Dead galaxies in Coma Cluster may be packed with dark matter

July 19, 2015, International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research
This artist's impression of the 'quenching' process shows how a normal blue (star-forming) galaxy lost its gas while falling into the Coma Cluster very early on in its formation. Credit: Cameron Yozin, ICRAR/UWA

Galaxies in a cluster roughly 300 million light years from Earth could contain as much as 100 times more dark matter than visible matter, according to an Australian study.

The research, published today, used powerful computer simulations to study galaxies that have fallen into the Coma Cluster, one of the largest structures in the Universe in which thousands of galaxies are bound together by gravity.

"It found the galaxies could have fallen into the as early as seven billion years ago, which, if our current theories of galaxies evolution are correct, suggests they must have lots of protecting the from being ripped apart by the cluster."

Dark matter cannot be seen directly but the mysterious substance is thought to make up about 84 per cent of the matter in the Universe.

International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research PhD student Cameron Yozin, who led the study, says the paper demonstrates for the first time that some galaxies that have fallen into the cluster could plausibly have as much as 100 times more dark matter than visible matter.

Yozin, who is based at The University of Western Australia, says the galaxies he studied in the Coma Cluster are about the same size as our own Milky Way but contain only one per cent of the stars.

He says the galaxies appear to have stopped making new stars when they first fell into the cluster between seven and ten billion years ago and have been dead ever since, leading astrophysicists to label them "failed" galaxies.

The Coma Galaxy Cluster is a massive cluster of galaxies in the constellation Coma Berenices. Each point of light in this image may look like a star but in fact they are, mostly galaxies. With over 650 galaxies in the cluster, Abell 1656 is one of the densest collections of galaxies in the entire sky. Credit: Greg Parker, New Forest Observatory

This end to star formation is known as "quenching".

"Galaxies originally form when large clouds of hydrogen gas collapse and are converted to stars—if you remove that gas, the galaxy cannot grow further," Yozin says.

"Falling into a cluster is one way in which this can happen. The immense gravitational force of the cluster pulls in the galaxy, but its gas is pushed out and essentially stolen by hot gas in the cluster itself.

"For the first time, my simulations have demonstrated that these galaxies could have been quenched by the cluster as early as seven billion years ago.

"They have however avoided being ripped apart completely in this environment because they fell in with enough dark matter to protect their visible matter."

This research was motivated by the recent observational discovery of these galaxies by an American and Canadian team led Professor Pieter van Dokkum of Yale University.

Using the data the North American team published last year, Yozin was able to create computer simulations to model how the evolved into what we can see today.

Explore further: Astronomers discover more than 800 dark galaxies in the famous Coma Cluster

More information: 'The quenching and survival of ultra-diffuse galaxies in the Coma cluster' in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Published online on 20/7/2015 at: mnras.oxfordjournals.org/looku … 0.1093/mnras/stv1073

Related Stories

A dark matter bridge in our cosmic neighborhood

July 14, 2015

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 ...

Huge new survey to shine light on dark matter

July 9, 2015

The first results have been released from a major new dark matter survey of the southern skies using ESO's VLT Survey Telescope (VST) at the Paranal Observatory in Chile. The VST KiDS survey will allow astronomers to make ...

Scientists discover the fluffiest galaxies

May 14, 2015

An international team of researchers led by Pieter van Dokkum at Yale University have used the W. M. Keck Observatory to confirm the existence of the most diffuse class of galaxies known in the universe. These "fluffiest ...

Recommended for you

Researchers engineer a tougher fiber

February 22, 2019

North Carolina State University researchers have developed a fiber that combines the elasticity of rubber with the strength of a metal, resulting in a tougher material that could be incorporated into soft robotics, packaging ...

A quantum magnet with a topological twist

February 22, 2019

Taking their name from an intricate Japanese basket pattern, kagome magnets are thought to have electronic properties that could be valuable for future quantum devices and applications. Theories predict that some electrons ...

141 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
2.8 / 5 (21) Jul 19, 2015
International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research PhD student Cameron Yozin, who led the study, says the paper demonstrates for the first time that some galaxies that have fallen into the cluster could plausibly have as much as 100 times more dark matter than visible matter.


Since you can't see dark matter, you can create as much of it as you want. 100 times the normal matter seems excessive, but who cares. It is all imaginary.
docile
Jul 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Jeffhans1
1 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2015
If humans survive and continue to develop for the next few billion years, our galactic neighborhood might look similar. If we figure out how to transition time itself, that might even be part of our influence that we are seeing now. To ants, the strange realms of our cities must look just as odd and incomprehensibly huge in scope.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2015
Most of the galaxies that inhabit the central portion of the Coma Cluster are elliptical galaxies. These apparently featureless "fuzz-balls" are a pale golden brown in colour and contain populations of old stars. Both dwarf and giant ellipticals are found in abundance in the Coma Cluster.

Farther out from the centre of the cluster there are several spiral galaxies. These galaxies contain clouds of cold gas that are giving birth to new stars. Spiral arms and dust lanes "accessorise" these bright bluish-white galaxies, which have a distinctive disc structure.

At least this group was not labeled the "Zwicky Cluster". The central portion of the cluster is dominated by giant Ellipticals, just where you'd expect the greatest concentration of visible mass & subsequent gravitational lensing.

Returners
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2015
could contain as much as 100 times more dark matter than visible matter, according to an Australian study.

They have however avoided being ripped apart completely in this environment because they fell in with enough dark matter to protect their visible matter."


On the contrary, attempts to model the behavior of the Allegedly non-interacting DM particle show that this hypothetical particle actually cannot hold itself together under normal circumstances, and actually needs the clumping and interacting of ORDINARY MATTER to hold together the Dark Matter. This is because ordinary matter is clumped and attracted via EM forces while Dark Matter is not.

True, this would also mean ordinary matter would be blown away by powerful enough bursts of radiation, or powerful enough jets of hot gas, but then you would actually "see" all this really hot ordinary matter surrounding the cluster, and there would be no discrepancy in alleged DM values.
Returners
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2015
Dark Matter, even if it existed, cannot spontaneously clump on its own, and indeed spontaneously ejects itself from orbits more often than does ordinary matter, because of the fact that it cannot collide with anything to slow itself down and form more ordered, permanent structures.

When EM blows away gas that is gravitationally bound to alleged DM particles, that should in turn accelerate those DM particles away too (albeit not as much)...EM pushing OM, OM gravity pulling DM particles with it, etc.

See, if the DM is the source of this alleged "missing mass/gravity" problem, then it must obey the same rules always. It can't be attracted to the center of mass only, it must be attracted to all other mass.

How many black holes are in this cluster? How massive are they? How active are they?

I have a problem with the 100 to 1 ratio claim, because common sense shows that non-interacting DM does not behave like that. It is self-ejecting in most circumstances.
Benni
2 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2015
The dark matter not only prohibits the separation of remaining stars, it also prohibits their merging and gravitational collapse of interstellar gas into them, which would initiate thermonuclear synthesis and accelerate their decay.


So why is there no detectable DM between our Sun & its nearest star that prevents this vaunted merger of which you speak & this foreboding of gravitational collapse?
Returners
2.2 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2015
Isn't it a wonder that when using DM to explain alleged stellar orbital velocity discrepancies "within" galaxies, the DM mysteriously is said to exist in conveniently ordered spherical shells both within the galactic disk and above the galactic disk (not most of it thereby being farther from the center of mass than the OM, as it is "needed" to be to explain the stellar orbital curve in their flawed mathematical understanding,)...

HOWEVER, when they introduce the pixie dust DM particle to explain mass discrepancies on the "galaxy cluster" scale, the DM is somehow mysteriously said to be at the center of the cluster, or at the center of the member galaxies, in order to explain how the cluster or the member galaxies hold themselves together.

Once again, their DM model at the "stellar-to-galactic" level contradicts their same dark matter model at the "galactic-to-cluster" level.

It produces conflicting conclusions about which particle is doing what. Therefore it must be wrong.
Returners
2.1 / 5 (15) Jul 19, 2015
So why is there no detectable DM between our Sun & its nearest star that prevents this vaunted merger of which you speak & this foreboding of gravitational collapse?


The simplest answer is that DM does not exist, and certainly not in the Milky Way.

The observation of the orbital characteristics of stars and globular clusters within the Milky Way show that its mass is consistent with what you would predict, based on the estimates of the number of stars in the galaxy, if there were in fact no Dark Matter at all in the Milky Way, as I pointed out on that other Dark Matter thread.

Down-vote me all you want, people, but the scientists own data shows that there is no Dark Matter in the Milky Way, and it also shows that they have been presenting fraudulent, 4 to 8 times inflated results regarding the Mass of the Milky Way as "Settled Science" for the past two decades or so.

Yet you down vote ME, when THEY are the ones who should be shamed in the community.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2015
The mass of known stars, black holes, and super nova remants such as the Crab Nebula and its central Pulsar present a serious problem to the Dark Matter model.

These stars of perhaps 10M to 20M, such as the original crab nebula progenitor star (about 11M) or Betelgeuse and so forth, perhaps even Sirius thoughs lightly lighter than that....wtf...they should all be "Dark Matter Magnets" right?

I mean, 8M, 10M, 11M, 16M...floating around in the galactic Disk, exactly where the greatest effects of Alleged DM is alleged to be felt the most...

Yet all of their mass is needed to be "ordinary" in order to explain their luminosities and other mechanics, and the scientists haven't managed to observe any of these objects nor their companion environments being perturbed by any of the alleged DM, which should logically collect near these "much more massive than the Sun" stars.
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (14) Jul 19, 2015
Returners,
Once again, their DM model at the "stellar-to-galactic" level contradicts their same dark matter model at the "galactic-to-cluster" level.


I agree. As I have pointed out many times, the simple observation that there is always just enough DM in just the right places to account for any gravitational anomalies is sufficient proof that DM is imaginary.

I'd say "You can't make this stuff up!", but you obviously can do just that.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2015
We should constantly be "over-estimatin" the Ordinary Matter content of Stars and Star systems, because the more ordinary matter that exists in a Star or cluster, the more Dark Matter it should tend to attract and capture...they should be floating in denser-than-interstellar-space pockets of Dark Matter dwarfing their own respective Ordinary Mass by a factor of some 4 to 6, according to the claims of the DM theoriests.

So why the hell do Newton's Laws work PERFECTLY to within one centimeter per second for the orbital velocity of orbiting spacecraft in our own solar system, given only the assumptions of ordinary matter known to exist in the solar system?

If there was Dark Matter in our solar system, or anywhere near it, the New Horizons space craft would have totally missed its target, Pluto, by millions and millions of miles.

DM proponents, please give up with your nonsense.

