Scientists looking for invisible dark matter can't find any

July 21, 2016 by Seth Borenstein
In this Oct. 29, 2013, photo Richard Gaitskell, study co-investigator from Brown University, explains an experiment being conducted deep in an abandoned gold mine in Lead, S.D., to search for elusive and mysterious dark matter. Scientists have come up empty-handed in their latest effort to find elusive dark matter, the plentiful stuff that helps galaxies like ours form. For three years scientists have been looking for dark matter nearly a mile underground. But they announced Thursday, July 21, 2016, that despite sensitive equipment working better than expected they couldn't find the invisible particles that make up four fifths of the universe's matter.(AP Photo/Chet Brokaw, File)

Scientists have come up empty-handed in their latest effort to find elusive dark matter, the plentiful stuff that helps galaxies like ours form.

For three years, scientists have been looking for —which though invisible, makes up more than four-fifths of the universe's matter—nearly a mile underground in a former gold mine in Lead, South Dakota. But on Thursday they announced at a conference in England that they didn't find what they were searching for, despite sensitive equipment that exceeded technological goals in a project that cost $10 million to build.

"We're sort of proud that it worked so well and also disappointed that we didn't see anything," said University of California, Berkeley physicist Daniel McKinsey, one of two scientific spokesmen for the mostly government-funded project.

The mine project, called Large Underground Xenon experiment or LUX, was one of three places looking for dark matter. Another is on the International Space Station and a third is an effort to create dark matter at the Large Hadron Collider, run by the European consortium that found the Higgs Boson particle.

At the South Dakota site, more than 4,800 feet of earth helped screen out background radiation. Scientists used a large vat of liquid xenon that they hoped would produce a flash of light when weakly interacting , or WIMPS, bounced off the super-cooled liquid.

Not finding WIMPS may drive physicists to think about new candidates for dark matter, even though WIMPS are still the most viable option, said Neal Weiner, director of the Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics at New York University, who was not part of the research.

Scientists are already starting to revamp the South Dakota mine site for a $50 million larger, higher-tech version of LUX, called LZ, that will be 70 times more sensitive and should start operations in 2020, said Brown University's Richard Gaitskell, another scientific spokesman for LUX.

Even that won't be easy. Dark matter is everywhere. Hundreds of millions of pass through Earth every second, Gaitskell said. But the problem is they are "just crazy weak" and they zip through Earth as if it barely exists, he said.

Gaitskell has spent 28 years hunting these particles.

"Over 80 percent of our matter is in this dark matter form. You and I are the flotsam and jetsam; dark matter is the sea," Gaitskell said. "That's why one doesn't give up. We've got to figure out what this dark matter component is."

When pressed, Gaitskell acknowledged the possibility, however slight and unlikely, that scientists are looking for something that isn't there.

"It's certainly there. We know dark matter exists" because of the way it helps form galaxies and makes light bend around galaxy clusters, McKinsey said.

Weiner said, "It's hard to know when we will find dark matter because we don't know precisely what it is. Of course, that's what makes the search for it such a big deal."

Explore further: World's most sensitive dark matter detector completes search

Related Stories

World's most sensitive dark matter detector completes search

July 21, 2016

The Large Underground Xenon (LUX) dark matter experiment, which operates beneath a mile of rock at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in the Black Hills of South Dakota, has completed its silent search for the missing ...

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.

New results from world's most sensitive dark matter detector

December 14, 2015

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 ...

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 ...

Recommended for you

Water can be very dead, electrically speaking

June 21, 2018

In a study published in Science this week, the researchers describe the dielectric properties of water that is only a few molecules thick. Such water was previously predicted to exhibit a reduced electric response but it ...

335 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

knutsonp
1.3 / 5 (32) Jul 21, 2016
Point for discussion: Dark matter is made of hydrinos?
KBK
1.6 / 5 (35) Jul 21, 2016
Regarding the missing matter, it has always been my contention, or thought, that it exists in other dimensional spaces and frames of reference.

That it is a spacer a divider (if you will) that has extra or external dimensional considerations so it cannot easily be seen or referenced in this space.

If we go back to Faraday's original works and that of Maxwell's..which was based on it ...and put back in the missing weakly interacting outlier calculations that Heaviside removed due to being too complex to calculate at the time (all done by hand)..... then you might find the thing you seek.

As for Einstein's works and all that followed..it's all based on using Heaviside's math, Heaviside's shortened math....... with all the super fine outlier unidirectional resonant residuals missing.

Imagine that. A fundamental flaw, in fundamental physics.

Right under your nose.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (46) Jul 21, 2016
Regarding the missing matter, it has always been my contention, or thought, that it exists in other dimensional spaces and frames of reference.

Just making untestable shit up does not count as 'thought'. Essentially you're on the level of saying: "I think dark matter is made of unicorn farts" instead that you replaced "unicorn farts" with scientific sounding buzzwords you have heard somewhere (probably in a SciFi novel) but don't actually know the meaning of.

Stop it.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (45) Jul 21, 2016
Scientists have come up empty-handed in their latest effort to find elusive dark matter, the plentiful stuff that helps galaxies like ours form.
Yeah, about as plentiful as "unicorn farts", it's the reason they have yet to come up with it, you need to first prove unicorns exist before you can come up with their "farts".

"We're sort of proud that it worked so well and also disappointed that we didn't see anything,"
Sure, it has worked so well that so far all they're proving is DM doesn't exist.

Dark matter is everywhere. Hundreds of millions of dark matter particles pass through Earth every second, Gaitskell said.
Like the odor "unicorn farts" that pass by us everyday when we take a stroll down a calm & quiet countryside pathway on a summer day.

"It's certainly there. We know dark matter exists" because of the way it helps form galaxies and makes light bend around galaxy clusters, McKinsey said.
It's the "galaxy clusters" that make the light bend.

redav
3.4 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2016
I can't help but consider that perhaps it's the theory of gravity that is incorrect, and dark matter doesn't exist. If we consider which is the simpler explanation: (A) a few equations/formulas have to be refined or (B) there's something out there that we can't see, can't touch, can't interact with, yet completely dominates how the universe behaves because there has to be so much more of it than regular matter to make our equations work--I'm not really leaning toward B.
vlisivka
1 / 5 (34) Jul 21, 2016
Our Universe is endless in 4 dimensions and in scale. It can be scaled up endlessly AND scaled down endlessly. So our vacuum is not a vacuum, it endlessly filled with endless number of endlessly smaller and smaller particles. They known as Ether. They are conductors for all known forces. They are Dark Matter.
Gigel
4.1 / 5 (15) Jul 21, 2016
Our Universe is endless in 4 dimensions and in scale. It can be scaled up endlessly AND scaled down endlessly. So our vacuum is not a vacuum, it endlessly filled with endless number of endlessly smaller and smaller particles. They known as Ether. They are conductors for all known forces. They are Dark Matter.

Build an experiment to prove it. Otherwise this is at most a philosophical idea, not necessarily a relevant one.
Gigel
4 / 5 (12) Jul 21, 2016
I can't help but consider that perhaps it's the theory of gravity that is incorrect, and dark matter doesn't exist. If we consider which is the simpler explanation: (A) a few equations/formulas have to be refined or (B) there's something out there that we can't see, can't touch, can't interact with, yet completely dominates how the universe behaves because there has to be so much more of it than regular matter to make our equations work--I'm not really leaning toward B.

Whether it's A or B, it still needs experimental check. So if you go by A, you have to make it testable. MOND theory, which is of A type, is not easy to test. The right test has to be designed and built.
JIMBO
1 / 5 (20) Jul 21, 2016
WIMPs lose another round, but MOND keeps on truckin. Either DM does not exist or has a form unknown to physicists. Not surprising since other expts searching for DM effex in the solar system have zero evidence for it.
LHC has seen nothing to date either. Like the Sterile Neutrino (`Sterino'), another concocted particle physics fantasy. The particle SM offers no such candidate, but momentum seems tb gaining for a mini-black hole role as DM, clearly accomodatable by GR, yet no such a candidate has yet been observed .
rick5
1.5 / 5 (25) Jul 21, 2016
check under the sofa cushions
Scroofinator
1.3 / 5 (28) Jul 21, 2016
If we consider which is the simpler explanation: (A) a few equations/formulas have to be refined

No, it's more likely that our understanding of gravity has to redefined. Observational data from the solar system is highly accurate, yet we move outside of our neighborhood and all sorts of anomalies pop up.

Einstein was a proponent of ether in his later days, maybe we should follow his lead
Tuxford
1.2 / 5 (32) Jul 21, 2016
When pressed, Gaitskell acknowledged the possibility, however slight and unlikely, that scientists are looking for something that isn't there.
"It's certainly there. We know dark matter exists" because of the way it helps form galaxies and makes light bend around galaxy clusters, McKinsey said.

The effect called dark matter is simply the effect of the underlying diffusive sea of different undetectable elementals present everywhere changing in local concentration. The presence of matter sinks attract certain elementals and disperses other elementals, causing a differential local concentration thereof that causes light to bend.

It will take some time before this is recognized. Meanwhile, long live the fantasy!
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.1 / 5 (30) Jul 21, 2016
Just to get the usual erroneous claims out of the way:

- Dark matter has been tested and found existing, over and over again, with increasing precision (now down to 0.1 %), in the last two decades. And anyone can perform the test themselves with the help of the cosmic microwave background spectra: https://galileosp...niverse/

Hence "missing matter" is a misnomer, it derives from when Zwicky started to find galaxies and galaxy clusters that behaved as if atoms wasn't all they were made of. But the evidence now derives from all of astronomy, and it is consistent to 0,1 %.

- Alternate theories isn't even in the same ball park. Missing dimensions could predict gravity, not matter. Ether has been tested false over a century ago. MOND could only predict galaxy rotation curves, but now does a worse job than astronomers do with all we now know.

Really, people who mention these things should study that before publishing comments.

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.1 / 5 (26) Jul 21, 2016
[ctd]

- The current cosmology has verified that GR is the best gravity theory we have, on all scales. There is nothing odd that happens in that regard when we look further out, the same cosmology applies and its GR measurements are as already mentioned at 0.1 % precision.

So please don't claim "anomalies" when there isn't any! We all note that no one gives references, while it suffices for those who wants to understand cosmology to read the latest Planck release papers. All the data and all the specialists are on board, nothing to complain or look askance at.

Just to give a recent example, the new galaxy study confirms Planck cosmology yet again!

And, as the article and its readers note, WIMPs are still the best theory behind the DM observations. LUX has managed to zoom in on the right such theory, or else made it easier to look at other theories when that day comes. But we are decades away from when WIMP observations would bite the dust (or better, succeed any day soon).
gkam
1.2 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2016
Dark matter is extradimensional.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (27) Jul 21, 2016
Here it is:

"Dark-energy study maps 1.2 million galaxies in the early universe

Astronomers working on the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) have analysed data from 1.2 million distant galaxies to gain further insights into the evolution of the universe. Acquired by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey III (SDSS-III) telescope in New Mexico, the data have been used to create the best map yet of baryon acoustic oscillations (BAOs). These are the relics of the early universe that chart-out how it has expanded over the past 13 billion years.
The BAO map is consistent with the current "Lambda-CDM" model of the universe, which incorporates dark energy and dark matter. Analysis of the data also shows that Einstein's general theory of relativity is correct at cosmological length scales."
[ http://physicswor...universe ]

Note how aether, MOND, et cetera all failed miserably - again!
shavera
4.3 / 5 (24) Jul 21, 2016
Analogy: People have known air exists for a very very long time. You can see the effects of air, you can see light bend through air, you can feel the force air exerts on objects. But it wasn't until the 19th and 20th centuries we could show Air was made of molecules made of atoms made of electrons and protons and neutrons and quarks and gluons.

Right now we can 'see' dark matter. We see light bend through it, we see the force it exerts on galaxies. But we haven't yet shown what it's 'made of.' We didn't need to know what air was made of to accept the existence of air, neither do we need to know what dark matter is made of to accept its existence.
Scroofinator
1.3 / 5 (27) Jul 21, 2016
So please don't claim "anomalies" when there isn't any!

Galaxy rotation, orbital accuracy of multiple star systems, orbital accuracy near SMBH, universal expansion, increase of the AU, recently found "x" star cluster at center of galaxies, etc...

Ether has been tested false over a century ago

Please show me the test of this. You realize a null result doesn't equate to false, or else this study we are commenting on would "prove" that dark matter doesn't exist.
shavera
4.4 / 5 (21) Jul 21, 2016
I'll also mention that scientists are far more diligent than some give them credit for. We do have scientists checking alternatives to GR for "new" gravity theories. In fact, you can think of every experiment done to test GR as *also* an experiment to see if we can find a crack in GR's explanatory power. Who knows, maybe with more gravitational wave data, say, we may find that GR doesn't precisely predict some value or something, and that will give us some insight into whatever physics might lie beyond GR, in turn, helping us understand the gaps in dark energy and dark matter frameworks.
shavera
4.4 / 5 (23) Jul 21, 2016
The problem, and really it is a problem in science, is that GR has been insanely *successful* in predicting experimental results. Whatever approximations of reality exist within the theory are so minute we have yet to build sensitive enough equipment to find a real problem in the theory. That's a huge problem in physics. We'd much rather see 95% of a theory confirmed than 100%, because that 5% is where we actually learn new things about the universe. The fact that both the standard model and GR have been so wildly successfully confirmed is a huge frustration among actual physicists.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (32) Jul 21, 2016
Just making untestable shit up does not count as 'thought'......

Whoa!! You should tell us how you really feel...NOT.
Actually, you should go tell it to the String theorists.
Clarkm
3.1 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2016
I am just some old electrical engineer, but I have had to build math models to design new things.
It is easy to fall in love with your theories.
But I am not in love with dark matter.
shavera
4.2 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2016
No, you see light bend and TELL everyone that it is DM....not quite the same. Sorry for the reality check.


In isolation you may have a point. The problem is that gravitational lensing is only one of many observations that work with the hypothesis that there exist additional masses in our universe not comprised of the same kind of matter in which we are made of, and perhaps extremely rarely interacting with it.

It's akin to seeing the rippling image above a car on a hot day and saying that's insufficient evidence that air exists. Maybe something else is bending the light. On its own, it's somewhat plausible. But weighed along side all the other observations of air we can make, the relative likelihood that it's not air becomes vanishingly small.

The likelihood dark matter exists isn't quite as solid as all that, I'll grant. But the mounting evidence supporting the hypothesis makes alternatives all the harder to find. And we are looking.
dogbert
1.9 / 5 (36) Jul 21, 2016
Dark matter was simply made up when we noted that our models of gravity did not predict the rotation rates of galaxies. For years and at great expense we have been trying to validate this imaginary substance. We look and we don't find it. Our high energy colliders do not produce it. It is supposed to be permeating our solar system, yet the movement of our planets, asteroids and comets are fully predictable without a single ounce of dark matter.

How often must we fail to find this stuff before we realize that we should not expect to find imaginary matter?
redav
2.6 / 5 (11) Jul 21, 2016
Question about gen relativity: Are observations consistent with gravity attributable to matter we see or consistent with gravity attributable to matter we see + dark matter we can't see? I assume for small stuff (solar system) it's both, but for big stuff (inter-galaxy) it's the latter. Otherwise we wouldn't invent the concept of dark matter.

