Acceleration relation found among spiral and irregular galaxies challenges current understanding of dark matter

September 21, 2016, Case Western Reserve University
In spiral galaxies such as NGC 6946, researchers found that a 1-to-1 relationship between the distribution of stars plus gas and the acceleration caused by gravity exists.

In the late 1970s, astronomers Vera Rubin and Albert Bosma independently found that spiral galaxies rotate at a nearly constant speed: the velocity of stars and gas inside a galaxy does not decrease with radius, as one would expect from Newton's laws and the distribution of visible matter, but remains approximately constant. Such 'flat rotation curves' are generally attributed to invisible, dark matter surrounding galaxies and providing additional gravitational attraction.

Now a team led by Case Western Reserve University researchers has found a significant new relationship in spiral and irregular : the acceleration observed in rotation curves tightly correlates with the gravitational acceleration expected from the visible mass only.

"If you measure the distribution of star light, you know the rotation curve, and vice versa," said Stacy McGaugh, chair of the Department of Astronomy at Case Western Reserve and lead author of the research.

The finding is consistent among 153 spiral and irregular galaxies, ranging from giant to dwarf, those with massive central bulges or none at all. It is also consistent among those galaxies comprised of mostly stars or mostly gas.

In a paper accepted for publication by the journal Physical Review Letters and posted on the preprint website arXiv, McGaugh and co-authors Federico Lelli, an astronomy postdoctoral scholar at Case Western Reserve, and James M. Schombert, astronomy professor at the University of Oregon, argue that the relation they've found is tantamount to a new natural law.

An astrophysicist who reviewed the study said the findings may lead to a new understanding of internal dynamics of galaxies.

"Galaxy rotation curves have traditionally been explained via an ad hoc hypothesis: that galaxies are surrounded by ," said David Merritt, professor of physics and astronomy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, who was not involved in the research. "The relation discovered by McGaugh et al. is a serious, and possibly fatal, challenge to this hypothesis, since it shows that rotation curves are precisely determined by the distribution of the normal matter alone. Nothing in the standard cosmological model predicts this, and it is almost impossible to imagine how that model could be modified to explain it, without discarding the dark matter hypothesis completely."

McGaugh and Schombert have been working on this research for a decade and with Lelli the last three years. Near-infrared images collected by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope during the last five years allowed them to establish the relation and that it persists for all 153 galaxies.

The key is that near-infrared light emitted by stars is far more reliable than optical-light for converting light to mass, Lelli said.

The researchers plotted the radial acceleration observed in rotation curves published by a host of astronomers over the last 30 years against the acceleration predicted from the observed distribution of ordinary matter now in the Spitzer Photometry & Accurate Rotation Curves database McGaugh's team created. The two measurements showed a single, extremely tight correlation, even when dark matter is supposed to dominate the gravity.

"There is no intrinsic scatter, which is how far the data differ on average from the mean when plotted on a graph," McGaugh said. "What little scatter is found is consistent with stellar mass-to-light ratios that vary a little from galaxy to galaxy."

Lelli compared the relation to a long-used natural law. "It's like Kepler's third law for the solar system: if you measure the distance of each planet from the sun, you get the orbital period, or vice versa" he said. "Here we have something similar for galaxies, with about 3,000 data points."

"In our case, we find a relation between what you see in normal matter in galaxies and what you get in their gravity," McGaugh said. "This is important because it is telling us something fundamental about how galaxies work."

Arthur Kosowsky, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Pittsburgh, was not involved but reviewed the research.

"The standard model of cosmology is remarkably successful at explaining just about everything we observe in the universe," Kosowsky said. "But if there is a single observation which keeps me awake at night worrying that we might have something essentially wrong, this is it."

He said McGaugh and collaborators have steadily refined the spiral galaxy scaling relation for years and called this latest work a significant advance, reducing uncertainty in the mass in normal matter by exploiting infrared observations.

"The result is a scaling relation in the data with no adjustable parameters," Kosowky said. "Throughout the history of physics, unexplained regularities in data have often pointed the way towards new discoveries."

McGaugh and his team are not pressing any theoretical interpretation of their empirical relation at this point.

"The natural inference is that this law stems from a universal force such as a modification of gravity like MOND, the hypothesis of Modified Newtonian Dynamics proposed by Israeli physicist Moti Milgrom. But it could also be something in the nature of dark matter like the superfluid dark matter proposed by Justin Khoury," McGaugh said. "Most importantly, whatever theory you want to build has to reproduce this."

Explore further: MOND used to predict key property in Andromeda's satellites

More information: Radial acceleration relation in rotationally supported galaxies. arxiv.org/abs/1609.05917

Related Stories

MOND used to predict key property in Andromeda's satellites

February 14, 2013

Using modified laws of gravity, researchers from Case Western Reserve University and Weizmann Institute of Science closely predicted a key property measured in faint dwarf galaxies that are satellites of the nearby giant ...

MOND predicts dwarf galaxy feature prior to observations

August 28, 2013

A modified law of gravity correctly predicted, in advance of the observations, the velocity dispersion—the average speed of stars within a galaxy relative to each other—in 10 dwarf satellite galaxies of the Milky Way's ...

Reconciling dwarf galaxies with dark matter

September 7, 2016

Dwarf galaxies are enigmas wrapped in riddles. Although they are the smallest galaxies, they represent some of the biggest mysteries about our universe. While many dwarf galaxies surround our own Milky Way, there seem to ...

Team Shines Cosmic Light on Missing Ordinary Matter

January 7, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- An international team of scientists, led by University of Maryland astronomer Stacy McGaugh, has found that individual galactic objects have less ordinary matter, relative to dark matter, than does the Universe ...

