://upload.wi...ion2.svg

In fact, for a distributed disk, there is no curve A.

Curve B is the only possibility within Newton's Laws for a distributed disk, and it does not require DM to explain, as Curve B is produced by the CORRECTLY calculated vector sums, given a distributed disk where density slightly decreases as you go out from the hub.

This is provable, repeatable, testable, and it doesn't require higher math to verify.

If you can do vector sums, you can do what I described above and test it for yourself, and it works.

"Curve A" is what you get if you INCORRECTLY treat all the matter in a given "shell radius" as being a point mass, and INCORRECTLY treat all the matter outside the shell radius as "cancelling" one another....which it does not cancel one another due to distances given the inverse squared law.

Try it like I said and you'll see I'm right.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
You'll have to give me some time to find the exact quote, mytwocts, because I am not exactly sure where I saw the exact quote, however, it was from a major physicist.

One of them was on that BBC program where they were trying to understand what happened "before" the Big Bang, and one of the leading physicists in the world made a similar claim that without DM galaxy rotation curves should look like SS rotation curves. He said that on a major world wide television program.

The other time was in an article, either on physorg or else in wikipedia, and you'll have to forgive me I am not sure which one at the moment. There have been so many "Dark Matter" articles over the years that I get them mixed up, but to be sure I saw this again just a few days ago, so I'll have to do some searching to find it again.

Sorry I don't have a perfectly photographic memory, even though I do have eidetic memory.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
Literally every text book and every encyclopedia article I have ever read on Dark Matter proposes the existence of DM based on an INCORRECT calculation of the gravity of the galaxy or galaxies involved.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
You will find some of the physicists on this video, including a few who contributed tot he Standard Model, INCORRECTLY describe the stellar orbital characteristics based on a flawed, over-simplificiation of the correct calculation....which Vera Rubin used the same flawed, over-simplification.

https://www.youtu...MqnVOxHY

Sorry...

DM is basically the measure of Error between the incorrectly treating the mass as a central point vs correctly doing the actual vector sums.

I actually quoted the statement from the article in another DM article a few days ago, as a matter of fact, and now a search for "Dark Matter" in the physorg search tool fails to find the article.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
"There is certainly no Big Bang. I don't believe in that at all." - Physicist.

https://www.youtu...MqnVOxHY
docile
Jul 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
@Returners
As you can see in the case of M33, the deviation between observed and expected rotation occurs far out, where there is little visible matter. Your disk idea if it were correct would not apply there.


In the farthest portions of the disk model I produced, the stable orbital velocities increase again, as the amount of ordinary matter contributing to the center-seeking acceleration increases as you go out from the center. Whereas if you are somewhere, such as half the radius of the galaxy, then about 1/3rd of the disk is pulling outward, rather than inward, etc.

A slightly wavy curve is predicted by the vector sums model I used, and yes, the outer-most points experience a slight increase in stable orbital velocities.

this is well within Newtonian dynamics and is predicted even for a "galaxy" with decreasing density from the center.

There is no need for DM nor spherical haloes, etc, to produce this effect. I did it with an X shaped galaxy model on paper.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
Okay, back up and read this thread.

On the 14th, I stated that in the BBC video the PHYSICISTS made that statement about matter in galaxies supposed to behave more like Solar system if DM doesn't exist.

It came from either "What happened before the big bang" or "what if everything we know is wrong".

I am not sure which video this appeared in, but reading my post from three days ago reminds me that it was from one of these two videos.

https://www.youtu...MqnVOxHY

or

https://www.youtu...VpA778pI

Sorry. It's in there, trust me.

The leading physicists on the topic gave an incorrect description of the mathematics of this problem.
docile
Jul 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
In one of the two videos, the scientist tried to explain the so-called "Dark Flow" phenomenon as a collision between two universes, because they couldn't come up with a way to explain it within the DM and DE paradigms.

I pointed out that there are mathematical visualizations you can contrive which can explain all of them as different aspects of the same thing, for example the collision of wrinkled branes, rather than smooth branes, because wrinkles would have alternating positive and negative curvature, DM and Dark Flow, and if the wrinkles then smoothed out you would have an expansion effect, DE.

Truth be told, you can produce that result in a 5th dimensional geometry, and don't need 7th dimensional brane spaces to get that result.