Do we calculate the amount of dark matter based on observations & using theory/equations of general relativity? If so, isn't there a potential for a circular proof? The theory of relativity proves itself based on the amount of dark matter we calculated should exist based on the math of general relativity. How is the possibility of a circular proof eliminated? How do we eliminate the possibility that dark matter is just a correction factor for an error in the theory? Don't most theories work when inputs (mass in galaxies) are adjusted to make them work?
epoxy
Jul 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scroofinator
1.6 / 5 (27) Jul 21, 2016
Do we calculate the amount of dark matter based on observations

Pretty much. They saw that galaxy curves were way different than expected (the outer edges rotate as fast as the inner portion). So they threw in more mass and called it "dark matter" to fit GRs predictions.
shavera
4.3 / 5 (18) Jul 21, 2016
redav: Some scientists are looking at modifications to GR (or alternate theories of gravity entirely) that apply to different length scales. So far we haven't found any theory that actually works nearly as well to explain all of our data as GR does. Many of the data supporting the theory don't require tests dependent upon dark matter or dark energy, or at the very least aren't nearly sensitive enough to see the exceedingly subtle effects expected by those factors.

Is it really so hard to believe that we simply haven't discovered all of the kinds of matter in our universe? All the kinds of energy? Must we really bind ourselves to such insane hubris as to think that quarks and electrons and strong and electroweak forces are all that there is to the universe?

I see scientists accused of being rigid dogmatists all the time, but isn't it far more dogmatic to just say "nope, matter stops here. We already know it all. Stop looking for more."?
Benni
1.3 / 5 (28) Jul 21, 2016
But the mounting evidence


What "mounting evidence" ? The greatest efects of Photon Deflection occur within the immediate periphery of Elliptical galaxies, not the Spiral galaxies. Zwicky hypothesized envelopes of DM would be found in envelopes only around Spirals, but you don't know that Shavo because you haven't studied what Zwicky wrote & you've never studied enough nuclear physics to comprehend why the universe doesn't function the way Astro-physicists imagine, the same for Astro-physicists, it's the reason they can't find employment in my profession.
epoxy
Jul 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
shavera
4.2 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2016
Scroof: that's an entirely disingenuous answer to the question. To begin with, yes, it started with rotation rates. But we see evidence for it in the way galaxies bend light, in the way galaxies cluster together, in the way the CMB varies from point-to-point in the sky, and more. Simply giving the first clue as if it was the only line of evidence is exceedingly dishonest.
shavera
4.3 / 5 (18) Jul 21, 2016
Completely ignoring the fact that we have only ever OBSERVED light interacting with magnetic fields,


Wat?

Light doesn't self-interact. Magnetic fields are light (in that EM fields are photons and just particular solutions of QED systems). Photons don't self-interact (with the exception of particle pair production and some contributions from loop terms related to that).

Light absolutely 100% does not 'bend in a magnetic field.' Think of it this way: Magnetic fields act on moving charged particles. What, precisely, is the charge on light? Calculate the Lorentz force on a photon for me please.

Let me make it easy for you: Suppose a 500nm photon is travelling through a 1MT (megaTesla) field. How much, precisely will that photon deflect through the field? That should be an explicit thing you can predict with your absolute nonsensical idea of light bending in magnetic fields.
epoxy
Jul 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scroofinator
1.2 / 5 (22) Jul 21, 2016
Simply giving the first clue as if it was the only line of evidence is exceedingly dishonest.

Not being dishonest, that was the first time DM was conceived, and further elaborated later with more "evidence".

Anybody that wants a nice rundown watch Sean Carroll's presentation.
https://www.youtu...LDGhSi1A
epoxy
Jul 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
shavera
4.2 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2016
[People get lambasted here when they talk about spiritual energy, are you saying this is OK to discuss now? Or are you suggesting an "island of stability" beyond protons, electrons and photons that we have yet to observe?

Neither, I'm using the physics definition of energy insofar as it means mass of a particle or motion of a particle. If there are as yet undiscovered particles, some may have mass (dark matter) and some may not. Those without only have motion (they must travel at c, since they are massless), and thus their only energy is energy of motion. This is commonly referred to as dark energy. It has nothing to do (as best we yet know) with binding nucleons or other known particles.

Please, do feel free to at least learn freshman level physics 101 before declaring the field to be fraudulent. Considering your terrible misunderstanding of electromagnetism, I can't say I'm encouraged that your other thoughts on matters are particularly relevant.
epoxy
Jul 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
lichdar
1.6 / 5 (20) Jul 21, 2016

//
"It's certainly there. We know dark matter exists" because of the way it helps form galaxies and makes light bend around galaxy clusters, McKinsey said.
//

I'm probably ignorant, but doesn't that suggest we could also try to build a new model?

691Boat
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2016
"Explain how a prism splits a visible photon of white light into the photons of various frequencies which manifest as separate colors. And what those photons were prior to the division."

I am intrigued now... What wavelength is the 'white light photon'?
shavera
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 21, 2016
"visible photon of white light "
^Statement without any meaning whatsoever. Photons can only come in specific colors, white being an admixture of many photons of different colors. Prisms split that light by changing the paths of those several photons depending on the specific momentum carried by each photon (correlated with its color)

"How many light years wide is the field and what is the structure?"
It's an infinite uniform volume of precisely 1 MT uniform magnetic field aligned whatever arbitrary axis you wish. Or make up your own wavelength and field strength and provide that answer. It's literally the simplest possible problem you could solve. (Granted you can't actually solve it, because once again, light has no charge and thus experiences no Lorentz force from magnetic fields) Or what kind of 'field structure' do you need to bend light, if not uniform? Does it need to be dipole or quadrupole? What's a decent multi-pole expansion?
Scroofinator
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 21, 2016
they're actually looking for peaks at the energy spectrum instead of actual events

No, they are looking for the event of a "particle" hitting their sensor which manifests itself as a peak in an energy spectrum.

We still haven't even directly observed an electron...
shavera
4.2 / 5 (24) Jul 21, 2016
but we do know that it leaves the sun as a single photon because it arrives as one.


Imagine I built a camera with an insanely fast shutter speed (and very very tiny aperature). I aim it at the sun. I open the shutter for the briefest moment and exactly one 'dot' strikes in my sensor. I measure the momentum (color) of that photon, and I find it to be red. I repeat the experiment. Another dot elsewhere, blue. Again, green.

The photons from the sun don't arrive as 'white' photons. We get a bunch of red ones, a bunch of blue ones, green ones, ones between red and green or blue and green. Bunches of ones with longer wavelengths than red, or shorter than blue.
shavera
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2016
We still haven't even directly observed an electron

What does it mean to directly observe anything? I don't measure the temperature, I see photons that have reflected off of some mercury that has expanded in the presence of some environment within a graded glass tube marked to various expansion degrees. All measurements have some level of analogy and indirection. That doesn't make it any less real or valid.

To claim we've never 'directly observed an electron' is to fall down a deep solipsistic well where we never truly observe anything and maybe the whole world is all just my deeply troubled imagination.
Scroofinator
1.3 / 5 (20) Jul 21, 2016
To claim we've never 'directly observed an electron' is to fall down a deep solipsistic well where we never truly observe anything and maybe the whole world is all just my deeply troubled imagination.

Well it's all a hologram anyways...j/k

Seriously though, direct observation would be a measurement (of any type) of solely the electron, with no inference required. The whole world of particle physics is essentially the inference of energy levels. All we have every truly observed is an atom, anything below that level is quantum and by definition(Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) not observable.
nikola_milovic_378
Jul 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zorcon
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 21, 2016
Just making untestable shit up does not count as 'thought'......

Whoa!! You should tell us how you really feel...NOT.
Actually, you should go tell it to the String theorists.


No, s/he should go tell it to the bible thumpers.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (17) Jul 21, 2016
Whoa!! You should tell us how you really feel...NOT.
Actually, you should go tell it to the String theorists.

His brainfarts: untestable junk using gobbeldygook scientese.
String Theorists: hard at work making their theories testable.

That you don't immediately realize the difference ...why am I not surprised?
Benni
1.2 / 5 (21) Jul 21, 2016
Do we calculate the amount of dark matter based on observations


Pretty much. They saw that galaxy curves were way different than expected (the outer edges rotate as fast as the inner portion). So they threw in more mass and called it "dark matter" to fit GRs predictions


.......the added mass was dubbed Dark Matter by Zwicky in the 30's. He applied it ONLY to 1/3 the mass of the the universe known as Spiral galaxies, he knew better than to apply the theory to Ellipticals because the outer orbital stars orbiting at 2 km/sec were in perfect comport with Newtonian gravity, as compared to the radial arms of Spirals which were rotating 100-300 km/sec.

It is the height of some real funny farm science to imagine that 2/3 of the mass of the universe (Ellipticals) should take on the characteristics of the smaller masses of Spirals, but these days so many Astro-physicists need homespun narratives that they'll say anything to keep from being overwhelmed by other facts.
epoxy
Jul 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
t689
1.1 / 5 (15) Jul 21, 2016
There was a study where not light but a muon something arrived several hours later than predicted following a space event like a quasar. Some speculated it was interacting with something along the way. This is a theory but what if on the microscopic plank scale the virtual particles are coming out of tiny black holes, so that when light from distant galaxies reaches us, it's been redshifted from constant virtual particle formation and draining the light of its frequency. It would also mean the universe is perhaps not expanding. But the missing mass could be these infinitesimal black holes which add up over space to equal a mass.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (23) Jul 21, 2016
Please, do feel free to at least learn freshman level physics 101 before declaring the field to be fraudulent. Considering your terrible misunderstanding of electromagnetism, I can't say I'm encouraged that your other thoughts on matters are particularly relevant.


.........demonstrating you got no further in a college physics curriculum than your partner Phys 1. Electro-magnetism is not found in Physics 101, it is 102 but you don't know that because you never got that far. It was for this same reason you were on this site a couple months ago making a clear statement that mass & energy are not equal, when I corrected you that SR is all about Mass/Energy Equivalence, you were so embarrassed by you gross error that you stopped posting for the remainder of that thread.

So now, it is so bad for your facts regarding your comprehension of nuclear physics, that you can't even get the timeline of the appropriate physics courses in proper sequence.
epoxy
Jul 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tuxford
1.5 / 5 (21) Jul 21, 2016
What is refreshing in this news is that unlike CERN, these guys did not pump up the results to justify their expenditure of precious research funding.

http://www.space....tor.html

"We viewed this as a David and Goliath race between ourselves and the much larger Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Geneva," Gaitskell said. "LUX was racing over the last three years to get first evidence of a dark-matter signal. We will now have to wait and see if the new run this year at the LHC will show evidence of dark-matter particles, or if the discovery occurs in the next generation of larger direct detectors."

LUX's own next-generation detector, LUX-Zeplin, will have 70 times the sensitivity of LUX, researchers said in the statement — which will take LUX's place underground to continue the search.

Still, seems they are still predisposed to finding the god particle anyway. More money please.
the_higgs
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 21, 2016
Dark matter might be a string vibrating at a frequency we aren't able to detect; similar to how a dog whistle produces a frequency undetectable by the human ear. Smart money, however, says that dark matter will reveal itself once we have a much better understanding of gravity.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (23) Jul 21, 2016
In isolation you may have a point. The problem is that gravitational lensing is only one of many observations that work with the hypothesis that there exist additional masses in our universe not comprised of the same kind of matter in which we are made of, and perhaps extremely rarely interacting with it.


No, the "point" is not "in isolation", it is the RULE. The biggest obstacle DM Enthusiasts have to overcome with the DM Narrative is with none other than the godfather (Zwicky) of your narrative who always kept it in "isolation" in envelopes around Spiral galaxies which make up only 1/3 the mass of the universe.

When the novice reader reads anything about Dark Matter, it is almost inferred that Gravitational Lensing (Photon Deflection in GR) cannot occur except in the presence of the stuff. Then carrying that narrative forward it is inferred 80-95% of the universe is "missing" simply because we see GL almost everywhere we look anywhere in the universe.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (23) Jul 21, 2016
It's an infinite uniform volume of precisely 1 MT uniform magnetic field aligned whatever arbitrary axis you wish


Shavo......infinity does not exist anywhere in the universe, not even in gravity wells on the surface of a so-called Black Hole. But you know so little about Special & General Relativity that you continue to swallow & regurgitate all the pop-sci funny farm science just because it all sounds so damn cool.

Photons can only come in specific colors, white being an admixture of many photons of different colors.
....so far it's the only thing you've gotten right.

antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (17) Jul 21, 2016
They come entangled so that bunches of photons average their wavelengths and...

You really are just making stuff up as you're going along, aren't you?

Never mind that every experiment (most of which you can do in your own kitchen using no more than a glass of water) disproves what you state.
But then again reality and observation never did influence your worldview much. Why do you even bother arguing with people who live in reality?
baudrunner
1.2 / 5 (21) Jul 21, 2016
Everybody arguing the case for DM is very demonstrative of the nature of you humans. They haven't found it, ergo it exists only in the equations and misinterpretations of sensor data. DM is really just bad math based on flawed reasoning, and there is faulty reasoning all over the place here. I've read where DM was thought to represent 24% of the matter in the universe, now it's 80%! 24% makes sense to me, because that's how much Helium there is in the universe, and it is mostly in space, and Helium is so inert that it does not partake as a medium for the propagation of light information, ergo Helium is Dark Matter!

Physicists don't like being practical. Most of them don't even have an accurate idea of just how light works. I take everything I read about things nobody seems to know anything about with a massive lump of salt, people, just like I treat this entire page of article and comments.

cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (22) Jul 21, 2016
Maybe a billion dollars will be enough, just write another check from the treasury.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (20) Jul 21, 2016
Guys! Guys! Chill, will ya!

An FYI REMINDER:

- "Whiteness"/"Colors", are PERCEIVED qualities, NOT INHERENT PHYSICAL qualities of the photon(whether photon individually or photons in collective superposed/entangled state). The only stage a "color" or "whiteness" value perception is made is in our brain's visual interpretational centers where the inputs from all the eyes' retinal cells (rods and cones) are mixed to make some sense relating to the real world EVOLVED experience/program in the animal/human doing the 'seeing' via that optical/visual system. Ok so far?

- "Photon" is ELECTRO-MAGNETIC feature/perturbation of a WHOLE underlying ubiquitous ELECTRO-MAGNETIC field. For examples of PHOTONS inter-activity with the extended MAGNETIC COMPONENT (of said whole E-M field), we need look no further than SYNCHROTRON RADIATION which 'bleeds' electro-magnetic energy from a system (hence energy can in right circumstances be 'fed back to it' as 'photonic' E-M energy). Ok?

Chill. :)
shavera
4.3 / 5 (18) Jul 21, 2016
Benni, for the millionth time SR says precisely the following. E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2. I'm not sure how it is you managed to learn "differential equations" when you haven't even comprehended basic algebra and reading skills. You want to talk about repeating pop-sci aphorisms, you're the imbecile who thinks SR says E=mc^2 just because it was written out that way in Looney Tunes.

As for your hilarious physics 101/102 dilemma, I was referring to bschott's inability to understand the definition of energy (inferring that I could possibly mean 'spiritual energy' in a physics context). Yes, the fact that they don't get even the very basics of understanding what a magnetic field is, classical or otherwise would imply they don't understand physics 102 either. But I'd take a basic understanding of what the word 'energy' means as a start.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 21, 2016
OOps. Double posted, now removed this one.
shavera
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 21, 2016
Since you'll probably be the particularly pedantic person who claims wikipedia is not a reference, and I expect you can't be bothered to actually open a book on the subject, here's Encyclopædia Britannica: https://www.brita...echanics
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2016
And Guys:

I'd like to congratulate/thank the LUX team for their honest scientific efforts. Their Report of Null Results for their years long DM search experiment run is commendable both for its scrupulously objective efforts and its honest report of Null results.