Recommended for you

Hunting molecules to find new planets

June 19, 2018

It's impossible to obtain direct images of exoplanets as they are masked by the high luminous intensity of their stars. However, astronomers led by UNIGE propose detecting molecules present in the exoplanet's atmosphere in ...

210 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RNP
4.1 / 5 (31) Sep 21, 2016
Before the crazies get going, can I point out that this paper (https://arxiv.org...917.pdf) is NOT a disproof of the existence of dark matter. The relation they find for acceleration still identifies a dramatic deviation from the expected relation from simple baryonic systems (Eqn 4 in the paper).

The paper only suggests that the either the simplest models of DM are wrong, and one of the more exotic models are right (they name superfluid dark matter, but there are others), alternatively, the results could indicate that the effect is more in line with the ideas of Modified Newtonian Dynamics or Modified Gravity.

I note that Stacey McGaugh is a respected (and well funded) astrophysicist that does not accept the standard picture of DM. He is living proof that the conspiracy theorists that regularly post on this site have no understanding of how research science works.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (17) Sep 21, 2016
Peratt's interacting Birkeland currents/plasmoid model of Galaxy formation does just fine without DM. As a matter of fact, it describes numerous aspects of the galactic life cycle from young quasars to old ellipticals.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (22) Sep 21, 2016
.....the acceleration observed in rotation curves tightly correlates with the gravitational acceleration expected from the visible mass only.


Oh no, say it can't be true!!!!!!

The resident Asstro-physicists will now begin their next round of berserk outrage after reading that more of zany Zwicky's DM concepts is heading for the chopping block. The "1st Semester Physics guy" & the "MASS does not equal ENERGY guy" will be here shortly to explain why this author simply does not comprehend the special knowledge & wisdom of ASSTROPHYSICS.

Before the crazies get going
........and it started just as soon as you put up your post.
barakn
4.2 / 5 (25) Sep 21, 2016
That is one of the most interesting papers I've read in a long time.
RNP
4.3 / 5 (18) Sep 21, 2016
@Benni
The resident Asstro-physicists will now begin their next round of berserk outrage after reading that more of zany Zwicky's DM concepts is heading for the chopping block. The "1st Semester Physics guy" & the "MASS does not equal ENERGY guy" will be here shortly to explain why this author simply does not comprehend the special knowledge & wisdom of ASSTROPHYSICS.


So, no scientific input, just more name calling? Besides, what is your insane obsession with Zwicky? That is 40 year old science. We have come a long way since then.

Before the crazies get going
........and it started just as soon as you put up your post.


Interesting. So you include yourself amongst the crazies?
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2016
My question is in the galaxies that show the expected rotation curves, do they have SMBHs in the center?
RNP
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2016
@Scroofinator
The vaste majority, if not all, are expected to harbour SMBHs. But note the the SMBH does not have a significant influence on the rotation curves outside the central regions; (Even a mass of a billion or so solar masses for the BH is small compared to the overall mass of ~1000 billion solar masses for a whole galaxy).
optical
Sep 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Sep 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
4.3 / 5 (17) Sep 21, 2016
@
Hi Optical

You are right that the article/paper argues against the consensus DM. That is because, as I mentioned previously, Stacey McGaugh is a DM unbeliever. He is, I believe, a proponent of MOND. The article, and to some degree the paper, is therefore written from that point of view. However, the qualifications I mentioned above are all also mentioned in the paper. So even he does not consider it a DISPROOF of the existence of DM

optical
Sep 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2016
@optical
I do not agree with you that:

The MOND itself is theory of some dark matter artifacts, like the disk rings around galaxies.


It is a modification to much more fundamental physics than that (e.g. https://en.wikipe...namics).

However, I would otherwise agree with you that at this point, the jury is still out.

liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2016
Dark matter is displaced by matter.

Dark matter fills 'empty' space. Dark matter strongly interacts with and 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

"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 displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
BackBurner
2.2 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2016
@RND: even he does not consider it a DISPROOF of the existence of DM


How exactly does one disprove the existence of an undetectable form of matter? It's completely absurd to even consider "disproving" the the little man who wasn't there hypothesis. I think the author is kind in the extreme to call the DM hypothesis "ad hoc"; certainly that and then some. The source of endless grant money though.

We know the presence of mass shapes spacetime, the effect we call "gravity". The MOND hypothesis explains observations without depending on undetectable mass and it's conceptually consistent. It should be clear now, in light of two years of high energy operation at the LHC and subsequent failure to reveal clues about the nature of "dark matter", that nothing remains to be revealed in that direction, rather, removing mass/energy from space would seem a far more productive course.
RNP
3.1 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2016
@BackBurner
How exactly does one disprove the existence of an undetectable form of matter? .......The MOND hypothesis explains observations without depending on undetectable mass and it's conceptually consistent.


OK. But we currently have no way to prove or disprove MOND either, as it too is based on the assumption on an otherwise undetected effect. It therefore seems to me advisable not to draw premature conclusions.
bobbysius
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 21, 2016
Is it not intuitively obvious that:
A. Yes there are equal (or was close to it at time of creation, some mass has been converted to energy.) amounts of matter and antimatter just as there should be.
B. Antimatter has antigravity
C. Antimatter now with more total mass or antimass depending on how you look at it is pushing the universe appart.


It's intuitive until you state Antimatter has antigravity. While some fringe theories posit that to be the case, the vast majority of work points to antimatter interacting with gravity classically (ie as an attractive force). As antimatter has mass (and not anti-mass) it's intuitive that antimatter has NORMAL gravity. Unfortunately, it's extremely difficult to demonstrate as antimatter and matter annihilate when brought together close enough to observe their gravitational interactions.
Macksb
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2016
Vera Rubin's observations (flat rotation curves, nearly constant speed) imply that the stars in a galaxy are a fully interconnected system, much like superfluid helium. Or a Bose Einstein system, or a superconductor.