The success of the NASA and ESA space probes proves no DM exists anywhere near us.
viko_mx
2.4 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2015
Scientists have never observed or experimentally confirmed the existence of a dark matter. It exists only on paper or in computer simulation algorithms as a patch for imperfect and often carried away by the wind theories and still to present it existence in mass media as a fact. This is already delusional and not is science for sure but mental illness.

Thus, the electrons move and interact with the crystal lattice of the conductors so constituent particles of the matter can move in the structure of the vacuum of space, and to interact with it.
And influence of this stucture these "scienties" attribute to the imaginary dark matter.
Returners
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2015
I'm not required to prove the non-existence of something, but the fact NASA and ESA space probes have been so successful in making their marks, using only the knowledge of ordinary matter's mass in the solar system can actually allow me to make the positive affirmation that no Dark Matter exists anywhere near the Solar System. It is rare that one can logically make the positive affirmation of hte non-existence of something, but we have DECADES OF EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE to show positive affirmation of the non-existence of Dark Matter anywhere near us.

DM supporters on the other hand, according to scientific model and the rules of intellectual argumentation, are required to present PROOF of the positive affirmation of the existence of the Dark Matter particle, and moreover, if this particle does exist, you are now required to explain, consistently within your model, why attempts to find it in the SS and even within the entire Milky Way have actualy proved it isn't there.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2015
Even India has now put an orbiter around Mars, using only the knowledge of Newton and Einstein with respect to the observable, ordinary matter within the solar system.

if Dark Matter existed anywhere near the solar system, you would not be able to successfully calculate a trajectory of a rocketship to Mars by IGNORING the unknown dark matter's mass and using only the known masses of the Sun and planets...it simply would not be possible because you wouldn't know how much Dark Matter is in what direction, if it actually was there, and the rocketship would have the wrong velocity and heading, and miss the planet(s) by millions of miles, and on voyages to outer planets they would even miss by as much as billions of miles, because their trajectories could fail completely (fall back into the SS, or else be attracted to an un-seen blob of matter somewhere "out there" and obtain too much velocity, etc).
Returners
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2015
We know this unseen "DM" isn't "out there" anywhere near the SS nor any of its close companions, because the perturbation method used to find the outer planets and some of the KBOs is so precise that it would have found DM pockets where ever they are.

The orbital periods and velocities of nearby binary and trinary (and even quardrinary) star systems would have a discrepancy compared to their luminosity formula if they were eveloped in clumps or clouds of DM, because the luminosity formula would predict a different luminosity (based on the ordinary matter) than the observed "total mass" based on the orbital characteristics.

In most cases the stellar orbital characteristics of star systems agree extremely well with the luminosity formula, and the only discrepancies I'm aware of are explained as the stars being of different stages/ages in their evolutionary development, that is burning a different type of fuel due to being relatively older...
Returners
2.1 / 5 (14) Jul 19, 2015
LOL at theoretical physicists.

Every time a successful space probe or satellite is launched it proves DM doesn't exist, because no space program that I am aware of uses DM in any calculations for their launch time, trajectory, or course corrections, and the course corrections they do make are so tiny as to be explained within the uncertainty of the known ordinary mass and velocity of the objects in question, such as in making a course correction to New Horizons as it chased down Pluto's position some 33A.U. distance. Considering Pluto's ordinary mass and diameter had been slightly under-estimated, based on the new findings by New Horizons upon closest approach, this course correction is no big deal.

Plutos mass had been over-estimated before Hubble, then with Hubble they made a slight over-correction to the estimate of it's mass, which turned out to be wrong in the second significant digit, and then New Horizons nailed it and corrected it back above Hubble.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (16) Jul 19, 2015
DM supporters:

Why does your magic particle "need" to exist everywhere except within the SS and within the MW?

I'll tell you why...

It is ERROR.

It is a "fictitious force" representing your failure to properly apply the forces we already know exist.

If it were anything besides a "fictitious force" then space craft orbits and trajectories in the SS would not work.

The Voyagers and Pioneers(now dead) don't show evidence of being accelerated by this pixie dust, (nor "deccelerated" to use a laymens term for negative acceleration).

Where is your pixie dust?

Your pixie dust, which allegedly doesn't interact via EM, should tend to not be blown away from star systems as easily as OM (as I explained it woudl feel the effects secondarily, just not as strong as OM)...so it should be blown away, but not nearly as easily, becuse it should follow the gravitational force of the OM which has been blown away....except when near very, very massive objects.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (16) Jul 19, 2015
Where is your pixie dust?

We could make a SONG out of this DM farce.

Where is your pixie dust?

The known mass of Mars is ice and rust!

Where is your pixie dust?

Ordinary matter is the only must!

lol. So bad, but so funny.

Egg on your faces you all have.

There is no DM, you silly Spaz, else we wouldn't even be alive!

The Earth's orbit would be unstable if the mass of the SS or its surrounding star systems was different. Silly Spaz.
Returners
2.1 / 5 (15) Jul 19, 2015
Since Dark Matter is an Imaginary particle, maybe it has imaginary mass? Lol.

Maybe it has imaginary velocity,or imaginary time?

Therefore it provides imaginary acceleration?

Weeeee.

We can invent anything once we accept imaginary particles which can never be observed in our own local reality!

Maybe DM is tachyonic and moves backwars in time, like Rob Bryanton's alleged assertions about anti-matter? Maybe that's why we can't observe it directly, maybe it only has causal influences on the past, because it moves backwards in time, and thereby can't influence the present or future?

I hope you see I am only mocking you, spaz.

The imaginary particle...how mystical, how magical, it does whatever it needs to do, even if it contradicts itself....it's everywhere but here! Four times, six times! A hundred times reality! Imaginary particle! Finding it is futility, because it's everywhen, but now, and everywhere, but here!

JustAnotherGuy
3 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2015
Comments needed to state something like "this is a hypothetical subject": ...1
For catharsis, just keep spamming...
Returners
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 19, 2015
Conjecture:

Perhaps I laugh too soon.

Suppose you had a superluminal Neutron.

Using the relativity equations, if we ignore the fact that it should not be possible to accelerate to a super-luminal velocity (perhaps it somehow "tunnels" to that velocity)...

the equation predicts that a superluminal object ceases to move in ordinary time,and instead moves in an imaginary time axis. The equation predicts that the object maintains a "proper mass", but if you attempt to calculate its "relative mass" you will get an imaginary number.

Perhaps if you have this "proper mass" it can still warp normal space-time, but since the object does not move in ordinary time, but only "imaginary time" it no longer interacts via causality related "forces", but only via the warping of ordinary space-time via its mass.

This explain why DM does not collide with ordinary matter, and be in spherical shells without being ejected: doesn't move in ordinary space-time.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2015
I'm not required to prove the non-existence of something
Watch here, you're treading on the grounds of a sacred Postulate....... -:)

the fact NASA and ESA space probes have been so successful in making their marks, using only the knowledge of ordinary matter's mass in the solar system can actually allow me to make the positive affirmation that no Dark Matter exists anywhere near the Solar System
Or we wouldn't have gotten those absolutely stunning pictures of Pluto this past week if NASA had calculated 84% of our solar system was missing. Just an application of the Inverse Square Law to Newtonian gravity made the effort absolutely PERFECT, yeah, absolutely perfect for science while discarding the funny farm enthusiasm that when you're looking in a mirror that you are seeing only 16% of yourself.

Returners
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2015
Except, lol, it can't be solved:

Now an imaginary Neutron might not decay, because it doesn't move in real time...I suppose.

Except it would still not explain why there is no DM in the SS nor in the MW, where ti supposedly should be.

Sooo...unfortunately "imaginary" DM has the same problem as LCDM model, because it still doesn't exist in SS or MW...

I tried, DM proponents, I honestly tried my best to make imaginary DM work, and it doesn't work either.

Not to mention the fact that a DM particle presumably has some internal forces that hold it together? They are, after all, massive, and therefore must be made of some form of Quarks, or Quark-like entities, and supposedly interact with the Higgs field.

Well what do you know, tha twould imply that they have the Weak force, which actually does interact, but the fairy tale DM doesn't interact (else it'd have all been captured and hidden by the ordinary mass of ordinary objects).

So Imaginary DM don't work either.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2015
In a microscopic black hole, all of the forces have failed except gravity.

However, microscopic black holes can't explain DM, because the should evaporate via Hawking radiation in an amount of time much too fast to be the alleged invisible DM particle.

What's more, microscopic black holes don't transmit light; they would, however sparsely populated, intercept photons, such as those coming from the CMB.

The fairy tale DM particle transmits light!

So there are two reasons that even the stretch of it being microscopic black holes can never work.

1) the universe is too old, they'd all evaporate too early, as I pointed out on that other thread where I debunked my own hypothesis, for the purpose of showing how flawed DM really is.

2) The microscopic black holes wouldn't transmit light like the fairy tale DM particle does.

So...

The fairy tale DM particle only interacts via gravity, but it also apparently doesn't produce an event horizon to trap photons.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2015
But that produces ANOTHER problem for the fairy tale DM...

If the fairy tale DM doesn't interact via the electro-weak forces, but it also doesn't create a microscopic event horizon (which it musn't because it doesn't trap ordinary matter inside event horizons apparently, and it doesn't trap photons)...then there is a problem..

If the only force acting on the mass of the particle, and other particles around itself, is gravity, then the particle should collapse on itself, since there is no apparent force holding against gravity.

But I just proved that the particle can't be a microscopic black hole, because that wouldn't work.

So then you have to invent ANOTHER force to hold up the fairy tale DM particle against its own gravity, otherwise it would produce an even bigger contradiction: massive, gravitational singularity with no event horizon.

DOES ANYBODY ELSE SEE HOW ABSURD THIS BECOMES?

Occam's Razor says DM is simply "Error". It is "error".
Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2015
Except it would still not explain why there is no DM in the SS nor in the MW, where it supposedly should be

Sooo...unfortunately "imaginary" DM has the same problem as LCDM model, because it still doesn't exist
I tried, DM proponents, I honestly tried my best to make imaginary DM work, and it doesn't work


If it doesn't exist "locally", it can't exist "distantly" because it can't be proven the laws of physics relating to gravity function any differently within our solar system as opposed to a solar system inside the Coma Cluster.

Not to mention the fact that a DM particle presumably has some internal forces that hold it together? They are, after all, massive, and therefore must be made of some form of Quarks, or Quark-like entities, and supposedly interact with the Higgs field
Just you wait Returners, soon Massey & his gang will start a new postulate to account for this discrepancy, it'll be tagged with a label suggesting there are "flavors of gravitons" -:)

Returners
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2015
While jokingly considering the superluminal "imaginary DM" scenario, I couldn't help but notice that an object with an imaginary velocity would nevertheless have "real" kinetic energy, albeit this "real number" would be negative.