Refreshing after Bicep2 and LHC 'claims' to date.

Alas, these results not good news for DM enthusiasts. Many OTHER possible "candidates" have already been discounted in other efforts; leaving very little, if any at all, 'wiggle room' for DM 'optimists'.

Re "interactivity' (of whatever DM "candidate(s)) presumed to have with ORDINARY matter:

If DM can interact with matter (even at as low expected rate as per LUX scenario), then our night sky across cosmological distances should be swamped with radiation from such interactions because of the HUMONGOUS QUANTITY of ORDINARY MATTER recently increasingly being discovered distributed across billions of light years of (previously assumed) 'empty' space.

Cheers. :)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (25) Jul 21, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I did not see you around much lately. I hope you are not sick or something. I'm still good like the idiot/nitwit/bot you see the last time you was here, thanks for asking.

And Guys:
This one is another double postum Cher. Is it supposed to double better than the double postum that you took down?

Benni
1.6 / 5 (21) Jul 21, 2016
Physicists don't like being practical. Most of them don't even have an accurate idea of just how light works.


baud.....the problem is ASTRO-PHYSICISTS, please do not lump my colleagues in with a bunch of whimsical stargazers like Zwicky, the Astro-physicist godfather of all this nonsense. Einstein really had it out with Zwicky & his Tired Light & DM narratives to the point where Einstein as a nuclear physicist refused to talk to the guy (Zwicky) because he did not know hardly a thing about nuclear physics.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (21) Jul 21, 2016
You are jealous of scientists because they are competent and get attention.

Dunno about the 'attention' part. Hardly any 'rock star' scientists out there...and the last time I saw one surrounded by babes, driving a big car and partying it up at their mansion was, like....never?

There are some real perks to being a scientist, but none of them are those of other professions (most importantly there's no power, no fame, no money and precious little in terms of career advancement opportunities in being a scientist).

The cool thing, though, is: as a scientist you get to interact with friggin' smart people all day long. And you would not believe how awesome that is in comparison to most other jobs. Everyone is a pro.

Especially narcissism doesn't fly in scientific circles. That's only in the movies. To survive in science you have to be a team player. If you have no respect for others' intelligence then that's a non-starter in this profession.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)

Glad to see you're still alive, what with all the shootings out your way. Not good reading in the news. Seems like the situation with guns (especially mass killing military grade) proliferation is approaching some "critical mass" condition; and the "powder keg", long time created by the "dog eat dog" social and economic inequalities there, is very vulnerable to some trigger point event where the fuse of total societal breakdown is an increasingly scary possibility if this sort of situation is allowed to fester with no decisive "direction correction" policies in sight.

Anyhow...
Is it supposed to double better than the double postum that you took down?
I went to edit that post and then submitted. But found I had pressed the quote/reply button. I refreshed the page as usual after submission, and found that I had not edited that post at all, but posted the edited one as "new" post. So I removed the earlier unedited version as you saw.

Stay safe. :)
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2016
Glad to see you're still alive, what with all the shootings out your way..
Oh yeah, I am still alive. I will be until I'm not I suppose.

Not good reading in the news
Yeah we have few really bad news days.

Seems like the situation with guns (especially mass killing military grade) proliferation is approaching some "critical mass" condition; and the "powder keg", long time created by the "dog eat dog" social and economic inequalities there,
It ain't so much the guns, peoples always look to the easy answer to explain things. I think it is too many peoples and too little spaces. But you are right, the social and economic inequals has a lot to do with it, too many people without enough stuffs leftover. That is only going to get worse until they get people v resources more in balance.

So I removed the earlier unedited version as you saw.
Non, it did not work. It's still up there and the other copy is still over there too. Too late now to take one down.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2016

We have to make people understand they have personal responsibility for what they say and do.
Urgelt
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 21, 2016
Einstein was not a proponent of ether (or aether) theory. Later physicists have played around with the idea of a metric and time-like vector field which would permit the existence of a universal frame of reference. Einstein's contemporary, mentor and collaborator Lorentz - author of the Lorentz transform used by Einstein and much else in physics - also interpreted relativity as permitting a universal frame. Einstein didn't buy it.

If Lorentz was right, then we should be adjusting for time dilation in observations of cosmological light. Galactic observations without adjusting will overstate rotational speeds. At the least, the requirement for DM would be diminished.

Time dilation reciprocity in SR lets cosmologists assume that cosmological light isn't altered by time dilation. But reciprocity hasn't been well-tested experimentally. It's one aspect of SR that needs further investigation.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2016

We have to make people understand they have personal responsibility for what they say and do.


I would like to hear that coming out of Barack Obama's mouth. So far, Obama hasn't admitted to being personally responsible for dividing America through racial lines and causing unease due to his taking sides rather than reminding that we are ALL Americans, regardless of color, culture or religion. He has never even once told the thugs to "knock it off" or suffer the consequences of their criminal acts. So much for personal responsibility. If HE doesn't take responsibility, the thugs are not going to transform into law-abiding citizens overnight. Especially when Obama has proven himself to being lawless also.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.1 / 5 (14) Jul 21, 2016
@Urgelt
There is no such thing as "time dilation". Time itself cannot "dilate", simply because Time is still an unspecific commodity that has been coopted by science for the purpose of explaining Space and the events that happen in that space. Spacetime is a misnomer and should have been stricken from math equations early on because it is meaningless. It is now an ingrained term in textbooks and can no longer be purged. Time is only an imaginary function of the 24 hour clock that gives the brain the opportunity to measure events and distances. Time has nothing to do with lensing or light bending. Those are only functions of matter/energy. You can MEASURE the amount of time that it takes for any function or event. But let's leave Time out of it.
shavera
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 21, 2016
You can MEASURE the amount of time that it takes for any function or event.


And depending on how different observers move with respect to each other, they won't agree on the value of that measurement. That's the definition of time dilation. We have countless experiments confirming that fact of reality.

The reason why we call it space-time is because the way measurements of time change differ is completely coordinated with way measurements of length will differ. If distance in space is x²+y²+z² = d², separation in space-time is -ct²+x²+y²+z²=s². The same way when you rotate space around distances between points don't change, when you perform a rotation in spacetime (a lorentz boost), that separation (s) won't change.

I doubt you, specifically, will listen to me, but in case any other person is interested in what physics has to say about things, there it is.
Colbourne
4 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2016
There possibly exists particles of anti-matter which have a negative gravity value so that they are repelled by normal matter (Fall up).
My assumption is that at the Big Bang, an equal number of these particles were produced to normal matter. The result would be a very fast expansion of the universe due to the repulsive force,
and currently these particles would be accelerating away from the clumps of normal matter, while at the same time pushing the normal matter clumps apart.

If true this would explain dark energy and also dark matter (each galaxy surrounded by these anti-gravity particles would be squeezed, giving the appearance of the galaxy having more mass than it really has).

It is possible the existence of the anti-gravity particles will be either confirmed or not soon by the ALPHA experiment at CERN :- http://alpha.web....node/248
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 21, 2016
You are jealous of scientists because they are competent and get attention.

Dunno about the 'attention' part. Hardly any 'rock star' scientists out there...and the last time I saw one surrounded by babes, driving a big car and partying it up at their mansion was, like....never?
There are some real perks to being a scientist, but none of them are those of other professions (most importantly there's no power, no fame, no money and precious little in terms of career advancement opportunities in being a scientist).
The cool thing, though, is: as a scientist you get to interact with friggin' smart people all day long. And you would not believe how awesome that is in comparison to most other jobs. Everyone is a pro.
Especially narcissism doesn't fly in scientific circles. That's only in the movies. To survive in science you have to be a team player. If you have no respect for others' intelligence then that's a non-starter in this profession.

Really well said!
philstacy9
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 22, 2016
Dark matter is like global warming where data must be adjusted to find it.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 22, 2016
Colbourne: While that remains a somewhat remote possibility, it's not thought to be the likely reality. Gravity, as best we can tell, doesn't really give a hoot what particle is creating the mass and energy, it only cares about the mass and energy itself.

Plus you may not have actually worked out the consequences of such a problem. Imagine the simple Newtonian gravity: F=GMm/r². If a mass can be negative, then F=-GMm/r². If F=ma, for the +ve massed particle, -GMm/r² / m = -GM/r² = a. Imagine the +ve particle is in the +ve part of your axis, this would be an acceleration in the negative direction. For the -ve massed particle, -GMm/r² / (-M) = Gm/r² = a. Since the +ve particle was in the +ve part of the axis, this particle must be in the -ve part, and so this acceleration takes it more negative. Thus both the positive and negatively massed particles are accelerated in the same direction. (cont.)
shavera
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 22, 2016
Having both particles accelerated in the same direction breaks Newton's laws about equal and opposite reactions. More specifically violates conservation of momentum.

Now it may be that 'inertial mass' (the m in F=ma) is actually something truly distinct from 'gravitational mass' (the m in F=GMm/r²), thus breaking my above analysis. But it also breaks so much else about our physics that it's really far more complex than just "maybe anti-matter also has negative mass"
shavera
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2016
Dark matter is like global warming where data must be adjusted to find it.


Yes.

Like all scientific experiments, you must calibrate your instruments, subtract background noise, correct for systemic experimental errors, and so on. It'd be nice if we lived in a world where machines functioned perfectly precisely all the time and always found exactly the signal we're interested in (or distinctly did not find the signal). But we live in a messy noisy world. As science moves to ever higher precision, the noise becomes increasingly loud requiring bigger experiments and more complex data analysis techniques.

Of course, since you're presumably an expert on scientific analyses and experimentation, you knew all this already.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2016
You can MEASURE the amount of time that it takes for any function or event.


And depending on how different observers move with respect to each other, they won't agree on the value of that measurement. That's the definition of time dilation.

The reason why we call it space-time is because the way measurements of time change differ is completely coordinated with way measurements of length will differ. If distance in space is x²+y²+z² = d², separation in space-time is -ct²+x²+y²+z²=s². The same way when you rotate space around distances between points don't change, when you perform a rotation in spacetime (a lorentz boost), that separation (s) won't change.

I doubt you, specifically, will listen to me, but in case any other person is interested in what physics has to say about things, there it is.
- shavera

It isn't TIME that has "dilated". Distance and time measurements remain the same.

(cont'd)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (11) Jul 22, 2016
(cont'd)
It is only the human perceptions of Time that makes it appear to change, still based on the 24 hour clock, which in turn is based on sunrise to sunrise. Even the famous atomic clock experiments had to do with the gravitational pull of the Earth on atoms, and not with actual Time. The increase or decrease of seconds were due to gravity, not the "flexing" of Time.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2016
There possibly exists particles of anti-matter which have a negative gravity value so that they are repelled by normal matter (Fall up).
[...]particles would be accelerating away from the clumps of normal matter, while at the same time pushing the normal matter clumps apart.

If true this would explain dark energy and also dark matter (each galaxy surrounded by these anti-gravity particles would be squeezed, giving the appearance of the galaxy having more mass than it really has).

It is possible the existence of the anti-gravity particles will be either confirmed or not soon by the ALPHA experiment at CERN :- http://alpha.web....node/248
- Colb

If you were right, it would seem to me that the antimatter would have gone into another dimension entirely. The general consensus is that matter and antimatter would annihilate each other. Since science doesn't seem to have detected any large amount of it in the known Universe, perhaps it is elsewhere - hopefully.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 22, 2016
Of course, since you're presumably an expert on scientific analyses and experimentation, you knew all this already.
***snicker***
epoxy
Jul 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (14) Jul 22, 2016
So that the scientists believe, they're friggin smart

Not 'believe' - they are. As a scientist you cant just go "Look at me, I'm a scientist, therefore I must be smart". No. You have to prove it (by your interactions with other scientists and by your work).
It's not this silly "I'll intuit that I'm smart and make up some stuff about unicorn farts that I can't show any work for" of yours.

Narcissism is when you're full of yourself.

Example: A world class chess player is not delusional about his ability to play chess. He can show that he has that ability (by wiping other peoples' asses in playing chess any time they are asked to). A person - like you - who just SAYS that they are a world class chess player and refuses to play (and has never played in their life and - by their statements about chess - obvisouly don't know the first thing about the rules) would be delusional.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (16) Jul 22, 2016
scientists are overconfident with their professionalism and infallible power of their theories.

You don't know the first thing about science/scientists, do you?

For every theory that a scientist has that works out he's slogged through at least a dozen that didn't. That's what the "doing actual work" part gives you. There's no way that this gives you the feeling of 'infallibility'. That only comes with people who never test their ideas (i.e. 'intuitioners' and religious people - which are basically the same in their approach to life)

As a scientist you have tendency to adjust the reality to your equations and way of thinking instead of opposite.

Papers and experimental work are exactly the opposite of what you claim. They don't set out to prove. They set out to *test*.
Again you show your shocking lacking of knowledge about science/scientists.

Here's a hint: If you want to talk about a subject and be taken seriously: Get to know the subject.
KBK
1.4 / 5 (14) Jul 22, 2016
Regarding the missing matter, it has always been my contention, or thought, that it exists in other dimensional spaces and frames of reference.

Just making untestable shit up does not count as 'thought'. Essentially you're on the level of saying: "I think dark matter is made of unicorn farts" instead that you replaced "unicorn farts" with scientific sounding buzzwords you have heard somewhere (probably in a SciFi novel) but don't actually know the meaning of.

Stop it.

See a psychiatrist you self admitted shill and agitator.
KBK
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 22, 2016
Einstein's contemporary, mentor and collaborator Lorentz - author of the Lorentz transform used by Einstein and much else in physics - also interpreted relativity as permitting a universal frame. Einstein didn't buy it.

If Lorentz was right, then we should be adjusting for time dilation in observations of cosmological light. Galactic observations without adjusting will overstate rotational speeds. At the least, the requirement for DM would be diminished.

Time dilation reciprocity in SR lets cosmologists assume that cosmological light isn't altered by time dilation. But reciprocity hasn't been well-tested experimentally. It's one aspect of SR that needs further investigation.


Lorentz used Heaviside's shortened math for Maxwell's equations. The small bits you are looking for are in Maxwell's full works.

You have to track down the full unaltered equations.
Eikka
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2016
Interesting, they all travel at the same velocity but have differing momentum based on their frequency....but it takes a prism for this momentum differential to manifest....why?


The speed of light is only constant in a vacuum where photons of all energies travel at the same speed - the maximum speed - because there's nothing impeding them. In a dense medium the speed of light depends on the energy of the photon, which is what makes a prism separate the colors.

The separation happens at any interface from low to high density, because photons of different wavelenghts are deflected to different degrees upon entering the medium.

If there was only one "white photon", it would be bent in one direction and no separation into colors would occur. QM weirdness doesn't help you, because while the photon may have an indetermined wavelenght (color), you'll only ever observe one photon going into the prism and one photon out of it - not one in and multiple out.
KBK
1 / 5 (12) Jul 22, 2016
More importantly, do deep research into Gabriel Kron, you'll find the 'other half' to this dark matter mystery in his works.

Look carefully, though, his proper and full works are difficult to find.

