New results from world's most sensitive dark matter detector

December 14, 2015, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
A view inside the LUX detector. Credit: Matthew Kapust/Sanford Underground Research Facility

The Large Underground Xenon (LUX) dark matter experiment, which operates nearly a mile underground at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in the Black Hills of South Dakota, has already proven itself to be the most sensitive detector in the hunt for dark matter, the unseen stuff believed to account for most of the matter in the universe. Now, a new set of calibration techniques employed by LUX scientists has again dramatically improved the detector's sensitivity.

Researchers with LUX are looking for WIMPs, or weakly interacting massive particles, which are among the leading candidates for dark matter. "We have improved the sensitivity of LUX by more than a factor of 20 for low-mass dark , significantly enhancing our ability to look for WIMPs," said Rick Gaitskell, professor of physics at Brown University and co-spokesperson for the LUX experiment. "It is vital that we continue to push the capabilities of our detector in the search for the elusive dark matter particles," Gaitskell said.

LUX improvements, coupled to advanced computer simulations at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's (Berkeley Lab) National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) and Brown University's Center for Computation and Visualization (CCV), have allowed scientists to test additional particle models of dark matter that now can be excluded from the search. NERSC also stores large volumes of LUX data—measured in trillions of bytes, or terabytes—and Berkeley Lab has a growing role in the LUX collaboration.

Scientists are confident that dark matter exists because the effects of its gravity can be seen in the rotation of galaxies and in the way light bends as it travels through the universe. Because WIMPs are thought to interact with other matter only on very rare occasions, they have yet to be detected directly.

"We have looked for dark matter particles during the experiment's first three-month run, but are exploiting new calibration techniques better pinning down how they would appear to our detector," said Alastair Currie of Imperial College London, a LUX researcher. "These calibrations have deepened our understanding of the response of xenon to dark matter, and to backgrounds. This allows us to search, with improved confidence, for particles that we hadn't previously known would be visible to LUX."

The new research is described in a paper submitted to Physical Review Letters. The work reexamines data collected during LUX's first three-month run in 2013 and helps to rule out the possibility of dark matter detections at low-mass ranges where other experiments had previously reported potential detections.

LUX consists of one-third ton of liquid xenon surrounded with sensitive light detectors. It is designed to identify the very rare occasions when a dark matter particle collides with a xenon atom inside the detector. When a collision happens, a xenon atom will recoil and emit a tiny flash of light, which is detected by LUX's light sensors. The detector's location at Sanford Lab beneath a mile of rock helps to shield it from cosmic rays and other radiation that would interfere with a dark matter signal.

So far LUX hasn't detected a dark matter signal, but its exquisite sensitivity has allowed scientists to all but rule out vast mass ranges where dark matter particles might exist. These new calibrations increase that sensitivity even further.

One calibration technique used neutrons as stand-ins for dark matter particles. Bouncing neutrons off the xenon atoms allows scientists to quantify how the LUX detector responds to the recoiling process.

The LUX dark matter detector is seen here during the assembly process in a surface laboratory in South Dakota. Credit: Matthew Kapust/Sanford Underground Research Facility

"It is like a giant game of pool with a neutron as the cue ball and the xenon atoms as the stripes and solids," Gaitskell said. "We can track the neutron to deduce the details of the xenon recoil, and calibrate the response of LUX better than anything previously possible."

The nature of the interaction between neutrons and xenon atoms is thought to be very similar to the interaction between dark matter and xenon. "It's just that dark matter particles interact very much more weakly—about a million-million-million-million times more weakly," Gaitskell said.

The neutron experiments help to calibrate the detector for interactions with the xenon nucleus. But LUX scientists have also calibrated the detector's response to the deposition of small amounts of energy by struck atomic electrons. That's done by injecting tritiated methane—a radioactive gas—into the detector.

"In a typical science run, most of what LUX sees are background electron recoil events," said Carter Hall a University of Maryland professor. "Tritiated methane is a convenient source of similar events, and we've now studied hundreds of thousands of its decays in LUX. This gives us confidence that we won't mistake these garden-variety events for dark matter."

Another radioactive gas, krypton, was injected to help scientists distinguish between signals produced by ambient radioactivity and a potential dark matter signal.

"The krypton mixes uniformly in the liquid xenon and emits radiation with a known, specific energy, but then quickly decays away to a stable, non-radioactive form," said Dan McKinsey, a UC Berkeley physics professor and co-spokesperson for LUX who is also an affiliate with Berkeley Lab. By precisely measuring the light and charge produced by this interaction, researchers can effectively filter out background events from their search.

"And so the search continues," McKinsey said. "LUX is once again in dark matter detection mode at Sanford Lab. The latest run began in late 2014 and is expected to continue until June 2016. This run will represent an increase in exposure of more than four times compared to our previous 2013 run. We will be very excited to see if any have shown themselves in the new data."

A view of the LUX detector during assembly. LUX is installed at the center of a 72,000 gallon tank filled with deionized water. The water, along with photomultiplier tubes lining the tank, act together as a veto system to rule out false-positive signals. Credit: Matthew Kapust/Sanford Underground Research Facility

McKinsey, formerly at Yale University, joined UC Berkeley and Berkeley Lab in July, accompanied by members of his research team.

The Sanford Lab is a South Dakota-owned facility. Homestake Mining Co. donated its gold mine in Lead to the South Dakota Science and Technology Authority (SDSTA), which reopened the facility in 2007 with $40 million in funding from the South Dakota State Legislature and a $70 million donation from philanthropist T. Denny Sanford. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) supports Sanford Lab's operations.

Kevin Lesko, who oversees SURF operations and leads the Dark Matter Research Group at Berkeley Lab, said, "It's good to see that the experiments installed in SURF continue to produce world-leading results."

The LUX scientific collaboration, which is supported by the DOE and National Science Foundation (NSF), includes 19 research universities and national laboratories in the United States, the United Kingdom and Portugal.

"The global search for dark matter aims to answer one of the biggest questions about the makeup of our universe. We're proud to support the LUX collaboration and congratulate them on achieving an even greater level of sensitivity," said Mike Headley, Executive Director of the SDSTA.

Planning for the next-generation experiment at Sanford Lab is already under way. In late 2016 LUX will be decommissioned to make way for a new, much larger xenon detector, known as the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment. LZ would have a 10-ton liquid xenon target, which will fit inside the same 72,000-gallon tank of pure water used by LUX. Berkeley Lab scientists will have major leadership roles in the LZ collaboration.

"The innovations of the LUX experiment form the foundation for the LZ experiment, which is planned to achieve over 100 times the sensitivity of LUX. The LZ experiment is so sensitive that it should begin to detect a type of neutrino originating in the Sun that even Ray Davis' Nobel Prize-winning experiment at the Homestake mine was unable to detect," according to Harry Nelson of UC Santa Barbara, spokesperson for LZ.

Explore further: Video: Hunting for the WIMPs of the universe

Related Stories

Video: Hunting for the WIMPs of the universe

April 28, 2015

Dark matter is a scientific mystery. We can't see or touch it. But physicists like Dan McKinsey theorize it must exist because, without it, the universe would look quite different.

LUX dark matter results confirmed

February 20, 2014

(Phys.org) —A new high-accuracy calibration of the LUX (Large Underground Xenon) dark matter detector demonstrates the experiment's sensitivity to ultra-low energy events. The new analysis strongly confirms the result that ...

Next-generation dark matter experiments get the green light

July 16, 2014

(Phys.org) —Last week, the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science and the National Science Foundation announced support for a suite of upcoming experiments to search for dark matter that will be many times more sensitive ...

SLAC gears up for dark matter hunt with LUX-ZEPLIN

May 21, 2015

Researchers have come a step closer to building one of the world's best dark matter detectors: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently signed off on the conceptual design of the proposed LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment and ...

Recommended for you

285 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dirk_bruere
2.1 / 5 (20) Dec 14, 2015
So, nothing...
indio007
2.6 / 5 (31) Dec 14, 2015
And never will be. Flush another billion or so just because they can't admit Relativity is wrong.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (33) Dec 14, 2015
So, nothing...

Did you even read the article? It says right there:
"So far LUX hasn't detected a dark matter signal, but its exquisite sensitivity has allowed scientists to all but rule out vast mass ranges where dark matter particles might exist."

Do you have any idea how valuable it is to be able to exclude entire ranges of energies/models in science?
flag
2.3 / 5 (18) Dec 14, 2015
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (27) Dec 14, 2015
It is amazing how much money and effort have gone into the search for what is essentially an imaginary particle.

When it was noted that spiral galaxies have suns which are moving so fast that they should leave the galaxy, dark matter was made up to account for the discrepancy between our models of gravity and our observations.

If we had spent the same amount of time and money trying to determine why our observations do not match our models of gravity as we have searching for imaginary matter, we would probably have found an answer by now.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (26) Dec 14, 2015
If we had spent the same amount of time and money trying to determine why our observations do not match our models of gravity

Erm...hello? Are you mental?

It's one thing if cranks start to whinge about how money goes to real research instead of their pet/crank theory. But when the cranks start to whinge about how money should go to some endeavour when it's actually going EXACTLY THERE then insanity has reached a new peak.
zorro6204
2.3 / 5 (18) Dec 14, 2015
My gut instinct tells me they're not going to find anything, because dark matter isn't here, it's in another brane, and all we're seeing is the gravitational effect. Something like that seems to be a logical answer, even though I know a lot of people, including Susskind, think dark matter will just turn out to be an ordinary particle we've missed up until now. Feels more like a ghost to me, something in the inter-brane ether, if of course branes exist. Fun.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (27) Dec 14, 2015
antialias_physorg,

when the cranks start to whinge about how money should go to some endeavour when it's actually going EXACTLY THERE then insanity has reached a new peak.


No. Money spent on finding Pixie dust or Unicorns is not the same as doing research to discover why our models of gravity do not match our observations. Dark matter is just as imaginary as Pixie dust or Unicorns. There is absolutely no evidence for it and there never has been any evidence for it. It was simply imagined on the spot when we noted that our models failed to match our observations.

arom
Dec 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (20) Dec 14, 2015
My gut instinct tells me they're not going to find anything, because dark matter isn't here, it's in another brane, and all we're seeing is the gravitational effect. Something like that seems to be a logical answer

"Gut instinct" and "logical answer" are mutually exclusive concepts. The only real approach is to posit hypotheses that aren't in conflict with already observed facts and then test the as yet unobserved predictions these hypotheses make.

Dark matter is just as imaginary as Pixie dust or Unicorns.

"Dark matter" is a placeholder for "that which causes the things we observe". Nothing more, nothing less. It is a name given to a range of hypotheses that fulfill the above criterium. And what they are doing is trying to find out which of these work and which don't. With the current experiment they have already excluded a big swath of those that don't.

If you have a better theory that should be tested first then write a paper on it.
dogbert
2 / 5 (23) Dec 14, 2015
antialias_physorg,

You don't spend millions of dollars building detectors to find place holders. They are actually looking for dark matter.

The "it is a place holder" claim is simply not true.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (27) Dec 14, 2015
indio007 claims
And never will be. Flush another billion or so just because they can't admit Relativity is wrong
Really, can you articulate this rather better than an inane one line claim that "goes no-where" - maths & experimental evidence please ?

Yet it works for so many things from Global Positioning Satellites (GPS) to energies for accelerating particles in colliders to the colour of gold to the melting point of mercury etc

Or maybe you are being non-relativistically incoherent in that you havent (yet) come up with any alternative [relativity] maths/experiments to explain why GPS works so well by summing special & general relativity constantly to ensure high accuracy is maintained & used globally ?

https://en.wikipe...g_System
https://www.uam.e...vity.pdf
https://en.wikipe...lativity
https://en.wikipe...lativity

& many many more...
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (24) Dec 14, 2015
dogbert with Huge oversimplification
.... no evidence for it and there never has been any evidence for it. It was simply imagined on the spot when we noted that our models failed to match our observations
Doing this again, coming at Physics topics without basic understanding of the key issues re "Balance of Probability"

From Newtons laws through to Gravitation & as asymptotically amended re Relativity there is a very consistent base upon which to make inferences as these mathematical models do function very well at local scales, it is only when you get to astronomical scales there's anomaly

Fact that confidence at local scales is so very high ie The immense consistency of maths in relation to experimental evidence infers clearly there is likely "some" mass (like) at astronomical scales not (yet) visible

Comparative effort logically is to examine closely whilst (Gravitation) deniers continue but, fail to prove *any* errors !

What dogbert *should* be done then ?
SnowballSolarSystem _SSS_
2.2 / 5 (17) Dec 14, 2015
Susskind, think dark matter will just turn out to be an ordinary particle we've missed up until now.

Watch the ordinary particles turn out to be H2 & He, condensed into gravitationally-bound giant molecular clouds (GMCs) in their dark 'normal state' with their acquired luminous stellar metallicity 'snowed out' into the solid state of icy chondrules.

Then GMCs in their opaque 'excited state' on shallow orbits to the disk plane have had their stellar metallicity sublimed by giant stars, raising the avg. molecular weight, lowering the 'sound crossing time', promoting Jeans instability.

So DM that converts to stars and luminous gas predicts no 'cuspy halo problem', whereas WIMP models require ad hoc secondary mechanisms or fine tuning to explain the relative absence of DM in galactic bulges and its complete absence in globular clusters.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (25) Dec 14, 2015
dogbert incorrectly with immense oversimplification claims
You don't spend millions of dollars building detectors to find place holders
Yes you do, the process continues also be exclusion, this is how Science works. Try try to understand key economics, money flows around global economy, enables increased tech overall not just in any one field as many branches of engineering need to converge, people also pay taxes & buy etc. See studies confirm high leverage of (basic) Science research re outcomes

One of many examples is Internet you rely on to make inarticulate claims !

dogbert said
They are actually looking for dark matter
As well, remember if you can the "Sherlock Holmes method" re inference & deduction, my thought is type of 'saturation' effect which disturbs the gravitational noise variance re photon interaction but, thats a mere guess so far...

dogbert ugh
.."it is a place holder" claim is simply not true
No.

Learn Physics - Please !
axemaster
4.8 / 5 (23) Dec 14, 2015
You don't spend millions of dollars building detectors to find place holders. They are actually looking for dark matter.

A more accurate statement would be "they are looking for answers". And finding out that something doesn't work is just as much a worthwhile answer.

I feel like if this were 100 years ago and they were searching for neutrons, you'd see exactly this argument. Read this article and you can feel the "mysteriousness" all over again:

https://en.wikipe..._neutron
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (22) Dec 14, 2015
You don't spend millions of dollars building detectors to find place holders.

You send million sof dollars buliding detectors to test hypotheses. Which is exactly what they are doing. Without experiments our understanding of how the universe works would degenerate into "I think that..."...which is all the cranks every produce, and which is completely useless.

You have a very 'Hollywood ' view of what science is. You need to start learning what science actually is.
Science probes the unknown. Science is NOT engineering.
It is the nature of such probing that sometimes - if not most of the time - experiments fail. However, this does not mean that failed experiments are useless. Experiments that don't turn up anything can still be used to constrain where to look the next time (again: this is exactly what they did, here).
liquidspacetime
2.3 / 5 (18) Dec 14, 2015
Dark matter fills the space unoccupied by particles of matter and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

http://aetherdisplacement.com
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (22) Dec 14, 2015
"And so the search continues,"

To say the least...
Planning for the next-generation dark matter experiment at Sanford Lab is already under way.

At least they admit to failure and the need for endless funding to accomplish their goals.
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (19) Dec 14, 2015
antialias_physorg,

For over 70 years, people have been looking for dark matter. If even a tenth of that time and money had been used to try to understand the anomalies we observe, we would probably have found the solution.

It is not scientific to use a kludge when a model fails. Spending generations trying to find that kludge seems very foolish.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (18) Dec 14, 2015
For over 70 years, people have been looking for dark matter. If even a tenth of that time and money had been used to try to understand the anomalies we observe,

*sigh*...again: Not a tenth of the money is used to understand the anomalies observed. ALL the money is used to try and understand the anomalies observed. They are doing exactly what you are crying about: trying to find a solution.

is not scientific to use a kludge when a model fails

It's scientific to try and test those hypotheses first that:
- make easily testable predictions
- mesh with all current observations (no use switching to a model that is worse that the current crop in everything else just because it's better in one area)
- (bonus: integrate well with current models)

So, as you have been asked before: what is your theory that should have been tested instead of what they are testing for? Just saying "do something else" is just stupid drivel.
omegatrondeath
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 14, 2015
So, nothing...