Explaining up to 3 different phenomenon as different aspects of the same underlying entity is certainly more favorable than inventing up to 3 new forces or particles, or inventing between 6 and 22 new dimensions of space and time.
docile
Jul 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2015
Docile:

If they can't do the math correctly for the internal gravity vectors for a disk, the simpler object, then I certainly don't trust them to do the math correctly for the internal gravity vectors for an ellipsoid, a more complex object.

Sorry, if they can't work in a flat disk approximating 2 dimensions (I know, not exactly but you see the point) then they can't be trusted to work in 3 dimensions in an ellipsoid.

Strangely enough, giant ellipticals are allegedly created through the merger of Spiral Galaxies, but spiral galaxy merger computer models never produce giant ellipticals; they just produce larger spiral galaxies, sometimes with varying degrees of ejecta tails and binary quasars or a single merged quasar that is bigger than either originally....plus of course some massive out-gassing as winds from the quasar merger blows away huge amounts of dust...

Anyway, you get a bigger spiral, according to computer models.
docile
Jul 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
Here:

https://www.youtu...UDWhPB_E

And here

https://www.youtu...a1CP9ImA

The newer simulation is apparently using a different modeling method, and ran for 8 months to render the model.

Neither model produces an elliptical.

https://www.youtu...U9SsO5mI

This is not an ellipsoid, even though the dust in the model is spread around obscurring some of the view. You can clearly see spiral arms forming again.

https://www.youtu...Q-UIHpJc

I hate models like that last one there, because most of the simulation focuses on unimportant parts of the interaction. For purposes of this discussion, we care about the merged galaxy, not watching 5 minutes of simulation of a "stall" after pass one...This model was pointless and there's no telling how much computer time they put to it.

https://www.youtu...PVoYY4mU

It only looks elliptical because the resolution isn't high enough to show spiral arms.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015

But does your disk model coincide with the plot. Is your velocity increasing far from the disk? Because that is what DM is meant to explain.


It levels off at first, and then in the very outer regions it increases again, until you get outside the galaxy obviously...even though the density of the disk is always decreasing.

This is caused because as you go out from the center there is less and less mass working against the central mass, and more and more mass working for the central mass.

DM is a fictitious force.
docile
Jul 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 17, 2015
If they can't do the math correctly for the internal gravity vectors for a disk, the simpler object, then I certainly don't trust them to do the math correctly for the internal gravity vectors for an ellipsoid, a more complex object.


Sorry, if they can't work in a flat disk approximating 2 dimensions (I know, not exactly but you see the point) then they can't be trusted to work in 3 dimensions in an ellipsoid.


The orbital speed of stars on the outer perimeter of giant Ellipticals are typically measured at about 2 km/s. As measurements are made with decreasing distance in the direction of the primary bulge, those orbital speeds increase exactly congruent to the Inverse Square Law. This being the case, why is it remotely imaginable there is some need to insert DM ?
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
And to be clear, the 2011 simulation which took 8 months specifically states that it takes Dark Matter into account, yet we do not see the expected rebound/oscillation effect that should be produced by ejected DM halos re-merging with the Spiral galaxy.

Even in this model, which specifically claims to take DM into account, but didn't highlight it in a different color for better representation, It (DM) still is not doing what it is supposed to be doing, such as in the case of the alleged observations of the Able super-clusters where alleged ejected DM halos are ejected on super-cluster scales.

The same effect should happen on galactic scales, but these simulations cannot replicate the effect.
docile
Jul 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
So you would agree with me that the Standard Model is seriously wrong, in spite of those areas where it does prove useful?

I take it you would also agree with me that String theory and its variants is also wrong, in spite of those areas where it may prove useful?

Here's the thing about higher dimensions and invisible forces which can't be observed directly...

Once you propose one of them, then why not 2, why not ten?

Dr. Tyson's argument against God can also be used to argue against invisible forces which can't be directly detected, etc.

At any rate, once you propose more than about 5 total dimensions all hell breaks loose in the possibilities one is attempting to model, and required to model and explain, in order for the theory to truly be a theory.

It becomes arbitrary (which one of the physicists in that BBC video gave the same complaint). It no longer "predicts" anything, because it "predicts everything, all "conceivables" as inevitable" which is useless.
Returners
1 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2015
Rob Bryanton's interpretation of the Quantum Wave function in "Imagining the Tenth Dimension" becomes so ludicrous that it predicts that anything and everything we can possibly conceive of must exist in some universe in some dimension.