Almost as if open science has been cleansed of 'problematic' math that can lead to certain understandings.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2016
the dark matter is very common, it actually represents the "missing antimatter"

That doesn't work because by all current calcs there is about 5 times as much DM as there is regular matter. I.e. you would overcomensate for the "missing antimatter" - if it were what DM is - to the point where you have a MUCH larger problem in the opposite direction. You would then be stuck with HUGELY more "missing matter".

Einstein had rockstar status. Proof: whenever his name appears in the title of a PO article, the cranks are there.

I guess other professions get better groupies.

If you were right, it would seem to me that the antimatter would have gone into another dimension entirely.

What does that stetament even mean? People throw about this 'other dimension' scientese on here as if Star Trek were a science show.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (17) Jul 22, 2016
There is evidence of the dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.

Dark matter fills 'empty' space. Dark matter strongly interacts with matter. Dark matter is displaced by matter.

What physicists mistake for the concentration of dark matter is the state of displacement of the dark matter.

'[0903.3802] 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.

What ripples when black holes collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, the strongly interacting dark matter which fills 'empty' space.

Dark matter is displaced by matter.
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 22, 2016
Einstein was not a proponent of ether (or aether) theory.

False:
http://www-groups...her.html
"The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation."
Scroofinator
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 22, 2016
It actually does precisely that, within limits clearly specified in the article.
You hit the nail on the head.

So you're saying the dark matter has been proven false? Or just the WIMP definition of it?

BTW, Michelson/Morley didn't find ether drag, which assumes the ether is a medium that is changing. This, according to Einstein, is the false pretense.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (14) Jul 22, 2016
Einstein as a teenager understood the aether had mass.

'Alert Einstein's 'First Paper''
www.straco.ch/pap...aper.pdf

"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."

Einstein is referring to the state of displacement of the aether.

The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.

Benni
1.4 / 5 (21) Jul 22, 2016
Here's a hint: If you want to talk about a subject and be taken seriously: Get to know the subject.


......then what are you as a Biologist doing putting up Commentary about subject material that involves nuclear physics? Those of us who are professionally engaged working in the fields of the sciences of physics do not have high regard for Biologists as Scientists, we just refer to you as Biologists & leave it at that.

In comparing my salary as a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer with better than 6 years of engineering school education to salaries of Biologists such as yourself, the difference is stark not to speak of the unemployment population of your mathless endeavors.
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 22, 2016
The closing statement from Einstein from the above discussion (speaks to why the MM ether experiment failed, particularly the final sentance).

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (14) Jul 22, 2016
There is evidence of the dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.

'Empty' space is filled with a strongly interacting dark matter which is displaced by the matter.
yoatmon
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 22, 2016
I'm convinced that dark matter or dark energy will never found. It is my conviction that this phenomena is a synergy effect of normally interacting baryonic matter. It may be possible that singularities within a galaxy, far more numerous than ever suspected, play a major part in this phenomena. The inherent problem is that these singularities can only be detected when interacting with baryonic matter. It'll prove to be extremely difficult or next to impossible to verify the existence of these singularities and their locations.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 22, 2016
I'm convinced that dark matter or dark energy will never found.

WHATEVER is finally found to match the observation will be Dark matter/Dark Energy. Whether it'll be axions, primordial black holes, other branes, new neutrino flavors, unicorn farts or something entirely different.

The phrases "dark energy" and "dark matter" are just placeholders for "that which is observed". They do not limit the scope of possible explanations to matter or energy and they are not singular theories.

The reason why these phrases are used is ONLY because
"dark": we don't yet see what causes these effects
"matter": because this is an observation that shows effects which we, currently, only have seen with stuff that has mass
"energy": because this is an observation that shows an effect on otherwise flat space which we, currently, only know from something that has a net energy content.

Nothing more. Nothing less.
MrData
1.6 / 5 (17) Jul 22, 2016
Psst, smart guys. If you are looking for the elephant that you are told by theorists is taking up 90% of the space in the room, but your results are telling you it does not exist, chances are the theory is wrong.
MaxwellSmith
1.2 / 5 (13) Jul 22, 2016
Universe is littered with dead stars, planets and other debris that we cannot "see". I know dark matter is a beautiful theory in which it accounts for the possibility there is much more debris than we can see. However, sometimes I wonder if it is too beautiful. Is gravity really constant? Is there much more debris than we can possibly imagine?
Benni
1.6 / 5 (20) Jul 22, 2016
Psst, a theory that is wrong is untestable. Cosmic Fairy Dust anyone?
Urgelt
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2016
Scroofinator wrote,

"False:
http://www-groups...her.html
"The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation.""

What part of the word 'if' don't you understand?

Einstein was a theoretician. He dealt in what-ifs all the time, and he talked to Lorentz more than you talk to your dog, with far more interesting results.

Einstein entertained lots of possibilities. But when you asked him what he thought about SR, he'd tell you that there is no universal frame. That's code for 'I don't believe in ether theory.' Lorenz gave a different answer altogether.
Urgelt
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 22, 2016
Max wrote, "I know dark matter is a beautiful theory..."

Stop right there.

Dark Matter is not a theory. It's a class of observable phenomena without a generally accepted explanation. There are a whole zoo of theories which *might* explain observations, for which we have insufficient evidence. Or no evidence, to be precise about it.
epoxy
Jul 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
shavera
4.5 / 5 (14) Jul 22, 2016
I ask you to explain something about photons generated by particles and you tell me the sun generates a lot of them because it's hot.


Okay, here's the details: Heat means particles in motion. The motion is random with a known distribution of energy. When charged particles are in motion, they may create a photon to change directions. The photon has some random amount of energy, but obviously can't exceed the energy of the motion the charged particle had to begin with. Thus, the charged particles within hot objects will emit photons of random energies, but those random energies will be confined to the energy distribution of the charged particles within the material.

Other effects may compound dealing with absorption or scattering of some of these emitted photons, but we can imagine a simple case of a 'black body' which absorbs and emits all light perfectly evenly. Hence the term blackbody radiation.
Scroofinator
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 22, 2016
But when you asked him what he thought about SR, he'd tell you that there is no universal frame.

Oh must've been nice to be able to converse with Einstein. Who else do you contact in your seances?

From his own speech (again since you didn't read):
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense."

Where was the "if" in that statement?
shavera
4.5 / 5 (13) Jul 22, 2016
So Scroof: I have read the speech you link, and It's quite clear (as a physicist at any rate) that what Einstein refers to as an 'ether' in this speech we would call a 'field' in contemporary physics. As such, yes, there is a curvature field in physics associated with the rules of GR, an EM field associated with the behaviour of charged particles and their interactions, electron and neutrino and quark fields, W and Z and gluon fields, Higgs fields and probably more yet to be discovered.

So if you want to say that modern physics 'field theory' is a kind of ether theory... well it's hard to precisely fault you, but it is misleading all the same given the historical context of other kinds of ether theories (wherein the ether is some actual 'thin' fluid material)

What he gets wrong (because he's not a god and because much of this was developed later) is the relativistic quantum field theories that followed and explain 'action at a distance' much more thoroughly than any 'ether.'
epoxy
Jul 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scroofinator
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 22, 2016
What he gets wrong (because he's not a god and because much of this was developed later) is the relativistic quantum field theories that followed and explain 'action at a distance' much more thoroughly than any 'ether.'

Please feel free to elaborate on how you are smarter than Einstein regarding "action at a distance". Also, you can't use the higgs as this mechanism since it was not preciscely confirmed...
epoxy
Jul 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
shavera
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 22, 2016
Having access to new information doesn't make me 'smarter than Einstein' it just means I was born later in history, after we found new things. Einstein rather famously never really accepted the notions of quantum mechanics, which have since been borne out in countless experiments.

The simplest 'answer' about action at a distance is simply that quantum mechanics works to predict the outcomes of experiments. Depending on your personal philosophical interpretations, the mechanism by which 'action at a distance' appears to work is either:
A) Particles don't have real, fixed states and may exist in true superpositions. or B) The underlying 'true' state of a particle may somehow be communicated at speeds faster than light, even if it may not be directly measured or used for information transmission.
epoxy
Jul 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 22, 2016
Having access to new information doesn't make me 'smarter than Einstein' it just means I was born later in history, after we found new things
Being smart means, you're not forced to change your ideas even in the light of new findings. I admit, today it's much easier to develop such an ideas than in the times of Einstein, but the dense aether model is older than Einstein himself. He had the chance to adopt it, but he wasted it with compare to Nicola Tesla.
quantum mechanics works to predict the outcomes of experiments
But dense aether model can also predict the outcomes of experiments - just different, than those predicted with formal quantum mechanics and differently. Not to say, the quantum mechanics is not so exact as it looks and it predicts existing experiments poorly.

Quack! Quack quack quack quack QUACK!
epoxy
Jul 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 22, 2016
Dark Matter is not a theory. It's a class of observable phenomena
..........so if it's "observable" there are pictures of it. You're sounding more & more like Schneibo who has claimed there are pictures of Black Holes.

So how about you two neophytes sharing these pictures with science professionals so we too can be as informed as you are? All this secret information you claim to have socked away in your desk drawer & refusing to share with the rest of us is simply inexcusable.

Oh, I'm curious, did you use Schneibo's telescope to observe this DM that you claim is "observable"? Just curious.

Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 22, 2016
Dark Matter is not a theory. It's a class of observable phenomena
..........so if it's "observable" there are pictures of it. You're sounding more & more like Schneibo who has claimed there are pictures of Black Holes.

So how about you two neophytes sharing these pictures with science professionals so we too can be as informed as you are? All this secret information you claim to have socked away in your desk drawer & refusing to share with the rest of us is simply inexcusable.

Oh, I'm curious, did you use Schneibo's telescope to observe this DM that you claim is "observable"? Just curious.

Benni, you twist words to be intentionally confrontational. Why?
shavera
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 22, 2016
Apparently Benni doesn't believe sound is an observable phenomenon because you can't take a picture of it. Nor temperature. Nor any other of a myriad of classes of data.

There are many observations we see: patterns in cmb radiation, image distortion of distant objects that are nearly along the same line of sight as closer objects, locations of galaxies and the patterns of distribution of those galaxies.

Now we could imagine that there's one thing that causes cmb patterns, and another thing that causes image distortion (no it absolutely definitely is not light passing through magnetic fields), another thing that causes galaxies to distribute in a certain way, and another thing that causes them to rotate in a certain way.

Or, if we make one very very simple assumption: "We don't know everything out there that has mass" all of those separate observations fit together remarkably well.

Science will take that reduced assumption until its shown false or until a yet simpler one
Seeker2
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 22, 2016
(B) there's something out there that we can't see, can't touch, can't interact with, yet completely dominates how the universe behaves because there has to be so much more of it than regular matter to make our equations work--I'm not really leaning toward B.
And that would be - (drumroll) - dark energy. Sign me up.
epoxy
Jul 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 22, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
- "Whiteness"/"Colors", are PERCEIVED qualities, NOT INHERENT PHYSICAL qualities
In fact, color is related to photon frequency, did you forget?
Nothing TO forget (sometimes it NEEDS SHOUTING to GET THROUGH your biased reading and twisting; read what Whyde just observed to Benni about "twisting"). :)

That "relation" is AFTER the fact abstract correlation; not inherent physical quality. Understand?
- "Photon" is ELECTRO-MAGNETIC feature/perturbation of a WHOLE underlying ubiquitous ELECTRO-MAGNETIC field.

Deep!
Just a REMINDER to those who seemed to have "forgotten" that in discussion above.
...PHOTONS inter-activity..
If you mean...
"...with the extended MAGNETIC COMPONENT (of said whole E-M field)" IS WHAT I WROTE/MEANT. Read, don't "twist", mate!
SYNCHROTRON RADIATION
Is not photon-photon interaction.
READ, mate! "bleeds' electro-magnetic energy from a system...etc".

Phys1, stop being childish yourself, hey? :)
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 22, 2016
Hi again, Phys1. :)

I couldn't help notice this exchange:
[
Ether has been tested false over a century ago

Please show me the test of this.

Michelson and Morley ring a bell?
You realize a null result doesn't equate to false, or else this study we are commenting on would "prove" that dark matter doesn't exist.

It actually does precisely that, within limits clearly specified in the article.
You hit the nail on the head.


Then why do you still attack as "cranks" etc those who still argue that Null Result of Michelson-Morley test does not preclude the Aether (whether classical or modern kind)? Null resuts on so many experiments so far have equally "disproved" the claims to NON-ordinary DM. And recnt increasing discoveries of ORDINARY matter make NON-ordinary 'dark matter' unnecessary for theories/explanations. Be fair; try not picking and choosing your most "convenient excuse of the moment" for being biased and "twisting" in denial,mate. :)
Benni
1.4 / 5 (21) Jul 22, 2016
Benni, you twist words to be intentionally confrontational. Why?


I did? I'm not an artist, therefore I don't have your proclivities for painting implied definitions over words with the intention of suggesting YES means NO & NO means YES. I quote outlandish statements, and that bothers you?

I guess I should learn your knack for being more artistic with words commonly used in my profession? If I did that, and if most of my colleagues followed suit, you'd lose all your power within a few days. And then where would you be? Sitting in the dark with an almost drained battery pack trying to get on-line to Physorg to yuk it up with Ira, all the while wondering why Engineers at the power company can't keep the power grid functioning.
komone
4.8 / 5 (18) Jul 22, 2016
I'm struck by the lack of scientific approach in the comments here. If you think the experiment is misguided, then you should propose a better one. Hypotheses are useful to expand the search space, but ruling out bad theories and adding support to your personal pet theory demands that you are able to define a measurement that provides evidence that your model of the world is more consistent with actual measurement than the current best supported theory.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (20) Jul 22, 2016
I quote outlandish statements, and that bothers you?
...........bothers Shavo too, like when I quoted the ludicrous post he made in another thread when he made the statement that Mass & Energy are not equal, subsequently he's tried to paper over that WOW statement by adding Momentum into the mix with the suggestion that this makes his point a factual statement, but he doesn't know that it doesn't. Hey, Shavo,you need to actually take Physics 102, not just talk about it from the text of a WikiPedia entry.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 22, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Hi Phys1. :)
- "Whiteness"/"Colors", are PERCEIVED qualities, NOT INHERENT PHYSICAL qualities
In fact, color is related to photon frequency, did you forget?
Nothing TO forget (sometimes it NEEDS SHOUTING to GET THROUGH your biased reading and twisting; read what Whyde just observed to Benni about "twisting"). :)

That "relation" is AFTER the fact abstract correlation; not inherent physical quality. Understand?
Ok I will follow your advice.
YOU ARE SHOUTING CRAP.
EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS NONSENSE.
If you don't understand the difference; and if you need to be shouted at in order for you to even read without bias, then your opinion is not of much use to anyone especially in a science discussion where I reminded of things which should already be understood as coming from known science not from opinions. And it looks silly for you to admonish others for being childish, troll, obtuse etc when you are equally guilty of it. Cool it. :)
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 23, 2016
Benni, you twist words to be intentionally confrontational. Why?


I did? I'm not an artist, therefore I don't have your proclivities for painting implied definitions over words with the intention of suggesting YES means NO & NO means YES. I quote outlandish statements, and that bothers you?

You quote statements and attempt to make them look contextually wrong.
I guess I should learn your knack for being more artistic with words commonly used in my profession? If I did that, and if most of my colleagues followed suit, you'd lose all your power within a few days... all the while wondering why Engineers at the power company can't keep the power grid functioning.