The article above shows that the self-organization of galaxies, as described by Ms. Rubin, is related to near infrared light, which is a form of electromagnetic radiation. In my opinion, the infrared waves emitted by individual stars are not independent of each other. Instead, the periodic oscillations of their electromagnetic waves are all coupled, coordinated, interacting as one system. This causes the interconnected stars to self-organize at one uniform speed of rotation.

Planets do not emit electromagnetic radiation, so there is reason to believe that they will self-organize their orbits in a different manner than stars, such as by Kepler's third law.

HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 21, 2016
Re: "The paper only suggests that the either the simplest models of DM are wrong, and one of the more exotic models are right (they name superfluid dark matter, but there are others), alternatively, the results could indicate that the effect is more in line with the ideas of Modified Newtonian Dynamics or Modified Gravity."

For the sake of clarity, please note that Wal Thornhill's Electric Universe hypothesis is based upon a physical form of MOND which he terms E-MOND. Although he provides calculations, the claim is fundamentally a physical claim about how gravity works which carefully distinguishes mass from matter. In short, gravity in E-MOND works in much the same spirit as the Van der Waals force behaves: At the interstellar scale, it is a local force. What that means for galaxies is that the cosmic plasma is doing much of the heavy lifting.

It's hardly a crazy idea.
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (12) Sep 21, 2016
Re: "I note that Stacey McGaugh is a respected (and well funded) astrophysicist that does not accept the standard picture of DM. He is living proof that the conspiracy theorists that regularly post on this site have no understanding of how research science works."

That's ONE way to interpret the situation.

A completely fair ALTERNATIVE way is that history will prove that the "conspiracy theorists" were in fact just skeptics who didn't buy into the textbook theory. Disagreeing with the scientific community at the very edges of empirical science should never be considered a "conspiracy". That's some amazingly sloppy logic there, given that entire books have been written by well-spoken academic whistleblowers detailing exactly how scientific theory can and does routinely run amok.
RNP
4 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2016
@Macksb
Accidently clicked on a 5 for you jibberish, consider yourself lucky. My apologies to everyone else.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2016
Since the old MOND idea is dead, let's invent a new one! But we will use IR instead of verifying actual bayonic mass, and we will keep on pushing in nonsensical claims of "ad hoc" for a today secure part of modern cosmology. ("Ad hoc" was fact when Zwicky proposed it, but that was decades ago and well before all the independent observations of dark matter met in modern cosmology.)

Oy.
RNP
3.8 / 5 (13) Sep 21, 2016
@HansAlfven
"I note that Stacey McGaugh is a respected (and well funded) astrophysicist that does not accept the standard picture of DM. He is living proof that the conspiracy theorists that regularly post on this site have no understanding of how research science works."


That's ONE way to interpret the situation.

A completely fair ALTERNATIVE way is that history will prove that the "conspiracy theorists" were in fact just skeptics who didn't buy into the textbook theory.......


Stacy McGraugh does not buy into the textbook theory, but he does not ascribe any conspiracy to the way science is performed, despite being in ideological conflict with many other scientists.

Your "completely fair ALTERNATIVE" lacks any credibility simply because you consistently fail to clearly define it or produce any actual evidence for it.

torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2016
@optical
I do not agree with you that:

The MOND itself is theory of some dark matter artifacts, like the disk rings around galaxies.


It is a modification to much more fundamental physics than that (e.g. https://en.wikipe...namics).

However, I would otherwise agree with you that at this point, the jury is still out.



The jury on what? The paper looks sound, but is boring in that it doesn't try to assert the data nor check with galaxy models, its only purpose is to find a relation that is somehow a 'problem' for cosmology instead of an advance. (Which the found relation may well turn out to be - if the data stands up.)

MOND (say) is dead and buried for the reasons "optical" mentions, and standard cosmology was just able to predict structure formation better than any ad hoc models on all scales down to dwarf galaxies, the earlier hold out, as "optical" just referenced.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2016
@RND: even he does not consider it a DISPROOF of the existence of DM


How exactly does one disprove the existence of an undetectable form of matter?


It isn't "undetectable" just because you claim it is. Look at the paper, they base their model on its observation!
Macksb
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2016
I'm surprised that dark matter didn't autocorrect your numerical problem RNP, as it does so wonderfully with everything else in the universe.

I'm lucky to have you as an opponent.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2016
Re: "Your "completely fair ALTERNATIVE" lacks any credibility simply because you consistently fail to clearly define it or produce any actual evidence for it."

I have no monopoly on Google. Have you tried googling "wal thornhill E-MOND"? I just confirmed for myself that the first two hits are the two articles you should read.
RNP
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2016
@HannesAlfven
Why should I, or anyone else, want to Google such obvious drivel? It is nothing more than uninformed speculation unsupported by ANY form of evidence.
tblakely1357
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2016
Historically, the more contortions science has to go through to make a new observation fit in with existing theories the more likely there is something seriously wrong with existing theories and/or a major flaw in the observations.

What that is in this case, I've no idea. But it wouldn't surprise me in the least if somewhere down the road someone has a 'eureka' moment and dramatically transforms and simplifies our understanding of cosmology.
allyvanandel
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2016
I'm confused. Can someone explain this?

The whole point of Rubin and Bosma's work was to state that:

"the acceleration observed in rotation curves tightly correlates with the gravitational acceleration expected from the visible mass only."

is FALSE. So, are we just saying that this new work shows that regular gravity with normal matter does in fact explain galactic rotation after all?

If so, why didn't they just say that?
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 21, 2016
Hi RNP, Phys1, torbjorn_b_g_larsson, et al. :)

Good grief, WHAT DOES IT TAKE!

What DOES it take, to get you to finally drop unnecessary 'religious-like beliefs'?