Newton and others considered the possibility of Gravitons with "negative momentum", but the idea was discarded.

Strange, what can we do with this?

If an object somehow becomes superluminal, it will have real, but negative, kinetic energy, because it will cease to pass in ordinary time and pass in imaginary time, giving a relative velocity which is a real number in distance divided by an imaginary number in time. If we square this number, as the v^2 component in kinetic energy, we get a real negative number.

Perhaps their is a clue in the imaginary numbers after all?

Perhaps not. Like I said, even if imaginary DM existed, it doesn't appear to exist in the SS or MW, and there's no explaining that away by any means.

Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2015
So then you have to invent ANOTHER force to hold up the fairy tale DM particle against its own gravity, otherwise it would produce an even bigger contradiction: massive, gravitational singularity with no event horizon.

DOES ANYBODY ELSE SEE HOW ABSURD THIS BECOMES?.


Yep, more succinctly stated, a "singularity" is a "point", a "point" that is the absolute center of mass, also the point inside of which all forces of gravity are ZERO. Can't tell you how many times I've come on this site having to explain to the ill informed that forces of gravity are at the maximum on the surface of a sphere and dwindle to ZERO at the center of mass in perfect compliance with the Inverse Square Law.

Returners
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 19, 2015
I love making fun of DM hypothesis.

Neither real nor imaginary DM works.

lol.

Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2015
I love making fun of DM hypothesis.

Neither real nor imaginary DM works.

lol.


Yeah, this is just too easy.
Benni
1 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2015
Either DM is a ridiculous impossible theory coming from stupid astrophysicists
or you two are absolute morons.
I opt for the latter !


"Dead galaxies in Coma " ?
Was this an intended pun? A temporary lapse of taste perhaps.


Scientists have never observed or experimentally confirmed the existence of a dark matter.

Correct. It is a hypothesis.


Your unintended puns are the most accurate statements about science you make, but you just don't realize that. I gave you a 5 Star above for an accurate statement, not because you are a scientific visionary ever so fluent in name calling.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 19, 2015
I did not make any statements about science in th eabove.
I do not think that would be appropriate here ;-)

If you think posting Comments about science on a science site is inappropriate, then why are you here reading science topics & leaving Comments? That is not a congruous & cogent statement.

I presume we should never expect to see you post again? Or, just when you posit name calling Comments because that manner of posting has nothing to do with science? I presume the latter because name calling is easier than learning General Relativity.
Benni
1 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2015
There is one other possibility: you and returners are ONE absolute moron.

How many semesters of Calculus have you had? I've had four. Explain why that makes me a "moron"? Additionally, do you presume yourself to be an intellectual giant?
Psilly_T
1 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2015
your comments were so boring returners.. =/ i started skipping after a while the first few were actually interesting then blah blah Q.Q nonononono etc guess they were fun for you tho meh. and benni your just a nerd like everyone else here :D
pcz
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2015
Hi mytwocts. :)

Mate, for your own credibility, tone down your 'certainty' regarding what you/mainstream theoretical physicists/astrophysicists 'think' you 'know'. Obviously you yourself didn't read the article either; or you wouldn't sound so 'certain' or be so disrespectful of others who HAVE read it PROPERLY. Noted the many CAVEATS and QUALIFIERS which PhD student Cameron Yozin HIMSELF correctly applied as appropriate in his comments re the dataset, assumptions, simulation interpretation, conclusions. In a curious way, when the more apt parts of Returners', docile's and Benni's observations are combined, they come very close to the real 'answers' (which my ToE confirms). Such speculative, GIGO-fraught 'exercises' as these blatantly but incorrectly assume 'evidentiary value/validity' in biased 'interpretations' of CMB/BBang/DM etc HYPOTHESES which many 'tacitly treat' as 'fact' when they are NOT. So do yourself a favor; less of your 'certainty'; more respect. Ok, mate? :)
JustAnotherGuy
3 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2015
Are those 'arguments' about how the comment section of a site like this have to be used what I am seeing?
Here... https://sciencex....omments/

I think 'obscene' is the only content wasn't used yet.
Shall we start post some porn links now? Or...
What if we use the comment section the way it is intended to be? We can try at least...
PhysicsMatter
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2015
If I am correct the flagship argument for dark matter was so called gravitational lens focusing of light when crossing dense DM areas. The problem however, was inconsistency of observations since light from farther galaxies was often not bent while light from closer galaxies or constellations was depending on "longitude", location in the universe. And after collapse of supernovae as standard candle, things became even more uncertain.

Also those simulations are not solving multimillion body problem as they should but multimillion two body problem which is no the same.

This insistence of mapping of mathematical objects of astrophysical theories into reality of observations pushes astrophysics and cosmology into trap of quantum mechanical unintelligible metaphysical concepts rather than measurable physical concepts.

Interesting treatment of those issues I found at:

https://questforn...-quanta/
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2015
If I am correct the flagship argument for dark matter was so called gravitational lens focusing of light when crossing dense DM areas. The problem however, was inconsistency of observations since light from farther galaxies was often not bent while light from closer galaxies or constellations was depending on "longitude", location in the universe.


Poignant to your post, how would you like to make a bet that an observer at the location of the Coma may be looking at the Milky Way being lensed by galaxies on line of sight between us & their observational point? The entire lensing effect is all a matter of how lensed structures line up behind other structures at interim points. The fact that in 1916 Einstein calculated the exact angle of lensing of starlight passing our sun's disk is proof DM is never necessary to provide gravity for lensing.
Enthusiastic Fool
3.6 / 5 (14) Jul 19, 2015
@Returners
the equation predicts that a superluminal object ceases to move in ordinary time,and instead moves in an imaginary time axis.


I thought we went over this yesterday, buddy. Your conjecture that it moves in imaginary time has no theory or math to support it. Furthermore haven't you ignorantly ranted uncontested long enough? With all that typing and imaginary knowledge you could have written a paper to blow the socks off modern astrophysics. Where is it? This is like the crazy girlfriend. If you ignore her long enough she progresses deeper into craziness. In your case you progress into capslock as well. You are just begging for attention and have no interest in scientific progress.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2015
What physics mistakes for the density of the dark matter is actually the state of displacement of the 'dark mass'.

The mass which fills 'empty' space is beginning to be referred to as the 'dark mass' in order to distinguish it from the baggage associated with dark matter.

'Dark Energy/Dark Mass: The Slient Truth'
https://tienzengo...t-truth/

"That is, all that we are certain about [is] the dark mass, not dark matter, let alone to say about the dark 'particle'."

Particles of matter move through and displace the dark mass, including 'particles' as large as galaxies and galaxy clusters.

The Milky Way moves through and displaces the dark mass.

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

The Milky Way moves through and curves spacetime.

The Milky Way's halo is curved spacetime.

The state of displacement of the dark mass *is* curved spacetime.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 19, 2015
@ Really-Skippy. How you are today Cher? I am good today me, thanks for asking.

In a curious way, when the more apt parts of Returners', docile's and Benni's observations are combined, they come very close to the real 'answers' (which my ToE confirms).


Why you think that is curious? I thought all along that's how your toes about every thing would turn out. Having those three come up with the materials in your book does not bode well for your book Cher.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2015
As I stated in a different thread, gravity itself appears to have it's own "mass"...
Electrons do, why not "gravitons"?

TehDog
5 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2015
Hey Ira, we got LST here now, I'm not sure him and Benni/Returners/RC/PM are gonna get along, this could get messy :)
Benni
1.5 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2015
As I stated in a different thread, gravity itself appears to have it's own "mass"...
Electrons do, why not "gravitons"?
I saw that, but it wasn't quite clear to me what you meant, now I see. Why don't we find some first so as to avoid the same kinds of silly arguments we're having over other particles no one has yet proven to exist, DM.

It's just the most utterly mind boggling thing that modern pop-sci claims to know so much about something which they admit they can't prove exists. The detailed explanations they provide for how this stuff behaves & is distributed has been proclaimed in such detail that it is nothing short of mind boggling for something they admit they have no proof for.

If Einstein in his 1916 thesis on GR was able to calculate the exact angle of lensing of starlight passing the Sun's disk based only on it's visible mass, then I utterly fail to see how DM adds anything to that understanding.
TehDog
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 19, 2015
@Enthusiastic Fool
Returners pops up every couple of months and comments on many threads with multiple successive posts, stream of consciousness if you will. He believes everything he writes, and thinks his math is beyond reproach. Bipolar maybe, not my field.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2015
Enthusiastic Fool:

Humor me.

Plug in a value larger than "c" into the Gamma function, as would be observed by an observer one say reference frame A, and then use that to calculate a "relative time" as would be observed in reference frame A'.

The value the formula predicts is an imaginary number.

Now, true, the formula was never intended to predict for values greater than C, because Einstein claimed nothing could move faster than c (a claim we can never verify absolutely, we can only record observations and say we haven't found a violation of it).

However, if a particle did move faster than "c" how would you know, since the only relativity equations that exist literally do predict that the particle would cease to move in ordinary time, and would instead move in an imaginary time axis?

For example, the Gamma function gives sqrt(-3) when "v = 2c".

This IS a problem in the mathematical model. one people ignored because they are too lazy to be bothered thinking
TehDog
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 19, 2015
@WG
https://en.wikipe...Graviton
:P
(I know you're an artist (we need them so much), but a little research goes a long way :)
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2015
@Enthusiastic Fool
Returners pops up every couple of months and comments on many threads with multiple successive posts, stream of consciousness if you will. He believes everything he writes, and thinks his math is beyond reproach. Bipolar maybe, not my field.


Well then, why don't you provide us with your synopsis of the subject matter? Or is it simply a matter with you that it's so much easier to take whacks at a posters disposition rather than address an issue heads on for rebuttal?
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2015
@WG
https://en.wikipe...Graviton
:P
(I know you're an artist (we need them so much), but a little research goes a long way :)

Man... Can't get away with nothin' with some of you guys around...:-)
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2015
@WG
https://en.wikipe...Graviton
:P
(I know you're an artist (we need them so much), but a little research goes a long way :)

Hey TD, I play guitar, does that make me ONLY a musician?
Returners
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2015
@Enthusiastic Fool
Returners pops up every couple of months and comments on many threads with multiple successive posts, stream of consciousness if you will. He believes everything he writes, and thinks his math is beyond reproach. Bipolar maybe, not my field.


Actually, you know nothing of me.

Several of my posts on this threat are satirical, rather than literal. I am merely mocking the futility of the DM model.

Clearly, I do not believe in an imaginary time axis DM particle, although I find the thought of imaginary time somewhat amusing, I was making pun on the notion that Dark Matter is a fairy tale,an "imaginary" particle, therefore we should use imaginary numbers to describe it.