Art has nothing to do with it. Common sense does. If the words you used that engendered my question (or even your words quoted in this post) are mainstay words you use in your profession - good thing I have a backup generator...
Urgelt
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2016
Scroof, relativity, in Einstein's view, eliminates simultaneity. Lorentz's view of relativity *includes* simultaneity. All of the subsequent formulations of ether theory follow Lorentz's interpretation, with some variations. Simultaneity is where ether theory leads. Einstein was happy to talk about the 'new' ether (curved space-time). He was happy to grant that space-time has properties, and so is a 'thing.' But he didn't buy simultaneity, and thus didn't buy any of the ether theories.

You can't cite Einstein as support for ether theories as currently expressed.

And anyway, the attempt is futile. In science, the quality of a theory is determined by evidence, not expert pronouncements. Not even Einstein's.

Ether, and simultaneity, are not dead competitors in physics. They aren't preferred explanations; but evidence for certain aspects of Einstein's interpretation still need nailing down. Testing reciprocity for SR's time dilation would help with that.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 23, 2016
I quote outlandish statements, and that bothers you?
...........bothers Shavo too, like when I quoted the ludicrous post he made in another thread when he made the statement that Mass & Energy are not equal, subsequently he's tried to paper over that WOW statement by adding Momentum into the mix with the suggestion that this makes his point a factual statement, but he doesn't know that it doesn't.

Actually, it NEVER is equal - just always trying to equalize. That inequality is what keeps the whole she-bang runnin'...
epoxy
Jul 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 23, 2016
Art has nothing to do with it. Common sense does.


......sure, and in your world of "common" sense it is "common sense" to find infinite gravity wells & infinitely dense mass on the surface of a FINITE stellar mass labeled by Astro-physicists as Black Holes. But of course we know such stellar masses exist because Schneibo has stated he has (or has seen) pictures of BHs, just like we know DM cosmic fairy dust exists because artists have airbrushed dark blue backgrounds into pictures of Elliptical galaxies where most of the Einstein Rings of Photon Deflection occur & label such trash as DM that is "observable".

Airbrushing isn't science WG, it's falsification, you're an artist & you know that, so I'm preaching to the choir here am I not?
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2016
Note how aether, MOND, et cetera all failed miserably - again!
What I find amusing is that MOND and other "relativity is wrong" advocates claim their hypotheses are not being tested, when in fact they are. We've discussed what cross section the particle-sector experiments have eliminated on the other thread on these same results, and there's still plenty left. OTOH the results you discuss, @torbjorn, show that the possibilities for relativity to be wrong have been constrained far more because they come from multiple areas of research in astrophysics. Planck, galaxy surveys, black hole gravity waves, pulsar gravity waves, the list goes on.

The search for dark matter in the particle sector remains much more likely to produce results than any just so story about how relativity is wrong. We can literally see that in the sky.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2016
Meanwhile as far as whether it is a waste of money, these guys squeezed four times better data out of their experiment than they promised when they got the money to do it. Sounds like pretty good bang for the buck to me. Good for them.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2016
Question about gen relativity: Are observations consistent with gravity attributable to matter we see or consistent with gravity attributable to matter we see + dark matter we can't see? I assume for small stuff (solar system) it's both, but for big stuff (inter-galaxy) it's the latter. Otherwise we wouldn't invent the concept of dark matter.
A reasonable assumption.

Do we calculate the amount of dark matter based on observations & using theory/equations of general relativity? If so, isn't there a potential for a circular proof?
No. That's because of the observations. The entire point of the observations is to check the theory.

Also, be careful with "proof." Better to say "evidence." The evidence is what it is; if it agrees with the theory, then the theory has adduced more evidence. If not, the theory is wrong. So far everything we see-- and I mean "see" quite literally-- provides evidence that supports the theory.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2016
[contd]
The theory of relativity proves itself based on the amount of dark matter we calculated should exist based on the math of general relativity.
No. The amount of dark matter is not evidence for the theory of relativity; that's because we haven't observed the amount of dark matter directly (by which I mean, in the particle sector). That's why experiments like the one this article is about are being done. The evidence for relativity is a hundred years of experiments, starting with Eddington's observations in 1919 of starlight bending around the Sun during an eclipse and moving on through confirmation after confirmation for a hundred years to Gravity Probe B and the recent LIGO detection of gravity waves, without one confirmed experimental result that challenges it. The evidence is incredibly strong, far beyond anything presented in any court of law.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 23, 2016
[contd]
Also, the jury is composed of experts in the field, which also is a far tougher jury than anything in a court of law. Such people are deliberately removed from juries by opposing counsel; this is done during jury selection using voir dire examination. A lawyer wants a malleable jury they can sway to their case, not a panel of experts.

How is the possibility of a circular proof eliminated?
In this case, by the enormous amount of evidence and the extreme skepticism of the jury evaluating it.

How do we eliminate the possibility that dark matter is just a correction factor for an error in the theory?
By evidence from other sources, and the evidence for relativity is replete with such sources.

Don't most theories work when inputs (mass in galaxies) are adjusted to make them work?
That is eliminated by the range of the evidence.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2016
Completely ignoring the fact that we have only ever OBSERVED light interacting with magnetic fields,
Light absolutely 100% does not 'bend in a magnetic field.'
I'll give a counter-example then proceed to demonstrate that this is true in a vacuum.

Consider Faraday rotation of the plane of polarization by a magnetic field applied to a transparent substance. A pretty good explanation of this is available here: https://skullsint...er-1845/

Now, this appears at first glance to be evidence that @shavera is incorrect. However, midway through the article comes the following quote:

Herschel's experiment is very much a crude version of Faraday's, except that it is missing the crucial ingredient of a material for the light to pass through!
Now we see exactly what @shavera meant to say:
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2016
[contd]
A magnetic field does not act on light.

From the quote above (and the experiment it is discussing) it is clear that it is not the magnetic field acting on the light; it is the atoms in the material the light is passing through acting on the light. And in turn, the magnetic field acting on those atoms. Without the atoms, the magnetic field ***does not act on the light.*** @Shavera is correct. But at first it didn't look that way.

Now, does this show that we have not ever observed light interacting with magnetic fields?

Yes! It does. We have observed light interacting with atoms, not magnetic fields. And we have observed magnetic fields interacting with atoms, not with light.

Simple as that.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 23, 2016
"It's certainly there. We know dark matter exists" because of the way it helps form galaxies and makes light bend around galaxy clusters, McKinsey said.
I'm probably ignorant, but doesn't that suggest we could also try to build a new model?
We have, and we've tested those models and so far they've all failed to explain some other observation; relativity has not failed to. That's the thing about relativity; it's not just deeply confirmed, it's broadly confirmed. No other model comes close to its performance.

Am I saying we will never find some limit in which relativity is incomplete? No, not at all. In fact we know of such a limit: the limit of small. We have no quantum theory of gravity. But in all of classical (by which I mean non-quantum) physics, there is no more extensively tested theory than relativity. And none with wider reach across disciplines and observations.

Good question. I gave a 5.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 23, 2016
We still haven't even directly observed an electron
Actually, we have. It's called "Compton scattering."

In this effect, photons are scattered by electrons. It can quite literally be seen with the naked eye in the limit of low energy; this effect is a subset of the Compton effect, called the "Thompson effect."

Go ahead. Look it up. https://en.wikipe...attering
Thomson scattering is the elastic scattering of electromagnetic radiation by a free charged particle, as described by classical electromagnetism. It is just the low-energy limit of Compton scattering...
There's even a nice picture in the article with an eye in it.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 23, 2016
[contd]
And BTW, elastic and inelastic scattering and absorption of light by bound electrons in atoms is responsible for pretty much every material object we see; some colors are scattered and hit us literally in the eyes, and other colors are absorbed, and this is responsible for all our visual perceptions of every material object except those that emit their own light. Just about all that scattering is by electrons.

In fact it appears that far from never having directly observed an electron, we actually observe them all the time.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 23, 2016
What wavelength is the 'white light photon'?

... we do know that it leaves the sun as a single photon because it arrives as one.

Who is "we"?
Afaik you are the only one broadcasting this rubbish.
You are incompetent. You know zilch about electromagnetism.
It is even worse than that; Newton knew exactly why white light was divided into colors by a prism: because white light isn't a single color, it's a mixture of all colors. And he said so in the seventeenth century, three hundred years ago. Claiming there are "white photons" is not even wrong.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2016
Time dilation reciprocity in SR lets cosmologists assume that cosmological light isn't altered by time dilation. But reciprocity hasn't been well-tested experimentally. It's one aspect of SR that needs further investigation.
Hmmmm, actually I think Hafele-Keating and follow-on experiments along this line tested it pretty well. https://en.wikipe...periment

Can you explain why you don't think so?
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 23, 2016
Quoting anti_alias_physorg:
"So what has been eliminated? And more important, what remains?"
Actually that was me.

Carry on.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2016
Depending on your personal philosophical interpretations, the mechanism by which 'action at a distance' appears to work is either:
A) Particles don't have real, fixed states and may exist in true superpositions. or B) The underlying 'true' state of a particle may somehow be communicated at speeds faster than light, even if it may not be directly measured or used for information transmission.
Well stated, @shavera. I tend toward A myself, but I'm willing to entertain arguments to the contrary.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2016
If Lorentz was right, then we should be adjusting for time dilation in observations of cosmological light. Galactic observations without adjusting will overstate rotational speeds. At the least, the requirement for DM would be diminished.

Time dilation reciprocity in SR lets cosmologists assume that cosmological light isn't altered by time dilation. But reciprocity hasn't been well-tested experimentally. It's one aspect of SR that needs further investigation.

Seems like too simple a thing to not have been already considered, doesn't it?
epoxy
Jul 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (21) Jul 23, 2016
Cmon zephyr admit it - it has to be hydrinos. Gazillions of them.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2016
Therefore if someone says, that the relativity hasn't failed at the case of dark matter, then he simply doesn't know what he is talking about...
No, Zeph, if someone says an experiment was performed that falsified general relativity, then he's simply lying... or he's a dunce...
epoxy
Jul 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 23, 2016
epoxy........just luv'ya guy. You hold the same enthusiasm all the rest of the DM & BH Enthusiasts have for their two favorite Perpetual Motion topics & they won't allow you entrance to their club here. I like your demeanor though, it's the reason I don't downvote you with a 1.

Hey, you should join me in demanding Schneibo put up those pictures of Black Holes he claims exists, if you do that & don't add anything more to your post, I'll vote you 5.
epoxy
Jul 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gculpex
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2016
The dark matter is the result of secondary shielding of the longitudinal wave shadows with another nearby massive bodies, so it exhibits excess of longitudinal waves instead in similar way, like the Cassimir vacuum at the proximity of massive bodies.


I almost understood this.....
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2016
The dark matter is the result of secondary shielding of the longitudinal wave shadows with another nearby massive bodies, so it exhibits excess of longitudinal waves instead in similar way, like the Cassimir vacuum at the proximity of massive bodies.
I almost understood this.....
I want some French dressing on that word salad.

What's "secondary shielding?" Or "longitudinal wave shadows?" And which one is "it?"
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 23, 2016
I propose that first Benni gives proof of his dexterity with PDE's.
That will never happen.
Here's its big chance:

-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² ϕ = 0

Source: http://www.etsu.e...esis.pdf
Benni
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 23, 2016
I propose that first Benni gives proof of his dexterity with PDE's.
That will never happen.
Here's its big chance:

-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² Ď� = 0

Source: http://www.etsu.e...esis.pdf


Oh.no,......it's Schneibo punting again, still refusing to produce those PDEs he claims are found in Einstein's GR proving Einstein predicted the existence of Black Holes. Hey guy, at least provide the section of GR in which we can look for those PDEs where Einstein discusses BHs? Come on, at least a hint?

Pictures Schneibo, pictures, Your BH pics will be a more than adequate substitute in the event of your failure of presenting Einstein's Black Hole thesis you claim exists in GR.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (16) Jul 23, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Hi again, Phys1. :)

I couldn't help notice this exchange:
Ether has been tested false over a century ago

Please show me the test of this.

Michelson and Morley ring a bell?
You realize a null result doesn't equate to false, or else this study we are commenting on would "prove" that dark matter doesn't exist.

It actually does precisely that, within limits clearly specified in the article.
You hit the nail on the head.


Then why do you still attack as "cranks" etc

If you deny the M&M evidence, without a _really_ good story, then you are a certified crank.
I don't deny or affirm anything, I only pointed out that just as a Null Result in DM searches/experiments are claimed by mainstream to not prove absence of DM, then the same reasoning applied to Null Result from M-M experiments also does not prove absence of Aether. No double standards, hey? :)

PS: You never heard of Casimir force etc? :)
Benni
1.2 / 5 (19) Jul 23, 2016
And who is Cassimir ? What is a "Cassimir" vacuum ? Excess of waves ?


.......and you claim to be what? A Physicist?

Shavo, Schneibo........even though it's misspelled, you'd think it would ring a bell of recognition?
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 23, 2016
PS: @Phys1.

FYI: Einstein's shift from Aether (of whatecer type) to "spacetime" abstraction was a strategic one, not a strictly physical comprehension/explanation based one. That move effectively removed any mechanical properties the Aether may have, and replace them with purely abstract relativity maths relations which do not now treat the nature of the underlying vacuum/space itself and any mechanical aether/properties it may have. Actually, his GR theory went a little way BACK towards an aether concept for his 'curved spacetime" cpncept of gravity; but still it treats it all abstractly with relational maths without any real understanding or explanation of the underlying universal space and its properties which actually produce the real phenomena (and not just a maths model 'simulation'). That was Einstein's greatest blunder (along with his Cosmo Constant fudge factor); it effectively subsituted maths derivations/predictions for real understanding/explanation.

Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 23, 2016
Hi Phys1.:)
You defend denial of the Michelson&Morley experiment, you talk absolute nonsense about "perceived qualities" and you reserve the right to SHOUT this crap ...
Please stop telling me what I am doing, mate. Your own misunderstanding is no substitute for the real thing, ok? Read and understand properly and I won't need to shout. :)

For starters, I only pointed out that the Null Results for M-M experiment for Aether were as inconclusive as Null Results for DM experiment/searches so far. Ok?

And please learn the difference between actual physical real things and perceived 'sensation' things.

Eg, there is no photon that is "grey"; yet your brain-mind faculties PERCEIVE a "greyness" sensation which means something in evolutionary 'pattern' recognition/perceptions in your brain-mind construct; but in reality it represents a mixture pf photons at very low energy/intensity etc. And, eg, "black", can you point to a 'black photon'? No.

See? It's all in your head. :)
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 23, 2016
And who is Cassimir ? What is a "Cassimir" vacuum ? Excess of waves ?


.......and you claim to be what? A Physicist?

Shavo, Schneibo........even though it's misspelled, you'd think it would ring a bell of recognition?