Did you even read the article? It says right there:
"So far LUX hasn't detected a dark matter signal, but its exquisite sensitivity has allowed scientists to all but rule out vast mass ranges where dark matter particles might exist."

Do you have any idea how valuable it is to be able to exclude entire ranges of energies/models in science?

Meh, they haven't found anything though. Once they find it, it won't be named dark matter anymore.
axemaster
5 / 5 (20) Dec 14, 2015
So, as you have been asked before: what is your theory that should have been tested instead of what they are testing for? Just saying "do something else" is just stupid drivel.

Yes, please enlighten us.

But seriously, what they are doing really is the most logical thing. If it doesn't look that way... well, to be blunt, it means you don't understand the subject as well as you think you do.
liquidspacetime
2.3 / 5 (19) Dec 14, 2015
The notion of dark matter as weakly interacting with matter is incorrect. Dark matter fills 'empty' space and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

There is evidence of dark matter every time a double slit eperiment is performed; it's what waves.
Andrew Palfreyman
4 / 5 (28) Dec 14, 2015
Speaking as someone with a physics degree, I am dismayed at the sheer number of cranks and ignorami in this comments section. As has been noted by someone who knows what they're talking about, the chief achievement to date has been the elimination of vast swathes of the mass-energy spectrum. In language the resident nutjobs will understand, it means that we don't have to expend future effort looking there. Get it?
shavera
4.8 / 5 (18) Dec 14, 2015
I'd like to remind everyone too that excluding mass regions is not evidence that a thing doesn't exist. In the year or so prior to the Higgs finding, there were several articles analyzing previous experiments that had created mass exclusions. People (journalists and readers) then *also* misinterpreted that as evidence that the Higgs might not exist. Not too long afterward, we found the particle in the window that hadn't been excluded. One could imagine a very similar case here too.
joel in oakland
1.5 / 5 (15) Dec 14, 2015
No, no. You're all wrong. The problem is that gravity itself doesn't exist. Same as dark matter. I know, because I've never seen either of them. And about those atom things...

Which reminds me that a really perceptive guy whose name I can't remember noted that "The world is made not of atoms but of stories." Of course the STEM people don't call their things "stories"; they prefer "models." And, uh... well...
axemaster
5 / 5 (21) Dec 14, 2015
@Andrew
Welcome to physorg. And don't worry, the disappointment will only increase with time. Although, that said there are a few smart guys here.
liquidspacetime
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 14, 2015
If you spend over 30 years and hundreds of millions of dollars looking for a weakly interacting dark matter maybe you should consider dark matter to interact with matter?

Matter moves through and displaces the dark matter.

There is evidence of dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.
liquidspacetime
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 14, 2015
The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

"That can't be", you say. Why not? "Because dark matter weakly interacts with matter", you say. What evidence do you have that dark matter weakly interacts with matter? "Well, we've spent the last 3 decades and hundreds of millions of dollars looking for a weakly interacting dark matter and haven't found it yet, but we're still positive that it is weakly interacting", you say.

If you realized dark matter interacts with matter then you would realize we already have evidence of it as it is what waves in terms of wave-particle duality. You also get to understand the particle is always detected traveling through a single slit because it always travels through a single slit. It is the wave in the dark matter that passes through both.

"That can't be", you say. Why not? "Because it makes sense", you say.
eachus
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 14, 2015
My gut instinct tells me they're not going to find anything, because dark matter isn't here, it's in another brane, and all we're seeing is the gravitational effect... Feels more like a ghost to me, something in the inter-brane ether, if of course branes exist. Fun.


Nice theory, but there is a simpler explanation. All these experiments are being conducted on Earth, deep in the solar wind. If atoms do interact with matter, even at the low levels these experiments are looking for, then momentum transfer from the solar wind should blow dark matter away from the sun. Put LUX several hundred AU out, and it might chirp happily away. Of course, for shielding, you would probably have to put in inside a TNO. Actually it would be better to look for dark matter interactions with the solar wind directly. If we are living in a dark matter free bubble, there should be a diffuse microwave signal at specific wavelengths. Or maybe a new Maunder-like minimum will let some DM in.
CuriousGeorge
2.1 / 5 (13) Dec 14, 2015
I'm a writer, not a physicist, and yet I find this inquiry to be fascinating. Dark matter/energy has a beautiful paradox and deep mystery embedded: How can something so hard to find impact the entire universe via gravity? The mystery obviously stimulates imagination, similar to how electricity did this for a very long time. I suppose the difference has to do with applications. Electricity is useful; dark materials, not so much -- except for Philip Pullman.
SuperThunder
2.6 / 5 (20) Dec 14, 2015
Predictable results from world's most sensitive science deniers.

You can see a subtle pattern in the flow of their rhymes.

Flush another billion or so

amazing how much money

Money spent on finding Pixie dust or Unicorns

You don't spend millions of dollars

failure and the need for endless funding

If even a tenth of that time and money

If you spend over 30 years and hundreds of millions of dollars


The United States can afford it, even if you think money is more important than knowledge. Thanks for making capitalism look like a full blown mental illness, however, and showing us all you can't think beyond hoarding shiny tokens like stupendously angry squirrels.
liquidspacetime
2.3 / 5 (18) Dec 14, 2015
How can something so hard to find impact the entire universe via gravity?


It's hard to find because they are looking for the wrong stuff.

Dark matter fills the space unoccupied by particles of matter and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

A particle has an associated wave in the dark matter, analogous to the bow wave of a boat.

In a double slit experiment the particle always travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the dark matter passes through both.

There is evidence of the dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.
liquidspacetime
2.3 / 5 (18) Dec 14, 2015
The United States can afford it, even if you think money is more important than knowledge. Thanks for making capitalism look like a full blown mental illness, however, and showing us all you can't think beyond hoarding shiny tokens like stupendously angry squirrels.


Yes, the knowledge that after 30 years and hunderds of millions of dollars looking for a weakly interacting dark matter that they might be able to consider the possibility that dark matter interacts with matter.

A moving particle has an associated wave in the dark matter, analogous to the bow wave of a boat.

Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the dark matter that passes through both.

How about the knowledge of it is the dark matter that waves in terms of wave-particle duality?

Or, how many millions more are we going to spend in order to remain ignorant?
SuperThunder
2.3 / 5 (16) Dec 14, 2015
Yes, the knowledge that after 30 years and hunderds of millions of dollars

You immediately, out of the gate, without nary a nanosecond of numinous knowledge, repeat my point exactly.

Like I just said "howler says 'what'" and you screamed "WHAAAAAAT" and didn't understand how that was relevant to what I said before that. I would not think you were human during a Turing test.
liquidspacetime
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 14, 2015
The science deniers are those who are incapable of understanding dark matter interacts with matter and is what waves in a double slit experiment.
SuperThunder
2.5 / 5 (19) Dec 14, 2015
The science deniers deny the use of the scientific method to attain knowledge. You seem to be squarely in this camp.
liquidspacetime
2.4 / 5 (17) Dec 14, 2015
In a double slit experiment the particle is always detected traveling through a single slit. This is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the dark matter that passes through both.
my2cts
2.9 / 5 (17) Dec 14, 2015
It is amazing how much money and effort have gone into the search for what is essentially an imaginary particle.


Much less than it costs to teach morons how to read and write!.
DoubleDownOn9
2.7 / 5 (12) Dec 14, 2015
dogbert is just being skeptical and that has tremendous value to science. After all if left to our senses we dogmatize like infallible popes! Einstein didn't trust his observations and it caused him to miss one of the greatest predictions of science (cosmo constant/expansion). There is great value to these experiments but dogbert is correct that the methodology is backwards because we are all so desperate to detect dark matter (getting a higher speed camera will still let you rule out a slow Santa Claus, but you have to be prepared to draw the line somewhere). What we all need to come to terms with is the days of understanding the universe by first principles are nearly done. Are we willing to accept an answer that is simple, elegant, and wrong?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (16) Dec 14, 2015
dogbert is just being skeptical and that has tremendous value to science
@doubledown
if this were a non-typical post of dog, i would agree
in fact, if dog were new to the site, i would agree...however, if you will look at dog's posts and history (easily traceable by going here: https://sciencex....t/?v=act ) you will find that the whole "if left to our senses we dogmatize like infallible popes!"[sic] problem is actually square in the head of dog

there is no evidenciary requirement that will convince "dog" of anything that she already has decided is "reality" in her delusion for reasons like Dunning-Kruger and this: http://journals.p....0075637

skepticism is a necessity in science, period
and anyone who is familiar with the process of how scientists compete would be aware of this
https://www.youtu...bQIlu4mk
my2cts
2.9 / 5 (17) Dec 14, 2015
momentum transfer from the solar wind should blow dark matter away from the sun.

Nope.
dogbert
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 14, 2015
DoubleDownOn9,

Don't waste a lot of time on Stumpy. He is all about the dogma. Lack of evidence is not a problem for him.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (17) Dec 14, 2015
DoubleDownOn9,

Don't waste a lot of time on Stumpy. He is all about the dogma. Lack of evidence is not a problem for him.
still smarting about being proven wrong in the climate thread?

have you figured out how to use CTRL+F yet?
it is a very useful tool when searching for data like: names, studies, information on a page, your dogmatic approach to your beliefs regardless of the empirical evidence proven right in front of you

one reason you are still reacting to the prior thread argument is:
https://www.psych...ttle-ego

you can't stand it that the evidence proved you wrong, and so you
circle the wagons, hyper-vigilant against attacks, challenges, feedback or questions. We get prickly and rigid, insistent that we're on top of things...Dealing with the brittle fragid person means living in what's known as a double bind
SuperThunder
2.6 / 5 (20) Dec 14, 2015
dogbert is just being skeptical and that has tremendous value to science.

Nope, he's being dishonest. Skeptics have criteria of falsifiability for their rhetorical nonsense.
After all if left to our senses we dogmatize like infallible popes!

Rhetoric and attack on empiricism.
Einstein didn't trust his observations and it caused him to miss one of the greatest predictions of science

That's funny, since Relativity blew Kant's philosophy of discerning knowledge based on axioms instead of observation out of the water. It's almost like you intentionally obfuscated by applying the opposite of the truth, like a typical howler.
indio007
2.4 / 5 (17) Dec 14, 2015
indio007 claims
And never will be. Flush another billion or so just because they can't admit Relativity is wrong
Really, can you articulate this rather better than an inane one line claim that "goes no-where" - maths & experimental evidence please ?

Yet it works for so many things from Global Positioning Satellites (GPS) to energies for accelerating particles in colliders to the colour of gold to the melting point of mercury etc

Or maybe you are being non-relativistically incoherent in that you havent (yet) come up with any alternative [relativity] maths/experiments to explain why GPS works so well by summing special & general relativity constantly to ensure high accuracy is maintained & used globally ?

https://en.wikipe...g_System

& many many more...

Your misinformed or disinformed. Take your pick.

https://www.youtu...1GU_HDwY
indio007
2.1 / 5 (21) Dec 14, 2015
Riddle me this Batmen. At what point in time of not finding "the missing matter" known as dark matter will it be when relativity is admitted as incorrect?

Another 10 years ? 20 years? 100 years? 1000 years?

Research is being done on what is basically an intellectual placeholder that is simply embraced because science can admit it's been wrong for 100 years.

Observation does not match relativity. There is no way out of it.
SuperThunder
2.6 / 5 (20) Dec 14, 2015
Riddle me this Batmen. At what point in time of not finding "the missing matter" known as dark matter will it be when relativity is admitted as incorrect?


That's not a riddle at all. Your inability to know what a riddle is casts into doubt your ability to understand the scientific method.
https://en.wikipe...i/Riddle

"What is seen, but not observed. Felt, but never touched. Predictable, but unexpected." would be a dark matter riddle. Or maybe "dark matter, for when the dark matters in dark matters."
SuperThunder
2.5 / 5 (19) Dec 14, 2015
Observation does not match relativity.

Euclidean geometry doesn't match Relativity, observation does. The reason the Einstein haters never mention geometry in howling at Relativity is because they can't use it to spread the lie that it isn't observed.
https://en.wikipe...geometry
Benni
2.6 / 5 (27) Dec 14, 2015
So, as you have been asked before: what is your theory that should have been tested instead of what they are testing for? Just saying "do something else" is just stupid drivel.

Yes, please enlighten us.

But seriously, what they are doing really is the most logical thing. If it doesn't look that way... well, to be blunt, it means you don't understand the subject as well as you think you do.


......just like you couldn't "understand the subject" of the Skyscraper memory chip design using RRAM until I explained it to you Axo & you Ant_Phy & you Stumpo.

OK, you three want to embark on another name calling binge again as you've already embarked on a few posts up? Sure, show us your mettle .

Sometimes it just takes an Engineer living in the real world before a tangible grasp of comprehension of the things around us can find a place in reality. Cosmic Fairy Dust is not reality.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (18) Dec 14, 2015
@indio007
You can shout and protest all you like, but that does not help your position.
What you need to do is prove GRT wrong.
Last time I checked Mercury's perihelion had advanced by 43 arc seconds since GRT was published, as predicted.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (18) Dec 14, 2015
DoubleDownOn9,

Don't waste a lot of time on Stumpy. He is all about the dogma. Lack of evidence is not a problem for him.

You are turning things upside down.
Make no mistake, you are the crackpot here, not CS.
MorganW
2.1 / 5 (9) Dec 14, 2015
My limited comprehension of physics in full view here: I've always been under the understanding that Gravity forms around objects that have mass. Is it possible that Gravity preexists those objects? One theory I heard was that the reason for gravity's weakness is because it might actually exist in another dimension and we only feel its minimal effects, but maybe in some cases it actually "leaks" into our universe.
The only other explanation I've heard that makes sense, is that dark matter is the cumulative affect of virtual particles popping into and out of existence and creating a gravitational affect in that brief moment. However, if you have "a lot" of these over a large volume, it would be observable over vast distances.
liquidspacetime
2.4 / 5 (17) Dec 14, 2015
My limited comprehension of physics in full view here: I've always been under the understanding that Gravity forms around objects that have mass. ...


Dark matter fills the space unoccupied by particles of matter. Particles of matter move through and displace the dark matter.

Displaced dark matter pushes back and exerts pressure toward the matter.

Displaced dark matter pushing back and exerting pressure toward the matter *is* gravity.
SuperThunder
2 / 5 (16) Dec 14, 2015
Is it possible that Gravity preexists those objects?

If this is the case, we'd be looking at warps in spacetime with no discernible cause, which you mention with other dimensions. The LHC has done tests in the past looking for these, but they admitted at the time it was looking outside the predicted range when no evidence was found, and there is talk of revisiting those tests now that the LHC is powerful enough to do them better, so who knows? The fun part is that it's testable, so exciting.
I don't know about the virtual particle explanation of dark matter, it seems that wouldn't explain the lensing and filament structure of the universe, at least it seems that way off the cuff.
Check this site out for particle physics, anything frisky the LHC does always ends up there.
http://www.intera...org/cms/
Benni
2.7 / 5 (23) Dec 14, 2015
Displaced dark matter pushing back and exerting pressure toward the matter *is* gravity.


So, if 80% of the Universe is missing, how does your explanation contend for no known missing gravity inside our solar system?

Think about it, in 1916, Einstein published the exact angle of gravitational lensing as starlight passes the immediate peripheral disk of the Sun, he did not include in his calculations a "missing mass" component for gravity that he had already calculated did not exist.