Just look at the REALITY under your noses increasingly discovered via newer telescopes (than were available when those BB and non fantasies were 'formulated'). Observations 'interpreted' back THEN used obviously UNINFORMED/FLAWED assumptions to 'explain' mysteries which DID NOT EXIST in REALITY if one actually applies GR, known science/physics/logics etc to the observations!

I RECENTLY EXPLAINED IT ALL AGAIN to Da Schneib, Phys1 et al. :)

Now (in this field also) the mainstream researchers are catching up to what I have been observing for YEARS and YEARS; based on known science, correctly applied GR, and OBJECTIVE Logics/Occams Razor assumptions etc.

Resistance/Denial to/of my CORRECT observations has been SHAMEFUL; complete with 'religious fervor' like personal attacks.

CONTINUED...
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2016
...CONTINUED....especially @ RNP & @ optical:

@ RNP: Please, once and for all, realize that PERSON behind SCIENCE is IRRELEVANT. Forget these obsessions with the 'biography/beliefs' etc of whomever is presenting the science. Concentrate on the science ITSELF. Else you automatically allows BIASES and PREJUDICES into your 'reading and understanding' of what should be read/understood SCRUPULOUSLY OBJECTIVELY, on its own merits/logics/consistency with reality, known science etc. OK? Try NOT defaulting all the time to PERSONAL irrelevance; just stick to objective science discourse. Good luck. :)

@ optical: Recently discovered galaxies which have either become faint or brighter etc means there are more factors at play which may affect the observations. Hence interpreting faintness, brightness, red/blue shift 'values' etc as 'distance/activity/inactivity' indicators is fraught with potential SERIOUS ERROR. Basically, all previous assumptions/interpretations SUSPECT.

Cheers. :)
Macksb
1 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2016
Extending my first comment, which is about 14 posts above.

Remember the formula we learned as children. D= R X T. Distance equals rate multiplied by time. For planets and moons, Kepler's third law involves T (orbital period squared) and D (distance of semi-major axis cubed). Self organization of the planets is 1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1 (8 planets) on such T to D ratios.

Vera Rubin found that R, the only other component in the DRT formula, is the same for all the stars. The speeds of the stars are 1:1:1:1 and so on for millions of stars in a given galaxy.

We know from Newton and Einstein that mass is the active ingredient in gravity. We also know from Einstein that energy and mass are interchangeable (E = MC squared).

Planets emit no E. But stars do emit E. Perhaps dark matter is the total E emanating from all of the stars in the galaxy. (M,E interchangeable via Einstein.). Planets: M plus 0 E. So ignore E. Stars: M + E, in some Kepler like proportions.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Let's start afresh, ok? :)

Now, here is a quote from above article:
the acceleration observed in rotation curves tightly correlates with the gravitational acceleration expected from the visible mass only. "If you measure the distribution of star light, you know the rotation curve, and vice versa," said Stacy McGaugh, chair of the Department of Astronomy at Case Western Reserve and lead author of the research.
Can you explain how you 'parsed' that in order to come up with your above interpretation?

I ask this only because your above interpretation appears to be at odds with their clear and explicit statement that:
...rotation curves tightly CORRELATES with the gravitational ACCELERATION EXPECTED from the VISIBLE MASS ONLY.


PS: I would appreciate you keeping out previous argy-bargy between us; and just addressing that seeming contradiction between what you just stated and what they stated. Thanks, mate. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
Both your quotes and my line are in full agreement.
You claim to revert to reason, yet state that I "parsed" the paper.
That is a flawed representation of the truth.
Can you elaborate? For example: Does that mean you now agree (as the above article does) with me that once the astronomers discovered the additional ordinary 'previously dark' matter (now all of it more 'visible' via our newer IR scopes) then the observed rotation curves are explicable (as I long ago said) by the correct EXPECTATIONS from correctly applied GR given ALL the mass distributions now more 'visible'? :)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Note that the proposed relation predicts infinite DM effects far from the baryonic mass.
Let's take this calmly one step at a time. Do you agree/disagree with the "correlates with GR expectations of visible matter only" part?
HannesAlfven
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2016
Re: "Why should I, or anyone else, want to Google such obvious drivel? It is nothing more than uninformed speculation unsupported by ANY form of evidence."

In order to understand what is being claimed, so that in situations like this, you are not relying upon the stereotypes and narratives offered by others in order to come to a meaningful opinion.

It's the same reason why you should generally read the source papers rather than the opinion of a science journalist who is covering those papers.

Is there not at all a contradiction in the fact that you call something "obvious drivel" while also refusing to do a Google search on it?

I mean no offense, but I think people get a bit carried away here with ridiculing things that they don't actually understand. Why should you inherit those self-destructive behaviors? You don't HAVE to. It's your choice.

Nature does not care one bit what people on physorg believe.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2016
@RealityCheck
You say:

Does that mean you now agree (as the above article does) with me that once the astronomers discovered the additional ordinary 'previously dark' matter (now all of it more 'visible' via our newer IR scopes) then the observed rotation curves are explicable (as I long ago said) by the correct EXPECTATIONS from correctly applied GR given ALL the mass distributions now more 'visible'? :)


Obviously, you have not read and/or understood the article or paper. The article CLEARLY states that the observed accelerations can NOT be explained by baryonic matter in any form.
Reg Mundy
1.6 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2016
"Galaxy rotation curves have traditionally been explained via an ad hoc hypothesis: that galaxies are surrounded by dark matter," said David Merritt, professor of physics and astronomy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, who was not involved in the research. "The relation discovered by McGaugh et al. is a serious, and possibly fatal, challenge to this hypothesis, since it shows that rotation curves are precisely determined by the distribution of the normal matter alone. Nothing in the standard cosmological model predicts this, and it is almost impossible to imagine how that model could be modified to explain it, without discarding the dark matter hypothesis completely."