Of course he knows what it is poser, his comment as directed at the quackery of zephir. Do grow up.
epoxy
Jul 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 24, 2016
Of course he knows what it is poser, his comment as directed at the quackery of zephir. Do grow up.
It's all hurt and stuff because I reminded it it can't do PDEs again. With real PDEs.
epoxy
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
pepe2907
5 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2016
I can't help but consider that perhaps it's the theory of gravity that is incorrect, and dark matter doesn't exist. If we consider which is the simpler explanation: (A) a few equations/formulas have to be refined or (B) there's something out there that we can't see, can't touch, can't interact with... B.


redav, can you see or touch an atom? Well, you can say that with current tech. atoms can be detected, even "seen" with instruments, but basically some epoch's instruments inability to detect atoms doesn't prove their nonexistence, does it? What,s about Occam's razor /the question of which one is simpler, or "easier"/ it means at most probability, not "finality". And from the point of view of physicists, it's actually simpler, "easier" to imagine a lot of hard to detect matter /remember - atoms/ as to question tested and proven Einstein's formulas.
And again atoms - they were supposed to exist long before they were actually detected based on behavior of matter /just as DM
epoxy
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (18) Jul 24, 2016
Just a couple of observations on these posts:-
Gravitational Lensing. By the basic laws of optics, light from a very distant source (i.e. arriving parallel to the axis of a lens) passing thru' a lens must be bent more the further it passes from the centre of the lens and less the nearer it passes to the centre of the lens in order to form an image at or near the focal point of the lens. Ergo, gravitic lensing is a non-starter for forming images. My explanation of multiple images of distant galaxies by the expansion of the universe is at least plausible.
Dark Matter. There are simple explanations for at least some of the "undetectable" mass, e.g. we can only detect photons which strike our detectors, and have no means of detecting the zillions of photons whizzing around us that do not impact onour detectors, yet they all possess 'mass' according to relatavistic effects. I could go on.
Gravity. There's no evidence for the existence of gravity which does not validate expansion theory.
Benni
1.2 / 5 (20) Jul 24, 2016
Of course he knows what it is poser, his comment as directed at the quackery of zephir. Do grow up. It's all hurt and stuff because I reminded it it can't do PDEs again. With real PDEs.


You could end all the controversy by simply Copy & Pasting the section of General Relativity in which you claim Einstein came up with solutions to Partial DEs via which you claim he calculated the existence of Black Holes. But YOU won't even give us a hint for the the section of GR in which to look so I can check for it myself, instead you continually punt the thing to somebody else who knows no more than you do, zero.

Subsequent to my cajoling you to produce the text of Einstein's GR & your failure to do so, you soon thereafter proclaimed there is proof for the existence of BHs because you have seen PICTURES of them. WOW, you have pictures of BHs but you won't share them!

I'm curious Schneibo, do you have any other kind of life than to spend most of your day posting here on PO?
epoxy
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gculpex
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2016
The dark matter is the result of secondary shielding of the longitudinal wave shadows with another nearby massive bodies, so it exhibits excess of longitudinal waves instead in similar way, like the Cassimir vacuum at the proximity of massive bodies.
..I almost understood this.....
In deDuillier-LeSage model of gravity the gravitational field arises, when the longitudinal waves of vacuum https://nige.file...ge12.jpg in somewhat larger distance and it would form an area of relative excess of longitudinal waves instead - i.e. the dark matter.


I was being sarcastic... if you didn't get it.
better use a different translator program to fill in the missing words...
epoxy
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2016
From "violation of equivalence principle by dark matter" link actually to "Dark-matter-induced Weak Equivalence Principle Violation" abstract:
A long-range fifth force coupled to dark matter can induce a coupling to ordinary matter if the dark matter interacts with Standard Model fields.
Pretty iffy Zeph – IF dark matter interacts with SM fields, then IF there's an induced coupling, then IF there's a fifth force, all from one sentence. And did they include the latest LUX results as even stronger additional constraint on already strong constraints on a 5th force or WEP violation? No, the paper's from 2009. Good to look for such possibilities, though.

cont'd >
Protoplasmix
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 24, 2016
> cont'd

[dark matter's] five-times more abundant than the normal matter, therefore the relativity is correct only in one of five cases of gravitational lensing observed.
So far general relativity has been shown to be correct in all cases, from bending starlight to time dilation to redshift to lensing to gravitational waves. Also, Zeph, pulsars don't lie. Relativity has been shown to be correct in way more than 5/5 cases. The dark matter, whatever it is, does appear to be 5x more abundant, though.
Mark Thomas
4 / 5 (9) Jul 24, 2016
AAP mentioned primordial blackholes, in what seems like a few hundred posts ago, in his laundry list of DM possibilities. Anybody else notice the gravity wave detectors might be suggesting more "mid-size" black hole mergers than one might expect?

http://hub.jhu.ed...llision/

The current and upcoming gravity wave detectors should be able to confirm or rule out this possibility with hard data.
epoxy
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.2 / 5 (19) Jul 24, 2016
the dark matter, whatever it is, does appear to be 5x more abundant, though.


Photon Deflection creating Einstein Rings at the peripheral discs of Elliptical galaxies in no way proves there is evidence for your whimsical claim of "5x more abundant".

The Einstein Rings of Photon Deflection present at the peripheral discs of many giant Elliptical galaxies are caused by the greater concentration of mass present in Ellipticals as compared to lower mass Spirals such as the Milky Way or Andromeda.

Ellipticals are hundreds of times greater in size to Spirals & make up 2/3 the mass of the entire Universe, they need no insertion of additional matter to explain how their outer orbital stars comport with Newtonian gravity.

You aficionados of Astro-physics will never give up the ghost on your Cosmic Fairy Dust, but the least you can do is stop distorting the structure of the universe in your vain attempts to make it comport with your distorted whimsical fairy tales.

gculpex
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2016
I see... Did your sarcasm actually mean: "I understood this perfectly" or "I didn't understand it at all"...? Just wink by your left eye for the former option, by this right one for the later one.. And don't turn your back on me during it...


SO you spy on people through their computer? Otherwise the winking will never be seen....
LifeBasedLogic
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.2 / 5 (20) Jul 24, 2016
[You could end all the controversy by simply Copy & Pasting the section of General Relativity in which you claim Einstein came up with solutions to Partial DEs via which you claim he calculated the existence of Black Holes. But YOU won't even give us a hint for the the section of GR in which to look so I can check for it myself, instead you continually punt the thing to somebody else who knows no more than you do, zero.

Let me help:
Translation of Schwarzschild's original paper: https://arxiv.org.../9905030


So, in what section of Einstein's GR should I expect to find this verified? C'mon here 1st Semester Physics guy, you're so good at your name calling routines, but not so good when the basis of your fairy tale belief systems are challenged.

You brought it up, so you explain to us what any of this paper has to do with proving Infinite Gravity can exist on the surface (center?) of a finite stellar mass dubbed Black Hole.
epoxy
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (21) Jul 24, 2016
black holes cannot collapse into singularities, because the highest curvature of space-time exist at their surface instead of their centers (after all, like at the case of all massive bodies)


So dead on the point accurate. This has always been the problem with the BH hypothesis. Shneibo, Shavo, etc do not comprehend what happens when the Inverse Square Law is applied to gravity at the surface of a so-called BH, where on any stellar mass gravity is maximum at the surface & zero in the center.

Astro-physicists are so incompetent at Nuclear Physics that they are oblivious to the fact that they've turned the Einstein Field Equations for gravity & applied the Inverse Sq in a manner exactly opposite of how we observe & measure how gravity generates attraction & diminishes from the point of maximum attraction. Gravitational attraction does not commensurate at the center of mass (point of singularity) of anything, but the BH postulate dictates otherwise.

Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 24, 2016
Shorter headline: Dark Matter Is Still Dark.
Snicker.

I'm not bothered by an experiment failing to find dark matter, but I do wonder if I'm being extraordinarily foolish in wanting to know (like the Nazi woman in that Raiders movie). The knowledge may be very depressing.
Hmm, I can't imagine why either dark matter particles or some nth-order correction to GRT would be depressing.
Benni
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 24, 2016
Hmm, I can't imagine why either dark matter particles or some nth-order correction to GRT would be depressing.


Well of course you wouldn't, it's why you're so into Astro-physics & comprehend so little about Nuclear Physics.

It totally explains why you make up stuff about the text of General Relativity but NEVER do a Copy & Paste for the section in which your claims can be found........you just keep saying the same things over & over again making unfounded claims based on unfounded conclusions your two favorite Astro-physicists (Zwicky, Schwarzchild) have made.

I'll remind you again Schneibo, Einstein was a Nuclear Physicist not an Astro-physicist, you should learn to distinguish the differences & they are stark to say the least.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 24, 2016
Einstein was a Nuclear Physicist
No. Einstein was primarily a relativist; that is, a Gravity Physicist. He stuck his nose into some quantum physics from time to time as well. But he didn't do nuclear physics much if at all. He did do some atomic physics; see his paper on the photoelectric effect.

It's apparent that the troll doesn't know the difference between nuclear physics and gravity physics. Nor between nuclear physics and quantum physics. Which is pretty pitiful for someone claiming to be a nuclear engineer.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 24, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
I only pointed out that the Null Results for M-M experiment for Aether were as inconclusive as Null Results for DM experiment/searches so far. Ok?
Totally wrong on both counts.
How many times have you used the phrase "Absence of Evidence is not necessarily Evidence of Absence"? Double standards, mate?
And please learn the difference between actual physical real things and perceived 'sensation' things.
Perception of color has nothing to do with it.
Exactly! Just as my original "Reminder" post said (if you'd read properly).
you were defending this bullshit.
Actually, my "Reminder" did the exact opposite of "support" bschott's "white photon' take, if you'd read me properly.
I am telling you to STOP doing it.
First sort out your reading bias problem when reading my posts; then maybe you'll see that what I was doing is not in fact what you 'mistakenly thought' I was doing; and then realize that what I was doing was CORRECT.

Chill. :)
Hyperfuzzy
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2016
Point: The idea of dark matter is asinine. Think! Can't find missing mass? Mass is not a fundamental quantity of matter. Matter is made up of only the spherical fields, nothing more. So modern physics is bonkers and pre-modern physics has a strange set of universal constants. Now figure out where the dark matter is. It's in your heads, should be gray matter; but, that doesn't seem to be working. Try this, a wavelet passes you, can you define the speed as the time it takes to go from front to back? Would you need to know the emitted wavelength, i.e. initial conditions? Can't make this $hit up. LOL change space and time
https://drive.goo...4dWFJSDA
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 24, 2016
@RC, proving the null hypothesis is not proving nothing. @Phys1 is correct.

In context the Michelson-Morley experiment gave evidence that the "ether wind" did not exist, or at best could not serve as a standard of absolute motion, and it can be argued its results led to relativity. This "failed experiment" was in fact one of the most important scientific discoveries of all time. It's as foundational as Young's dual slit experiment, from which Feynman argued that all of quantum mechanics can be gleaned.

I agree with Feynman: you can see the existence of both superposition and entanglement from the dual slit experiment, particularly when it is performed with fermions (electrons) in addition to bosons (photons) and thus is shown to hold for both moieties of particles.
Hyperfuzzy
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 24, 2016
Wow! The 20th century, century of the stupid physicists! Make up stuff 'cause they measure velocity as a scalar constant and can't figure out what they did wrong. They teach this $hit in grad school and use well known names of honored physicists. But do not have an eye for error or hindsight. Dr. E. did not know what he was talking about. Neither does anyone here. Sorry, I meant that in an enlightened way. It takes a lot of education to be that wrong!
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2016
Isaac Asimov, one of the best explainers of physics who ever lived, called MM "The Light That Failed."

On another thread I saw @shavera say that scientists are eager for experiments that fail because they open the way to new science. I have to say as an observer of science rather than a practitioner that I agree whole-heartedly.

When we can measure or exclude dark matter in the particle sector, one hypothesis must fail, either dark matter as particles, or dark matter as some nth-order correction to GRT. One person's meat is another person's poison.
Benni
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 24, 2016
It's apparent that the troll doesn't know the difference between nuclear physics and gravity physics. Nor between nuclear physics and quantum physics. for someone claiming to be a nuclear engineer


Well then Schneibo, it's your turn to shine. You know so much about BH "gravity", then you explain to those of us who've gone no further than Nuclear Physics/Engineering how compelling a Gravity Physicist you are.

If the claim is true, that gravity on the topmost surface layer of a finite stellar body (BH) is INFINITE, what is the force of gravity at the next layer of particles immediately below? Infinite you would say? But how could that be? When applying the Inverse Square Law to gravity from the surface to the next layer of particles just below the surface, it must diminish or you don't believe the ISL.

So we keep this process up until we get to the center where there is no mass, but you think it is just as infinitely dense there as at the surface.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 24, 2016
One example of Cassimir vacuum is the so-called quantum friction and the effect of spontaneous graphene tearing, described recently. The time contraction means, that the particles move faster at the proximity of surface, which
Who the hell turned zephyr on? Youre just going to get him banned again.

And why does not phyzz know about casimir? And more disturbing, why does not he know google?
This would still a misunderstanding from you side caused by incomplete knowledge
-Incomplete knowledge... willful incomplete knowledge... where have we heard that before phyzz?
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2016
@Benni
... So far I believe you are a liar and a fraud instead. Among others.
Like me. Having actually made statements of correct nuclear physics that this troll tried to deny, not to mention presenting real partial differential equations that this troll claimed it could solve without any solution being presented, or even any understanding of the implications of said partial differential equations I assert that this troll is a liar and a fraud. This assertion will stand until this troll either admits and acknowledges its truth and shows signs of correcting the misbehavior or shows capability to do what it says.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 24, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Please stop acting all emotional/biased. Try to understand; stop twisting things to your own 'version'? For instance:
A null result is evidence. So you are totally wrong, as I said before. Why don't you listen?
Please show me where I implied a Null Result wasn't evidence? That phrase I reminded you of IMPLICITLY and EXPLICITLY states that it IS evidence; of a NULL result; which is NOT in itself an "evidence of absence". See? You're twisting yourself in knots to miss the whole point of my absolutely proper/correct 'Reminder' posts.
Exactly! Just as my original "Reminder" post said (if you'd read properly).
Then why did YOU bring it up?
I didn't bring it up first. I Reminded all (including bschott) that his "whiteness/color" etc arguments were essentially flawed, and I gave examples explaining why.
Along with the baloney about photons?
Didn't you know Synchrotron radiation (X-rays) are photonic energy 'bled' from Magnetic field?

Chill. :)
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 24, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
@RC, proving the null hypothesis is not proving nothing. @Phys1 is correct.
Ploease see my above response to Phys1's misunderstandings based impressions of what I actually said. That should forestall any further unnecessary misimpression based echanges on that point; which I never actually disagreed with (as I explained again to Phys1 above in order to clarify his misunderstanding on what I was or was not "doing" or "supporting" etc.

Cheers. :)

PS: Da Schneib, Phys1, everyone, I only had time to make those reminder posts. I am very busy on my own work off line, so I must leave the rest of the matters under discussion to you all to sort out for yourselves. I may make reminder posts occasionally, but the ongoing arguments and discussions between you all are too time consuming for me at present. So see ya'll as I get time! Cheers all. :)
Hyperfuzzy
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 24, 2016
Instead of any of this, prove me wrong. Well, OK, ignore physics we use everyday. We are looking for something new. Something that will yield a NOBEL. Jeez!
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 24, 2016
a NULL result; which is NOT in itself an "evidence of absence"
It is in the sector where the experimental results are of high confidence. This is one of the deep flaws in your reasoning processes.
Hyperfuzzy
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 24, 2016
I'm thinking, on this sight people only read their own post and any objections to same, i.e. ignore logic and reason.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 24, 2016
@Benni
... So far I believe you are a liar and a fraud instead. Among others.
Like me. Having actually made statements of correct nuclear physics that this troll tried to deny, not to mention presenting real partial differential equations that this troll claimed it could solve without any solution being presented, or even any understanding of the implications of said partial differential equations I assert that this troll is a liar and a fraud. This assertion will stand until this troll either admits and acknowledges its truth and shows signs of correcting the misbehavior or shows capability to do what it says.