All these same GR calculations are used to this day to calculate gravitational lensing throughout the Universe, they have never been modified no matter what the distance of the observed gravitational lensing from Earth.
SuperThunder
2.3 / 5 (18) Dec 14, 2015
So, if 80% of the Universe is missing

What is missing? If you put a two ton anvil in a cardboard box and put the box on a scale that declared "2 tons!" would you then look at the box and say "two tons of this cardboard box is missing." Of course not, you know it's two tons in the box, you just don't know what the two tons looks like. By the size of the box, though, you know it isn't two tons of popcorn, or two tons of feathers, but that it doesn't have to be, though it could be, two tons of neutronium. This is basic figuring stuff out 101. Crows do it when they make hooks to snare things in holes.
SuperThunder
2.5 / 5 (19) Dec 14, 2015
Think about it, in 1916, Einstein published the exact angle of gravitational lensing as starlight passes the immediate peripheral disk of the Sun, he did not include in his calculations a "missing mass" component for gravity that he had already calculated did not exist.

All these same GR calculations are used to this day to calculate gravitational lensing throughout the Universe, they have never been modified no matter what the distance of the observed gravitational lensing from Earth.

I'm glad you're finally coming around to stating out loud why when we look at the universe and fail to see enough sparkly shiny matter to account for Einstein, we have no choice, because as you said, Einstein nailed it, than to consider there is more matter which the effects of are seen, but are undetectable otherwise. Dark matter.

You, yourself, just argued for the existence of dark matter using Einstein.

I feel so happy for you.
liquidspacetime
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 14, 2015
All these same GR calculations ...


The relativistic mass of the Earth is the mass of the Earth and the mass of the dark matter connected to and neighboring the Earth which is displaced by the Earth.

The GR calculations for the Earth's gravity already include the mass of the dark matter.
Benni
2.8 / 5 (22) Dec 14, 2015
So, if 80% of the Universe is missing


What is missing? By the size of the box, though, you know it isn't two tons of popcorn, or two tons of feathers, but that it doesn't have to be, though it could be, two tons of neutronium. This is basic figuring stuff out 101. Crows do it when they make hooks to snare things in holes.


So tell me where I take Crow Counting 101? MIT? Maybe Axemaster can help here?
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (21) Dec 14, 2015
indio007 Failed
Your misinformed or disinformed. Take your pick
https://www.youtu...1GU_HDwY
No.

Post link to paper covering All issues raised, finding just 1 alternate view does NOT correlate at all well with known & proven math/physics re All SR/GR issues ie

Mercury (Hg) re low melting point
Colour of Gold
Energy accelerate particles in a collider
AND reminder by my2cts re Mercury (the planet's) perihelion

In any case a lumbering ill thought youtube vid NOT by any means a properly crafted paper open to peer review, especially the MATHs, engineering & patent credentials don't prove any depth re physics details !

There were geometric interpretations of GPS decades ago proven; incomplete, inconsistent & vague in several respects re confirmation detail Eg
https://en.wikipe...periment

Alternate GPS data interpretation does NOT fit Hafele-Keating, therefore, you & so very many others still Fail to prove their case !
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (22) Dec 14, 2015
indio007 *only* with bluster - NOTHING definitive
Riddle me this Batmen. At what point in time of not finding "the missing matter" known as dark matter will it be when relativity is admitted as incorrect?
Another 10 years ? 20 years? 100 years? 1000 years?
Did you not read my post, you pretend not to understand basic Science re "Balance of Probabilities" re very wide range of experimental evidence which fits maths well for Decades, see my last post re issues raised ?

indio007 claims
Research is being done on what is basically an intellectual placeholder that is simply embraced because science can admit it's been wrong for 100 years
Show it, how does this 'research' cover All issues Eg - Au,Hg, Hafele-Keating & so many confirmations for so many Decades ?

indio007 claims
Observation does not match relativity
Prove it please ?

indio007 claims
There is no way out of it
There is, start with more than one mere interpretation, show that "research" ?
SuperThunder
2.3 / 5 (18) Dec 14, 2015
So tell me where I take Crow Counting 101? MIT? Maybe Axemaster can help here?

You really just have no idea what I, or anyone else, is talking about. You just rolled over my post in a wave of emotion and snagged a few words to hurl back as an insult. You didn't even read it.

I could be playing video games right now instead of trying to explain how deduction works in Wile E. Coyote levels of dumbing down. I could be having more convincing conversations with the NPCs in Maniac Mansion. Really puts life in perspective.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (23) Dec 14, 2015
All these same GR calculations ...


The relativistic mass of the Earth is the mass of the Earth and the mass of the dark matter connected to and neighboring the Earth which is displaced by the Earth.

The GR calculations for the Earth's gravity already include the mass of the dark matter.


Now hold on here, you need to do a better study of Zwicky's hypothesis for DM. He was clear that DM was an "envelope" enshrouding only Spiral Galaxies which make up only 1/3 of the Universe. The DM godfather is in direct contradiction for the reasoning used to place this Large Underground Xenon (LUX) dark matter experiment anywhere on or under planet Earth.

Do a better study of the section of GR in which Einstein did the calculations for gravitational lensing, then study what Zwicky wrote, then you will better comprehend why Zwicky at least had the common sense not to place one scintilla of DM inside Spiral Galaxies, he knew he had a Mass/Gravity conflict.
liquidspacetime
2.8 / 5 (16) Dec 14, 2015
Now hold on here...


'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

"It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity."

The increase in mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the dark matter connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. This is the relativisitc mass of the object.

The relativistic mass of the Sun is the mass of the Sun and the mass of the dark matter connected to and neighboring the Sun which is displaced by the Sun.

The relativistic mass of the Milky Way is the mass of the Milky Way and the mass of the dark matter connected to and neighboring the Milky Way which is displaced by the Milky Way.
AGreatWhopper
2.1 / 5 (22) Dec 14, 2015
antialias_physorg5 /5 (10) 12 hours ago
Erm...hello? Are you mental?

It's one thing if cranks start to whinge about how money goes to real research instead of their pet/crank theory. But when the cranks start to whinge about how money should go to some endeavour when it's actually going EXACTLY THERE then insanity has reached a new peak.


As opposed to your knowing exactly how arguing with the cranks funds the pimps at PO and doing it anyway?
Benni
2.7 / 5 (24) Dec 14, 2015
'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

"It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity."

The increase in mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the dark matter connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. This is the relativisitc mass of the object.

The relativistic mass of the Sun is the mass of the Sun and the mass of the dark matter connected to and neighboring the Sun which is displaced by the Sun.

The relativistic mass of the Milky Way is the mass of the Milky Way and the mass of the dark matter connected to and neighboring the Milky Way which is displaced by the Milky Way.


So tell us, what's any of this got to do with why Zwicky placed his Cosmic Fairy Dust in an envelope far beyond the radial arms of Spiral galaxies?
AGreatWhopper
2.2 / 5 (20) Dec 14, 2015
zorro62042.6 / 5 (5) 12 hours ago
My gut instinct


No, your gut just stinks, full stop.

Jesus Christ. How deluded are these losers that they think we give a good god damn about their gut feeling? Hundreds of respected Ph.D's, the latest most sensitive equipment, well worked out cosmological models to use the empirical data for choosing among them...but wait! We want to here what fucking anonymous coward "Zorro" feels in his gut!

See, anti? You don't argue with them, you insult them. It turns off posters and takes income straight from the pimps' bottom line.
AGreatWhopper
2.2 / 5 (20) Dec 14, 2015
Andrew Palfreyman4.2 /5 (10) 8 hours ago
...I am dismayed at the sheer number of cranks and ignorami in this comments section.


The original site was bought out by Russian pimps that moved it offshore and stopped filing Companies House forms. That's to hide the fact that they're generating revenue by taking payments from various conservative organizations to never delete the cranks. From reproductive rights to climate change, they can get a lot of support from that demographic and people can't trace the money like they could if it were going directly to the trolls.

Those idiots have obsessions with unseen solar system objects, electricity, dark matter and energy and relativity theory. Bottom line is the bottom line and that means that ANY mention of dark matter or the other aforementioned triggers will see the "no delete" policy attracting every nut case in the galactic neighborhood. Any doubts, compare with the forums, well moderated.
liquidspacetime
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 14, 2015
So tell us, what's any of this got to do with why Zwicky placed his Cosmic Fairy Dust in an envelope far beyond the radial arms of Spiral galaxies?


He is referring to the state of displacement of the dark matter.

'The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802

"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."

The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (24) Dec 14, 2015
So tell us, what's any of this got to do with why Zwicky placed his Cosmic Fairy Dust in an envelope far beyond the radial arms of Spiral galaxies?


He is referring to the state of displacement of the dark matter.

'The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802
....couldn't find the pictures. Maybe the satellite hasn't reached the point yet where it can send us some video? You know, like the Pluto flyby.

"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."

The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.


Docile, you're still here. HELLO to you......... just wait till Axemaster gets wind that you've found a pathway around the censorship ban he brokered with PO, is he ever gonna be mad.

liquidspacetime
3 / 5 (14) Dec 14, 2015


Docile, you're back. Hello. Boy, just wait till Axemaster gets wind that you've found a pathway around the cesorship


I'm not Docile.
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (21) Dec 14, 2015
@indio007
Eg...
Please watch your youtube video re "Hatch" & his interpretation esp first 5 mins, he stated the specific case re clocks at Earth's pole & equator in respect of speed (SR) vs gravitational field (GR) effects EXACTLY matching, they don't !

He is wrong as he failed to state altitude at equator as there can be ~ 5Km variance & he fails to quantify resolution of the (older atomic) clocks used. They match closely "enough" but, they are not "exact" as modern clocks show (to 1ft height difference) in relation to equatorial altitude !

From that perspective alone, Hatch is not being precise at all claiming exact match, he implies a type of fudge like conspiracy to somehow make them match as if its a hand wave to push relativity...

Hatch may have engineering skills but, hasnt delved into Physics details & thus comes across with a vagueness at many levels with familiar superficial profile approach to Physics, which is often not given the depth it deserves
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 14, 2015
That's to hide the fact that they're generating revenue by taking payments from various conservative organizations


Conspiracy! Conspiracy!

Any doubts, compare with the forums, well moderated.

Events in the past were "well moderated" as well.
https://www.youtu...j4c7Bop0

cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (19) Dec 14, 2015
@indio007
You can shout and protest all you like, but that does not help your position.
What you need to do is prove GRT wrong.
Last time I checked Mercury's perihelion had advanced by 43 arc seconds since GRT was published, as predicted.


Einstein, wrong from the get go...
https://www.youtu...3IBXTgEc
axemaster
4.8 / 5 (19) Dec 14, 2015
Docile, you're still here. HELLO to you......... just wait till Axemaster gets wind that you've found a pathway around the censorship ban he brokered with PO, is he ever gonna be mad.

Hi guys.

Oh, and the ban was never about censorship. Docile was banned for using multiple accounts to screw with the forum. As long as he follows the rules, I couldn't care less what he says or does.
my2cts
3.2 / 5 (20) Dec 15, 2015
@indio007
You can shout and protest all you like, but that does not help your position.
What you need to do is prove GRT wrong.
Last time I checked Mercury's perihelion had advanced by 43 arc seconds since GRT was published, as predicted.


Einstein, wrong from the get go...
https://www.youtu...3IBXTgEc

How to spot a crackpot:
Criterium 1A:
He claims Einstein was all wrong and then posts a youtube link to prove it!

cd, for your self respect at least make an effort to be taken seriously.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2015
Ok.. so what they are sayin' is -
mass has variable densities...
What they call "dark matter" is actually matter with density less than what we would normally expect.
Not that it isn't there, just that it isn't in the form we expect to see it... And therefore have not been looking for it...

hmm...
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (22) Dec 15, 2015
cantdrive85 Failed claiming
Einstein, wrong from the get go...(link)
No, prove it !

Ugly propaganda ie *only* emotive base, if you listened properly you notice a mere shallow claim to a claim, worded *only* to influence !

Starts with claim re E's "theory" re action at distance but, he never articulated a theory ie. mere perception but, this is seized upon when claiming he was wrong implying relativity is therefore wrong, ie propaganda & goes on to ascribe the notion of belief - another facet of propaganda method to manipulate emotion ie Wrong belief, then @T 1:10 claim of no scientific breakthroughs ie Attempted (false) contextual connection with E, then very blatant propaganda @T 1:22 raising doubt re E being wrong, emotively claiming "..wasted a century..", ie Another fallacy

Then the very WORST Outright Lie (a stupid ugly attempt) claims @T 1:26 "..because it discredited E's relativity theory AGAIN", No never even once !

ie False, Lie & Ugly Propaganda !
yep
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2015
Since modern science is based on the assumption "priori" of Big Bang we need dark matter "unicorns" to be real, if we look back into the past to see how and why we got here and then took our current data we might realize black hole space magic is not necessary. This for many is impossible to comprehend, as the authority has told them how and what to think and deviation is heresey. Any other potential is not considered or discounted because we have decided we already know, which is ludicrous as the standard model says it does not know what 93% of reality is. And the gatekeepers of unquestionable science go on being smug in their ignorance and intolerant in their rightiousnes. If this continues we will waste another hundred years and be rights here where we are now. Clueless because we want to believe in the miracles of our forefathers.
yep
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 15, 2015
Hey Mike, you are apparently not familiar with this work. http://allais.mau...ence.htm
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (22) Dec 15, 2015
yep says
Hey Mike, you are apparently not familiar with this work. http://allais.mau...ence.htm
Sure, apparently because there is no evidence of replication of key experiments - ie not fully following discipline of:-
https://en.wikipe...c_method

In any case, appreciate there are >100's of people offering interpretations & claim not consistent with basic (physics) math, take a peek at established evidence re issue of relativistic quantum chemistry which supports Einstein's theory very well
https://en.wikipe...hemistry

bear in mind also atomic clocks that exceed the experience of Hatch are readily available in the scientific community & show the falsity of his interpretations & it seems those of Maurice
http://www.nist.g...2310.cfm

ie.
Tests can now be done over height difference as little as 33cm - anywhere !

Relativity well established...
Seeker2
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2015
Matter moves through and displaces the dark matter.
Not sure if matter displaces anything - maybe spacetime. Anyway spacetime in the presence of matter doesn't produce dark energy, or vacuum pressure, if you prefer. So spacetime outside of regions of matter produces more vacuum pressure than inside bodies of matter. This gradient in pressure is what I interpret as entropic gravity. Fits in with GR which I understand takes into account the vacuum pressure.
Seeker2
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2015
"Dark matter" is a placeholder for "that which causes the things we observe". Nothing more, nothing less. It is a name given to a range of hypotheses that fulfill the above criterium. And what they are doing is trying to find out which of these work and which don't. With the current experiment they have already excluded a big swath of those that don't.

If you have a better theory that should be tested first then write a paper on it.
Yes, what we are observing is entropic gravity arising from natural variations in the vacuum pressure - probably due to BB turbulence. Not really in the business of writing papers, only posting to my Astrophysics Ideas and Opinions website on facebook.
liquidspacetime
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2015
Fits in with GR which I understand takes into account the vacuum pressure.


What is referred to geometrically as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the dark matter.

The dark matter pushing back and exerting pressure toward the matter *is* the vacuum pressure.

The dark matter pushing back and exerting pressure toward the matter *is* gravity.
Seeker2
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2015
The dark matter pushing back and exerting pressure toward the matter *is* the vacuum pressure.
How do you get matter out of pressure? Maybe the dark energy? Mattter is what gets squeezed. If you want to call that pushing back, well I guess, but pressure is what does the original pushing.
liquidspacetime
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2015
How do you get matter out of pressure? Maybe the dark energy? Mattter is what gets squeezed. If you want to call that pushing back, well I guess, but pressure is what does the original pushing.


'The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802

"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

Just as the water squeezes the submarine, the dark matter squeezes the Milky Way.
Seeker2
4 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2015
Just as the water squeezes the submarine, the dark matter squeezes the Milky Way.
Pressure squeezes the Milky Way.
liquidspacetime
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2015
Pressure squeezes the Milky Way.


The water displaced by the submarine pushes back and exerts pressure toward the submarine.