Apparently this satire, this pun, was over your head.

I do apologize as my intellect is rated in the "vastly superior" range, and I sometimes fail to realize how difficult it is for you small fries to understand things relatively straightforward to myself.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2015
I thought the humor of it all was obvious when I stated that neither real nor imaginary Dark Matter would work correctly, but apparently you missed the joke.

Nevertheless, the joke happens to be true, and that is what makes it funnier still.

As a person who admittedly suffers from major depression, as well as chronic nerve pain, I am required to be slightly hmmm, high strung, as it were. Otherwise life wouldn't be very interesting to be sure.

Taking as much as 2400mg of nerve pain meds each day on top of mood stabilizers...

Sad thing is I have perfectly rational reasons to be depressed, namely chronic pain which has no cure.

So, making an even bigger joke out of the joke which is the standard model, it is sort of a hobby of mine.

What else am I supposed to laugh at all day long? Professional "wrastling"? "World's Dumbest"?

Anything worth doing is worth doing right, and if we are going to mock something it may as well be the ignorance of the best and brightest.
NIPSZX
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2015
How come we originally gave the name "SPACE" to the Universe? Wasn't it because of all the Space between planets and stars? Wouldn't we have to change the "space" name if we finally discoverd the dark matter?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2015
@Enthusiastic Fool
Returners pops up every couple of months and comments on many threads with multiple successive posts, stream of consciousness if you will. He believes everything he writes, and thinks his math is beyond reproach. Bipolar maybe, not my field.


Several of my posts on this threat are satirical, rather than literal. I am merely mocking the futility of the DM model.

Clearly, I do not believe in an imaginary time axis DM particle, although I find the thought of imaginary time somewhat amusing, I was making pun on the notion that Dark Matter is a fairy tale,an "imaginary" particle, therefore we should use imaginary numbers to describe it.

Apparently this satire, this pun, was over your head.
Returners, you beat me almost word for word to the next post I was just about to make. Clearly so many DM Enthusiasts have deep emotional roots in the DM Narrative, it baffles me as to why this is the case. Your satire was crystal clear to me.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2015
The biggest part of the joke about Dark Matter isn't about what's "out there". It's about what's NOT in here!

There is definitely no DM in the SS nor MW, so no matter what model you propose to explain the alleged DM phenomenon, you will always have a problem in that the MW is somehow mystically immune to the effects of the stuff.

New Horizons would not work if there was any DM nearby.

That's the joke.

That's the adventure, "friend".

What's NOT "in here" is an even bigger problem for the DM hypothesis than what IS "out there".

lol.

Returners
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2015
Tell me, what is wrong with all these star systems?

Vega
Betelgeuse
Rigel
Crab Nebula and its Pulsar
Orion Nebula
Alpha Centauri system
Sirius
Altair
Gleise (the one 22ly away, forget the number designation).

What is wrong with these star systems and planetary system?

NOTHING...

And THAT is a problem...

Because ordinary matter is able to explain all of their luminosities, masses, and orbital characteristics without the need for Dark Matter.

Indeed, if there were Dark Matter, the Vega star system and the Sirius star systems woudl be unstable and we would not observe them as they are....all of these systems would be unstable of DM was playing any role in their existence.

I am not the Crank, dear readers.

The so-called mainstream people who blindly subscribe to the DM hypothesis are in fact the Cranks!

They "Crank" out thesis after thesis on the study of nothing but a fictitious force produced by systemic error in observational interpretation.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2015
In fact, one of the curiosities of the Crab Nebula is that a significant portion of its mass, about 1/3rd, appears to have "disappeared" some time during and after the SN.

That is to say, the entire environment is less massive (not more massive) than standard model says it should be.

Not only is there no "invisible non-interacting mass" weighing down the Crab nebula, it appears that the Crab Nebula and Pulsar are, based on gravitational chracteristics, about 3 Solar Masses lighter than they should be....but if DM hypothesis were true the opposite would be observed...you would expect to find them being several solar masses heavier than ordinary matter explains.

My hypothesis about the Crab Nebula is something I've proposed in the past, is that it is a different type of Supernova than what the mainstream theory proposes. I believe it is a special type of pair instability supernova, while the mainstream seems to believe it is a core collapse supernova.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2015
So to summarize that last post in a few words...DM hypothesis suggests we ought to have more gravity in star systems than what we observe based on their ordinary matter, but observations show the correct amount of mass to match gravity using only ordinary matter.

The only discrepancy I'm aware of is the Crab Nebula, and the discrepancy does nto support Dark Matter hypothesis, because the Crab Nebula is LIGHTER than mainstream stellar theory says it should be, whereas DM hypothesis would imply that star systems should be anomalously heavy.

I explained why the Crab Nebula is lighter than expected, because the supernova was an annihilation explosion caused by a two-stage fusion reaction, which first transmuted roughly 1/6th of the star's original mass to anti-neutrons, and then annihilated these anti-neutrons with another 1/6th of the star's original mass worth of ordinary neutrons. This hypothesis explains why about 1/3rd of the Star's original mass simply "disappeared".
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2015
Moreover, it is entirely plausible within known physics, does not conjecture any new reactions, does not conjecture any new particles or physics, and uses only known particle physics reactions.

So the only major mass discrepancy in any major star system known to date in our galaxy is actually a discrepancy in the opposite direction that it would be if DM was involved....the Crab would appear impossibly heavy if DM was involved, and instead its entire environment appears impossibly light...

Impossibly light that is, unless you conclude that the wrong type of Super Nova has been modeled by astrophysicists.

When you model it as this special type of pair instability SN, a neutron-anti-neutron annihilation, then you can explain why 1/3rd of the mass disappeared, and you can explain why the reaction didn't go to completion, didn't totally destroy the entire star, leaving the neutron star behind, because there wasn't enough internal pressure to produce the "worst case scenario".
bluehigh
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2015
As I stated in a different thread, gravity itself appears to have it's own "mass"...
Electrons do, why not "gravitons"?
- WG

Imaginary particle wave thingys like the 'graviton' can have any attributes you choose.

Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2015
It is slap-stick comical that the only known mass discrepancy in the Milky Way is in the wrong direction to support DM hypothesis, yet mainstreams continue to follow the DM bandwagon.

I couldn't make this shit up.

When I first learned about the Crab Nebula mass discrepancy a few years back, I set out on a quest to figure out what had happened to the missing mass. Had it raced away from the star so fast that it had expanded "beyond" us, nearly at the speed of light, since the original explosion, dilluting into space? No. The mathematics of the energy required didn't work. It would take the entire mass-energy of the missing mass to accelerate said missing mass to that high of a velocity....hmmmm

How could that happen, I wondered.

I began studying all known forms of super novas, looking for flaws in their hypothetical mechanics. Studying both common and exotic nuclear reactions, etc.

Then one day I found it. The anti-neutron can sometimes be made via proton-proton method.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2015
How do you transmute about 1/6th of the mass of an entire star to anti-neutrons within a few seconds?

When the core of the star collapses to a neutron star, the matter above it wants to be accelerated downward with tremendous force. There are left-over protons from the lighter elements which were in remnant amounts in the outer shells of the star and its photosphere. When the neutron star forms and the matter tries to rush in to fill the space around it, you have the largest particle accelerator in the universe NOT called a black hole...many of the remaining protons fuse, in that moment, to heavier elements, but statistically many of them should fuse to produce anti-neutrons, and statistically these should annihilate with ordinary matter, creating an explosion orders of magnitude more powerful than ordinary fusion from an ordinary core-collapse scenario could ever do.

This is how I explained the "missing Mass", and I find it humorous that it makes DM even less likely.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2015
I reckon 'gravitons' are red (helps them go fast) with white stripes (looks cool). When and if someone finds one or two then we will know for sure. IMHO (added to keep Stumpy happy) - They don't exist. More importantly, Souths beat the Dragons on the weekend.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2015
So you say, "Returners, if your hypothesis is true, then where is the missing matter?, surely it went somewhere?"

Yes, it did go somewhere.

But you know, I had it right all along....it passed us up...at the speed of light...

How?

Because it was all converted to Gamma rays and neutrinos during the annihilation event. This is why we don't observe the mass in the Crab, and it is also why we don't observe a shell of baryonic matter 6k to 7k light years in radius expanding near the speed of light....that would be impossible....but a spherical shell of gamma rays and neutrinos racing away at the speed of light, now invisible to us having passed us by 1000 years ago....that explains everything, without having to invent new particles or new physics.

So the only known mass discrepancy in the galaxy actually supports my positive affirmation that DM does not exist, and it offered me a way to hypothesis a new type of SN explaiing he missing mass.

Lol. It works.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2015
What threw off the astrophysicists on the Crab Nebula explosion is that pair instability explosions are assumed to totally rip the progenitor star apart, leaving ntohing behind. Well, that is an unfortunate over-simplification.

Because of this over-simplification, the Crab was assumed to be a different type of SN, and this leads to a "missing mass" anomaly in the calculations...unless you realize the entire missing mass was converted to energy almost simultaneously...a scenario no astrophysicist considered, because they assumed a pair-instability SN would work via a positron-electron method or some other method, and they assumed it would totally destroy the star.

Well, curiosity, wit, observation, trial and error, and at times tragedy has taught me that idealizations and over-simplifications don't work in the real world.

KISS, true, but they made a mistake in assuming such a reaction would totally destroy the star, so they have mis-classified the SN, and "missed" the mass.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2015
Now, on the contrary, if DM actually existed in the MW, we would expect it to collect in vast quantities near objects that are already very massive in terms of ordinary matter...we would expect, for example, that if the Crab progenitor was an 11M star, that it ought to have been surrounded by literally tens of Suns worth of Dark Matter mass.

After all, we can observe within the solar system and other stellar systems how more massive objects grow faster than the less massive objects, and their growth is not linear....Jupiter and Saturn have most of the moons in the SS for example...matter attracts matter, and if DM actually existed, then an 11M star would sure attract vast quantities of the stuff, far more vast than our own SS, for example...

That would make the Crab Nebula system appear much more massive than its apparent ordinary mass component could explain...

But that isn't observed.

So what gives?

Where is the DM that should be collecting around massive stars?
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2015
As I stated in a different thread, gravity itself appears to have it's own "mass"...
Electrons do, why not "gravitons"?