At last, reality checks in. Now can independent scientists concentrate on formulating a cosmological model that does not rely on continuously inventing undectable things like DM, DE, gravitons, etc. (that includes gravity waves, where questions exist on what was acctually detected by LIGO),
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2016
Imaginary matter has been declared for so long and there is so much money spent 'proving' that it exists, that almost nothing will dislodge it.

It is refreshing to find a study which does not create imaginary matter to explain the observations.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Moebius
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2016
And the 'dark matter' effect rears its ugly head again to challenge those who attribute the effect to some sort of matter purely for their entrenched beliefs.
Moebius
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2016
dupe, sorry, no delete. This website is so much like the dinosaurs in some articles, in that the mods have the brains of walnuts
Benni
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 22, 2016
OK RNP the article states:
......found a significant new relationship in spiral and irregular galaxies: the acceleration observed in rotation curves tightly correlates with the gravitational acceleration expected from the visible mass only.


RNP states:
Obviously, you have not read and/or understood the article or paper. The article CLEARLY states that the observed accelerations can NOT be explained by baryonic matter in any form.


I have pasted what is stated in the article directly above what RNP states is in the article the article. So how does that work RNP? Do you agree with the article? Or does the article agree with your statement, and if so quote the words from the article like I did. Can't do it can you........it's called "obfuscation", you like this word so much that I thought I'd borrow from your repertoire of cliches.

bar·y·on·ic mat·ter
noun
matter composed of protons and neutrons; ordinary matter, as distinct from exotic forms.

RNP
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2016
@Benni

OK. Lets try this one more time. The paper says that the acceleration CORRELATES WITH the the expectation from the matter distribution. It is not EXPLAINED by it. This is shown in the paper (e.g. Equation 4), where they compare the expectation from the matter distribution to the observed value. They are CLEARLY not equal.

That is why the article/paper says:

"The natural inference is that this law stems from a universal force such as a modification of gravity like MOND, the hypothesis of Modified Newtonian Dynamics proposed by Israeli physicist Moti Milgrom. But it could also be something in the nature of dark matter like the superfluid dark matter proposed by Justin Khoury,"
dogbert
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2016
Phys1,

I did not misread and I did not say the paper explained the observations.
I noted that it is refreshing that the author did not create imaginary matter to explain the observations
dogbert
3 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2016
Phys1,

If you need to say that you did not find a unicorn in the room, you must necessarily say the word unicorn.

Similarly, when he says that his findings do not require dark matter, he must necessarily use the term dark matter.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2016
OK, let's try this one more time:

"The natural inference is that this law stems from a universal force such as a modification of gravity like MOND, the hypothesis of Modified Newtonian Dynamics proposed by Israeli physicist Moti Milgrom. But it could also be something in the nature of dark matter like the superfluid dark matter proposed by Justin Khoury,"
.......an author can't get anymore ambiguous about some hypotheses than to write up a paragraph as one you quoted, that is, as compared to:

....found a significant new relationship in spiral and irregular galaxies: the acceleration observed in rotation curves tightly correlates with the gravitational acceleration expected from the visible mass only.


I leave it to the casual reader as to which of the two statements are the least ambiguous, so rest assured it is not to you , or any other asstrophysics aficionados I put up this manner of comparing actual words as opposed to inferences of what you wished.

Benni
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2016
So, no scientific input, just more name calling? Besides, what is your insane obsession with Zwicky? That is 40 year old science. We have come a long way since then.


Before the crazies get going
.............and so who starts it with the "name calling"? You did. Yours was the first post put up & you started it with this. The name calling binge started with you yet again.

You asstrophysics aficionados simply have a distorted mindset in that what you impute about others does not also reflect your deepest feelings toward others with whom you anticipate you will vehemently disagree as they followup to your posts.

You want to change the tone & tenor of this chatroom, then set an example, don't start off by imputing "crazies" by those following who will disagree with you, I simply followed your lead with the "zany" & "asstrophysics", didn't like it did you?

So, what's the next rationale for the next forth coming name calling binge you are just itching to post?
Macksb
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2016
Benni wins.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2016
Sorry nothing intelligent to say about the article but this is interesting
Thank baby Jesus. Maybe we do not have to listen to any more dark matter nonsense. I well tell you people again
-So if the godman can exist at all places and times simultaneously, does this mean he can be all potential ages at the same time?

Not only is he his own father but he is both juvenile and adult at the same time (just like us), which may explain some of his objectionable behavior.

Learn something new every day.

But then maybe it's just an expression like jesus h christ or holy shit, I dunno.

OK all done. As you were. Carry on.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2016
Hi RNP; and Hi also to Phys1 if he is reading me again. :)

I quote from the Discussion Section of the linked paper:
The dark and baryonic mass are strongly coupled [13, 14].
Possible interpretations for the radial acceleration re-
lation fall into three broad categories.
1. It represents the end product of galaxy formation.
2. It represents new dark sector physics that leads to
the observed coupling.
3. It is the result of new dynamical laws rather than
dark matter.
None of these options are entirely satisfactory. In the standard cosmological paradigm, galaxies form within dark matter halos. Simulations of this process do not naturally lead to realistic galaxies [44, 46]. Complicated accessory effects ("feedback") must be invoked to remodel simulated galaxies into something more akin to observations. Whether such processes can satisfactorily explain the radial acceleration relation and its small scatter remains to be demonstrated [47, 48]...CONTINUED
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2016
CONTINUING QUOTED EXCERPT from above article: @ RNP.