So for example, although he didn't say this (he seems to think the God consciousness is representative of the 9th or 10th dimension in a "God 2.0" concept, the consequences of the stuff he starts talking about beyond the 5th dimension leads to scenarios where Dinosaurs could evolve in outer space in a version of the universe where Earth never existed, so long as the scenario is causally coherent.

In his model, there ought to be a version of the universe where all the world's women are hopelessly in love with me :) ...and I had the misfortune to be born in this version of the universe. Curse my condition :).

In his model, there ought to be a version of the universe where God and Satan are one and the same, (I don't believe that).
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
Moreover, as I pointed out to him on his youtube channel, his model of the universe even predicts a universe, indeed an infinite family of universes, where his model of the universe is not true. I joked that we are living in one of those universes where his model is not true.

Unfair argument?

Well, if the laws of physics vary from universe to universe, then there can be universes where his theory is not true. It's that simple. His theory literally contradicts itself, because it basically claims that all conceivable universes which are casually coherent can and do in fact exist, which is problematic, because it implies that since I can conceive of universes where his theory is wrong, then those universes must exist, which means the whole conversation is nonsense.

See how screwed up multi-verse theories become?

Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
In his video "imagining the seventh dimension" I pointed out that adding one infinitely long dimension to represent all possible strengths of gravity is not sufficient, because the strength of gravity can be modified in more than one variable or constant.

1) We could vary "G" from positive infinity to negative infinity: granted most of these universes woudl destroy themselves.
2) We can vary the "order" of the "r" term from positive infinity to negative infinity, and again most of these universes would destroy themselves.
3) We can add additional terms to the gravity equation, even an infinite number of terms, and vary the variables and constants in each of those terms in an infinite number of ways each.

This actually requires infinity raised to the infinite power raised to the infinite power number of dimensions just to represent all conceivable variations on the law of Gravity...

And I haven't even tinkered with other laws and constants.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not picking on Mr. Rob Bryanton, I think his videos are good tools for attempting to visualize and conceptualize higher dimensional constructions, but many of his claims about the relationships of these higher dimensions appear arbitrary, and are laden with countless over-sights and conjectures to string it all together.

Unfortunately, Membrane theory, which he draws heavily from, has the same problem, although I admit that Membrane theory can describe some phenomena, there is no predictive value in Membrane theory,so there is no good way to test it,a nd with 10^500 predicted universes that it constrains reality to...all of which need to be tested and verified of their properties...this is clearly impossible to test, and impossible to use for predictive purposes,a nd impossible to use for the development of new technologies; technology being a primary driver for the existence of the field of physics in the first place.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
Please tell me that cosmology and physics are constrained by something more than the conceivability of the most intelligent observer (unless this most intelligent observer is the true omnipotent God).

I can conceive of a universe where pink, unicorned, winged elephants fly at the speed of light, but I certainly hope no such universe exists in reality.

I can conceive of a universe where the Spaghetti Monser is the creator, except for the fact that personifications of inanimate objects within the universe are not logically both causal and uncaused eternal entities.

While there may be alternate universes, their existence and laws must be constrained by the conception of their creator, and not the conception of the observer, else nothing makes any sense.

Seriously, is there a universe where every guy gets to sleep with both Nicki and Brie Bella every night? No offense to them, just making a rhetorical question.

It's ludicrous.
ikonrahu
not rated yet Jul 17, 2015
I am curious why I don't see any articles concerning dark matter black holes. Is this theoretically or physically possible? After all, dark matter interacts gravitationally with normal matter. Does dark matter interact with itself gravitationally? Could dark matter also be at the heart of "normal" black holes?
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
I am curious why I don't see any articles concerning dark matter black holes. Is this theoretically or physically possible? After all, dark matter interacts gravitationally with normal matter. Does dark matter interact with itself gravitationally? Could dark matter also be at the heart of "normal" black holes?


If Dark Matter actually existed, most of it would tend to get trapped in Super-massive black holes originally formed from Ordinary Matter at the hearts of galaxies, ESPECIALLY after a few galaxy merger/collision events whereby said hypothetical Dark Matter halos would pass through the cores of opposing galaxies...right through the multi-million and multi-billion solar masses SMBH.

Additionally, DM should tend to collect heavily near globular clusters and the intermediate mass black holes which should exist in said globular clusters, but attempts to find DM inside nearby Globular Clusters have failed, as their orbital characteristics don't need it.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
The LCDM model Dark Matter does not interact by any of the 4 fundamental forces except Gravity.