Hmmm... some heat for this one...
To start, I do not see electrons as "particles"; a singular measurement of an EM energy 'field", maybe...
Yes they have "particle-like" attributes. But that is more in the way we choose to observe, describe, analyze and manipulate them.
"Gravitons" are an attempt to do the same for gravity, which, again, I see more as a 'field". Which we wish to quantize so as to more readily ascribe parsed attributes that are can be manipulated, either mathematically or mechanically.
Benni,
You are ONLY a musician if you sing and play your differential equations to Led Zep songs...:-)
And maybe a Bowie tune or 2...
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2015
If DM existed in significant amounts near the Crab, for example, we might expect that the apparent gravity would be much greater than the neutron star alone cane explain, and we might expect that the nebula's rate of expansion would be slowing down faster than the ordinary matter mass of the system can explain...

In reality we see the opposite of that...not only is there not enough mass in the system to slow down the nebula's expansions, but the energy being released by the Pulsar even to this day is so vast that it's synchrotron radiation and other radiation pressure is continuing to accelerate the expansion of the cloud faster now than it did recently. That is, it has slowed somewhat initially during the first few minutes and days after the explosion due to gravity (most of the velocity was burned off during the very first second,) and afterward was then re-accelerated by the synchrotron radiation...
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2015
So, not only does the Crab not have extra mass, as it should have under logical conclusions following DM hypothesis, not only is it not slowing down anomalously quickly as invisible massive particles would tend to cause it to do, but it is in fact showing anomalously low mass, and is in fact accelerating in its expansion.

The Crab is a natural science lab which shows the non-existence of DM.
Vega shows the non-existence of DM.
New Horizons shows the non-existence of DM.

Our SMBH at the center of our galaxy grows too slowly...if DM actually existed the SMBH should have a mass thousands of times higher than it does, because black hole jets and winds do not drive away DM as easily as they drive away OM.

There is no evidence that Saggitarius A is feeding on any signficant, noticeable amount of DM, but every time it feeds on a star or nebula made of Ordinary Matter, scientists can immediately see the effects in their best telescopes.

Returners
1 / 5 (9) Jul 20, 2015
DM is supposed to be 4 to 6 times more common than OM, so just on the basis of its being more ubiquitous, the black holes in the galaxy should be growing 4 to 6 times faster than can be explained by ordinary matter they consume....but they aren't...

But hold it! Since DM isn't blown away by jets, winds, or magnetism, the black holes should eat each DM particle easier than it eats OM particles. DM in the accretion disk isn't heated up, because it doesn't interact with anything. Dark Matter falling directly in isn't blown away by winds.

If this crap actually existed, there are common sense observations which can be made to detect these discrepancies in the feeding rates of massive objects, especailly black holes, and these phenomenon have not been detected inside the MW.

WHY?

DM is not a massive particle.

DM is systemic error in observation of distant objects.
DM is systemic error in incorrect, oversimplifications of calculations for gravity.
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2015
In the Coma cluster which this article is orginally about, it is alleged that there is 100 times more dark matter than ordinary matter.

How could you even know that?

If there was that much Dark Matter it should have mostly ended up inside of SMBH, whose mass is indistinguishable from Ordinary Matter.

It is absurd that they now invent this magical property of this stuff that it now somehow avoids being captured by the "ordinary matter" SMBH at the center of all these galaxies, and somehow exists in inter-galactic space 100 times more dense than the galaxies themselves...without creating its own black holes out of shear chance configuration.

You people are more intelligent than this, yet you continue to settle for this gross error, gladly.

You can do better than this.

I will not stand for it.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I can certainly point out the flaws in the standard models non-answers.
bluehigh
2.8 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2015
WG,

Electrons are detectable and properties can be measured. (whatever they might be).

Gravitons are not detectable and have no observed properties. (Because they don't exist).

To conflate these "so as to more readily ascribe parsed attributes that are can be manipulated, either mathematically or mechanically." is nonsense.

Are you gonna add 'Darktrons' (Dark Energy force carrier!) to the mix and ascribe properties, just because you can?

Wrong way. Turn back.

Returners
1 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2015
Have you seen the planetary clock argument?

In it, I showed how Relativity would cause an observer on a relativistic starship to over-estimate the mass of the Sun and the planets, because of the relativity of time. The observer would be moving more slowly in time, and it would appear as though the planets were moving faster. In order to explain this faster motion simultaneously to stable orbits, the Sun's mass would need to be re-evaluated, by the observer, to produce a gravity field sufficient to keep the apparently faster-moving planets in stable orbits.

Time passes differently out there, or at least Relativity says it does.

The objects aren't as massive as they appear to be, because we are moving at relativistic speeds with respect to most of them.

In the absence of the assumption of a time warp, the observer incorrectly concludes a higher mass for the distant galaxy, having seen higher velocity stable orbits...

Dark Matter hypothesis is born.
vlaaing peerd
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 20, 2015
when the more apt parts of Returners', docile's and Benni's observations are combined, they come very close to the real 'answers' (which my ToE confirms)


ah of course, I completely forgot you have your own personal ToE. It all makes sense now. I have a few things of my own as well, for example my ignore user list :)

Come on guys, you're making the whole thing more exotic than it actually is. There is a measurable amount of unaccountable gravity, which is simply labeled DM for -at least to others- very apparent reasons.

the "mainstream (how hipster)" scientists never claimed to know what it is, and so far they are doing little more than collecting as much data as possible and thinking of experiments that could possibly reveal more information about all this unknown gravity causing stuff.

Returners
1 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2015
the "mainstream (how hipster)" scientists never claimed to know what it is.


That's not true, and you only show your ignorance on the topic by claiming such.

The mainstream hypothesis (falsely so called a theory) is that Dark Matter is a massive particle which either does not interact at all without gravity, or at least interacts very, very weakly via any force other than Gravity.

Some names given to these hypothetical particles over the years include:

WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles)
MACHO (Massive Compact Halo Object)

Also there's "Techni-quarks" and "Strangelets" and some other exotic things.

Every major hypothesis I've ever seen presented by anyone remotely "Mainstream" in physics is that Dark Matter is some form of invisible, non-interacting massive particle which produces gravity, makes up 80 to 85% of the "Mass" in the universe, and is conveniently only found "where it needs to be" which is to say, in other galaxies.

Returners
1 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2015
Have you seen the planetary clock argument?

No. I only know it must be dead wrong as is everything else you claim. No exceptions.


It shows how relativity theory causes an observer to over-estimate the proper mass of orbital systems which are moving relative to the observer.

In a simple thought experiment, where the relative velocity is known absolutely, you can correct for this by accounting for it as a time dilation effect...at least that's what normally done.

However, in the real world where you don't actually know the exact amount of local motion, because it isn't a "given", it is not so easy to figure out which parts of the effect are time dilation and which parts of the effect are produced by something else.

"A fool answers a matter before he considers it..."-The proverbs of Solomon.

I guess that makes you the very definition of a fool.

Learn something, before you die of ignorance.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2015
There is an entire branch of particle physics devoted to trying to characterize and detect the hypothetical Dark Matter particles...to this day no verifiable DM events have ever happened, though there have been some claims.

And continuing on the planetary clock problem...when using the SS for an example, you already know the "real" mass of the objects in question, therefore you are able to determine how much of the effect is attributable to time dilation.

"out there" in another galaxy, you don't actually know the "real" mass of the objects, you only see the apparent orbital velocity of objects. So both the mass and the degree of time dilation are unknown, which can potentially make it appear as though objects are orbiting too fast for the apparent mass of the system, when in reality it is a time dilation effect.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2015
Benni,
You are ONLY a musician if you sing and play your differential equations to Led Zep songs...:-)
And maybe a Bowie tune or 2...


Well, ya know, the entire scale of musical tones does have a distinct mathematical component within its scales & diatonic triads. Never thought about the possibility of reducing Einstein Field Equations to a series of notes on a sliding chromatic scale, I'll look into it, maybe it can be a hit I never heretofore imagined.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2015
Also, in General Relativity, both velocity and mass cause time Dilation, and if you don't know the real mass of the object you don't know how much of it's apparent orbital velocity is the "real" velocity and how much of it is a time dilation effect....you can't even tell how much of the time dilation is coming from velocity and how much is coming from mass, because in the alleged standard model, the objects are red-shifted from space-time itself expanding, and after a few Mpc, th is hubble expansion begins to dwarf the local motion (which is what you need to know to find the relativistic red or blue shift in order to determine that portion of the time dilation effect).

Galaxies moving away from us should have anomalously high (apparent) stellar orbital velocities, but when you account for relativistic effects you realize it is an optical illusion caused by time dilation. You can't calculate the exact amount of time dilation involved; too many unknowns.
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2015
Additionally, galaxies moving away from us will also have anomalously high apparent mass for another reason (one which I find fault with and believe is an over-simplification of Einstein's thought experiment)...this reason is....

Relativity itself predicts that the apparent mass of a moving object increases with its apparent velocity. This is well known.

So time slows down with velocity, therefore an object in that moving system can appear to orbit another object slightly faster than it should because it takes less time to do the same thing.

Mass increases with velocity, therefore an object orbiting in that moving system feels "heavier".

This is not Dark Matter.

This is an optical illusion caused by the space-time warping of Relativity theory.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Jul 20, 2015
@ Returners: You're moving at a faster pace than I have the time to evaluate. I'm off vacation as of today & have sparse posting time until the end of this week. Maybe this topic will still be in vogue at the end of the week, or if not other similar topics are sure to follow.
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2015
Wikipedia:

Detection[edit]
If the dark matter within the Milky Way is made up of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), then millions, possibly billions, of WIMPs must pass through every square centimeter of the Earth each second.[91][92] There are many experiments currently running, or planned, aiming to test this hypothesis by searching for WIMPs. Although WIMPs are the historically more popular dark matter candidate for searches,[11] there are experiments searching for other particle candidates; the Axion Dark Matter eXperiment (ADMX) is currently searching for the dark matter axion, a well-motivated and constrained dark matter source. It is also possible that dark matter consists of very heavy hidden sector particles which only interact with ordinary matter via gravity.


Invisible, non-interacting massive particles is EXACTLY what mainstream scientists are looking for to explain DM.

Returners
1 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2015

Wikipedia continued
An alternative approach to the detection of WIMPs in nature is to produce them in the laboratory. Experiments with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) may be able to detect WIMPs produced in collisions of the LHC proton beams. Because a WIMP has negligible interactions with matter, it may be detected indirectly as (large amounts of) missing energy and momentum which escape the LHC detectors, provided all the other (non-negligible) collision products are detected.[93] These experiments could show that WIMPs can be created, but it would still require a direct detection experiment to show that they exist in sufficient numbers to account for dark matter.


Again, they are looking for a invisible particle which interacts only via gravity.

As I said yesterdya, this is a contradiction, because such a particle would collapse without a counter-force to gravity, and form an event horizon, and therefore actually would trap light and forms of mass-energy.

Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2015
If the dark matter within the Milky Way is made up of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), then millions, possibly billions, of WIMPs must pass through every square centimeter of the Earth each second


So how much growth should Dark Matter be contributing to the mass of Sagitarius A...oh, every second, every year, etc.

Sagitarius A's Event horizon has a surface area of 1.52*10^25 square centimeters.

Ignoring the fact that the "surface gravity" at the event horizon is absurdly greater than that of the Earth and that the Black Hole would attract far more DM particles than the Earth, we use this number of just a million DM particles per second per square centimeter, and we get.

1.52*10^31 particles per second. These particles have the mass of about a proton.

Divide by avagadros number.

25 million grams per second.

or 25 thousand kilograms per second, using their low-end number..

But hold on, Sag A gravity is 6 trillion times stronger than Earths.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2015
So six trillion times 25 thousand is 150 quadrillion kilograms per second growth rate on the low end.

This also assumes the density of DM is evenly distributed throughout the galaxy, which there is no good reason to assume. Common sense says that over time most DM would accumulate near the densest pockets of OM, which is to say the hub of the galaxy, but the problem with that is the DM model needs the DM to stay in and above the Disk of the galaxy, not in the Hub of the galaxy. If the DM becomes concentrated in the Hub of the galaxy, then its stellar orbital curve would in fact look more and more SS-like. This is another problem for DM...remember, it supposedly doesn't feel the EM force, so DM is not blown away from black holes and neutron stars as much as OM is, therefore DM would actually accumulate in black holes, and in the hubs of galaxies, even faster than would OM, at least once you have a very massive galactic hub.

I didn't account for gravity wave decay.
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2015
Recall, Sagitarius A is surrounded by tens of millions of giant stars, each tens or even hundreds of times the mass of hte Sun, and all of their gravity would contribute to pulling in DM particles into the region of space as well, on average much, much faster than any gravity in our stellar region would be pulling in DM particles, because the stars in our region are much smaller, and are several light-years away from one another, or at least there is a single star here, a binary 8 ly away, a trinary 3 or 4 ly away, etc, and these are all 0.75M to 8M stars. The ones in the hub are more like 10M to 100M stars, and they are packed, at times, just a few astronomical units away from one another.

So this hub region, for any spiral galaxy, would actually, by common sense, accumulate most of the DM if the galaxy otherwise started off evenly distributed, which is the exact opposite of what the hypothetical model needs DM particles to do.
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2015
I am assuming that DM particles are subject to both "frame dragging" and gravity wave decay, like OM, otherwise it would basically be unpredictable.

And note that DM doesn't explain the origin of SMBH.

It appears SMBH only form during galaxy mergers, or perhaps at the beginning of the universe; perhaps they are regions of space-time which simply didn't expand like the rest of the universe.
Returners
1 / 5 (9) Jul 20, 2015
Very old stars tend to burn red, or else cool by simply radiating in the infrared spectrum.

Add some cosmic red shift and you get the impression that the galaxy is much cooler that it is. You might get the impression that there are fewer stars than their are. Add some gravitational red shift and you might assume there are even fewer stars in the galaxy, as it will appear even cooler.

Then you are like, "where is the mass?" and you invent pixie dust to try to explain what you're observing.
TehDog
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 20, 2015
@Benni
"Well then, why don't you provide us with your synopsis of the subject matter?"
The subject matter of my post is obvious from it's content.
I'll assume you meant to refer to the original article. Others much more knowledgeable than myself have attempted to explain where you are wrong, but have realised that beating one's head against a brick wall is non-productive.

" Or is it simply a matter with you that it's so much easier to take whacks at a posters disposition rather than address an issue heads on for rebuttal?"
I'll assume that here you're referring to my post. My comment was informative and accurate, with a disclaimer to my tentative diagnosis. I was not "taking a whack" at anyone.
TehDog
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 20, 2015
@Benni
"Hey TD, I play guitar, does that make me ONLY a musician?"
Did I assert that WG is only an artist? No I didn't. As to your musical skills, not relevant, you don't post here as a musician. WG often offers an artists interpretation of the subject under discussion, it's always good to see things from a different perspective, and I personally value his/her contributions.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2015
WG,
...Gravitons are not detectable and have no observed properties.

Yet.
The same thing was said about electrons before we figured out how to "particalize", them...
"Graviton" will just be the word we use with which to describe the smallest characterization of a gravity field that we can see...

And Thanks, TD. You're gonna make me blush...:-)
IMP-9
3.8 / 5 (9) Jul 20, 2015
Add some cosmic red shift and you get the impression that the galaxy is much cooler


Have you never heard of a K correction? Apparently not. Redshift is trivial to compensate for, population synthesis accounts for varying ages of stars.

the fact NASA and ESA space probes have been so successful in making their marks


Instead of empty claims why don't you make a real argument. Go ahead and calculate the enclosed mass of dark matter in an NFW profile of the Milky Way dark matter halo. You will find it's so sparse it does not contribute at the level required for space flight.

There have been numerous studies in the Milky Way and you cannot possibly claim no one has found evidence of dark matter in the Galaxy. It was once debatable but not anymore.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 20, 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"

More at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

"A dark matter halo is a hypothetical component of a galaxy that envelops the galactic disk and extends well beyond the edge of the visible galaxy. The halo's mass dominates the total mass. Since they consist of dark matter, halos cannot be observed directly, but their existence is inferred through their effects on the motions of stars and gas in galaxies". Wikipeda
Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 20, 2015
@ Imp: Directly above is an observation made by NASA's Hubble Telescope. It has been clearly observed that there is a halo of visible matter stretching beyond Andromeda halfway to the MW.

Now, just below that I copied Wikipedia's opening paragraph on the location of DM & it is clearly defined as "component that envelops the galactic disk."

You see the problem don't you? Two very different halos residing in the same space which according to the DM hypotheses is not the nature of DM. The DM hypotheses is clear that DM does not homogeneously mix with visible matter. Obviously the Hubble observation is wrong or the DM hypotheses is wrong.

So how about you telling us the location of Andromeda's DM Halo which by hypotheses must envelope all that galaxy's visible matter which extends halfway to our MW? Then deal with MW visible halo which must nearly overlap Andromeda's. Doesn't leave any "space" for DM if the visible mass halos almost overlap.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2015
Hi vlaaing peerd. :)
when the more apt parts of Returners', docile's and Benni's observations are combined, they come very close to the real 'answers' (which my ToE confirms)

ah of course, I completely forgot you have your own personal ToE. It all makes sense now....The "mainstream (how hipster)" scientists never claimed to know what it is, and so far they are doing little more than collecting as much data as possible and thinking of experiments that could possibly reveal more information about all this unknown gravity causing stuff.
I merely pointed to the fact my ToE indicates the real mechanistic physical 'answers' to the DE/DM hypotheses; and that certain apt PARTS of Returners', docile's and Benni's observations, when put TOGETHER in the right way, are CLOSER to the 'answers' re DE/DM hypotheses than the 'answers' hypothesized by those mainstream hypotheses so far. And 'mainstream' hypotheses do ASSUME a lot about DE/DM nature/properties. :)
Returners
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 20, 2015
Benni:

Not to mention he attacked me personally, but I was referring to work done by entire team of physicists, posted in the June article on this site, whereby it was shown that the Milky Way mass was 210 billion Suns equivalent out to 60k light years radius.

Once again, I didn't make up that number, that is the mass the scientists obtained based on globular cluster orbital characteristics.

210 billion suns is between 4 and 8 times less massive than the DM supporters fraudulently evaluated the Milky Way mass to be, and is within reasonable limits given the number of stars estimated to exist in the milky way given visual and infrared astronomy to count them, and their average masses.

IMP-9...

Just accept it.

The stellar orbital curves of the Milky Way show no evidence of DM being anywhere in here.

Benni:

The visible mass halos are probably produced from outgassing from the central black holes or from supernovas. Some may come from prior merger cast-off...
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2015
Hi mytwocts. :)
Mate, for your own credibility, tone down your 'certainty' regarding what you/mainstream theoretical physicists/astrophysicists 'think' you 'know'
Funny. I did not make any statement about "mainstream etc etc".
It was implicit in both your tone and your personal remarks to others who have different takes than mainstream scientists in this area.
I stated that either you are a moron or all astrophysicists are. This I conclude from your statements in an earlier thread where you claim without proof that they are incapable, all of them, of even the simplest calculation.
I've never claimed all astrophysicists are morons; just some may be biased, or misled by inbuilt biases in certain 'exercises'. It's not that the latter can't calculate, it's that the calculations may assume/omit important factors, hence may be CORRECT calculation, but GIGO 'exercise'. Anyhow, you still have a tendency to 'certainty'/personal disrespect. Not wise for a scientist. :)
Returners
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 20, 2015
After all, we can see this process in many photos of inter-galactic space where merging galaxies have tails which are cast-off, and then fly away, but are caught just in time by gravity and collapse back to the galaxy. Supposing a merger between a reasonably large spiral, like 90% of the mass of Andromeda, and a Dwarf galaxy, like 10% the mass of Andromeda, and they collide on slightly different rotational planes, well some of the gas is going to end up in a spherical shell above, below, and outside the final disk.

https://www.youtu...a1CP9ImA

This is effected by their approach angles relative to their own orbital planes, because if approach angle is above or below the plane, instead of the same plane, then conservation of angular momentum dictates that some of the matter must end up orbiting above and below the main orbital disk.

When we talk about Spirals and Elipticals, it helps to remember those are man-made classifications. Nature has no classifications
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2015
In the past, scientists have assumed the Milky Way is about 10 or 11 billion years old, but if you watch the gas merger simulation you see that the environment doesn't really look like the modern Milky Way until about 7 or 8 billion years into the simulation, which suggests the Milky Way obtained its modern condition only about 5 or 6 billion years ago, and not the 10 to 11 billion years that you would find in a text book or encyclopedia.

https://www.youtu...WD9QmwJ8
Benni
1 / 5 (11) Jul 20, 2015
Hi Returners:

I understand the quandry that DM Enthusiasts find themselves in & your frustrations with their attitudes. Their quibble with you is that the intricate details you provide does not comport with DM dogma, so what they do is not bother with reading most of your synopses, in their minds it is just so overly detailed & simply leads to an inability on their part for digesting vast quantities of information within a very short space of time. Yours is a good approach when the audience filled with JeanTates, those with a keen mind for details, but that is not most of this audience.

I just try to fill in with as time allows with pertinent details as I did above. Then watch the name calling & profanity cascade into the Comments due to their inabilities to comprehend the physical sciences. People need to believe in something, many have been let down in life by most everything else they've tried so this is their new reality kind of thing, I can't figure anything else.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2015
Earth's orbit.