CONTINUED...Another possibility is new "dark sector" physics. The dark matter needs to respond to the distribution of baryons (or vice-versa) in order to give the observed re-
lation. This is not trivial to achieve, but the observed phenomenology might emerge if dark matter behaves as a fluid [49, 50] or is sub ject to gravitational polarization [51]. Thirdly, the one-to-one correspondence between g[bar] and g[obs] suggests that THE BARYONS ARE THE SOURCE OF THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL.


As you can read for yourself, they give 'lip service' to DM 'arguments', but basically those are too ad hoc and unsatisfactory now that VISIBLE ORDINARY MASS DISTRIBUTIONS PATTERN is reflected in the expected accelerations (even though the full mass content still not fully determined).

I will address the study data, methodology, flaws/insufficiencies etc when I have more time. But basically, exotic DM not 'needed' anymore. :)
Benni
1.7 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2016
RC, I read the entire paper. My synopsis is that the author is doing his best to equivocate, he doesn't want to stir up a hornet's nest with the diehard DM advocates as he observes that rotation curves cannot be attributed to DM Envelopes as Zwicky has proposed.

In time, we'll see more & more of this decoupling of DM with Rotation Curves, but it will be advancements in instrumentation that will do it, you've touched on some of those things in previous posts, but it will be fun to watch, maybe the name calling will become even more shrill based on the tone this thread commenced when RNP started out with his inflammatory "crazies" comment.
Reg Mundy
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2016
Lets face it, DM only "exists" because it is necessary if the "laws of gravity" are correct (whichever version you choose...). Of course, as I've always said, there ain't no gravity.....in which case, no need for DM - and a lot of other stuff dreamed up with it.
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

I will address the study data, methodology, flaws/insufficiencies etc when I have more time.


Ohyeei. I bet everybody is waiting for that. While you are addressing those good stuffs, could you throw in a little something about the NON-Keplerian-Orbiting that the galaxies are doing and nobody but you is noticing?

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy.

Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2016
Of course, as I've always said, there ain't no gravity.


Well I am for one really glad you are always saying that. Keep up the good work.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
I will address the study data, methodology, flaws/insufficiencies etc when I have more time.
I bet everybody is waiting for that.
Naturally; since I have been correct all along; now again confirmed by mainstream above. :)
While you are addressing those good stuffs, could you throw in a little something about the NON-Keplerian-Orbiting that the galaxies are doing and nobody but you is noticing?
The whole above article is about NON-Keplerian (ie, "flat") rotation profile of spiral galaxies (whereas rotation profile in our solar system is Keplerian). The mass distribution is different in solar system compared to spiral galaxy. All explained to Da Schneib.

Same differentiation is made in paper RNP linked: https://arxiv.org...5917.pdf
rotation curves of disk galaxies become approximately flat (V ≈ constant) when they should be falling in a Keplerian (V ? R? 1/2) fashion.
See? "Flat" = NON-Keplerian. Your apology accepted, Ira. :)
RNP
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2016
@Benni
I leave it to the casual reader as to which of the two statements are the least ambiguous, so rest assured it is not to you , or any other asstrophysics aficionados I put up this manner of comparing actual words as opposed to inferences of what you wished.


Neither of the two statements are ambiguous. Indeed the second implies the first if you realize that the observed correlation between expected and observed accelerations is NOT a one-to-one relation. This is stated, without ambiguity in the paper - I made NO inferences. This is the last time I am going to bother attempting to explain this to you.
Benni
1 / 5 (11) Sep 23, 2016
@Benni
I leave it to the casual reader as to which of the two statements are the least ambiguous, so rest assured it is not to you , or any other asstrophysics aficionados I put up this manner of comparing actual words as opposed to inferences of what you wished.


Neither of the two statements are ambiguous. Indeed the second implies the first if you realize that the observed correlation between expected and observed accelerations is NOT a one-to-one relation. This is stated, without ambiguity in the paper - I made NO inferences. This is the last time I am going to bother attempting to explain this to you.


R, of course, to you neither statement would be ambiguous, this because you're the type when you come to a fork in the road you take the fork.
This is the last time I am going to bother attempting to explain this to you.
......because you don't know how to explain anything to anybody anyway, you are only proficient with inciting name calling rants.
Macksb
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2016
Benni wins again.
Captain Stumpy
3.6 / 5 (16) Sep 23, 2016
the simplest answer at the moment is that gravity is a short-range force, and something other than gravity is dominating at the larger scales
@chris/hannes eu TROLL
for starters: that tactic is called Gish Gallop - http://rationalwi...h_gallop

for two: your arguments do not provide evidence to support your conclusion

lastly: you're intentionally reversing the properties of gravity and EM because you want to believe in your eu stupidity

until you can actually provide a workable hypothesis that is testable and makes predictions as accurately as the standard model in astrophysics, you're promoting pseudoscience

is that why you need multiple accounts?
why post as both chris and hannes in the same thread?
attempting to gain credibility through perceived support?

all it takes to get "support" is evidence and peer reviewed papers in a reputable journal... it works far better than posting to a news aggregate with multiple socks
dogbert
2 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2016
Phys1,
Also his findings still require DM ...


Imaginary matter has never been required. Creating an imaginary substance to make our observations work with our models of gravity merely conceals the fact that our models do not predict what we are observing.

A more scientific approach would be to try to discover why our models fail to predict what we observe.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 23, 2016
all it takes to get "support" is evidence and peer reviewed papers in a reputable journal... it works far better than posting to a news aggregate
..........Sure, exactly what Zwicky did back in the last century with his Tired Light & DM theories & look what's happened, fallen apart as fast as 21st century advances in instrumentation technology can make it happen.

Talk about "testable", you need to have the stuff at your fingertips in the first place or it isn't "testable", but you in non-science crowd are unable to comprehend that.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 23, 2016
Benni does not like name calling.
....................are you kidding? I love it. This gives the casual reader the greatest insight possible to the real inner self of the person posting the name calling........you & Stumpo lead the pack.
RNP
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2016
@Benni
Benni does not like name calling.
....................are you kidding? I love it. This gives the casual reader the greatest insight possible to the real inner self of the person posting the name calling........you & Stumpo lead the pack.