The dark matter displaced by the Milky Way pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Milky Way *is* the pressure.
my2cts
2.9 / 5 (17) Dec 15, 2015
Since modern science is based on the assumption "priori" of Big Bang we need dark matter "unicorns" to be real, if we look back into the past to see how and why we got here and then took our current data we might realize black hole space magic is not necessary. This for many is impossible to comprehend, as the authority has told them how and what to think and deviation is heresey. Any other potential is not considered or discounted because we have decided we already know, which is ludicrous as the standard model says it does not know what 93% of reality is. And the gatekeepers of unquestionable science go on being smug in their ignorance and intolerant in their rightiousnes. If this continues we will waste another hundred years and be rights here where we are now. Clueless because we want to believe in the miracles of our forefathers.

A lot of ludicrous whining, but no viable alternative.
Seeker2
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2015
The dark matter displaced by the Milky Way pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Milky Way *is* the pressure.
So who started this pushing contest?
liquidspacetime
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2015
So who started this pushing contest?


You are in a bowling alley filled with a supersolid. You roll the bowling ball. The bowling ball displaces the supersolid. The supersolid displaces the bowling ball as it fills-in where the bowling ball had been. By definition, there is no loss of energy in the interaction between the bowling ball and the supersolid and the bowling ball rolls on forever through the supersolid.

Q. Is the bowling ball displacing the supersolid or is the supersolid displacing the bowling ball?
A. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force.
SuperThunder
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 15, 2015
You are in a bowling alley filled with a supersolid.

Right, midnight bowling, disco night, on my ninth beer, got it.
You roll the bowling ball.

Seldom seen under those conditions, I usually am flinging it behind me by that point.
The bowling ball displaces the supersolid. The supersolid displaces the bowling ball as it fills-in where the bowling ball had been.

Should not have eaten those fried cheese sticks with beers 4-7, but I didn't order them and everyone should have known I'd drunk attack them on sight.
By definition, there is no loss of energy in the interaction between the bowling ball and the supersolid and the bowling ball rolls on forever through the supersolid.

Demonstrate this with a criteria for falsifiability, and please describe how this process negates entropy and the arrow of time while still having an object that translates through space and engages in quantum interactions.

I bet you thought I was going to make a joke there.
liquidspacetime
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2015
Demonstrate ...


'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

"The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

The "ideal fluid" is the dark matter.

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458

"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the "fluidic" nature of space itself. This "back-reaction" is quantified by the tendency of angular momentum flux threading across a surface."

The "back-reaction" is the displaced dark matter displacing back.
SuperThunder
2 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2015
You state these papers demonstrate the following:
The "ideal fluid" is the dark matter.

Paper one defines its purpose as thus :
The purpose of the present work is to trace parallels between the known inertia
forces in fluid dynamics with the inertia forces in electromagnetism that are known to induce resistance forces on masses both due to acceleration and at constant velocity.

Paper 2 :
Newton's second law has limited scope of application when transient phenomena are present. We
consider a modification of Newton's second law in order to take into account a sudden change (surge) of angular momentum or linear momentum.

The paper on transient phenomena has a tiny section wherein they propose their modified Second Law of Motion might smooth over the discrepancy in observed matter. Neither give any details of any experiment for any claim made by the authors. You don't know what "demonstrate" means and I wasted a lot of time just now.
liquidspacetime
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2015
You don't know what "demonstrate" means and I wasted a lot of time just now.


Particles of matter move through and displace the dark matter. A moving particle has an associated wave in the dark matter. There is evidence of the dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

'The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802

"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

I just explained some of the evidence associated with matter moving through and displacing the dark matter and I wasted a lot of time just now.
SuperThunder
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 15, 2015
Let me clarify that I am not disparaging the work of the authors, those papers (and superfluid vacuum theory) are very interesting. My only beef is your passing off these papers as animal noises to cover your own intellectual laziness in adopting an alternative-science religion without any intent to experimentally prove or do any of the base work done by the people who wrote the papers so passed off.

I got mad as I was realizing you yourself probably never read those papers. If you want to know about the second paper's proposal and how that turned out, welcome to MOND!
https://en.wikipe...dynamics
Milgrom's law requires incorporation into a complete theory if it is to satisfy conservation laws and provide a unique solution for the time evolution of any physical system.

Hence my questioning of your bowling ball theory's apparent disregard for such things and a request for your proof, of which you provided none.
liquidspacetime
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2015
My only beef is ...


My beef is your inability to understand, "The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity" means:

The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity.
SuperThunder
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 15, 2015
You still lack all understanding that just because you can type words on a computer and hit send while posting links to other people who put in work you don't understand, what you say isn't proof or a demonstration of anything.

I just explained

No, you dictated your opinion based on vague terms based on technical terms based on someone else's work who didn't set out to argue your opinion. That is so far removed from explained that I can't think of a worse example.
liquidspacetime
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2015
That is so far removed from explained that I can't think of a worse example.


Is the issue your inability to understand "physical vacuum" refers to 'empty' space? Or, is the issue your inability to understand an "ideal fluid" has mass?
SuperThunder
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 15, 2015
My beef is your inability to understand, "The law of inertia SUGGESTS that the physical vacuum can be MODELED as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid APPROACH from general relativity" means:

Here's a term you should learn : "not even wrong." It means you're so far removed from comprehension that you're not saying anything with even a remote connection to what you think you're saying. The words I capitalized in your quote have specific meanings to critical thinkers. That meaning is not the same as "IS." You make claims of reality by quoting people making no such claims, who blatantly word their text to avoid making such claims.

You do not think in any way resembling the people you cite. They are not your kind, you do not understand that when they "suggest" they don't mean "it absolutely is that way shut up" which is what you may mean when you use that term.
liquidspacetime
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2015
you do not understand that when they "suggest" they don't mean "it absolutely is that way shut up" which is what you may mean when you use that term.


Suggesting the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid means the space unoccupied by particles of matter can be understood to have mass.
Seeker2
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2015
The "ideal fluid" is the dark matter.
Spacetime, or dark matter, or whatever you call it, is not an ideal fluid for massive particles.
SuperThunder
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2015
Is the issue your inability to understand "physical vacuum" refers to 'empty' space? Or, is the issue your inability to understand an "ideal fluid" has mass?


My only issue with physics is how stupidity is assymetrical with no anti-phenomena, is always conserved in classical scales, and has infinite velocity at quantum scales. I'm making jokes again because I'm talking to what may as well be my cat and you wont understand these are words anyway.
liquidspacetime
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2015
The "ideal fluid" is the dark matter.
Spacetime, or dark matter, or whatever you call it, is not an ideal fluid for massive particles.


After 30+ years and hundreds of millions of dollars there is zero evidence dark matter is particulate or weakly interacting.

Dark matter fills the space unoccupied by particles of matter and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

In a double slit experiment it is the dark matter that waves.
SuperThunder
1.5 / 5 (17) Dec 15, 2015
After 30+ years and hundreds of millions of dollars

B-37, BINGO!

I would like to take this time to knowing nod at anti-alias, point with a smirk, and say "look, more data came in, right on the line."
liquidspacetime
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2015
After 30+ years and hundreds of millions of dollars

B-37, BINGO!

I would like to take this time to knowing nod at anti-alias, point with a smirk, and say "look, more data came in, right on the line."


Or, you could understand dark matter is displaced by matter and in a double slit experiment it is the dark matter that waves.

Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the dark matter that passes through both.
Seeker2
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2015
The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity.
Ideal fluid approach from GR? That's news to me.
SuperThunder
1.5 / 5 (15) Dec 15, 2015
Nonsense.
Q. Why does a tertiary wormhole open up with a tachyon burst whenever a MK-VII heavy cruiser goes from warp 5 to warp 6?
A. Word salad.
Seeker2
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2015
After 30+ years and hundreds of millions of dollars there is zero evidence dark matter is particulate or weakly interacting.
Right. So you want to redefine dark matter as spacetime? Why?
liquidspacetime
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 15, 2015
Ideal fluid approach from GR? That's news to me.


'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups...her.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.
viko_mx
2.3 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2015
""Scientists are confident that dark matter exists because the effects of its gravity can be seen in the rotation of galaxies and in the way light bends as it travels through the universe. ""
"
All scientists?

Such a claim could never be true. And it's not polite to speak on behalf of other strangers.

liquidspacetime
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2015
After 30+ years and hundreds of millions of dollars there is zero evidence dark matter is particulate or weakly interacting.
Right. So you want to redefine dark matter as spacetime? Why?


Or, say spacetime has mass.

The reason why is because the geometrical notion of curved spacetime physically manifests itself as the state of displacement of the mass which fills 'empty' space.

Then you get to understand what relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

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

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

Dark matter displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
viko_mx
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 15, 2015
GR formulas do not operate with real physical objects, but with abstract geometric objects. Therefore GR is geometric theory. Not physical theory. Order without absolutes is impossible to be defined.
liquidspacetime
3 / 5 (12) Dec 15, 2015
GR formulas do not operate with real physical objects, but with abstract geometric objects. Therefore GR is geometric theory. Not physical theory. Order without absolutes is impossible to be defined.


What is referred to geometrically as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the dark matter.
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 15, 2015
""Scientists are confident that dark matter exists because the effects of its gravity can be seen in the rotation of galaxies and in the way light bends as it travels through the universe. ""
"
All scientists?

Straw man. The text does not state "All".

And it's not polite to ...

A "lake of fire" is waiting for those who are not polite.
You should mention that too, viko.
viko_mx
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2015
"And never will be. Flush another billion or so just because they can't admit Relativity is wrong.""

The theory of biological evolution requires the theory of cosmic evolution which requires the GR theory. If GR is wrong , the big bang theory is wrong and the theory of biological evolution is wrong. So GR is sacred cow. Тrue or false does not matter to its ideologues.
viko_mx
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2015

What is referred to geometrically as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the dark matter.

Exist? Can you demonstrate this with experiments?

By the way why should be spacetime? Space and time sound better.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2015
GR formulas do not operate with real physical objects, but with abstract geometric objects.
Therefore GR is geometric theory. Not physical theory.

GR deals with Mercury. Therefore it is a physical theory.
Order without absolutes is impossible to be defined.

Explain that with the example of a kitchen salt crystal.
There is order. So ?
viko_mx
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2015

""GR deals with Mercury. Therefore it is a physical theory.""

Your explanations is too unscientific. Can you be more specific?
liquidspacetime
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2015
Exist? Can you demonstrate this with experiments?


There is evidence matter interacts with dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed. It's the dark matter that waves.

Particles of matter move through and displace the dark matter. A moving particle has an associated wave in the dark matter. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the dark matter passes through both.

'The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802

"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."

The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.
SuperThunder
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2015
There is order. So ?

I'll take a vodka martini.

Whoa, order IS impossible without Absolut*!

*drink responsibly
SuperThunder
1.5 / 5 (15) Dec 15, 2015
""GR deals with Mercury. Therefore it is a physical theory.""

Your explanations is too unscientific. Can you be more specific?


Mercury is this large object. Don't worry, it doesn't hunt by sound or motion, you can click the link.
https://en.wikipe...lanet%29
Now now, don't worship it, it can't hear you and wont show you mercy. Mercury is made of matter, which are atoms assembled along the rules of chemistry, which is not magic, so please, you don't have to banish any demons to click this link.
http://www.chem4kids.com/
Things made of atoms are said to be "physical" and operate along the, yep, rules of "physics!" No, physics wont take away your X-Box, even if you steal from the neighbors. You may click the link in safety over your sins.
http://www.physics4kids.com/
By the way why should be spacetime? Space and time sound better.

Like when Mom left Dad and met Other Mom, I know.
https://en.wikipe...lativity
Jonseer
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2015
When we figure out how to observe dark matter we'll finally see where all the alien life we assume must exist is, because every civilization that has found a way to see and manipulate dark matter realizes that transforming regular matter into dark matter is easy. The final piece will be the discovery that dark matter is amenable to life forms allowing humans to transform into dark matter beings the same as any other matter and continue to exist forever.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (20) Dec 15, 2015
viko_mx claims
GR formulas do not operate with real physical objects, but with abstract geometric objects
Wrong & Prove it !

Check out atomic clocks that show definitively GR works even at small distances of 33cm
http://www.nist.g...2810.cfm

Why in hell do you make arbitrary claims without actually checking - anything ?

You have previously claimed "I know Physics well", ok - Prove it ?

viko_mx claims
Therefore GR is geometric theory. Not physical theory. Order without absolutes is impossible to be defined
IF you had *physics* knowledge AND read some posts here *and* looked up the links you wouldn't come across as so immensely ignorant !

Prove viko_mx, that GR is only abstract, tell us how GPS corrections are made up *and*
all the other issues ?
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (23) Dec 16, 2015
viko_mx down the rabbit hole again failed to read *any* posts here
Your explanations is too unscientific. Can you be more specific?
Read viko_mx, understand Physics viko_mx, get an essential education viko_mx in the huge range of experimental evidence for approx 100yrs, why can't you understand at least ONE of them ?

GR & re Mercury (planet)
http://www.math.t...lock.pdf
https://www.math....nrel.pdf
https://en.wikipe...lativity
https://en.wikipe...g_System
http://arxiv.org/...1811.pdf

SR & re Mercury (element)
http://www.rsc.or...evidence
https://en.wikipe...element)
http://www.cengag...CI08.pdf
https://en.wikipe...periment

Learn Physics viko_mx Please !
my2cts
2.9 / 5 (17) Dec 16, 2015

""GR deals with Mercury. Therefore it is a physical theory.""

Your explanations is too unscientific. Can you be more specific?

GR means general relativity. Mercury is a planet.
Nobody can be THAT stupid. I think you are a fake.
viko_mx
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 16, 2015
"There is evidence matter interacts with dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed. It's the dark matter that waves."

Really? Are you kidding yourself?

"Particles of matter move through and displace the dark matter. A moving particle has an associated wave in the dark matter. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the dark matter passes through both."

Particles move in structure of vacuum of space with resistance like in fluid. This structure is transport physical environment for electromagnetic waves and define locally or globally the behavior of elementary particles and its interactions with electromagnetic waves. Can be reprogrammed by the will of the Creator.
This is the reason why officially adopted theories for gravity by consensus do no work in the cosmic space. Their extrapolations and predictions diverge strongly with the observed reality.
viko_mx
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 16, 2015
@Mike_Massen

Personal explanation please. And calm down a little. You nervousness do not help you.

So what is the connection of mercury with GR reliability?

When GR formulas distort the space, where is taken into account the physical properties of the vacuum of space which fills the 3D geometric space?
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (23) Dec 16, 2015
viko_mx says
Personal explanation please. And calm down a little. You nervousness do not help..
Beg your pardon, you had claimed "I know Physics well", so then why can't you read/interpret/understand the Physics links I have referenced ?

viko_mx asked
So what is the connection of mercury with GR reliability?
You are betraying the position that you don't have *any* training at all in Physics, your inability to even articulate a question with precision confirms my doubt of your claim "I know Physics well".

PLEASE viko_mx READ the links supplied !

Why don't you read re the planet Mercury & the element Mercury as this covers not just GR but SR as well ie

Planet Mercury has motion consistent with GR ie perihelion
Element Mercury has melting point consistent with SR

viko_mx claims
When GR formulas distort the space..
No, they don't distort space, you should know from Physics this is a shortcut interpretation re acceleration & curvature etc.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (23) Dec 16, 2015
viko_mx claims
....Can be reprogrammed by the will of the Creator
Tell us please how this so called "creator" communicates ?

viko_mx is any 'creator' a better communicator & distributor of knowledge than a human ?

viko_mx explain logic of why any 'creator' communicates with only one man making claims ?

viko_mx is any claimed 'creator' used as a parenting example by anyone; to
educate, communicate, care & respond to earnest & sincere questions anywhere ?

Which religious variant exemplifies the will of any claimed 'creator' ?

viko_mx can the 'creator' be exposed as to his care of humans by nature's brutality ?

viko_mx claimed
.. reason why officially adopted theories for gravity by consensus do no work in the cosmic space
Prove it ?

viko_mx claims
.. extrapolations and predictions diverge strongly with the observed reality
Prove it ?

Does any 'creator' listen to you ?

Why do all claimed 'creators' act exactly as if they don't exist at all ?
liquidspacetime
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 16, 2015
"Particles move in structure of vacuum of space with resistance like in fluid."

The fluid is the dark matter.