Told you Jupiter plays a big role, but they didn't even go into the planetary drift problem.

https://www.youtu...-DYgGFjI

Still, very informative video.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 20, 2015
You can do better than this.


Everybody can do better than that Cher.

I will not stand for it.


Who told you have to stand? Since you write 50 or 49 postums a day all day long, we thought you was sitting. You were standing to do it? Your mental conditions are worse than I thought.

I don't claim to have all the answers,


Then what are all those dozens and more dozens of postums all about Skippy?

but I can certainly point out the flaws in the standard models non-answers.


Cher, you don't do that any better than having all the answers. Maybe you should study up and point out the flaws in you and then tackle the other stuffs.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2015
IMP-9
3.4 / 5 (11) Jul 21, 2015
The DM hypotheses is clear that DM does not homogeneously mix with visible matter.


The cricum-galaxic medium was detected only in absorption, it's not visible disk. The CGM extends far beyond the visible disk too. You're literally trying to use something someone put on wikipedia to poke holes in a model, that's insane.

The stellar orbital curves of the Milky Way show no evidence of DM being anywhere in here.


http://www.nature...237.html
http://arxiv.org/...04.03317
http://arxiv.org/...01.01788

As I said you cannot possibly claim no one is claiming to have detected it.

Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 21, 2015
The DM hypotheses is clear that DM does not homogeneously mix with visible matter


The cricum-galaxic medium was detected only in absorption, it's not visible disk. The CGM extends far beyond the visible disk too. You're literally trying to use something someone put on wikipedia to poke holes in a model, that's insane


Well then Imp, if you want to believe anything in those 3 links, then DM must of necessity exist inside our solar system & those photos of the Pluto flyby are fake. The DM Enthusiasts you linked to are astute enough in coming to grips with the original tenet of DM in which DM is postulated to form a "shell" around galaxies.

As large visible matter galactic halos have been subsequently observed, the DM Narrative has needed a rebirth, and voila, a new Narrative bringing this stuff closer to home, but short enough of home that it precludes detectable gravitational anomalies inside our solar system, nice, maybe even "insane" to use your words.

Benni
1.5 / 5 (11) Jul 21, 2015
Returners claims that they are unable of making elementary calculations.
That amounts to calling the morons. You support him, so that is "implicit".
I am 100% certain, of the fact that astrophysicists know what they do.
I am also certain that I have read no valid argument against DM in any of the posts.


I attended college with Physics majors, some of whom went on to specialize in Astrophysics. I took many of the same courses they did on my pathway to degrees in Electrical/Nuclear Engineering. Took all the same math classes, chemistry, physics, thermodynamics sitting side by side with them in the same classrooms.

Why are you "100% certain of the fact that astrophysicists know what they do" while having the temerity of stooping to name calling ("morons") because you're unable to rebut simple questions that I & others pose. Simple questions like: If the universe is composed of 90% DM, why is it absent in our solar system as evidenced by lack of gravitational anomalies.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2015
Until then...you are literally just making shit up.

You must mean constructing a testable hypothesis.


A "testable hypothesis"? OK......

........how about a gravitational anomaly whereby Newtonian Gravity is the ever present anomaly to the structure of our Solar System.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2015
Produce a particle, then tell me what it does. Not the other way around
@bs
it doesn't always work that way: case in point- Higgs (or the Neutron)

dogbert
2 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2015
Many particles were predicted long before discovery.


Yes, they were predicted by the standard model and then were confirmed.

What predicts DM? Nothing. It was simply made up when we noticed that stars were moving faster than our models of gravity allowed without leaving their galaxies.

From the first creation of DM until now, we have nothing at all to base DM on. It is simply fantasy. A kludge to 'fix' the problem with stars going too fast to remain in their galaxies according to our models of gravity.

People have spent their whole careers trying to prove that fantasy matter exists (and failing to prove it).
Benni
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 21, 2015
Produce a particle, then tell me what it does. Not the other way around.


..but that is not how DM Enthusiasts play their hypotheses to the public. If they propose, the naysayers are dimwits if they're unable to prove the opposite case in accordance with rules set by these new DM scientists as per example of the late JeanTate.

The fact that the DM Hypotheses has in very recent years undergone so many metamorphosis without the discovery of a particle, we shouldn't be surprised.

If you've noticed, the most frequent response by Mytwocts are challenges to me & others, to disprove ANY position he makes. He really believes that if you can't DISPROVE any statement he makes, then he feels as if he's backed you into a corner. This is the paradigm under which the entire hypotheses of DM has been constructed.

Benni
1.5 / 5 (11) Jul 21, 2015
DM is a testable hypothesis. 100% certain.
Test it. Advance your own testable hypothesis.
Alas. This "anomaly" talk, what does it mean ?


So enlighten us........how did you test it?
Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 21, 2015
The fact that the DM Hypotheses has in very recent years undergone so many metamorphosis without the discovery of a particle, we shouldn't be surprised.
...........and the reason being that they don't want the PARTICLE, they ONLY want the ARGUMENT.

RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2015
Hi mytwocts. :)
It was implicit in both your tone and your personal remarks to others ..
What a weak argument. And why do you defend returners?
...
Returners claims that they are unable of making elementary calculations.
That amounts to calling them morons. You support him, so that is "implicit".
I don't "defend Returners" the PERSON, I defend his scientific objective discourse right not to be personally disparaged when he is trying to present is own critiques/take on the conventional physics logic/analyses techniques, interpretations etc. It was your 'certainty' (that you/mainstream is right and him wrong, despite some serious questions still not settled) that leaves you open to accusations of unscientific prejudice etc.
I am 100% certain of...
See? They're now rethinking 'standard candle' techniques, CMB analyses/interpretations, their DE/DM assumptions/interpretations, BBang/gravity waves 'modeling construct' for new/old 'experiments/understandings'. :)
IMP-9
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 22, 2015
then DM must of necessity exist inside our solar system & those photos of the Pluto flyby are fake.


When proven wrong you make another wild claim, one I've already addressed. As I said, do the calculation and you will see the enclosed dark matter in the solar system is within statistical errors.

Each one of your links infers DM's existence from kinematic surveys, this is not detection.


I never claimed it did. You claimed that people thought there is no dark matter in the MW, this is false.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 22, 2015
after calling DM "pixie dust", you then go on to impute some of its' properties?


The properties of DM are given by the mainstream scientists as being interacting only by gravity.

I'm not "imputing" anything.

I'm showing that it doesn't work.

The guy in the last video I linked to attempts to explain DM, DE, and symmetry breaking through quantum mechanics in a 3-dimensional time model, where we only think we are "observing" one dimension of time.

He did manage to impress me when he said that space comes from the entropy of matter itself.

I has hypothesized that matter might collect a sort of "fluid" around itself, and that more massive objects attracted more of this space-fluid. Then I hypothesized that the gravitational wave formula was actually calculating the friction of objects with this fluid.

His model instead explains this behavior as a form of entropy in the 3rd dimension of time.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Jul 22, 2015
When proven wrong you make another wild claim, one I've already addressed. As I said, do the calculation and you will see the enclosed dark matter in the solar system is within statistical errors
What did you prove wrong? Provide the calculation.

Each one of your links infers DM's existence from kinematic surveys, this is not detection.


I never claimed it did. You claimed that people thought there is no dark matter in the MW, this is false
So you believe there is DM inside the MW? In spite of the fact that I copied an above quote from the DM hypotheses that DM "envelopes" a galaxy?

"A dark matter halo is a hypothetical component of a galaxy that envelops the galactic disk and extends well beyond the edge of the visible galaxy. The halo's mass dominates the total mass. Since they consist of dark matter, halos cannot be observed directly, but their existence is inferred through their effects on the motions of stars and gas in galaxies". Wikipedia

Benni
1 / 5 (9) Jul 22, 2015
There have been numerous studies in the Milky Way and you cannot possibly claim no one has found evidence of dark matter in the Galaxy. It was once debatable but not anymore.


So where is this study?

Why are the claims you're making of the presence of DM inside MW contradicted by the very definition of the Hypotheses? Just think if Einstein had constructed General Relativity in the manner DM Enthusiasts are have constructed the DM Hypotheses, Einstein would have become a laughingstock in short order.

Imp, where are the DM Field Equations for gravity? You know, like the ones Einstein produced for gravity in General Relativity? You DM Enthusiasts have a definition of gravity that is far beyond GR, but you're so recalcitrant in producing the Differential Equations Einstein produced. Why is this? It goes to your credibility to produce them, otherwise your grade school math for whatever calculations you claim for proving the existence of DM are just plain foolishness.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Jul 22, 2015
. As I said, do the calculation and you will see the enclosed dark matter in the solar system is within statistical errors


.....you're challenging me to do the math? You are the one declaring this "statistical error", don't expect me to come up with your math. Provide the equation along with the solution of the calculation of DM in the solar system & we can have some fun with it. Your equation will of necessity contain a gravitational constant for DM, so don't try fudging an equation conveniently neglecting it with hopes I won't catch it.
IMP-9
3.4 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2015
What did you prove wrong? Provide the calculation.


Will you ever stop intentionally misquoting people? You claimed the navigation of spacecraft disproved the existence of the expected dark matter, a completely baseless claim. You made this claim, I challenged you to back it up. If you're not going do back your claims up then there is no debate to be had.

So you believe there is DM inside the MW? In spite of the fact that I copied an above quote from the DM hypotheses that DM "envelopes" a galaxy?


Again using wikipedia as a basis for science, bad idea. Words are inexact and can be misinterpreted. Dark matter halo profiles (e.g. NFW) are not hollow in the middle.

So where is this study?


I provided a few examples above.

where are the DM Field Equations for gravity?


The same field equations that exist for all mass.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 22, 2015
What did you prove wrong? Provide the calculation.


You claimed the navigation of spacecraft disproved the existence of the expected dark matter, a completely baseless claim
How interesting that applying the Inverse Square Law to Newtonian Gravity calculations for navigation of spacecraft is a baseless claim for disproving the presence of DM inside our solar system.

{
You made this claim, I challenged you to back it up. If you're not going do back your claims up then there is no debate to be had
But when you make up claims for the presence of DM inside our Solar System you exonerate yourself from the standards of proof.

So you believe there is DM inside the MW? In spite of the fact that I copied an above quote from the DM hypotheses that DM "envelopes" a galaxy?


Again using wikipedia as a basis for science, bad idea. Words are inexact and can be misinterpreted
Is "envelope" one of those "inexact" words being "misintrepreted"?

IMP-9
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2015
How interesting that applying the Inverse Square Law to Newtonian Gravity calculations for navigation of spacecraft is a baseless claim for disproving the presence of DM inside our solar system.