This means there is no friction nor electromagnetic attraction to "slow down" the DM particles when they are gravitationally attracted to one another. They pass through one another without interaction and oscillate gravitationally until they are disturbed by another gravitational system.

It is possible that they may lose energy via the gravitational wave method, but I've pointed out that the gravitational wave formula correctly predicts the decay rate of objects' orbits, but it does not correctly predict the existence of gravitational waves, which is another unrelated problem in physics which further complicates the DM-DM interaction and the DM-OM interaction.

For the record, the mainstream proposed DM is supposed to be self-attractive and it's supposed to attract OM. However, DM cannot "hold itself together" because it doesn't use hte other 3 forces.
docile
Jul 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
That is to say, paradoxically, Dark Matter, if it existed, would not actually hold ordinary matter together.

On the contrary, ordinary matter actuallly holds Dark Matter together.

Dark Matter, having no ability to slow itself down via other force interactions, can actually eject itself from stable orbits, because it can obtain "gravity assists" the same way ordinary matter can obtain such gravity assists, but because Dark Matter does not interact with gas, dust, or photons, nor electromagnetic fields, etc, there is nothing to slow down the DM.

So for example a DM particle can obtain a gravity assist by passing through the earth, and since it will be moving faster on the second side than the first, it will experience less "acceleration time" when leaving than it did on approach, thereby GAINING net-velocity and being ejected from the system at a higher velocity than it started, rather than an status quo conserving orbit. This is because no em interaction to stop it.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
This "passes through itself and ordinary matter" effect is a problem, and you can prove using calculus and differentials that DM particles approaching one another or OM under certain circumstances can in fact gain velocity and be ejected, even in a head-on collision, rather than falling into a stable orbit.

Under other circumstances, where the particles are initially moving roughly parallel, then by the gravitational wave formula they should decay in their orbits and clump together. In such cases it would be impossible to tell from the outside of an object, such as a black hole or neutron star, how much of hte mass of hte object is "ordinary matter" and how much of hte mass of the object is "dark matter". That information will be "lost" to the observer, especially in the case of a black hole.

Moreover, I could conjecture almost any amount of DM stored inside a black hole, just as long as it had enough OM to produce a black hole in the first place.
docile
Jul 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
Additionally, for a Black Hole of any given mass, there is no upper limit to its feeding rate on DM, because DM is not effected by gamma ray or X-ray radiation, nor any other black-hole "winds" and therefore DM would simply fall directly into the black hole unimpeded, no matter how fast the black hole is otherwise feeding on OM and producing gamma and X-ray radiation, because there is nothing to stop it from doing so...

Black Hole "winds" can't blow away DM, therefore DM would actually accumulate in Black Holes much faster than does ordinary matter. It's common sense, as there's no force opposing DM falling into black holes, but the em force can and does oppose OM falling into black holes.

For this reason, DM halos should most certainly not exist in highly evolved galaxies, even if DM actually exists. The older the galaxy and the more collisions it's seen, the higher percentage of its alleged DM content would be trapped inside Black Holes.
docile
Jul 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
The Black Hole accretion disk is a hellish environment of super-heated materials, particle collisions, hawking radiation, x-ray and gamma radiation.

Protons are ejected from some of these collisions, and accelerated by magnetic forces to like 0.999999999999999999999 of c. Some of these protons hit the Earth. A few of them have hit cosmic ray detectors with a kinetic energy similar to a baseball moving over 90mph.

Some of these same cosmic rays pass through our bodies, destroying our DNA in a one- particle-wide swath, and keep going. If we are lucky, or cellular repair mechanisms repair the DNA before it becomes cancerous. If we are unlucky, we get tumors and die an early death.

That's ordinary matter.