Particles of matter move through and displace the dark matter analogous to a boat moving through and displacing the water.

In a double slit experiment the particle always travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the dark matter passes through both.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (23) Dec 16, 2015
These links are especially for viko_mx who'ss claimed "I know Physics well", has been caught out with deception often & is against the will of his creator (IF he believes), these links also for Benni/DQM/bluehigh/Uncle Ira/jeffensely/dogbert/antigoracle etc & other redneck plebes making arbitrary false claims littering forums with snipes/stalking/defamation & all whilst failing to contribute any meaningful way at all ie No links, No rationale, No dialectic process, No effort re science communication & All want to maintain ugly ignorance of many connectable Physics aspects despite great opportunity

General Relativity & the so called curvature of space/evidence of ~100yrs:-
General https://en.wikipe...lativity
Proof re GPS https://www.youtu...RgRvVDoA
Lecture/proof re light https://www.youtu...vATldqOc
Shortcut logic basis for SR re Time https://www.youtu...FNcUTJI0

Be smarter & learn Physics !
AGreatWhopper
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 16, 2015
Hat12085 /5 (2) 4 hours ago
@Mike_Massen

Just in case you didn't realize it you are trying to communicate logically with a moron.


Actually, whether he knows it or not, he's generating revenue for the pimps that run the site and use the trolls to generate hits. That only works if people debate them.

And no, you made a valid point, you weren't "just sayin'". What is it about gen X/Y that they absolutely cringe at the thought of being responsible for statements/behavior? "I'm going to make a point, but I'm going to say, 'just sayin' so you can't hold me responsible for it". Anyone that questions speech is threatening and anyone that questions behavior is a "hater".

This is what happens when you start raising kids without physical discipline. They learn that they can just lie and twist language to anything they want, seem to comply, get to the next step, because when you're found out there won't be any consequences.
AGreatWhopper
1.9 / 5 (18) Dec 16, 2015


Docile, you're back. Hello. Boy, just wait till Axemaster gets wind that you've found a pathway around the cesorship


I'm not Docile.


No, "benni" is.

I wouldn't be surprised if Zephir has more than 20 sock puppets on here.

Mike_Massen3 /5 (2) 6 hours ago
viko_mx says
DQM is my sock puppet.
Zzzzzzzz
2.4 / 5 (17) Dec 16, 2015
Sometimes I cannot figure out why I still come around this site....liquefiedbrainrot repeats the same tired phrases endlessly.... viko_mx elicits responses from those who display intelligence otherwise..... I don't generally read his drivel, I put him on "ignore" long ago.....Benni is apparently Docile, I thought there was a familiar feel to his brand of psychosis......won't even go into the dead end off-shoot species like Dogbert or CantDrive......cranks and creationists abound, and now I hear stories about the ownership of the site that sound a little odd but could explain why a site apparently devoted to science has these oddities.....
And I never used to watch soap operas
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 16, 2015
@jx
Even filth like you they do not wipe off.
viko_mx
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 16, 2015
@liquidspacetime

The structure of vacuum of space is not material. It is mediator between the will of the Creator and the constituent particles of matter.

There is now need for additional invisible mass in the universe because the behavior of elementary particles differs in different zones in the universe in accordance to their programming. There is local and global physical laws in the universe. From local physical laws we can not determine the global physical laws. Тhe universe is unknowable to us from the Earth.
liquidspacetime
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2015
'Empty' space has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it and is what waves in a double slit experiment.
indio007
4 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2015
@indio007

Watched the video. The only thing missing is, "Those goddamn jews!", and "Heil Hitler".


Godwin's law . You lose.

I think it's seriously sick that people like to subliminally attempt to smear relativity opponents with holocaust denial.

You going to make it illegal to speak against relativity too?
indio007
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 16, 2015
You true believers need to get this on fact straight. Dark matter theory exists because relativity does not match observation. PERIOD.
Benni
3.4 / 5 (18) Dec 16, 2015
Dark matter, dark matter, dark matter, everywhere, and not a particle to be found within the solar system.

It has dawned on me that NONE of the proponents of the DM narrative on this forum have ever read one word of what Zwicky wrote about his hypothesis, that DM would only be found in a envelope enshrouding Spiral galaxies.

Challenging: Axemaster, Anti_Phy, MM, 2cts, Stumpo, Liquidsp, Docile, etc, to read what Zwicky actually wrote about DM is a challenge only deserving of drawing a 1Star downvote. Right Axo? Voting Brigades, vote up: How many of you have actually read what Zwicky wrote?

Those of you about to click the 1 Star on this challenge are those admitting you have never actually read what Zwicky wrote. Those of you who do not cast a vote are the ones leaving their options open because they think there may be favorable odds that Einstein did not miscalculate gravitational lensing in GR which precludes the existence of DM inside our solar system. Happy voting.

Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2015
You true believers need to get this on fact straight. Dark matter theory exists because relativity does not match observation. PERIOD.
So do you use GPS? How's it working?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2015
'Empty' space has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it and is what waves in a double slit experiment.
What waves is the mass of empty space and the particles of matter which exist in it. You can't have one without the other, it appears. It's like a teeter-tooter. One goes up, the other comes down, unless the bell rings and they both jump off and go back to class.
SuperThunder
2.1 / 5 (18) Dec 16, 2015
Sometimes I cannot figure out why I still come around this site....

I have those days. After reading about how comments sections like these harm science literacy, and how this site seems to singularly turn howling into cash, I felt it was just wrong to use it, but it still doesn't address the problem of it. So, I figure if I stick to it I can maybe at least understand it. After you throw yourself into (up in) the ring for a while, it all turns to noise. Everyone says the same thing. One side is always induction deduction prediction scientific method and the other is always political fear/hate, money fear/hate, religious fear/hate. When it all turns to noise, you start to see patterns. I now think of this place as the most septic laboratory on earth, and so I can't stay away. It's interesting and important to know why the howler howls and the rational cannot put a dent in stupid.

Also, the sane people post some danged good links, so look for those.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2015
It has dawned on me that NONE of the proponents of the DM narrative on this forum have ever read one word of what Zwicky wrote about his hypothesis, that DM would only be found in a envelope enshrouding Spiral galaxies.
Ever hear the term on the fritz? Always wondered where it came from.
Benni
3.6 / 5 (17) Dec 16, 2015
After reading about how comments sections like these harm science literacy


Well, ST, there is a real simple answer, stop reading what others say about what Zwicky wrote, just look it up & read it for yourself, do that & you won't need to chase those links.

The next thing you do from here is go directly to a site for the paper(s) Zwicky wrote, and compare that with all the rhetoric above. Do that & you'll have all your answers. Upon doing this, you'll wonder why would anybody ever want to bury an electronic capsule underground on planet Earth looking for DM. Not too simple for you I trust.

SuperThunder
2 / 5 (16) Dec 16, 2015
Well, ST, there is a real simple answer, stop reading what others say about what Zwicky wrote, just look it up & read it for yourself, do that & you won't need to chase those links.

I read everything for myself, it's called critical thinking. Your argument for it is just as useless as anyone's against it. It's not like Zwicky is a mystery that only you know about. Like so many howlers you use someone else's name and hard work to discredit the field they loved to prove a claim they never set out to prove. If you actually cared about Zwicky or his work, you'd also know about Walter Baade and how he contributed to it, but you don't. You use science as a weapon of animal noises to try and discredit science, only discrediting yourself. You may as well not read these words, you wont parse them as anything but BARK BARK BARK.

How about you become a critical thinker and stop making humanity worse?

I'll hold my breath, you count...
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (16) Dec 16, 2015
Benni says
Well, ST, there is a real simple answer, stop reading what others say about what Zwicky wrote, just look it up & read it for yourself, do that & you won't need to chase those links
And the best specific link is ?
And your critical analysis is ?

Benni, its when you write ".., that DM would only be found in a envelope enshrouding Spiral galaxies..." that we are likely to dismiss idle complaints as you have NIL comparative critical analysis !

ie. No link, no analysis only complaint, why should you be treated seriously & especially so as the implication in your statement ".., that DM would only be found in a envelope enshrouding Spiral galaxies" is it doesn't partake of even a minimum of proven gravitational attraction - ie that there is a huge exception that its not drawn into regions of higher gravitational field etc

Don't you get it ?
But, just to see if you can follow a line of reasoning then please post the best pdf link to the paper please ?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 17, 2015
Benni is apparently Docile
@Zzz
No
benji has another sock or two, but docile was zephir
docile/zephir was banned for spreading pseudoscience but there are still 118 other known socks (by my count) zeph still has on PO

.

I wouldn't be surprised if Zephir has more than 20 sock puppets on here
@Whopper
far, FAR more
the master list we track has 118 still active names, and a total of more (i ignored the banned users but included some of the possible's)

.

Those of you about to click the 1 Star ...admitting you have never actually read...
@benjiTROLL - her highness of earth wobbles, galactic years and ODE failure

OR we decided to vote because we know you are a chronic liar who can't prove yourself to be conversant in math, basic astrophysics, computers, nuclear / any other physics, and much much more...
indio007
4 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2015
You true believers need to get this on fact straight. Dark matter theory exists because relativity does not match observation. PERIOD.
So do you use GPS? How's it working?

WTF does that have to do with dark matter? Your just regurgitating BS about GPS proving relativity. Decrees are not proof.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 17, 2015
When it all turns to noise, you start to see patterns. I now think of this place as the most septic laboratory on earth, and so I can't stay away. It's interesting and important to know why the howler howls and the rational cannot put a dent in stupid
@SuperThunder
and now you know what i have been working on for the last couple years - but i think that there is hope [to denting the stupid]

it is an intentional cognitive impairment
& because of their intentional choices, then there is the ability to fix the problem

it is actually fascinating to discern their patterns of behaviour
and the more intelligent they "claim" to be, the easier

take benji, for instance. she thinks throwing around names and big words makes her intelligent (argument from authority- typical of the brittle ego "name dropper" with no real life)... but when it comes to demonstrating actual knowledge: epic failures!

this ... THIS is benji explained
https://www.youtu...Qp-q1Y1s
SuperThunder
2 / 5 (16) Dec 17, 2015
And the best specific link is ?

Maybe this one.
http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf
And your critical analysis is ?

He was a fine astronomer, a hell of a person, and his work and the work he enabled have helped humanity drag its way out of the dark ages and towards an actual understanding of our place in the universe. Basically, the opposite of dark matter hating science deniers.
I can't find a free link to Baade's work.
Seeker2
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2015
Your just regurgitating BS about GPS proving relativity. Decrees are not proof.
Proof enough for me. My GPS works just fine. Still in denial?
SuperThunder
2.2 / 5 (17) Dec 17, 2015
@CaptainStumpy
I think it's a lot to do with rhetoric. That other branch of human thoughtwork. I wish rhetoric was less in the hands of the philosophers and more of interest to neuroscience. How it emerges in humans is incredible. As far as I know, there is no other animal that can make noises at a member of its own species which overrides their nervous system's capacity to parse accurate reality up to and beyond the point of their demise due to the delusional state. We almost seem telepathic in our ability to hijack one anothers' imaginations to our own ends. If you model humans as a vocal herd, rhetoric is primed for the insulated herd members to keep others at the more dangerous perimeter. The emotional and authoritarian component never has to reach the cognitive faculty. The message part is a distraction to get to the emotions. Rhetoric doesn't change anyone's mind by design, it makes them directly behave along the will of another, even against their own.
Seeker2
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2015
When it all turns to noise, you start to see patterns. I now think of this place as the most septic laboratory on earth, and so I can't stay away. It's interesting and important to know why the howler howls and the rational cannot put a dent in stupid
Sounds to me like talk radio.
SuperThunder
2.2 / 5 (17) Dec 17, 2015
(cont)
It seems that critical thinking and rhetoric insulate the thinker from the other discipline near perfectly. Rhetoric can't get two steps past a critical thinker, yet anti-critical thinking rhetoric can be implanted in a person, if caught before they become critical thinkers, making them unreachable by all critical thinking means. If Bertrand Russel were alive, I'd write up a crazy conjecture about semiotic cognitive speciation and make him get a restraining order against me about it. The rhetorically lead who aren't opposed to critical thinking, myself an example, can stumble upon it accidentally and change their lives, myself an example. I do not like that my being a howler was left up to natural selection, however, and I suspect there may be a systemic failure to deprogram the potentially-intellectual by mistaking them for full on inoculated against reason howlers. The inquiry needs a higher resolution.
SuperThunder
2 / 5 (16) Dec 17, 2015
Sounds to me like talk radio.

They use a lot of the same word choices. Some of the anti-intellectuals here are also very jingoistic, racist, and pro-violence. They use "arguments" (emotional declarations without basis) found on the very fringes of talk radio and various radicalized isolationist websites.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (13) Dec 17, 2015
If Bertrand Russel were alive, I'd write up a crazy conjecture about semiotic cognitive speciation and make him get a restraining order against me about it
@SuperT
ROTFLMFAO - there goes another keyboard

i think you should still write it up, personally!
:-D

The inquiry needs a higher resolution.
absolutely
SuperThunder
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 17, 2015
"You see, Bertrand, symbolic logic never meshed because you were using a critical thinking mental structure on a rhetorically evolved language center... put the gun down, Berty... !"

I just realized Noam Chomsky's still around.... heh heh heh.

i think you should still write it up, personally!

If you're on the review board for Hilites For Kids, I'll slip a ten in the envelope, the howlers tell me this always works with science and it's important to me I get published before they do. Speaking of which...

Hey, phys.org, get off your butts, scienceamerican is kicking your rear reporting the new standard model defying particle the LHC just stumbled upon.
SuperThunder
1.8 / 5 (16) Dec 17, 2015
I'll write it for you.
Physics works because it's predictable. If you related the Large Hadron Collider to a demolition derby, you could say that when you collide two Porsche 911's together at near the speed of light, they explode into four Volkswagon rabbits and sixteen strong cups of coffee on a mathematically predictable basis. Today, the LHC collided two Posche's together and along with the Volkswagons and coffee, out popped a catdog. The catdog was not predicted by the demolition model of physics and has thrown everyone into a very excited, but cautious, frenzy. If catdog turns out to be a component of demolition derby, car crash metaphors as we know them in relation to science is over.

That will be $200 phys.org.
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 17, 2015
indio007 claimed
WTF does that have to do with dark matter? Your just regurgitating BS about GPS proving relativity. Decrees are not proof.
Beg Pardon ?

Evidence is clear, without maths correction in the satellites - positional accuracy drops off significantly AND continuously, don't you read links, here it is AGAIN:-
Mminuteman physics https://www.youtu...RgRvVDoA

indio007, do you have ANYTHING - anything at all to offer even a glimmer of substantive evidence for your claim even a bit ?

There's ~100yrs of investigation & evidence relativity is real, especially General Relativity & can now measurable over a height diff as little as 33cm & even higher accuracy/resolution later down to ~1cm !!!

This is major ! For a clock to change its rate just by moving it up or down over such short distances is bordering on absolute proof - can't you GR/SR deniers appreciate Evidence at all please ?

btw: You can confirm SR in your car too at highway speeds !
viko_mx
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2015
@Seeker25

""You true believers need to get this on fact straight. Dark matter theory exists because relativity does not match observation. PERIOD."

So do you use GPS? How's it working?

So you participated in the writing of control software for GPS system?

This GPS system works perfectly without GR correction.
liquidspacetime
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2015
"What waves is the mass of empty space and the particles of matter which exist in it."


In a double slit experiment as the particle exits a single slit it is guided by its associated wave in the dark matter which exits both.
Benni
3.9 / 5 (15) Dec 17, 2015
It seems that critical thinking and rhetoric insulate the thinker from the other discipline near perfectly. Rhetoric can't get two steps past a critical thinker, yet anti-critical thinking rhetoric can be implanted in a person, if caught before they become critical thinkers, making them unreachable by all critical thinking means


ST, here's Critical Thinking for you, go read for yourself what the original author of an hypothesis states, rather than what media sources write about that author. Is that comprehensible to you?