I agree. This troll started out on this site by denying geophysics, and was quickly shown to be without knowledge in that field too. The pretend engineer. Benni is a liar and a fraud.
epoxy
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 24, 2016
Hi Da Schneib and Phys1. :)

@Da Schneib:
NULL result; which is NOT in itself an "evidence of absence"
It is in the sector where the experimental results are of high confidence. This is one of the deep flaws in your reasoning processes.
Where assumptions themselves not supported with high sigma, then it's GIGO; in which case the whole experiment/conclusion/sigma is GIGO; hence it's not even a "null result" but GIGO (recall bicep2 GIGO exercise; any "sigma" either way was GIGO, and 'result' either way would be GIGO). The phrase which you and others use means what it says in context of VALID possibilities still open to search, hence the phrase as used. :)

@Phys1:
No I did not.
Where do you think the energy accelerating the Electron in a magnetic field in an accelerator comes from? Electro-Magnetic energy; which Electron 'sheds' as X-ray photonic electro-magnetic energy quanta commensurate with its synchrotron cycle frequency/velocity changes. :)

Cheers. :)
Benni
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 24, 2016
If the claim is true, that gravity on the topmost surface layer of a finite stellar body (BH) is INFINITE, what is the force of gravity at the next layer of particles immediately below? Infinite you would say? But how could that be? When applying the Inverse Square Law to gravity from the surface to the next layer of particles just below the surface, it must diminish or you don't believe the ISL.


Like me. Having actually made statements of correct nuclear physics that this troll tried to deny, not to mention presenting real partial differential equations that this troll claimed it could solve without any solution being presented, or even any understanding of the implications of said partial differential equations I assert that this troll is a liar and a fraud. This assertion will stand until this troll either admits and acknowledges its truth and shows signs of correcting the misbehavior or shows capability to do what it says.


Known as caught in a conundrum

RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 24, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
Perhaps I should read your statement in this way: you believe that "white" is a color that is defined by our senses. That may be true, but is besides the point. In physics "white" means that all frequencies in a wide range are present. Compare "white noise".
Like I said, what we call "white" or "color" or "grey" or "black" is still rooted in the perceived sensation of "whiteness" that our brain-mind produce. That "labe" of "white" is used in sceince as a 'convenient' tool (just like "color" charge is used in Quantum physics).

See why "white/color" terminology is fraught with misunderstandings? It's "visual" values, not inherent, and my reminder post tried to point that out; trusting to the reader to read and parse and understand properly; or at least ask for clarification if not sure what is meant. And I'll make a deal with you and anyone concerned: You read and understand properly and not "twist" things, and I won't have to "shout". Deal?

Cheers. :)
kusithosle
1 / 5 (12) Jul 24, 2016
my co-worker's aunt makes $78 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for seven months but last month her paycheck was $18526 just working on the internet for a few hours. Look At This..

Follow Here----------->Alpha-Careers.com
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 24, 2016
I'm thinking, on this sight people only read their own post and any objections to same, i.e. ignore logic and reason.

You should qualify that,, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time".
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 24, 2016
Where assumptions themselves not supported with high sigma
But the assumptions are what is being tested.

You don't even properly understand what sigma signifies, @RC; you've managed to prove you don't even understand well enough to be wrong. "Sigma" to you is a buzz word you deploy to try to pretend you know what you're talking about.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 24, 2016
One thing is for sure: we all are bunch of crackpots, frauds and liars, no one apparently believes anyone here...:-) Could we finally accept it as a most reliable fact and a common platform of mutual understanding and to continue with discussing of more problematic questions?

Sure - just as soon as you give up trying to tell everyone from Isaac Newton to Jack Harris that they are wrong, and that only you have the right idea, and that no one but you can understand the Great Underlying Mystery.

You might also stop trying to string together mystical, sciency-sounding gobblygook, learn actual physics, and apply your attention to actually expanding human knowledge instead of denigrating those who do, and then accusing anyone who doesn't agree with you of being a part of the conspiracy.

What do you think zephir, can you do these things?
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

Red is a lot easier to say than "400 to about 480 THz". And White is easier to say than "all the colors from red to violet mixed together" and a whole lot easier than saying "all the frequencies from 400 THz to about 750 THz mixed up together."
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 24, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
And what are we discussing here? Physics, not art. So white on this blog means containing all frequencies (within reason), whether you are familiar with that notion or not.
Mate, take a deep breath. My Reminder post was pointing out exactly what you just said!

Ie, that "whiteness" implied a mixture of photonic frequencies which is 'perceived as white'. We are on the same page. It was bschott's mistaken use of that "white" label as implying a single photon of "white light" that prompted me to make that reminder post for everyone's FYI as to where that 'label' of white/color/grey/black came from and why it's misleading if not understood properly in context. So why are you so angry and contrary for no real reason in science or logic of what my Reminder post effectively agrees with you about?

And mate, take it as read: at 67 years, and an objective researcher in all the sciences since age nine, I was long ago "familiar with that notion".

Peace. Cheers. :)
epoxy
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 24, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
But the assumptions are what is being tested. You don't even properly understand what sigma signifies, @RC; you've managed to prove you don't even understand well enough to be wrong. "Sigma" to you is a buzz word you deploy to try to pretend you know what you're talking about.
Mate, please don't try that tactic on me. The assumptions can become self-fulfilling if the interpretation is made according to those assumptions which models then embody and then used to make the design/rationales etc for the experiment. It can become circuitous and self-reinforcing GIGO exercise (again, recall the bicep2 lessons). Just because you claim to 'testing assumptions', you must also realize which assumptions are 'built into' your models and testing apparatus and analytical methodology which you are using to test the assumptions you are 'purporting to test'.

Maths/Stats "Sigma" values mean nothing either way unless the exercise is valid/non-circuitous.

Cheers. :)
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 24, 2016
Mate, please don't try that tactic on me.
When you characterize objective statements of fact as "a tactic," the weakness of your reasoning power is revealed for all to see.

Thank you for acknowledging that you believe that telling the objective truth is "a tactic."

Quite frankly I'm happy to use "the tactic" of stating the objective truth, and proud that you acknowledge it. So thank you for that as well.

Experiments are done to verify their underlying assumptions. It's, you know, like really obvious and stuff.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 24, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Mate, I haven't time to waste arguing semantics as I have much off line work calling for my attention over the next few months. So please don't let this spur a major exchange.
Mate, please don't try that tactic on me.
When you characterize objective statements of fact as "a tactic," the weakness of your reasoning power is revealed for all to see. Thank you for acknowledging that you believe that telling the objective truth is "a tactic."
To paraphrase and use a phrase which you used earlier: "One man's "objective truth" may be another man's "misunderstandings based claims". Consider that your objective truth may not be so objective or true as you think.

Recall back in the 'plasmoid in sun' discussion where you were incorrect all along and me correct all along? In support of your misinformed trolls/insults etc, you used the phrase "brutal facts" quite a lot...until you found out you weren't posting "brutal facts" at all. :)

Peace. :)
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 24, 2016
Mate, I haven't time to waste arguing semantics
The motivation for experimenting is not "semantics," and your improper use of the term "semantics" shows that you don't understand that either. "Semantics" for you is yet another buzz word you use to try to pretend you have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

I'll take Bleu Cheese dressing on that word salad.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 24, 2016
First of all, I didn't accuse anyone here. In addition, I don't believe in conspiracy but pluralistic ignorance - this is a difference.
Not the way you put it.
Actually the belief in conspiracy is the mindset of deterministically thinking people who don't recognize reverse causality. What is mystical and what is actual physics is the matter of experiments: and according them just the stringy/susy/holography theories aren't actual physics. And don't be fooled, I do understand these theories and their inner working way better than most of people here. I could advice physicists easily, where they should look for their evidence - but I don't see any practical utility for it. The physicists should focus to more practical problems and findings, which they're managed to ignore for years. They're supposed to serve the interests of people, who are paying them - not vice-versa. Their abstract pet theories can wait for late
See?
Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (12) Jul 24, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are again Cher? I am still good.

Mate, I haven't time to waste arguing semantics as I have much off line work calling for my attention over the next few months.
That's a good theory to put in your book about toes and everything. Except for one thing, you just spend almost three whole hours arguing about what words mean to different peoples at different times. So if you are not arguing about the semantics, you are wasting time arguing about the words.

Oh yeah, I almost forget to say what it was I was going to say. Cher, if you tried a little harder to be nice like me, maybe more peoples here would not try to get you into arguments so you would not have to waste your time arguing about what the words mean. Just the suggestion from me.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2016
And don't be fooled, I do understand these theories and their inner working way better than most of people here. I could advice physicists easily, where they should look for their evidence - but I don't see any practical utility for it.
**coughBULLSHITcough**
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 24, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Mate, I haven't time to waste arguing semantics
The motivation for experimenting is not "semantics," and your improper use of the term "semantics" shows that you don't understand that either. "Semantics" for you is yet another buzz word you use to try to pretend you have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

I'll take Bleu Cheese dressing on that word salad.


Ok, mate, I'll leave you with that last comment on our exchange etc. Thanks for all the interesting contributions to discussion. That goes for all here. I must really attend to my off line work now, and may not have time for posting much if at all over the next few months. Until I speak with you all again, please accept my sincere hope that you all stay safe and well, and do not let on-line animosities discolor your understandings and interactions in a world in which we as humans, intellects and scientists are all in it together whether we like it or not. Good luck! Peace. :)
epoxy
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 24, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

I was just doing a last skim-through before logging off for a while, when I noticed I'd missed your last post to me, as below:
@RC
If that was your intent you really chose an unlucky formulation.
Nevertheless, it is the intent that counts.
Thanks, mate. Much appreciate the tone and sentiment. I must admit that the text limits here and my rush for lack of time may sometimes make for 'unlucky formulation' of a post. Anyhow, both my intention and yours are now seen to be reasonable and now as clarified amicably between us.

I really must go now. I wish you good luck and good thinking in future discussions, Phys1 (and everyone!). Stay safe. Peace. :)
baudrunner
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 24, 2016
Always lots of activity in these DM discussions.

First, black holes are really starships - most of them populated - traveling at superluminal velocities (c is only the upper limit to the speed of light). To an observer on Earth, those starships will appear to have infinite mass and for us, time stands still for the object. Gravity occurs instantaneously between objects and is observed uniquely from our own inertial frame of reference. The existence of these "black holes" disrupts the normal relationships that objects in space have. The galaxy is full of life.

Einstein never flew in the Concorde at Mach 2.3, and he would have been startled to note that he would be able to conduct a coherent conversation with a fellow passenger. He misinterpreted the effects of time dilation when describing it in his own thought experiments, not realizing that any object traveling at any speed would still represent its own inertial frame of reference.
Seeker2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2016
We have no quantum theory of gravity.
Good luck finding one. More likely gravity is a continuous function, actually sub-quantum, coming from the vacuum pressure.
Seeker2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2016
B) The underlying 'true' state of a particle may somehow be communicated at speeds faster than light, even if it may not be directly measured or used for information transmission.
I have a question about Newton's 3rd law. Is the action and reaction really supposed to be simultaneous?
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2016
We have no quantum theory of gravity.
Good luck finding one. More likely gravity is a continuous function, actually sub-quantum, coming from the vacuum pressure.
Meh, worked for EM.

SM = U(1) + SU(2) + SU(3). The simplest SO(10) theory is ruled out. But there are plenty of others.
Seeker2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2016
The only way how to save the relativity is the finding of massive particle responsible for it, which is the reason, why the contemporary physicists seek the dark matter particles so desperately: the very basis of their religion is at stake...
The very basis of their religion being that dark matter is particulate. If these particles are non-relativistic then Newton's laws would be on the block. But nobody wants to go that far. Therefore the religion requires that the particles are relativistic and that way we can put relativity on the block. Unfortunate indeed.
rrrander
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2016
Why do some people here insist on replying to things they don't quote? Makes their responses pretty much useless.
Seeker2
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 25, 2016
We have no quantum theory of gravity.
Good luck finding one. More likely gravity is a continuous function, actually sub-quantum, coming from the vacuum pressure.
Meh, worked for EM.
I'm thinking EM fields are due to the curvature of spacetime, as are relativistic gravitational fields. Trying to pass off Newtonian gravity as due to warped or curved spacetime may look good for museum exhibits but I don't buy it.
Seeker2
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 25, 2016
I'm thinking EM fields are due to the curvature of spacetime, as are relativistic gravitational fields. Trying to pass off Newtonian gravity as due to warped or curved spacetime may look good for museum exhibits but I don't buy it.
Which raises the question if photons are not affected by EM fields why are they affected by gravitational fields? Working on that one.
Seeker2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 25, 2016
Which raises the question if photons are not affected by EM fields why are they affected by gravitational fields? Working on that one.
Actually there is a qualitative difference. EM fields are non-random orientations of virtual particles. Newtonian gravitational fields are density functions of the virtual particles.
epoxy
Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
BiteMe
Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
BiteMe
Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
john berry_hobbes
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 25, 2016
Sign me up! Looks like the anti-troll brigade. Sadly, needed.
john berry_hobbes
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 25, 2016
Whydening Gyre 4 /5 (12) Jul 22, 2016

Benni, you twist words to be intentionally confrontational. Why?



Three words. Bone. Deep. Sophistry.
epoxy
Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TrollCondensate
Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 25, 2016
We have no quantum theory of gravity.
Serious question. What is naive about saying that on some scale- Plank's constant makes sense- that the curvature of space-time is too small to be consequential or even measurable? Effectively, there is no gravity over Plank distances, which would be why we don't have a quantum theory of gravity.
Good question.

The primary reasons we expect to find quantum gravity are because of symmetry, and because it is so similar to EM. A secondary reason is because we have quantum theories for the other three forces. Another secondary reason is Kaluza-Klein; Kaluza showed that the same derivation as used to find GRT in four dimensions can be used to derive Maxwell's equations in five; and Klein showed how that fifth dimension can be "compactified" to exist at every point in spacetime but be so small it cannot be detected. We have a quantum theory for Maxwell; it is therefore likely there is a quantum theory for Einstein.
DonCarloFantasia
Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (16) Jul 25, 2016
This list ignores more, the proven Most Important Truth in Life:
barakn
zz5555
greenonions
Phys1
AGreatWhopper
Arthur_McBride
antiantigoracle
ElectricBoobVerses
TrollCondensate
Mike_Massen
Declan
zz5555
ImAPeanut
HeloMenelo
Vietvet
Sionnach
barakn
antialias_physorg
gkam
Protoplasmix

Thats a very impressive list! You must be a real crank to ignore that many reasonable and intellegent people!
LifeBasedLogic
Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Liquid1474
1.3 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2016
Came to this discussion late (it seems) but I like your ideas KBK:
(ie.,...regarding the missing matter, it may exist in other dimensional spaces and frames of reference. )


I have always thought this too and may be a cool direction for research. You mention Heaviside's work may give some insight (in the same way Einstein's cosmological constant does)--can you give any particulars on what papers or what search terms to look for?

Keep those ideas---give some inspiration to research and explore.

epoxy
Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 25, 2016
Um, you misspelled intelligent.
No, I spell it "intelligent" not "indoctrinated".
Um, it's people with intelligence. Not intelligent people. The latter is a lie.
See, there you go spelling it wrong again! Those are people with intelligence, not indoctrinated. It seems like you re having an issue understanding the difference.
It is an attempt by you to define those defined as most important, as less. When you can prove life isn't most important in life, without ever having used life in the process, then it's up for discussion. Not before. After all, "Most Important" is just that: Most Important!
Blue cheese with that? Or French?