With Dark Matter, if it exists, it is not so. It just falls into the black hole and disappears, and becomes part of the black hole's apparent "ordinary matter" mass, as the "information" telling you what type of matter it was has been destroyed.
docile
Jul 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 17, 2015
the dark matter therefore favors the free space at the connection line of existing galaxies and new galaxies are formed there in similar way, like the droplets at the filaments of slime


"Scientists using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have discovered that the immense halo of gas enveloping the Andromeda galaxy, our nearest massive galactic neighbor, is about six times larger and 1,000 times more massive than previously measured. The dark, nearly invisible halo stretches about a million light-years from its host galaxy, halfway to our own Milky Way galaxy. This finding promises to tell astronomers more about the evolution and structure of majestic giant spirals, one of the most common types of galaxies in the universe."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

In light of the fact there is a recently observed Visible Matter Halo emanating so distantly from Andromeda, then our MW must also have one as must all others, so where's the "free space" you allude to?
brandon102
1 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2015
I think arguing against dark matter, at least the arguments that have been advanced, are specious and self-referential. On a general scale Quantum Theory has demonstrated that merely because something appeas to violate logic has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The same goes for the infinite universe hypothesis; few of us are eager to think our universal "constants" could well vary in our universe and an infinite number of u-verses (apologies to AT&T). Unlikely? Unable to be proved? Again, how many times have traditional points of view been rendered nonsensical by staggering number of things we just don't understand (staggering being an estimate). However, by now we should understand "knowledge" is "squishy" and inexact; open to frequent invalidation. Our history demonstrates repeatedly that an inability to consider the most unlikely and extreme ideas is simply wrong, since the trending of knowledge suggests these extreme ideas don't go far enough.
brandon102
1 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2015
I've also experienced, unfortunately, that often when highly learned individuals find evidence that they were right all along, and can hold onto whatever theories have been in vogue for any length of time, are usually fortunate that so few people are interested in "I told you so's" in a field where so much of our complacent, sound-looking understanding turn out to be hopeful at best, and mere errors in the common.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 17, 2015
I think arguing against dark matter, at least the arguments that have been advanced, are specious and self-referential.


According your logic, once a claim has been made for the existence of anything, it is incumbent on the doubters to prove its nonexistence.

OK, little purple polka dotted men live on Pluto.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2015
Some comments seem to be saying - gravity itself is dark matter...

And Benni - they are GREEN polka dotted...
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 17, 2015
Some comments seem to be saying - gravity itself is dark matter...

And Benni - they are GREEN polka dotted...
...no the green ones are on Mars.

So, we're down to musing over the colors (flavors) of gravity are we..... -:)
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
Some comments seem to be saying - gravity itself is dark matter...

And Benni - they are GREEN polka dotted...
...no the green ones are on Mars.

So, we're down to musing over the colors (flavors) of gravity are we..... -:)

Now we are getting somewhere - the very fact that there ARE different "colors" (levels, charges) of gravity...
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2015
I've pointed out that there is no good reason to assume that gravity is the only thing warping space-time. Therefore any alleged DM phenomenon cannot be assumed to be due to the alleged gravity of an alleged invisible particle in the first place, as alternative hypothesis, which are no less likely, cannot be ruled out anyway.

Example, introducing an additional dimension to geometry, or introducing the concept of a colliding wrinkled surface in that dimension is actually relatively straightforward.

As I have demonstrated, introducing a mystical particle which only interacts via the gravitational force is not straightfoward, as it interacts with other such mystical particles as well as ordinary matter particles in rather counter-inuitive, often very difficult to predict ways....yet we are expected to believe this stuff always manages to conveniently find stable orbits in halos in and around galaxies.,...BS.
docile
Jul 18, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 18, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 18, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2015
The flood of total nonsense in this thread is out of control. Good luck.


Did you test what I told you to test?

If not, then STFU, because unlike you, I actually tested it, and found DM is not needed to explain spiral galaxies.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2015
Food for thought:

The gravitational wave formula, which correctly predicts the decay of neutron star orbits (while not correctly predicting the existence of actual gravitational waves) may nevertheless she some light on the stellar orbital velocity curve problem after all.

Stars closer to the hub would experience the phenomenon described by the wave equation, whatever it really is, according to the inverse cubed law used in the formula. Therefore inner stars are robbed of their orbital energy via this mechanism (whatever mechanical reality actually causes it) much more quickly than outer stars. So while we would expect objects closer to one another to orbit faster (in static, stable orbits), in the real universe, much of the energy gets burned off by the wave equation, which slows the objects down. The closer objects are to one another the faster orbital energy is burned off by an inverse cubed law. Therefore closer objects orbit slower than initially predicted.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2015
I think this observation combined with the other "vector sum not equal point mass approximation" observation will explain literally the entirety of the Spiral Galaxy stellar orbital curve phenomenon.

To restate that, the real-world phenomenon approximated by the gravity wave equation robs inner disk objects of their velocity faster than it robs outer disk objects if their velocity, therefore the inner disk objects move slightly more slowly than predicted by an initial velocity calculation for an orbit presumed to be "stable".