You can't even be bothered with doing an internet search for Zwicky's original dissertations on DM? What I think is that you've already done it & won't admit it because what you discovered is that Zwicky's original papers do not comply with the present day pop-sci narratives. Isn't that really it? So to avoid that discussion, you want to go on a psycho-babble binge about applying "Critical Thinking" to pop-sci's narratives about DM.
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 17, 2015
viko_mx claims a conspiracy
So you participated in the writing of control software for GPS system?
Note: There are other GPS by other countries ALL of them use relativity corrections !

From viko_mx who claims "I know Physics well", did you lie to your 'creator' ?
Why are you against relativity and ~100yrs of evidence from all over the place:-
http://www.nist.g...2810.cfm

Why can't viko_mx read & understand Physics links ?

viko_mx claims
This GPS system works perfectly without GR correction.
WHY can't you prove ANY of your claims ?

Why are you here viko_mx ?

Do you know how very stupid & emotionally unhinged you look denying Evidence ?
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 17, 2015
Benni asked
You can't even be bothered with doing an internet search for Zwicky's original dissertations on DM?
Have you Failed to notice there are many links,

which one did YOU rely on to arrive at your particular analysis of the nature of his DM ?

WHY do you refuse to be efficient & instead obstructive, please post the link YOU used ?

WHAT could be simpler, smarter & more sensible then convergence, are you ill ?

Benni FAILED claiming
..So to avoid that discussion, you want to go on a psycho-babble binge about applying "Critical Thinking" to pop-sci's narratives about DM.
Hey didn't YOU bring up Zwicky ?

WHY don't you post the link YOU relied on and offer a critical analysis, Eg one paragraph ?

Should be easy for an Electrical Engineer who became a Nuclear Engineer ?

btw: Anything at all wrong with the work of NIST ?
http://www.nist.g...2810.cfm
http://www.nist.g...0410.cfm

Thoughtful analysis please ?
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 17, 2015
liquidspacetime claimed
In a double slit experiment as the particle exits a single slit it is guided by its associated wave in the dark matter which exits both
I've seen your vague comments but, all have NIL supportable maths or Physics...

What can you do to distinguish yourself from all those that refuse to address the Maths ?

Can you prove your claims please, that would be refreshing as there are lots of people who litter these forums making claims relativity doesn't work or gravitational equations are wrong or eventhe dumbest of all that radiative transfer is false or even the stupidest that GPS corrections are faked which implies a world wide conspiracy which must inlcude all the GPS manufacturer's and all the several thousand scientists and students worldwide who routinely learn Physics and TEST relativity each and every chance they can get ?

ie. Can you imagine the press any one person would achieve if they proved GR false and did so intelligently ?
liquidspacetime
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2015
What can you do to distinguish yourself from all those that refuse to address the Maths ?


NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE

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

The "subquantic medium" is the dark matter.
liquidspacetime
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2015
'Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy'
http://newsoffice...ics-0912

"The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. It's impossible to measure a bouncing droplet's position accurately enough to predict its trajectory very far into the future. But in a recent series of papers, Bush, MIT professor of applied mathematics Ruben Rosales, and graduate students Anand Oza and Dan Harris applied their pilot-wave theory to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments."

A "fluidic pilot-wave system" is the dark matter.
liquidspacetime
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2015
'When Fluid Dynamics Mimic Quantum Mechanics'
http://www.scienc...1934.htm

"If you have a system that is deterministic and is what we call in the business 'chaotic,' or sensitive to initial conditions, sensitive to perturbations, then it can behave probabilistically," Milewski continues. "Experiments like this weren't available to the giants of quantum mechanics. They also didn't know anything about chaos. Suppose these guys — who were puzzled by why the world behaves in this strange probabilistic way — actually had access to experiments like this and had the knowledge of chaos, would they have come up with an equivalent, deterministic theory of quantum mechanics, which is not the current one? That's what I find exciting from the quantum perspective."

What waves in a double slit experiment is the dark matter.
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 17, 2015
In response to my most recent query on this thread to liquidspacetime he claimed in 3 subsequent posts & here is the first
The "subquantic medium" is the dark matter.
Really - how ?
What is the definition of "subquantic" & how does it relate to the planck length please ?

Where is the maths re (incremental) addition to the locally confirmed Force Fg=Gm1m2/r^2 ?

ie For arriving at Ft for "total"
Ft=Fg+Fdm --> What is the Fdm component & how distributed Eg unit spread/volume ?

Second post liquidspacetime offered a link:-
http://newsoffice...ics-0912

Third post liquidspacetime offered a link:-
http://www.scienc...1934.htm

However both are devoid of means to:-
1 Define the terms liquidspacetime relies upon
2 Relate any magnitudes eg in ref to Planck ie as a starting point at least
3 Suggest means to determine magnitude of additive force (Fdm) & distribution metric
&
4 Nil experiment :-(
liquidspacetime
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2015
You have just described a magnetic field.


I'm describing the chaotic nature of the dark matter and how it leads to the probabilistic results of experiments.
indio007
4 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2015
indio007 claimed
anything at all to offer even a glimmer of substantive evidence for your claim even a bit ?

Got plenty but there is a character limit. I'm not giving u more because you should go find out yourself.
Do you even know know GPS clocks are set? What inertial reference frame are the clocks set to?
Your talking crap about relativity. There are no known solutions for 2 or more bodies.the Relativity is non linear. One body can not simply be added to another body.
Everything has to be "normalized". After the normalization there is fudging... i mean "data-fitting".
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2015
What waves in a double slit experiment is the dark matter.
So the particle itself only goes through one slit. The interference fringes are then caused by the dark matter? Just checking.
liquidspacetime
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2015

4 Nil experiment :-(


There is evidence of the chaotic nature of the dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed. It's what waves and leads to the probabilistic results of experiments.

Wave-particle duality is a moving particle and its associated wave in the dark matter.

The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.
liquidspacetime
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2015
So the particle itself only goes through one slit. The interference fringes are then caused by the dark matter? Just checking.


The interference fringes are caused by the particle. The particle is guided by the associated wave.

A boat has a bow wave.
The surfer rides the ocean wave.

The particle is both boat and surfer simultaneously.

I recommend you watch all of the following video. The part having to do with the double slit experiment is at the 2:42 mark.

https://www.youtu...Wv5dqSKk
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2015
The particle is both boat and surfer simultaneously.
Like black magic. I get it now.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2015
The particle is both boat and surfer simultaneously.
Like black magic. I get it now. By the way, how does the particle know which slit to pass through? I know. It consults the fairy godmother. Right?
liquidspacetime
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2015
The water in the following video represents the chaotic nature of the dark matter.

https://www.youtu...Lbq2VYIk

The chaotic nature of the dark matter causes the probabilistic results associated with a double slit experiment.

The particle travels a well defined path through a single slit. We can't know which slit that is unless we detect the particle.
my2cts
2 / 5 (12) Dec 17, 2015
You true believers need to get this on fact straight. Dark matter theory exists because relativity does not match observation. PERIOD.

You are entirely wrong. DM theory exists because _none_ of the gravitation theories match the observations. It not a fix for GRT but a fix for gravity in general.
liquidspacetime
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2015
Dark matter is displaced by matter.

The state of displacement of the dark matter *is* gravity.
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 17, 2015
You true believers need to get this on fact straight. Dark matter theory exists because relativity does not match observation. PERIOD.
So do you use GPS? How's it working?

WTF does that have to do with dark matter? Your just regurgitating BS about GPS proving relativity. Decrees are not proof.

GPS proves that the effects predicted by GRT are real.
Got a problem with that ?
my2cts
2 / 5 (12) Dec 17, 2015
anything at all to offer even a glimmer of substantive evidence for your claim even a bit ?

Got plenty but there is a character limit. I'm not giving u more because you should go find out yourself.

I suspect you have nothing at all. That is the simplest explanation. Occam's razor.
liquidspacetime
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2015
Occam's razor.


Dark matter is displaced by matter.

Dark matter displaced by matter pushing back and exerting pressure toward matter *is* gravity.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (11) Dec 17, 2015
(cont)
It seems that critical thinking and rhetoric insulate the thinker from the other discipline near perfectly. Rhetoric can't get two steps past a critical thinker, yet anti-critical thinking rhetoric can be implanted in a person, if caught before they become critical thinkers, making them unreachable by all critical thinking means.

Yeah, but..
Doesn't it take a certain level of critical thinking to come up with the requisite anti-critical thinking rhetoric...?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (11) Dec 17, 2015
Occam's razor.


Dark matter is displaced by matter.

Dark matter displaced by matter pushing back and exerting pressure toward matter *is* gravity.

LST@
You do realize that your "profundities" are reminiscent of those used by persons involved in heavy cannabis sativa use, don't you?
liquidspacetime
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2015
Occam's razor.


Dark matter is displaced by matter.

Dark matter displaced by matter pushing back and exerting pressure toward matter *is* gravity.

LST@...


Or, you could correctly understand what occurs physically in nature.

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

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

Dark matter displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2015
If only they were universal. Then the chosen examples of where the effects MAY apply would be valid as it wouldn't matter which effects that support GRT were chosen. However to say "Gravity curves space and light must follow the path, hence why we see gravitational lensing" would be backed up by the curved path of light we observe in EVERY SINGLE GRAVITY WELL. But we don't....do we?

So using the effect of gravitational lensing as support for GRT when light does not curve in every gravity well boils down to selecting one bullshit interpretation that fits the bill, and ignoring all the examples where it must apply as well, but doesn't.

Why do you think there are 5 candidates for a "particle" that produces only one effect. Because not one fit every circumstance...

Each gravity well is "unique" in it's specific characteristics. More specifically - it's density and "charge", to name just two...
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2015
The particle travels a well defined path through a single slit. We can't know which slit that is unless we detect the particle.
Really? Per https://en.wikipe...periment a wave is split into two separate waves that later combine into a single wave. Check it out.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2015
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, the dark matter.

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

Dark matter displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Essentially you are describing "Aether".
Just an aside - there is no "wave" until you have a "particle" (in motion) - it's empty space...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2015
The particle travels a well defined path through a single slit. We can't know which slit that is unless we detect the particle.
Really? Per https://en.wikipe...periment a wave is split into two separate waves that later combine into a single wave. Check it out.

Wouldn't this indicate the presence of a "field" associated with the presence of a particle?
SuperThunder
2 / 5 (16) Dec 17, 2015
ST, here's Critical Thinking for you, go read for yourself what the original author of an hypothesis states, rather than what media sources write about that author. Is that comprehensible to you?

Stop being a moon howler.

You can't even be bothered with doing an internet search for Zwicky's original dissertations on DM? What I think is that you've already done it & won't admit it because what you discovered is that Zwicky's original papers do not comply with the present day pop-sci narratives. Isn't that really it?

I read it, posted a link to it, and commented on it, you complete unapologetic moron.
my2cts
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 17, 2015
GPS proves that the effects predicted by GRT are real.
Got a problem with that ?


If only they were universal. [more irrelevant stuff dropped ]

GRT predicts certain effects to occur in the GPS system.
These effects indeed occur in the GPS system.
This confirms that the predicted effects are real.
To have a point you need an example where GRT makes a _wrong_ prediction.
Do you have any? I don't.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (12) Dec 17, 2015
bschott says
However to say "Gravity curves space and light must follow the path, hence why we see gravitational lensing" would be backed up by the curved path of light we observe in EVERY SINGLE GRAVITY WELL. But we don't....do we?
You Need to appreciate measurements in Physics applying to design of instruments, ie engineering of sensors/data acquisition issues; resolution, accuracy, noise floor, error.

bschott apply your complaint re analogy to Eg water to illustrate the point

Eg gravity makes water curve, then some complainer says,
"Gravity curves the sea & ships fall as move towards horizon, would be backed by the curve of sea we observe in EVERY SINGLE BODY OF WATER. But we don't... do we?"

Essential education to understand *measurement* ie Find uni tutorial covering methodology detail to calculate amount of light deflection per gravitational field strength re distance AND relate to the instrumentation required to observe *any* differential

Can U ?
indio007
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 17, 2015
GPS proves that the effects predicted by GRT are real.
Got a problem with that ?


If only they were universal. [more irrelevant stuff dropped ]

GRT predicts certain effects to occur in the GPS system.
These effects indeed occur in the GPS system.
This confirms that the predicted effects are real.
To have a point you need an example where GRT makes a _wrong_ prediction.
Do you have any? I don't.

GR doesn't predict the behavior of the the galaxy hence dark matter.
more? Ok
Tunneling time
non-local Entanglement.
superluminal gravity
superluminal charge conservation

theres a small sample.
liquidspacetime
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2015
The particle travels a well defined path through a single slit. We can't know which slit that is unless we detect the particle.
Really? Per https://en.wikipe...periment a wave is split into two separate waves that later combine into a single wave. Check it out.


The wave in the dark matter passes through both slits. When it exits both slits it creates wave interference which alters the direction the particle travels.
liquidspacetime
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2015

Just an aside - there is no "wave" until you have a "particle" (in motion) - it's empty space...


'Empty' space has mass which is displaced by the particle moving through it. It's the particle moving through and displacing the dark matter which creates the wave in the dark matter.
liquidspacetime
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2015

Wouldn't this indicate the presence of a "field" associated with the presence of a particle?


The "field" consists of dark matter. The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the dark matter.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2015
The chaotic nature of the dark matter causes the probabilistic results associated with a double slit experiment.
What probabilistic results?
Seeker2
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2015
'Empty' space has mass which is displaced by the particle moving through it.
Yep.
It's the particle moving through and displacing the dark matter which creates the wave in the dark matter.
So dark matter is the mass contained by empty space. Of course. I should have known.
Seeker2
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2015
So dark matter is the mass contained by empty space. Of course.
Finding the dark matter in empty space is going to be pretty tricky it would seem. Especially if it is in particulate form. But you never know about the fairy godmother.
Seeker2
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2015
Finding the dark matter in empty space is going to be pretty tricky it would seem. Especially if it is in particulate form. But you never know about the fairy godmother.
More likely the fairy godmother is found in the form of energy. Mass-energy equivalence, you know. Doesn't seem like a particle detector would be the way to go to find the fairy godmother in the form of energy.
my2cts
2 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2015
GPS proves that the effects predicted by GRT are real.
Got a problem with that ?


If only they were universal. [more irrelevant stuff dropped ]

GRT predicts certain effects to occur in the GPS system.
These effects indeed occur in the GPS system.
This confirms that the predicted effects are real.
To have a point you need an example where GRT makes a _wrong_ prediction.
Do you have any? I don't.

GR doesn't predict the behavior of the the galaxy hence dark matter.
No theory of gravity does.

more? Ok
Tunneling time

Show me the measurements that are in conflict with GRT.
non-local Entanglement.

No theory explains both gravity and QM.
superluminal gravity
superluminal charge conservation

No idea what these are.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
Finding the dark matter in empty space is going to be pretty tricky it would seem. Especially if it is in particulate form. But you never know about the fairy godmother.
More likely the fairy godmother is found in the form of energy. Mass-energy equivalence, you know. Doesn't seem like a particle detector would be the way to go to find the fairy godmother in the form of energy.

You can't educate lst to make sense. Ignore.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
@indio007

Watched the video. The only thing missing is, "Those goddamn jews!", and "Heil Hitler".


Can you give a timing where this is missing?
I sure am not going to spend 1:07 to listen to pseudoscience.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
What I fail to see is how anyone can believe that an amount equivalent to one asteroid of dark matter spread out evenly across the solar system can be responsible for the double slit experiment and therefore for QM as a whole. We're talking about a half proton mass per cm3, only interacting through gravity!
By how many orders of magnitude is such a density of DM inadequate to influence atoms and solids? By an absolutely mind boggling number of order of magnitudes.
How wrong can a crank be? There is no limit, the universe is too small.
indio007
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2015

No idea what these are.

I rest my case.
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2015
indio007 Failed
I rest my case
You have Neverr made any substantive attempt whatsoever to make *any* case in the first place !

You're showing yourself up to suffer emotional hypnotic attachment to idea relativity is false without benefit of high school Physics, you refuse to ascribe rational basis to evidence which proves overwhelmingly it functions very well; GPS, hafele-keating, LHC & WHY did you totally ignore NIST, their clocks show variance of as little as 33cm in altitude ?
http://www.nist.g...2810.cfm

Are you completely ignorant of debating/dialectic/declarative norms ? my2cts was being directly sarcastic because you waste time & made up the last two he correctly objected to as you have NIL definition , nada, zero zilch !