The true measure of intelligence is one's level of compassion, as compassion is truth manifest. Your compassion (intelligence) appears to still stand at 0!
Insults? You ARE DavidW! I'd say welcome back, but your idea of truth is just zany.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 25, 2016
This list ignores more, the proven Most Important Truth in Life:
barakn
zz5555
greenonions
Phys1
AGreatWhopper
Arthur_McBride
antiantigoracle
ElectricBoobVerses
TrollCondensate
Mike_Massen
Declan
zz5555
ImAPeanut
HeloMenelo
Vietvet
Sionnach
barakn
antialias_physorg
gkam
Protoplasmix

Shucks... I'm gonna have to work harder at it...
Hyperfuzzy
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2016
OK, everyone, it's clear, theory over facts, i.e. the questions. 1st list a single fact to support a theory. Fact, physics is the same everywhere and every scale. Fact, there exist two diametrical fields, call the centers the electron and the proton. Fact. these two compose everything. Fact, GR is nonsense. Fact, the standard model is nonsense. Fact, dark matter is nonsense This group is confusing theory with fact. We use theory for stuff we don't understand; hence, hindsight on what we did not understand and what we do understand, now. Now that you understand that it would be impossible for us to exist if any of your 1st axioms are true, i.e. it begins with empty space, nothing? Fact, space is never empty, these fields stretch forever. We exist, therefore we did not begin from nothing. There exist no method to meet any of these theories. Therefore, nothing is only conceptual. Why the e field? We may never know. Like saying, why is there up and down? juz say'n
Hyperfuzzy
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2016
One thing is for sure: we all are bunch of crackpots, frauds and liars, no one apparently believes anyone here...:-) Could we finally accept it as a most reliable fact and a common platform of mutual understanding and to continue with discussing of more problematic questions?

Sure - just as soon as you give up trying to tell everyone from Isaac Newton to Jack Harris that they are wrong, and that only you have the right idea, and that no one but you can understand the Great Underlying Mystery.

You might also stop trying to string together mystical, sciency-sounding gobblygook, learn actual physics, and apply your attention to actually expanding human knowledge instead of denigrating those who do, and then accusing anyone who doesn't agree with you of being a part of the conspiracy.

What do you think zephir, can you do these things?

This is a human thing, nonsense.
TimLong2001
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2016
Not surprising since the background red shift is due to photon energy loss rather than a Doppler shift.
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (16) Jul 25, 2016
Fact, GR is nonsense. Fact, the standard model is nonsense. Fact, dark matter is nonsense This group is confusing theory with fact. We use theory for stuff we don't understand; hence, hindsight on what we did not understand and what we do understand, now. Now that you understand that it would be impossible for us to exist if any of your 1st axioms are true, i.e. it begins with empty space, nothing? Fact, space is never empty, these fields stretch forever. We exist, therefore we did not begin from nothing. There exist no method to meet any of these theories. Therefore, nothing is only conceptual. Why the e field? We may never know. Like saying, why is there up and down? juz say'n
FACT: This poster has no clear idea of what he is trying to say
FACT: this poster has no real understanding of physics or the scientific method
FACT: This poster can be ignored,
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (16) Jul 25, 2016
Not surprising since the background red shift is due to photon energy loss rather than a Doppler shift.

Tired light theory? Paphaw, that train left the station, ran off the rails and was declared dead and buried years ago!
epoxy
Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (16) Jul 25, 2016
Woohoo! Made the List!
Apparently, all you have to do is ask...
Hyperfuzzy
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2016

FACT: this poster has no real understanding of physics or the scientific method
FACT: This poster can be ignored,

The poster has an MSEE and a hobby in theoretical physics, and you sir, are a denier without any evidence. Still need dark matter to make your nonsense sensible?
Hyperfuzzy
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2016

FACT: this poster has no real understanding of physics or the scientific method
FACT: This poster can be ignored,

The poster has an MSEE and a hobby in theoretical physics, and you sir, are a denier without any evidence. Still need dark matter to make your nonsense sensible?
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/latest-search-dark-matter-comes-empty
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 25, 2016
@DonCarlos
don't eat anything with a face
ROFL, good one, I'll remember that.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 25, 2016
Woohoo! Made the List!
Apparently, all you have to do is ask...
Me too! Me too!!!111!!oneoneohone!!
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 25, 2016
FYI,

Looks like Maggnus is about to get a lifetime ban on disqus for stalking and harassment. He clearly violated their main rule of not stalking and harassing.
Want to bet woowookook?

This is a fact! Understand that honesty means nothing to these people.
An actual fact - you are a loon! An absolute nutcase! A mentally unstable wingnut!

So you ADMIT that you are a previously banned SOCKPUPPET! A fact my loonie, bi-polar friend!
Benni
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 25, 2016
Maggie, Schneibo, the rest of the rant brigade gang........a few more coffin nails for your cosmic fairy dust has been up for a few hours:

http://phys.org/n...alo.html
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (16) Jul 26, 2016
Maggie, Schneibo, the rest of the rant brigade gang........a few more coffin nails for your cosmic fairy dust has been up for a few hours:

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

Well, Benni. It seems you had no explanation either - until astro-physicists came up with new ways to detect DM (Undetected matter). And you still have no explanation for remaining missing mass...
BTW - read the ARXIV article put up by DS on that thread....
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 26, 2016

BTW - read the ARXIV article put up by DS on that thread....


My bad. On the embedded cluster one....
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 26, 2016

BTW - read the ARXIV article put up by DS on that thread....


My bad. On the embedded cluster one....

@Nik, I hunted up a recent paper on halo baryon density, you may find this interesting: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.2430
epoxy
Jul 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
BongThePuffin
Jul 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2016
The dark matter can be really formed with missing baryons, which just evade the detection, because they're formed with highly ionized atom nuclei, so that they don't absorb visible light at the frequencies, where the physicists expect them. Compare also http://phys.org/n...cle.html of dark matter.

From the dense aether model perspective these models have a good meaning, because the naked atom nuclei and antiparticles would behave similarly with respect to scalar wave field and they would get trapped into it. Therefore the dark matter clouds get gradually enriched with particles of interstellar gas from outside. They're trapping them in similar way like the supperconductors are trapping magnets, which is condensed phase analogy of this effect.

WTF
Hyperfuzzy
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2016
Forgive them Sentient Universe, if you exist, for they don't know $hit!
epoxy
Jul 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 26, 2016
WTF
search for "quantum friction" in this thread

Hngh...
"friction" is what makes everything work. Interesting...
epoxy
Jul 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
baudrunner
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 26, 2016
The dark matter can be really formed with missing baryons, which just evade the detection, because they're formed with highly ionized atom nuclei, so that they don't absorb visible light at the frequencies, where the physicists expect them.
What a load of crap! This proves what I've been saying all along about most (pseudo)physicists not understanding how light works. Nuclei, let alone baryons, which are sub-nuclear particles, play no role in visible light propagation, only in frequencies beyond violet. So long as there are electron shells, there will be visible light propagation, with the exception of Helium, which is inert and can not participate.

I don't know why I bother..
epoxy
Jul 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antiantigoracle
Jul 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
BongThePuffin
Jul 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
john berry_hobbes
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 26, 2016

Da Schneib 4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2016

I'll take Bleu Cheese dressing on that word salad.



It's a good deal. The white wine if free.
Zzzzzzzz
3.7 / 5 (10) Jul 26, 2016
Gravitational wave detectors showing there are more black holes in existence than originally imagined......mapping of the universes black holes now posible.......the dark matter detector turning up empty handed......perhaps the day comes when the missing mass is discovered by the black hole mapping process, and we find the dark matter
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 26, 2016
Quantum friction - this is a difference. The quantum friction is proportional to jerk of particles, while at rest it remains zero - exactly the opposite from the normal friction.

How is classic friction at rest (no motion) NOT at 0...?!?
This occurs in the Casimir vacum at the surface of metals, which is analogy of dark matter, because of excess of longitudinal waves of vacuum.

Not gettin' ya on that one...
Therefore the dark matter acts similarly: it doesn't influence massive bodies at rest or linear motion,

are you certain on this? References?
only these spinning or accelerating ones.

which would imply some sort of field effect, generated by mass in motion...
Kinda like a magnetic (or even gravitational) field of a planet...?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 27, 2016
This list ignores more, the proven Most Important Truth in Life:
barakn
zz5555
greenonions
Phys1
AGreatWhopper
Arthur_McBride
antiantigoracle
ElectricBoobVerses
TrollCondensate
Mike_Massen
Declan
zz5555
ImAPeanut
HeloMenelo
Vietvet
Sionnach
barakn
antialias_physorg
gkam
Protoplasmix
Shucks... I'm gonna have to work harder at it...
@Whyde
me too, apparently
I am stunned that i didn't make the list!

and i try so hard, too...

.

.

These people have encouraged his outrageous and potential dangerous behavior
@davidW
the lie-based-delusional idiot

i can prove that list wrong with a single name: Vietvet
he doesn't encourage any behaviour at all whatsoever.

therefore we can establish, given your post, that you are not only delusional but also illiterate

or indoctrinated, as Maggnus pointed out
Protoplasmix
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 27, 2016
therefore we can establish, given your post, that you are not only delusional but also illiterate

or indoctrinated, as Maggnus pointed out.
Ohhh, now you did it – supporting Maggnus is definitely one of the things that will get you added to the list. Still not quite sure how I made the list, something about using science to hide the truth. He said I chose to support pure evil. Whyde made the list just by asking nicely.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2016
therefore we can establish, given your post, that you are not only delusional but also illiterate

or indoctrinated, as Maggnus pointed out.
Ohhh, now you did it – supporting Maggnus is definitely one of the things that will get you added to the list. Still not quite sure how I made the list, something about using science to hide the truth. He said I chose to support pure evil. Whyde made the list just by asking nicely.

Notice I am not on the list? Maybe he is saving me for a special treatment LOL!!!!
epoxy
Jul 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Jul 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 27, 2016
......the dark matter detector turning up empty handed......perhaps the day comes when the missing mass is discovered by the black hole mapping process, and we find the dark matter


...........this is what you call PUNTING, a stalling technique until they can come up with a better explanation for failed hypotheses.

Now BHs are becoming the new fallback talking point for abject failure to find this Cosmic Fairy Dust within the halos of Spiral Galaxies, or anything else for that matter. C'mon you guys, you know that once something falls into a BH that it will never be heard from or discovered again, how convenient can failure suddenly not be failure.

Or maybe Schneibo can come up with some DM airbrushed pics of BHs he claims he's seen & we can get a thrill at looking what the surface of a BH looks like all covered in Cosmic Fairy Dust.
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (6) Jul 27, 2016
Its not just that they can't find DM, its that it only exists if the laws of gravity are correct - there is no other evidence for the existence of DM. Ergo, the laws of gravity are wrong, and I am right - there is no gravity and Expansion Theory is correct (as I have said all along).
The so-called detection of Gravity Waves was in fact the effect of time distortion as explained in https://www.amazo...+gravity
Maggnus
4 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2016
Oh no, the zephir has been released! If quackery and word salads were profitable, he would be a rich man indeed!

I see that has also brought out Benni with his usual comments confirming he is not an actual engineer and knows nothing about physics, and Mundy with his mutterings about gravity and, no doubt, a chance to buy his Book of Mutterings.

You can always trust an article about dark matter to bring out the nutters! Especially when they report a null result.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 27, 2016
You can always trust an article about dark matter to bring out the nutters!
........no doubt it's the reason you're here as part of the punt formation special team.
Hyperfuzzy
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 27, 2016


I apologize, Hyperscuzzy. You don't have to be so miffed. It was simply an oversight that I left you off my list. It's just that you're eminently forgettable.


Dude, every emitter is a charged particle. A stationary particle produces a static field that you may move through. However, your statement is off subject. Stay on point. Also whatever names you give to other, non existent particles, has no logic to support even the thought of existence. All instrumentation is electromagnetic. All radiation is due to motion of only two charged particles. So when you define insults with your magic tricks, the audience might leave. Also, continue wasting time looking for dark whatever, and try to explain what you do not understand by changing the shape of space and time to confuse the masses. Personally, I make my own physics, without the stupidity, just logic.
Protoplasmix
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2016
Oh no, the zephir has been released! If quackery and word salads were profitable, he would be a rich man indeed!
I think he just broke the quackery meter with his "clever duckling" analogy.
epoxy
Jul 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2016
Apologise for your lies, you scumbag.


"Apologise" for agreeing with the article that this stuff is more than "missing", it is nonexistent? You're still having a spelling problem.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 01, 2016
...the actual singularity sits even deeper - at the center of black hole..."
I don't see any singularity in a black hole. More likely there is a region around the center of a black hole containing solid matter - the vacuum energy is completely displaced so there is no back pressure from the vacuum energy in this region and the full force of vacuum energy outside this region is applied at the surface of this region - not the event horizon BTW.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 01, 2016
...Therefore the confusion about size of Big Bang singularity perfectly reflects the confusion about the size of singularity in black hole description.
At the BB you may have all vacuum fluctuations in phase requiring a minimum of space. Not a pure singularity but close. This gives an amplitude of one vacuum fluctuation high enough to drive baryogenesis. Actually if you define space as the separation of vacuum fluctuations then this would be an actual singularity.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 01, 2016
...the full force of vacuum energy outside this region is applied at the surface of this region - not the event horizon BTW.
By this force I'm referring to the vacuum pressure. A much stronger force is possible when you change the random orientation of these fluctuations like the e/m forces.
Hyperfuzzy
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2016
...the full force of vacuum energy outside this region is applied at the surface of this region - not the event horizon BTW.
By this force I'm referring to the vacuum pressure. A much stronger force is possible when you change the random orientation of these fluctuations like the e/m forces.


First define the character of your singularity; silly thought, why are their different sizes singularities for the same thing, Maybe someone needs to study real physics. Juz say'n
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2016
...the full force of vacuum energy outside this region is applied at the surface of this region - not the event horizon BTW.
By this force I'm referring to the vacuum pressure. A much stronger force is possible when you change the random orientation of these fluctuations like the e/m forces.


First define the character of your singularity; silly thought, why are their different sizes singularities for the same thing, Maybe someone needs to study real physics. Juz say'n
There is no singularity in your quote so not sure what you're talking about. Get it together please.
Hyperfuzzy
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2016
...
First define the character of your singularity; silly thought, why are their different sizes singularities for the same thing, Maybe someone needs to study real physics. Juz say'n There is no singularity in your quote so not sure what you're talking about. Get it together please.

There exist only two singularities, they are the centers of the spherical fields we define as the proton and the electron, never created or destroyed. Time for redefinitions in modern physics. Juz say'n
epoxy
Aug 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antiantigoracle
Aug 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TrollCondensate
Aug 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Urgelt
1 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2016
Da Schneib reasonably asked, "Hmmmm, actually I think Hafele-Keating and follow-on experiments along this line tested it pretty well... Can you explain why you don't think so?"

Time dilation is well-established experimentally. The question is about spectrum-shifting: does SR's time dilation shift spectrum in photons traveling between objects moving differently, or not? If time dilation is reciprocal, then it won't. If reciprocity is wrong, then it will.

I'm not insisting that SR's reciprocity is wrong. I'm just saying we ought to try to nail that down experimentally. The Hafele-Keating line of experiments doesn't look for it.

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.