Says someone whose favourite word seems to be ASStrophysicists. What do you think the "casual reader" makes of that?.
Benni
1 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2016
Even real scientists that do not really like DM, such as McGaugh, do not have a case at this time for an alternative.
......well they sure do now, and McGaugh did it without consulting you.

I guess you're just feeling so low that he nixed consulting you before doing his research. It appears he didn't think someone of your mindset would be an appropriate source of opinion. Maybe it was that potato chip trail that follows wherever you go.

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (11) Sep 23, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Thanks for reading properly and responding politely. :)
Whatever it takes, you don't have it. No one does. It takes either some sort of proof that the effects (lensing, galactic rotation, cluster dynamics) can _not_ be caused by any form of matter. You with you habit of not having a case at all may experience some difficulty here. Or it takes an alternative explanation, which even McGaugh does not have, let alone you.
The 'previously dark' Matter being increasingly discovered is ORDINARY EM-interacting type. That's it. I never said it wasn't matter, did I? Only pointed out that it was NOT the non-EM-interacting type of 'dark' Matter postulated by some. Ok? :)
You have no case for that. If the cause is DM then all orbits are Keplerian. If the cause is gravity acting at difference with Newton then you can call them non-Keplerian.
I spoke of the matter distribution/rotation curve being NON-Keplerian. Orbits OK if GR correctly applied to same. :)
Benni
1 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2016
Benni does not like name calling.
.
...................are you kidding? I love it. This gives the casual reader the greatest insight possible to the real inner self of the person posting the name calling........you & Stumpo lead the pack.


Says someone whose favourite word seems to be ASStrophysicists. What do you think the "casual reader" makes of that?.
.........the same way you take it?

You see, if you hadn't started the "crazies" stuff, you wouldn't have had to read about ASSTROPHYSICISTS yet again, but no, you just couldn't stop yourself could you? You should read a biography on Zwicky sometime, he preceded the same proclivities for rude behavior that you, Phys1, Shavo, Stumpo, etc exemplify.

Zwicky would often jump out of his seat in a crowded lecture symposium & shout down another scientist with epithets of profanity, that's how many in his time tagged him with the term ZANY, that's another reason you're a good follower of his.
axemaster
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2016
I guess the main question I would ask is:

What about those galaxies where the dark matter appears to be detached from the galaxy? We observe certain galaxies colliding, where the normal galaxy is slowing down as the gas rams together, but the dark matter keeps going and detaches from the visible galaxy. We end up seeing gravitational lensing out in apparently empty space, which I always viewed as basic proof that dark matter exists. If dark matter doesn't exist, how the heck could you explain something like that?
RNP
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2016
@axemaster

What about those galaxies where the dark matter appears to be detached from the galaxy?...........


I believe you are talking about colliding/merging galaxy clusters, i.e. the Bullet Cluster and Pandora's cluster (see https://en.wikipe..._Cluster In these, the non-colliding components (galaxies and DM) pass through each other and keep going, while the hot gas components collide (I note that, while galaxies can collide the large spaces between them makes it unlikely). This means that galaxies and gas become separated from the hot gas until, as the merger process continues, gravity reverses the motion of the non-colliding components and they fall back towards each other. This is indeed considered one of the strongest pieces of evidence that the DM effect is indeed cause by a form of matter and is not a MOND like effect.

vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2016
vidyunmaya
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2016
sub: Cosmology Vedas interlinks
1.Philosophy of Science : Plasmas, Electro-magnetic fields and Cosmology
2. Resource : Reflectors,3-Tier Consciousness, Source, Fields and Flows :Add Protection
http://archive.or...osmology
15 Books at LULU. http://www.lulu.c...jnani108
vidyunmaya
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2016
sub: Cosmology Vedas interlinks
1.Philosophy of Science : Plasmas, Electro-magnetic fields and Cosmology
2. Resource : Reflectors,3-Tier Consciousness, Source, Fields and Flows :Add Protection
www [dot]lulu [dot]com-spotlight-jnani108
Chris_Reeve
Sep 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
4.7 / 5 (13) Sep 24, 2016
Re: "all it takes to get "support" is evidence and peer reviewed papers in a reputable journal... it works far better than posting to a news aggregate with multiple socks"

Oh, don't worry. It's coming. One step at a time.


And if I had a pound for every time I've heard that from an EU delusionist, I'd be a rich man! There are absolute skads of freely accessible data out there from ESA and NASA. Is anyone from that particular brand of crank science working on any of it? Personally, I very much doubt there is anyone within EU capable of figuring out what to do with it. If Thornhill is the best you've got, science wise, then you are in deep do-do.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 24, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Thanks for reading properly and responding politely. :)
Stop being so condescending, "mate".
Not at all, mate; that is my manner, and sincere at that. You/others insult each other at every turn; but you should understand that such is 'not my thing'. Please take it at face value as sincere politeness; and appreciation of same in return when it occurs (as you just said to someone else: "He is just telling it like it is". And in our present exchange, the "he" would be me. :)
The 'previously dark' Matter being increasingly discovered is ORDINARY EM-interacting type. That's it.
Nah. If it were EM interacting it would have been discovered.
Huh? BUT I just pointed out that IT IS BEING DISCOVERED; and that IT IS EM-interacting ORDINARY 'previously dark' matter!
please define a Keplerian mass distribution.
Keplerian: Majority of mass in central body (eg, Solar System).