In process of debate/dialectic focused on a definitive outcome the process of convergence is essential, where or what are the definitions/maths/physics on which you make vague idle claim re "superluminal ...." ?
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2015

No idea what these are.

I rest my case.

Was I too polite?
Ok, you are talking crap.
liquidspacetime
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2015
What probabilistic results?


The probabilistic results of a double slit experiment which is caused by the chaotic nature of the dark matter.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2015
The "field" consists of dark matter. The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the dark matter.
Watch the sparks fly as the fairy godmother waves her magic wand.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2015
What probabilistic results?


The probabilistic results of a double slit experiment which is caused by the chaotic nature of the dark matter.
How do they know the chaotic nature of dark matter if it has never been detected?
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2015
How do they know the chaotic nature of dark matter if it has never been detected?
I know. Its too chaotic to be detected. Too blurry. Right?

my2cts
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2015
@indio
And as seeker remarked, you can not rest a case before making it.
You are blowing bubbles.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2015
The probabilistic results of a double slit experiment which is caused by the chaotic nature of the dark matter.
Does this mean each time you run the experiment you get a different set of interference fringes?
liquidspacetime
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2015
The probabilistic results of a double slit experiment which is caused by the chaotic nature of the dark matter.
Does this mean each time you run the experiment you get a different set of interference fringes?


The fringes will build up differently every time. However, how they build up can be determined probabilistically. The following image shows the electrons building up to form the interference pattern. It won't build up exactly the same way every time. However, probabilistically most of the electrons will wind up in the middle every time.

https://en.wikipe...ra_2.jpg
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2015
the mainstream theory that we observe a curved path for light in the presence of a gravitational field. [/q
The mainstream theory that we observe ?
What is this text supposed to mean?
[if you claim gravity is curving the path of light in an immense field like that of a galaxy, IT HAS TO DO IT EVERY TIME

Still waiting for a counterexample.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
GR doesn't predict the behavior of the the galaxy hence dark matter.
No theory of gravity does.


they don't agree.

There are different proposals, each still considered viable. That is not the same thing as disagreeing at all.
They disagree right?

Nope.
are you only a crank if you toss aside the fundamental basis of the theory that has led to 5 candidates and propose, that in order to see what we see, there is a different organizational regime at play in the universe.

If you have a viable proposal, wonderful. Number 6.
Looking forward t

You are a crank if you stand beside science that can't explain jack shit without invoking immeasurable, undetectable, unobserved variables

Setting up hypotheses is the scientist's business.
a technique that you can't apply universally.

Could you explain this ?

And you are blind if you think that is not what you are doing.

Fortunately, they know what they are doing.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
I'll tell you who is a crank. A crank subscribes to a non-viable hypothesis against all evidence. Then he gets crankier and tells those who disprove him that they are the cranks. He ends like lpt, repeating the same obsessive empty sentences for the rest of his existence. Sad, Dickens even. I am only posting here to save you from this fate. Because it is Christmas time.
But if your idea is viable I am interested of course.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2015
probabilistically most of the electrons will wind up in the middle every time.
Probabilistically and every time in the same sentence?
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2015
Light cannot ONLY curve in "large gravity wells"...it must curve in EVERY one.

We do not observe this.

Certainly. There are more things that we can't observe than the large scale effects that we can observe.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2015
Light cannot ONLY curve in "large gravity wells"...it must curve in EVERY one.

Newsflash: Light doesn't curve. Light always moves straight. It's spacetime that's curved.

It's that little thing (Relativity) a really smart dude found out about (Einstein).
liquidspacetime
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2015
probabilistically most of the electrons will wind up in the middle every time.
Probabilistically and every time in the same sentence?


You perform a double slit experiment. Thousands of electrons hit the screen. Most of them hitting the middle of the screen.

You start over and perform the double slit experiment again. Thousands of electrons hit the screen. Most of them hitting the middle of the screen.

You can't know where any individual particle will hit the screen due to the chaotic nature of the dark matter they are moving through and displacing. Think of them as getting 'knocked around' by the dark matter at the same time they are being guided by their associated wave in it. The "getting 'knocked around'" leads to the probabilistic result of any electron winding up at any particular spot. However, overall, you can determine what the interference pattern will most likely look like at the end of the experiment.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2015
You are a crank if you stand beside science that can't explain jack shit without invoking immeasurable, undetectable, unobserved variables and claim they are at work, and claim they are measurable using a technique that you can't apply universally.
I'd prefer a plausible theory regardless if its falsifiable or not.
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2015
You are a crank if you stand beside science that can't explain jack shit without invoking immeasurable, undetectable, unobserved variables and claim they are at work, and claim they are measurable using a technique that you can't apply universally.
I'd prefer a plausible theory regardless if its falsifiable or not.

If it is non-falsifiable it is not a theory.
It does not have to plausible, though.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2015
If it is non-falsifiable it is not a theory.
If it is non-falsifiable it is not a fact. Please.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
bschott stated
Light cannot ONLY curve in "large gravity wells"...it must curve in EVERY one
Indeed, as there is nil evidence of any low level cutoff, the question arises is how much and is it measurable with conventional instruments and if not then what type,of instruments do you need at what resolution level to discern a difference ?

bschott claims
We do not observe this
Within what level of instrumentation please ?

Did you not read or understand my post I made specifically to assist you ?

Do you understand the immense issue of experimental design methodology ?

Its plainly obvious gravity attarcts water & obviously so as the mass of the water is high and this is why we see ships descend below the horizon as they go away from us.

The advice I gave you is sound and there is none better, if you can imagine anything better then please enter into thoughtful dialectic to converge ?

ie. By how much would light bend in a weak & short g field such as Earth's ?
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
If it is non-falsifiable it is not a theory.
If it is non-falsifiable it is not a fact. Please.

If it is falsified it is not a fact. If it is falsifiable it may be a fact.
If it is falsifiable and but not falsified, though we threw everything at it, lets assume it's a fact.
If it is non-falsifiable it is not even wrong.
Note that life is at the edge ;-).
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
Seeker2 suggested
If it is non-falsifiable it is not a theory
If it is non-falsifiable it is not a fact. Please
Have come across this phenomenologically inspired divergence for decades, it seems to cause levels of angst, in English we presume we cover the rationale but, it so often has different unclear core meanings. So can we converge on a facet of the language/logic that offers a helpful base ?

ie.
I hold a pencil above a table & feel a force or pull. From the experimental evidence of hundreds of years of observations we can describe equation which imparts predictability ie Newtons, but the relationship is subject to a mathematical abstraction which is a theory but, if I were to let go of the pencil and observe it fall down - that and that alone is a Fact

Those of you focused on falsify-ability as if has useful metric, could you articulate how that fact could be falsified to perhaps disconnect the abstraction with observation as a truth in that context ?
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
@bs
You criticise a lot, called everyone "schmuck" or "psycho".
With such proponents it is no surprise that the electric theories do not take off.
Also you bore me, I can go to a drunk pub for that.
Why don't you explain YOUR view on what makes the galaxy tick?
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2015
Is that you downvoting me BS?
I am asking you to explain your ideas.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2015

Those of you focused on falsify-ability as if has useful metric, could you articulate how that fact could be falsified to perhaps disconnect the abstraction with observation as a truth in that context ?

That much but not all stuff drops does not require Newton's theory. Note that there are things that do not fall. Hot smoke, a hot air ballon, all kinds of bugs, birds and bats, a plane, a chopper . I just falsified the theory that everything falls ! Your pencil could actually fly away instead. Are you living in Oklahoma? Houses fly up in that area.
Explain that with Newton's theory !
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2015

Those of you focused on falsify-ability as if has useful metric, could you articulate how that fact could be falsified to perhaps disconnect the abstraction with observation as a truth in that context ?

Your theory that a pencil will fall does not fly. Some things go up, like smoke, bugs, birds, bats, butterflies, planes, choppers, hot air balloons, helium, hydrogen, dust, feathers, even houses in Oklahoma. That could happen to your pencil, too.
You'll need a whole lot more than Newton's theory if you want to establish facts.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
Anyway I ask BS as politely as is appropriate here to explain his ideas. I suspect that he chickened out and instead anonymously downvotes my post. Isn't that sad.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
@my2ctsq says
... Note that there are things that do not fall. Hot smoke, a hot air ballon, all kinds of bugs, birds and bats, a plane, a chopper . I just falsified the theory that everything falls ! Your pencil could actually fly away instead. Are you living in Oklahoma? Houses fly up in that area. Explain that with Newton's theory !
Ah I see, I took a habitual shortcut & meant to include in an experimental framework in context squarely with the equation - all else being equal - in that best appropriate experimental framework - to me its second nature to manage material properties as part of the planning for experimental controls. It just that the usual crowd here who go off on a tangent have an outlook somehow thought by them to be "clean" even divine because they avoided high school & uni, its amazing how many could have saved so much time being as fortunate as I to have moved from a hobby to career via uni & Physics, prob time for another glass of whine ;-)
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
Let me help the poor schmuck then. Assume that the Sun had lost so many electrons that it had an average field of 5 micro V/m perpendicular to its surface, on average. Then a local, downward magnetic field wrt to the galactic plane of only a reasonable 5.5 micro Gauss would give it the same acceleration as galactic gravity does.
Can you check that for me BS or are you just an epigone of the electric crowd?
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2015
Are you living in Oklahoma? Houses fly up in that area.
Explain that with Newton's theory !
Let me guess. What goes up has to come down. As a matter of fact in the end times everything comes down.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
Ah I see, I took a habitual shortcut & meant to include in an experimental framework in context squarely with the equation - all else being equal - in that best appropriate experimental framework - to me its second nature to manage material properties as part of the planning for experimental controls. It just that the usual crowd here who go off on a tangent have an outlook somehow thought by them to be "clean" even divine because they avoided high school & uni, its amazing how many could have saved so much time being as fortunate as I to have moved from a hobby to career via uni & Physics, prob time for another glass of whine ;-)

I wrote that post by a glass of wine indeed!
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2015
Are you living in Oklahoma? Houses fly up in that area.
Explain that with Newton's theory !
Let me guess. What goes up has to come down. As a matter of fact in the end times everything comes down.

That is indeed falsifiable. Until there is something that does NOT come down I believe you.
Hey, the Moon never falls down! Haven't seen it touch the ground! Theory falsified.
Science is _not at all_ as easy as it may seem to the superficial observer.
Now I hear you say "yes but the Moon ..." and some complicated excuse leaves your pen.
LMAO.
This is what we are up against here.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
I'm on a roll it seems. BS, where are you? Chicken !
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2015
Those of you focused on falsify-ability as if has useful metric, could you articulate how that fact could be falsified to perhaps disconnect the abstraction with observation as a truth in that context ?
The subject dark matter measurement experiment puts new extended null limits on the existence of dark matter, and seems to claim this as a useful metric.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2015
Hey, the Moon never falls down!
I don't expect to be around when it happens, but my guess is the black hole in the center of the galaxy will eventually swallow up everything in the galaxy. That's only because when this black hole feeds, it feeds on this galaxy. Black hole evaporation aside, I see nothing to stop this process.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2015
[Your theory that a pencil will fall does not fly. Some things go up, like smoke, bugs, birds, bats, butterflies, planes, choppers, hot air balloons, helium, hydrogen, dust, feathers, even houses in Oklahoma. That could happen to your pencil, too.

My2@
Ahhhh... but they will ALL eventually fall back down...:-)
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
@WG
So now we have the pencil theory in its weak form.
The pencil will _eventually_ fall down, but it may only happen when we are no longer around or everything is swallowed up by a black hole first.
Can we now have a vote to reach consensus ?
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2015
Hi Seeker2, everyone. :)

I was re-checking some articles which I hadn't time to comment on before, when I noticed this thread which may be of interest to you and others discussing the galaxy and its core/ring features/motions...

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

I'm surprised that your Hypothetical DM discussion makes no mention of this new info/observation of outward motion of galaxy's stars; which effectively undermines currently assumed effects/distribution of DM (if it exists at all as hypothesized).

It would seem to make many of the prior mainstream hypotheses re 'Rotation Curves' and astrophysical 'structure' and 'behavior' and 'red/blue-shift assumptions/interpretations' not a little suspect and n need of revision to include this latest mainstream knowledge re ACTUAL (not presumed) stellar motions in galaxies.

Anyhow, must go. I'll look in again when I have time, maybe in a couple days. Cheers all. Play nice! :)
SuperThunder
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2015
my2cts asks of the universe :
How wrong can a crank be?


If that's a scientifically valid question, these comments just kicked the LHC down to "2nd most perfectly built to answer a question scientific instrument." Right now, it looks like they can be so wrong as to peg the needle into "not even wrong" territory (complete misfire of the language centers of their brains), and I think with an upgrade we can get enough power output to get them into "transcendentally wrong" territory (so wrong they forget to enact life functions). I think we can generate mini-black holes of wrong with this eventually and maybe tap the realms of "metaphysically wrong" wherein they will be so wrong it crashes nature like a 486 loaded with spyware. This may be the planet eating scientific monster device the LHC got credit for being.
indio007
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2015
My case is that you all worship at the feet of Einstein. You have even bothered to search for breadcrumbs.

Here are more clues. These are experimentally verified, and falsify one particular aspect of GR. That is the spped of light limit.
Gunter Nimtz - superluminal tunneling time
A L Kholmetskii - superluminal coloumb field

non local entanglement is all over this very site! Of course, every article has to add "Spooky Action at a distance" to every quantum entanglement article.

Then there is the gravity propagates faster the C. This is the real elephant in the room.

Take note this is just the speed of light.

I have a list for every GR bullshit idea.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
ERRATA: Reposting my previous with CORRECT link...
I was re-checking some articles which I hadn't time to comment on before, when I noticed this thread which may be of interest to you and others discussing the galaxy and its core/ring features/motions...

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

I'm surprised that your Hypothetical DM discussion makes no mention of this new info/observation of outward motion of galaxy's stars; which effectively undermines currently assumed effects/distribution of DM (if it exists at all as hypothesized).

It would seem to make many of the prior mainstream hypotheses re 'Rotation Curves' and astrophysical 'structure' and 'behavior' and 'red/blue-shift assumptions/interpretations' not a little suspect and n need of revision to include this latest mainstream knowledge re ACTUAL (not presumed) stellar motions in galaxies.

...!
Apologies for any inconvenience caused. Cheers. :)

TehDog
5 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2015
@SuperThunder
"... it crashes nature like a 486 loaded with spyware."
You did two things, made me laugh, and made me break my personal promise not to post here.
:)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2015
currently assumed effects/distribution of DM (if it exists at all as hypothesized).
DM is only hypothesized as a possible reason why spinning galaxies don't fly apart as would normally be predicted from their rotations and mass distributions.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2015
Of course, every article has to add "Spooky Action at a distance" to every quantum entanglement article.
Not as spooky as he claims. People don't realize the earth is in free fall. When you move something there must be an opposite reaction. That is the observer moves in the opposite direction from the object being moved about a point on the line connecting the two entangled objects while the entangled object does NOT move.
SuperThunder
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 19, 2015
@TehDog
You're doomed, now there's no going back!
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2015
Then there is the gravity propagates faster the C. This is the real elephant in the room.
People don't realize when you accelerate the medium the objects moving in the medium travel faster than they would without the acceleration. For example I remember something about the diameter of the U being about 93b light years when it has been expanding for only 13.7b years. So gravity must have spread 93/2=46.5 b light years in both directions. This would be approximately 46.5/13.7=3.4 times the speed of light.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 19, 2015
my2cts asks of the universe :
How wrong can a crank be?


If that's a scientifically valid question, these comments just kicked the LHC down to "2nd most perfectly built to answer a question scientific instrument." Right now, it looks like they can be so wrong as to peg the needle into "not even wrong" territory (complete misfire of the language centers of their brains), and I think with an upgrade we can get enough power output to get them into "transcendentally wrong" territory (so wrong they forget to enact life functions). I think we can generate mini-black holes of wrong with this eventually and maybe tap the realms of "metaphysically wrong" wherein they will be so wrong it crashes nature like a 486 loaded with spyware. This may be the planet eating scientific monster device the LHC got credit for being.