By which logical you can disprove the existence of the Planets. The inverse square law is violated in the case of the solar system, we know this, we have Planets and not a single point mass of the Sun. FYI the JPL Ephemeris used to guide spacecraft uses post-Newtonian gravity.

The claim you are badly trying to make is that the influence of dark matter would have on the orbit would make calculations inaccurate, this is false. Any physics major can calculate the enclosed mass of dark matter within Pluto's orbit, it's on the order of 10^18 kg . That's a middle sized asteroid. Given we haven't detected a great many asteroids and New Horizions did fine dark matter is not disproven by spacecraft, the trajectory cannot be that sensitive.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.3670
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Jul 22, 2015
There have been numerous studies in the Milky Way and you cannot possibly claim no one has found evidence of dark matter in the Galaxy. It was once debatable but not anymore.


So where is this study?

In the literature
Not GR

Imp where are the DM Field Equations for gravity? like the ones Einstein produced for gravity in General Relativity?


The DM hypothesis FOLLOWS from application of Newtons gravity (rotation) and GRT (lensing)

You haven't got a clue, it follows from the hypothesis of Zwicky with regards to the very cluster of galaxies under discussion in this article. GRT (lensing?) has nothing to do with DM

If you'd have actually studied General Relativity you'd know Einstein made his calculations for gravitational lensing based on the gravity of the Sun's observed mass. He didn't need to add in fudge factors to increase the gravity in his calculation to account for 75-90% of it being missing. Ever read GR? Give it a try.
Benni
1 / 5 (11) Jul 22, 2015
Imp, http://arxiv.org/...12.3670:

The only thing that comes from this messy paper, is an hypothesized outcome of one guy competitively hypothesizing his own idiosyncratic method of calculating DM for the Sun versus another guys method of doing it. Most attention has been on parameter estimation, where a set of parameters
is chosen by hand and the aim is to constrain them. Interest has been growing towards
the higher-level inference problem of model selection, which compares different choices of
parameter sets. Their inferences offers a framework for cosmological model
selection, setting a tensor between model predictiveness and ability to fit the data. Their Conclusions? More hypotheticals.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2015
Hi mytwocts. :)
I don't "defend Returners" the PERSON
That is obvious.
But you asked WHY I "defended Returners".
I defend his scientific objective discourse right
He has the right to be wrong.
And so do you, and mainstream too, "have the right to be wrong"...which has occurred before now. Which is why I was moved to caution you re your 'certainties' attitude while disparaging others takes on HYPOTHETICALS not yet settled.
It was your 'certainty' (that you/mainstream is right and him wrong
I never stated "mainstream" is right, only that returners is wrong.
How can you allow for mainstream being wrong/not right while being so 'certain' that Returners is wrong on hypotheses not yet settled?

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but it doesn't help if one is dismissive while so 'certain' re Hypotheses not yet confirmed. Last few times people ignored my urging of caution re 'certainty', they got egg all over their faces. Relax. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2015
Hi mytwocts. :)

Ok, mate, I see what you're getting at. No sweat. However, FYI, he/others have, hidden among their voluminous posts, "viable ideas" (only in partial form, and not original ones per se, but viable if pursued as part of a coherent appraisal as/in proper "combination of certain parts of his and certain others takes" which come closer to the real answers than those currently hypothesized by mainstream approaches/assumptions/interpretations of data/theory re DM/DE etc). This is easily missed by a dismissive mindset which may dismiss 'the gems among the dross' because of 'attitude' kneejerking due to unwarranted 'certainty' which just as detrimental to objective research/communication as anything brought by 'crackpots'. Just take it easy; and if you don't like his/others' wall-of-posts, don't engage unless you're prepared to work hard to find any 'gems in the dross'.

PS: I am very busy now on climate change and ToE etc work; so won't comment for a while. Cheers! :)
IMP-9
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2015
The only thing that comes from this messy paper


Is an estimate of the dark matter density. The paper is mostly irrelevant, it was merely a source used in my calculation proving to you dark matter cannot be ruled out as you claimed.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2015
HI mytwocts. :)

I was just about to log out when I caught this...
I think I misread you. If you say that it has happened in the past that one scientists was right and the others were all wrong, yes that has happened and it will keep happening. Usually that one man was a very good scientist, as were his opponents.
Yes, history shows that has happened more than once. Not the point I was making.

The point was about being cautious of 'certainty' re things which are not as clear cut as one assumed from prevailing 'mainstream direction/literature' etc which may be based on inbuilt biases/flaws in previous 'work' and intepretations which got into the 'models' from which one is hypothesizing and limiting one's hypotheses to that 'framework'.
What has _never_ happened is that "mainstream" went in the wrong direction by _incompetence_ and that a complete outsider lacking scientific skills redressed it.
You might want to reconsider that last 'certainty' too. Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2015
PS: mytwocts, I have to go now and don't know when I will be in again for commenting; so will say thanks for your responses and good luck to you in future discourse with whomever. Bye for now, mate, everyone. Be cool and let the calm objective and free and open science discourse flow on this site for the benefit of all humanity and the intellect it represents in this wide and wonderful universe! Enjoy the ride to the farthest reaches and epochs via your imagination and your science working as they should, without rancour and with respect and tolerance for honest minds one might into by accident 'on the net', here or elsewhere. Good luck and good thinking all! :)

PPS:
I am very busy now on climate change and ToE etc work; so won't comment for a while. Cheers! :)
You should be very busy. Climate change AND ToE. Read you again in a hundred years then.
Much of the work on both already done; just finalizing/details etc. Enjoy the ride meanwhile, mytwocts, everyone. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2015
Logging off now. My apologies if I missed responding to anyone. Won't be posting for a good while. So bye for now! Take care. Over and Out! :)
Benni
1 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2015
The only thing that comes from this messy paper
.......Is an estimate of the dark matter density.

The paper is mostly irrelevant, it was merely a source used in my calculation proving to you dark matter cannot be ruled out as you claimed.
.....well of course the paper is mostly irrelevant, but you didn't know that until I told you. Next time you link to something like this, you'd better already know what it's about before you try holding it up as proof for whatever point(s) you're trying to make.

Furthermore, the proof that the density of DM in the Sun is zero was proven by Einstein's calculations for gravitational lensing in General Relativity. Using the visible mass he calculated the exact angle of lensing as starlight passes the disk of the Sun. Unaccounted for missing matter would have shown up with an end result of greater than calculated lensing due to a stronger than calculated gravity field, but that didn't happen, but you didn't know that. Study GR.

docile
Jul 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
AGreatWhopper
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2015
How sloppy. The study never claims that Coma members have more dark matter, rather less gas. That makes the ratio bigger, but there is no sense in which the reported statement "packed with dark matter" is valid.

Have your fun tin foil hat jobs. I've finished my mission in the Channel Isles and have plenty of invoices and memos confirming that phys.org is taking all manner of funding from all vested in muddying all scientific waters for their own interests, paying for phys.org to give the idiots a forum. Very soon you'll be able to read it all on corporate Wikileaks.
jljenkins
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 23, 2015
It's pretty obvious. Serious science sites don't let idiots with delusions of grandeur like returners and Benni post crap after crap after crap after crap illogical bullshit...and then jerk each other off publicly for an encore.

What a bunch of morons. They're making a testable hypothesis. The statement is falsify-able. Don't see any of that from the wack jobs on here. It never ceases to amaze me how psychotics and scammers constantly think rational people are going to through away everything they've ever studied to follow their charismaniac selves.

Returners

-10/ 5 (10) Jul 19, 2015
The mass of known stars, black holes, and super nova remants such as the Crab Nebula and its central Pulsar present a serious problem to the Dark Matter model.


Your crabs have mass anomalies because the poor things have the unlucky lot in life to be parasites on such a vacuous entity.
NiteSkyGerl
3 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2015
Stop feeding the sad, sick fucks. "Dark Matter" appears 112 times on this page; "returners" 96 times, and he has never managed a 2 or higher on ratings. That doesn't count all the people that have blocked him. That's a person that either doesn't understand basic civility or is deliberately violating it. You don't debate them. You can tell his sock puppets because, coincidentally, they have the exact same numbers next to their comments. Do you click on the Adblade/Outbrain spam? You ignore it. Grow up. It's down to you; they never will.
IMP-9
3.8 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2015
well of course the paper is mostly irrelevant, but you didn't know that until I told you.


I did the calculation, I know exactly what I took from it. It was only cited for an estimate of the density of dark matter in the solar neighborhood. If you understood my argument you wouldn't have attacked an irrelevant paper.

Using the visible mass


Again you spout more baseless nonsense. How do you calculate the visible mass for an optically thick body? You can't. You can only measure the gravitational mass in the case of the Sun, which doesn't depend on the type of matter. What you ignore again is experimental precision. Measurements like this don't have the precision to detect these masses of dark matter at 1 part in 10^12.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Jul 23, 2015
e proof that the density of DM in the Sun is zero was proven by Einstein's calculations for gravitational lensing
How you can observe the lensing IN the Sun? There are http://www.prespa...125/125, that the presence of dark matter AROUND Sun instead violates the Einstein's calculations and general relativity (while affecting the famous precession of Mercury, for example),


No, not "AROUND" either. The reason being that Einstein's General Relativity calculations for gravitational lensing could not preclude any DM located between Earth & Sun & that includes any proximity of a DM envelope AROUND the Sun.. The gravitational effects of any mass located line of site between Earth & Sun would also need to be factored into those calculations. Any unaccounted for mass would skew the calculations, but they were right on the mark because there was no need to account for additional mass.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2015
What you ignore again is experimental precision. Measurements like this don't have the precision to detect these masses of dark matter at 1 part in 10^12.
So give me the hard numbers comparing it to the quantity of visible mass. I read your so-called precision as if you're saying that DM exists within the solar system at one part for every 10*12 parts of visible matter? Is this what you're saying?
IMP-9
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2015
I already gave you the mass of DM in the solar system and a solar mass is 2E30 kg. For the mass interoir to Pluto's orbit yes I am saying that.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2015
I already gave you the mass of DM in the solar system and a solar mass is 2E30 kg. For the mass interoir to Pluto's orbit yes I am saying that.

OK then, don't expect me to do your calculations for you, you do them, after all you wouldn't want me to inadvertantly skew your numbers. It's simple right? The last time I challenged JeanTate to do this he copped out, he said couldn't do it because it required more than a 1000 characters, I'm sure you could do better?
IMP-9
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2015
The calculation is done, as you can see the two numbers diver by 1E12, as I said. I cannot believe how lazy you are given these are your claims I am rebuking. You have no interest in testing them and I don't think you do not have the knowledge to do so. You are making grand claims when you literally have no idea but this wont deter you from claiming everyone else is wrong on the basis of your made up proof which you haven't even thought trough.

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.