Moreover, this may explain Spiral Arms, because the inner disk objects, losing orbital energy according to the inverse cubed law, would tend to "separate" from objects a few hundred to a few thousand light years farther away, thus producing "banding".

Objects inside a "band" also experience unique effects as they are attracted "forwards" and "backwards" along the spiral band by the mass concentrated in said band...i.e. "Following the leader".
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2015
Conservation of angular momentum doesn't apply to an open system, that is net angular momentum can escape a galaxy, so long as net angular momentum of the UNIVERSE remains the same.

Therefore the gravitational wave phenomenon can rob inner objects of their potential energy, and even angular momentum, and transfer it to objects farther out in the galaxy, or for that matter even transfer it outside the galaxy via spherical propagation. (I believe the gravitational wave energy is being converted to heat via "internal friction" in the spatial background, and this value is so small relative to the fusion energy and other forms of energy of cosmic bodies that it cannot be observed directly...you don't notice 10^20 Watts compared to 10^26 watts, for example).

So, this is yet another mechanism within "ordinary matter" physics for producing a flat stellar orbital curve without the need for new particles or new forces.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2015
The reason I say the Gravitational Wave energy is being converted to heat (before it reaches us) is because we have equipment that is 100 times more sensitive than it should need to be in order to detect the gravitational waves produced by certain nearby decaying orbital systems, but no such waves have been detected. Nevertheless the formula is correctly predicting the decay rates of those systems. This means the energy is in fact being released, but it is being converted to another form of energy, likely infrared, before it reaches us.

To give an example of why you can't detect this infrared energy against the background of the CMB and all the stars and stuff, the gravitational wave energy released by the Sun-Earth system is released at about a rate of 200Watts, or 200Joules/S....for the entire star-planet system.

This is insignificant compared to the infrared and other energy which already escapes the Sun-Earth system, so you can't see it at all.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2015
Food for thought:
@returners/lurrkrr
more important and valid "food for thought"

if your "proof" above is valid, and it gives viable evidence of your claims...

why don't you have it published in a reputable peer reviewed science or astrophysics journal where you can "dazzle" the physicists???????????????

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

maybe you can self publish like reg-trolling mundy and be famous for not being able to publish legitimate science, just like him!
http://phys.org/n...nce.html

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

http://jspp.psych...443/html

http://web.missou...ange.pdf

https://www.psych...-sadists

we already know you believe in conspiracy and abductions...
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
But over time scales similar to the ages of galaxies, 5 to 11 billion years or so, even a relatively small rate of energy loss from the orbit can add up to a huge difference.

In 11 Billion years, for example, the Sun-Earth system would burn off more than 6.9E19 joules of orbital potential energy, not counting positive feedback from getting closer to the Sun.

For comparison the solar constant on the Earth is 1.7E17 watts, so you can see why this loss of orbital energy is imperceptible in comparison.

Obviously, this effect is much larger for binary star systems and star clusters and galaxies than for planets orbiting a star, I'm just using it as an example for simplicity.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
captain stumpy:

I tried that and was banned from their sites for the "crime" of questioning the "established science" of the Standard Model.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2015
captain stumpy:

I tried that and was banned from their sites for the "crime" of questioning the "established science" of the Standard Model.

@returners/lurrrkrrr
if this is the extent of your atempts, then you don't understand how science works.

i suggest going back to school and learning the scientific method, for starters.... then get into a lab and learn why some of those "sites" banned you from trolling/spamming

most importantly, i would suggest you learn the difference between posting on a science site, a pop-sci site and a forum and what "being published in a reputable peer reviewed science or astrophysics journal" means... they are totally different and incompatible

Benni
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 18, 2015
I tried that and was banned from their sites for the "crime" of questioning the "established science" of the Standard Model.


Lucky you, the Pope put Galileo under house for over 15 years for partnering with Copernicus & proving Earth was not the center of the Universe. Established science has become the new home for a fantasyland of funny farm science. There are people walking among us who actually believe 75-99% of our Sun is missing.