Can't make much sense of it.
Are you saying LHC was built by cranks?
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2015
My case is that you all worship at the feet of Einstein. You have even bothered to search for breadcrumbs.

This statement must be based on antipathy for Einstein.
Gunter Nimtz - superluminal tunneling time

The results are controversial.
A L Kholmetskii - superluminal coloumb field

I am confident that this is a misinterpretation. Otherwise, goodbye Maxwell, too.
non local entanglement is all over this very site!

Entanglement does not conflict with SR.
every article has to add "Spooky Action at a distance"

That is because Einstein started the subject, long before you were born.
Then there is the gravity propagates faster the C.

It does not. See https://einstein....10.html.
So 2 scientists have controversial claims against SR.
Great, it keeps everyone sharp. If SR were disproved, which it is not, I would like to be the one who did it, but it hasn't. Note that DM and SR are unrelated.
indio007
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2015
Nimtz "results" are not on controversial. Everyone has gotten the same result.
The interpretation might be controversial. Of course , they have to save Einstein.

Kholmetskii, Alexsander L., et al. "Experimental test on the applicability of the standard retardation condition to bound magnetic fields." Journal of applied physics 101.2 (2007): 023532.

"Entanglement does not conflict with SR."
Because you say so?
2 distinct loophole free Bell tests prove no hidden variable. This means the interaction is non-local i.e. instantaneous.

Gravity propagates at least 50x faster than C.
Your link is broken.
There can be no stable orbit found using Gravity influence being a retarded potential.
There is no experimentally detected gravitational aberration.

my2cts
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2015
Nimtz "results" ... interpretation might be controversial. Of course , they have to save Einstein.

And you hate that guy.

Kholmetskii, Alexsander L., et al. "Experimental test on the applicability of the standard retardation condition to bound magnetic fields." Journal of applied physics 101.2 (2007): 023532.

Please make your point.
"Entanglement does not conflict with SR."

Because you say so?

Me and the rest of the world.
Gravity propagates at least 50x faster than C.

Disproven:
http://arxiv.org/...9087.pdf]http://arxiv.org/...9087.pdf[/url]
Your link is broken.

Remove "." at the end.
There can be no stable orbit found using Gravity influence being a retarded potential.
There is no experimentally detected gravitational aberration.

I think http://arxiv.org/...9087.pdf]http://arxiv.org/...9087.pdf[/url] deals with all of this.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2015
My case is that you all worship at the feet of Einstein. You have even bothered to search for breadcrumbs.

This statement qualifies you as a a crank.
This is what Einstein would have replied:
http://images.men...n1_7.jpg
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2015
Indio, downvoting is all you have left.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2015
http://http://arxiv.org/...9087.pdf deals with all of this.

So try this - http://arxiv.org/...9087.pdf
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 19, 2015
It happens when copy/paste a link from a post.
apo's but you'll figure it out.
indio007
5 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2015
No experimental verification in your linked paper. Just some imaginary photon rocket. Go on google scholar and chek out other papers that cite that one.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 19, 2015
Strange. You claim that GRT implies gravitational aberration which is not observed. Then I give you a paper that explains that GRT does NOT predict gravitational aberration.
And now you require an experimental proof.
That does not make any sense.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2015
Hi Seeker2. :)
DM is only hypothesized as a possible reason why spinning galaxies don't fly apart as would normally be predicted from their rotations and mass distributions.
Yes, I knew that. :)

New observations (pls see link below) has new implications for that galactic-DM hypothesis, and that 'Rotation Curves' data as interpreted re 'not flying apart' etc.

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

As you can see from the new observational data implying that stars are "moving away from the galactic centre", it implies that galaxies ARE slowly "flying apart" at their 'outer rings' of stars.

If so, where does the need for DM come in NOW? Is it now a case of 'back to the drawing board' regarding prior Rotation Curve 'explanations' based on theories/hypotheses which this new observation now makes 'unnecessary'; hence maybe requiring NEW theory/hypotheses for their CORRECT explanation?

What's your opinion re implications for DM etc 'explanations'. :)
SuperThunder
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 19, 2015
my2cts! I can't find the actual article now where you asked, but no, I don't think the LHC was built by cranks (unless you mean attached to pullies, but I would hope they'd use motors). What I meant was that the phys.org comments section is like a large hadron collider for studying howlers instead of particles. This is the right place to study crazy up close at high energies.

:)
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 19, 2015
Hi SuperThunder. :)
my2cts! I can't find the actual article now where you asked, but no, I don't think the LHC was built by cranks (unless you mean attached to pullies, but I would hope they'd use motors). What I meant was that the phys.org comments section is like a large hadron collider for studying howlers instead of particles. This is the right place to study crazy up close at high energies.:)
Ok, mate, a joke's a joke, and you've had some laughs at certain perceived 'howlers' expense. How about now contributing to the actual topic/science discussion.

To that end, I link the latest relevant astronomical observation re galaxy stellar motions:

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

Will you set a good example to the 'howlers', by posting your considered objective scientific opinion re any implications for Rotation Curves interpretations and DM hypothesis to 'explain' same?

I will return tomorrow to see your ontopic comments. Cheers. :)
SuperThunder
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 19, 2015
RC, I post links constantly, pay attention.

Here's some you desperately need, Relativity by Einstein:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/

Overview of the scientific method:
http://www.scienc...od.shtml

I wont put a fake facade of politeness over my disdain for the willfully irrational, so don't expect me to smiley face and "okay buddy come on" at you as a way of cheerfully being even more insulting than just being honest and saying "stop howling, read something."
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 19, 2015
Hi SuperThunder. :)
I wont put a fake facade of politeness over my disdain for the willfully irrational, so don't expect me to smiley face and "okay buddy come on" at you as a way of cheerfully being even more insulting than just being honest and saying "stop howling, read something."
If you knew my history/approach to discourse, you'd know my 'smileys' are genuine. Please don't project your or others own insincerity etc on me, Thanks. :)

Re Einstein: Been there, done that, many times, long since (I am 66); and with a more scrupulously independent and objective attitude than most in discussions of same here and elsewhere (which is why I give everyone their chance to state their case, without insults).

Anyhow, I asked for considered scientific objective opinion re implications latest astronomical observation may have for Rotation Curves, and DM hypothesized to 'explain' same...

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

Can you oblige? Thanks. :)
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 19, 2015
@ Superthunder
OK That was the other poasibility, indeed. Quite funny.
In the mean time I am suffering a lot from down votes.
I think it might be this guy:
http://d2ws0xxnno...ng-roman
SuperThunder
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 19, 2015
RC, that was a really cool article, thanks! It was before my time on here, neato.

Anyhow, I asked for considered scientific objective opinion re implications latest astronomical observation may have for Rotation Curves, and DM hypothesized to 'explain' same...

Sure, absolutely none.

This result was completely unexpected and all the more surprising as it appeared to mainly affect old stars, several billion years old. Until now, it was thought that the spiral arms mostly affected the dynamics of young stars (only a few tens-of-million-years old).

Looks like something happened billions of years ago. If you're saying physics itself is wrong, then this should also be happening in other galaxies, and an explanation for why it isn't happening to young stars is needed. I would look at other barred galaxies to see if it's happening there and compare to other types first, grouping stars by age. It could be a barred galaxy feature. If it's universal, then show me.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2015
What's your opinion re implications for DM etc 'explanations'. :)
After a quick first read it sounds like the outer regions of the spiral arms are penetrating what some call the dark matter halo. So then there's nothing to keep them from flying out of the galaxy.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2015
This result was completely unexpected and all the more surprising as it appeared to mainly affect old stars, several billion years old. Until now, it was thought that the spiral arms mostly affected the dynamics of young stars (only a few tens-of-million-years old).
I should think the older stars would be the more likely ones to begin breaking the DM halo.
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 20, 2015
Re: Voting
@my2cts & SuperThunder etc
You can check on who's voted on who incl yours and work out their votes (if there are more than a few) by doing a best fit based on history. ie Click on name at head of the post which brings up a profile then click on "all>>" & you get:-
https://sciencex....s/?v=act
https://sciencex....r/?v=act

The number arrived at is the average per that posting etc

You could craft a script to extract that to a csv, import into excel, run some stats & see how active people are & whether they even have any comment history at all, tells you a lot about nicks vs reality vs who is secure or not, stalkers etc

Votes here dont seem to do anything useful, some seem to use it as a means to vent rage, like Uncle Ira, GhostofOtto1923, DQM, ubavontuba, bschott, Benni etc

I use it as a flag as I actually keep notes of progress whether some are (maybe) worth the trouble, if they listen, post useful links etc
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 20, 2015
@my2cts !!
Ah ha - just ran my script following my last post & ffs some d..k made a copy attempt of my nick and just joined last 2 days
https://sciencex...._Masson/
he/she/it the fruitcake hasnt made any posts yet as of now
https://sciencex...._Masson/?v=act

ie. Changed the spelling, some prune who wants to do nothing except fiddle, I propose getting into dialog with admins to improve the way the site works, whoever it is is not just stupid but, wastes time !

I'd suggest asking admin that votes from those who don't make posts should be removed and if someone bothers to register in the first place they should make some minimum amount of posts and even then only have voting power according to a moving average of posts made over a certain period, maybe a month

And no I am not impressed with idle copycats like that one bit, if they learned Physics instead of barking they might actually get somewhere, time will tell who they are...

Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 20, 2015
bschott/Mike_Masson Failed in claim
.. missed by all PHD's in this thread and clearly by psycho Mike, is that if you claim gravity is curving the path of light in an immense field like that of a galaxy, IT HAS TO DO IT EVERY TIME..
No !

There's NO evidence it doesnt AND is it measurable within the resolution of an instrument design, where?

Why bschott, do you think its easily measured via lensing around a star - Doh, because the field is so strong AND over comparatively long distance too?

bschott, tell us from maths used to determine lensing around a star how much deflection we would expect say along a lake of distance d in Earth's weak field of g=9.81m/s^2 ?

Can you do that please, a straightforward exercise, onus in upon YOU bschott !

Why you & not me you ask, thats easy its part of the dialectic, as YOU bschott made the Claim, so YOU bschott should & presumably YOU Can show the resolution necessary with Math ?

Can you ?

Learn Physics (oh & Math) !
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (13) Dec 20, 2015
Uncle Ira,


Skippy, in case you have not noticed it, I have not been down voting the karma points for you or two-pennies-Skippy or the Thunder-Skippy either. But I see where you have been following me around down voting my karma points. That sorta makes you the hypocrite, eh? And the difference between a smart Skippy like me, and a really stupid Skippy like you, is I don't just say I don't care, I really don't care. You seem to care a lot because you keep on bringing it up.

So sit over there in the corner, with the silly looking pointy cap on your head. Yeah you can mumble and mutter to your self while you are doing it. And while you are doing that, see how many times you can say "fail" and "learn physics" while you are wondering why you look like a couyon with your silly looking pointy cap on your head.

Now leave me out of your whining postums, eh Cher?
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 20, 2015
simple Uncle Ira with odd incoherent ramblings says
Uncle Ira,
Skippy, in case you have not noticed it, I have not been down voting the karma points for you or two-pennies-Skippy or the Thunder-Skippy either. But I see where you have been following me around down voting my karma points. That sorta makes you the hypocrite, eh? And the difference between a smart Skippy like me, and a really stupid Skippy like you, is I don't just say I don't care, I really don't care. You seem to care a lot because you keep on bringing it up. So sit over there in the corner, with the silly looking pointy cap on your head. Yeah you can mumble and mutter to your self while you are doing it. And while you are doing that, see how many times you can say "fail" and "learn physics" while you are wondering why you look like a couyon with your silly looking pointy cap on your head
What does a skippy even mean ?

When are you going to apologise for; stalking & defaming etc simple ?
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (12) Dec 20, 2015
What does a skippy even mean ?


I am sure a genius super duper superior smartest Skippy in the class Skippy can figure it out. It means something like "guy" or "dude" or "fellow" or some such thing like that. Got any more really stupid questions to ask hoping they make you look like a genius super duper superior smartest Skippy in the class Skippy?

When are you going to apologise for; stalking & defaming etc simple ?


For a genius super duper superior smartest Skippy in the class Skippy you sure do repeat some really stupid questions that have already been answered for you about 20 or 19 time before. Try real hard, I bet you can remember that same answer give to you 20 or 19 time before, eh? Try.

Last chance, leave off me couyon. You will really have something to whine about if you keep pushing it. See, this is how it is, I do not care how I look to the rest of the class. I do not care what a few couyons here think but you are only here because you care.
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 20, 2015
Uncle Ira, re votes you confuse me with Mike_Masson who just joined on 17th Dec 2015 & like so many posts where you skippy things against others you are consistent in that confusion.

For record someone called Mike_Masson is doing some odd behaviour all over the place as is clear from the record, look closely the 2nd last letter in his nick is 'o', that is not me.

Read ! I have already suggested the nick be deleted as its obviously some d.ck trying to obfuscate & you fell into it, doesnt bother me except some can't tell the difference ie U

Doesnt change the fact I lump you Uncle Ira with others angrily confuse mere claim with evidence ie You claim

1 I stole
2 My ebay nick (Purple_Engine) was deleted due to theft
3 I live in Mt hawthorn
4 I had "run-ins" with antialias_physorg, T Larsen & others

All false

U & fail to apologise when proven wrong !
You make unscientific posts that offer no useful information & confirmed you stalked me

Discern evidence from claim !
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 20, 2015
Uncle Ira Fails to read, Fails to understand, Fails to offer any Physics or useful links
Last chance, leave off me couyon. You will really have something to whine about if you keep pushing it. See, this is how it is, I do not care how I look to the rest of the class. I do not care what a few couyons here think but you are only here because you care
Please re-read your idle, narrow redneck claims & WHY you confuse evidence with idle claim !

Find out
https://sciencex...._Masson/

is NOT me, then grow up, apologise for lying to the public forums & defaming

For record, this is where you defamed me, got confused & refused to own up & apologise, unlike you I apologise if wrong, you don't, instead you claim I'm begging, ffs !

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

Do you get it, Uncle Ira, being a mere follower of prejudice,stalking and defaming me are not just not smart they are potentially criminal & inappropriate

Physics pls
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 20, 2015
Mike-Skippy shows that he is the most dense genius super duper smartest Skippy in the class Skippy.

Uncle Ira, re votes you confuse me with Mike_Masson who just joined on 17th Dec 2015 & like so many posts where you skippy things against others you are consistent in that confusion.


Okayeei, I got tricked by that one. I apologize for that one. But not the other stuffs. I still think they are the trut.

Now either leave me be and don't make me the misere any more, or get out your victim whining crying baby rag, last chance, eh Cher?
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (13) Dec 20, 2015
Please re-read your idle, narrow redneck claims


Let me tell you one thing Cher.I am not the redneck, I am the coonass.

Do you get it, Uncle Ira, being a mere follower of prejudice,stalking and defaming me are not just not smart they are potentially criminal & inappropriate.


Hooyeei, I had no idea about that. Does that mean the Sheriff is about to knock on my door?Well you tell him that if he comes around with something that silly that he is going to lose my vote next election for being the same sort of couyon that Mike-Skippy is.

potentially criminal


You wonder why nobody really believes you are the genius super duper smartest Skippy in the class Skippy. You been around long enough to see that one about 500 times before how silly he is.

Mike-Skippy appears before the High Sheriff,

Ira-Skippy hurt my feelings and made me look silly on the physorg interweb place so I want you to go get him and haul him off the Parrish Prison.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Dec 23, 2015
This is the wrong approach. The difficulty is that the mechanical properties of vapors is more easily analyzed by its electromagnetic properties. In fact, the viscosity of the material can be obtained in this manner, and I have calculated it for a vacuum, which indicated that black matter exists "right next door". From this, the vacuum of space can be and has been determined!
Been searching on that. How does this vacuum viscosity affect planetary orbits?

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.