Some time ago at a local college, a straw poll of sorts was taken in a Philosophy class, the paper reported that over 90% of the students believed in DM. It's very odd, so many people so willing to fall into a claptrap of fairytales just so they can get a grade & not be ostracized by those sitting around them? But just ask the same ones if they ever saw a Differential Equation they could solve, the howls of scorn would become fever pitched & you get just a momentary feeling of what Galileo felt for the last 15 years of his life.

my2cts
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 18, 2015
Did you point out the errors in the papers by the astrophysicists that you accuse of stupidity?
No. So STFU yourself whatever that may mean.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
Did you point out the errors in the papers by the astrophysicists that you accuse of stupidity?
No. So STFU yourself whatever that may mean.
@my2cts

Shut The F*ck Up is the most common usage

http://www.urband...erm=stfu

...is often said by people that are losing an argument or can't think of a comeback.


Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 18, 2015
captain stumpy:

I tried that and was banned from their sites for the "crime" of questioning the "established science" of the Standard Model.


Skippy you keep telling the GREAT BIG LIE. You did not get banneded for questioning any thing. You got banneded for doing exactly what you are doing here. Writing a hundred silly postums a day and not stopping when the moderators asked you over and over and some more overs to stop.
Benni
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 18, 2015
Did you point out the errors in the papers by the astrophysicists that you accuse of stupidity?
No. So STFU yourself whatever that may mean.


Yep, show me the gravity. Their error is "gravity". They claim 75-99% of the Universe is missing based on gravity versus mass, at the same time being unable to explain how it is the visible mass of our Sun accounts for 100% of the gravity measurements within our solar system. And by the way, one more little factoid here will just blow your mind away, our solar system is located right in the heart of the Universe.

How do you feel looking in a mirror knowing 75-99% of yourself is not there?
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2015
The dark matter particles were already observed with Nicola Tesla, who experienced a needle-like sensation during working with high voltage fields during his tesla coil experiments.


Tesla experienced electricity, not DM. DM is no more than a figment of your and many other's imagination.
Enthusiastic Fool
3.9 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2015
@Returners
Michio Kaku claimed that if a particle moves faster than the speed of light it would move in reverse time.

This is actually not what is predicted by special or general relativity...


Actually, it is what's predicted by Special Relativity and Einstein himself with his Tachyonic Antitelephone thought experiment. I think you should read up on Causality and Special Relativity. An afternoon on Wikipedia might prove enlightening.

Unrelated:
Man, JT is gone. I feel like the crazies have achieved a victory of sorts. Now who will be prolific, scientific, resourceful, and reasonable here?

Benni
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 19, 2015
Man, JT is gone. I feel like the crazies have achieved a victory of sorts. Now who will be prolific, scientific, resourceful, and reasonable here?


He's gone because he ran out of convoluted fantasies with his inept explanations of the DM Cosmic Fairy Dust scenarios he'd been pushing. Being faced with a "gravity deficit" he couldn't explain, he chose to take a quick exit & concocted the "ad tracking" feature of this website as his copout.

You sound as if JT was your icon. That being the case, why are you not following his example & ceasing to post here?
nzod
5 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2015

Did you just refer to liquid as "an alternative thinker" ? :)
Ah you mean that he is trying out an alternative to thinking.


Hehe, I would have spit my coffee if I was drinking. Thanks.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2015
I feel like the crazies have achieved a victory of sorts
r u kidding? It wasn't quite like watching fish in a barrel get shot. More like watching fish out of water hanging on a stringer (of their own ignorance) get shot. With a howitzer. Crazy brains splattered on numerous threads. Their brains been battered. Splattered. All over. Manhattan. Shadoobie.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2015
r u kidding? It wasn't quite like watching fish in a barrel get shot. More like watching fish out of water hanging on a stringer (of their own ignorance) get shot. With a howitzer.

In a battle of brains 'tis unsporting to fire on an unarmed opponent.
El_Nose
5 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2015
It's not behind a paywall

people just don;t know how to google the name of a paper anymore, they just click the link provided and complain

http://arxiv.org/...03.05915

your welcome
ian_fisk
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2015
@Benni: Dark matter is not "fairy dust" - there is a lot of observational evidence for dark matter.
For example galaxies in galaxy clusters do not obey Newtonian gravity and the only credible explanation is that there extra non-visible matter in the clusters. There are the observations of colliding clusters. There is fitting of cosmological models to CMB data that requires non-baryonic matter to exist.
ian_fisk
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2015
@Benni: I will add that the orbits of stars in galaxies need more matter to be explained by Newtonian gravitation with the note that MOND is actually a better match for that data - pity that MOND fails outside of galaxies.

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.