NON-Keplerian: Majority of mass in extended disc (eg, spiral galaxy). :)
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 24, 2016
Hi RNP, axemaster. :)

From axemaster:
What about those galaxies where the dark matter appears to be detached from the galaxy?
Reply to axemaster from RNP:
I believe you are talking about colliding/merging galaxy clusters,.... This means that galaxies and gas become separated from the hot gas until, as the merger process continues, gravity reverses the motion of the non-colliding components and they fall back towards each other. This is indeed considered one of the strongest pieces of evidence that the DM effect is indeed cause by a form of matter and is not a MOND like effect.
I explained this before. New astronomical discoveries of HUGE extents of gas/dust everywhere we look with new telescopes AROUND/BETWEEN galaxies/gal-clusters, tells us it IS 'matter'; but ORDINARY EM-interacting type.

And since that ORDINARY matter distribution WAS ALREADY THERE when galaxies may have collided, then all previous NON-EM-interacting-DM 'interpretations' are redundant. :)
RNP
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2016
@RealityCheck
Phys1 is absolutely correct. The " New astronomical discoveries of HUGE extents of gas/dust everywhere we look.........." that you mention, in TOTAL, only represents a TINY fraction of the missing mass. This is evident from the numbers , if you care to look. This is why NONE of these papers make ANY claims about the detections having a bearing on the DM issue.
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 25, 2016
The " New astronomical discoveries of HUGE extents of gas/dust everywhere we look.........." that you mention, in TOTAL, only represents a TINY fraction of the missing mass.
.....How do you know this?

This is evident from the numbers , if you care to look
.......OK, so put up the numbers. If there are such numbers as you claim there to be, then those numbers can be verified by the quantity of OBSERVED/TESTABLE Visible Mass as compared to the quantity of OBSERVED/TESTABLE Missing Mass.

Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2016
You must be number blind to shout for numbers here
...........on a website chatroom about science? I can only surmise you think such numbers are unimportant is because you don't have anything TESTABLE, just as your family relative Zwicky never had anything TESTABLE. It must be Sunday morning, RNP's "crazies" are on the loose.
RNP
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2016
@Benni
The " New astronomical discoveries of HUGE extents of gas/dust everywhere we look.........." that you mention, in TOTAL, only represents a TINY fraction of the missing mass.
.....How do you know this?

This is evident from the numbers , if you care to look
.......OK, so put up the numbers. If there are such numbers as you claim there to be, then those numbers can be verified by the quantity of OBSERVED/TESTABLE Visible Mass as compared to the quantity of OBSERVED/TESTABLE Missing Mass.


See https://arxiv.org...8364.pdf and dozens lIke it easily found by Googling the subject.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 25, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

As I said before (but you may have missed it), those initial/outdated assumptions/interpretations are no longer relevant. The new astronomical discoveries have updated the ordinary matter contents/extents associated with previously 'dark' and unobservable matter in regions which were not previously suspected to contain such humongous amounts of ordinary matter!

For example, your link above deals with a mere bagatelle of matter found within a few hundred light years of the galactic centre.

Whereas the new discoveries range throughout the galaxy to its visible edges thousands of LYs out; and to hundreds of thousands of LYs FURTHER into the deep space around the galaxy, effectively doubling/tripling galactic mass!

And galactic clusters have a LOT of similarly 'previously unsuspected' ORDINARY EM-interacting matter between their galaxies and around the whole clusters and between clusters!

All that stuff DWARFS the 'Missing Baryon Problem' proportions sought! :)
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
OK with your definition of Keplerian. Since none of the orbits in any galaxy is Keplerian, lets drop the non-subject.
Agreed. Please explain it to Ira if/when you have a moment, as he won't believe me unless one of his 'preferred-skippys' says it; and even then he still rates me '1' regardless. :)
Astrophysicists discover baryonic matter. In their papers they clearly state that this matter is NOT the explanation of anomalous galactic rotation. Last time I confronted you with this fact you dismissed the discoverers.
Please first read my above latest to RNP. And many 'papers' still 'in denial' and/or working from same initial incorrect 'expectations' etc. The people you refer to all work in their own separate 'discoveries' box. It'll take cross-discipline co-ordination/project to fully compile ALL the various discoveries, and update the TOTAL ORDINARY MATTER tally (sorry I can't say more at this time, mate).

I'll leave you all to do more research. :)
FredJose
1.8 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2016
"The standard model of cosmology is remarkably successful at explaining just about everything we observe in the universe,"

Except for the small matters of the existence of the first stars and also the supposedly resulting planets around most stars today. There is absolutely zero explanation for how the first stars (and even all subsequent ones) formed from a cloud of gas all by themselves. There is no physical model that can account for this. Nor any model to account for the formation of planets. What exists now is only sheer speculation and completely unworkable.
FredJose
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2016
Before the crazies get going, can I point out that this paper (https://arxiv.org...917.pdf) is NOT a disproof of the existence of dark matter.

Actually the one author of the paper flatly contradicts your story:
"The relation discovered by McGaugh et al. is a serious, and possibly fatal, challenge to this hypothesis, since it shows that rotation curves are precisely determined by the distribution of the normal matter alone. Nothing in the standard cosmological model predicts this, and it is almost impossible to imagine how that model could be modified to explain it, without discarding the dark matter hypothesis completely."

IMP-9
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2016
Actually the one author of the paper flatly contradicts your story:


The fact the author claims it does not make it true. The paper contains no simulations to support this claim. This work is an extension of so called "mass discrepancy acceleration relation (MDAR)" which says the ratio of baryonic to dark matter is related to the acceleration due to the baryonic matter. That relation is explicable in dark matter simulations[1]. After all we already know there are tight relations between total mass and baryonic matter as observed in the Tully-Fisher relation. Sadly these simulations are dark matter only and no one in this sub-field has yet done looked at the large hydrodynamical simulations that are now available like EAGLE and Illustris. Before claiming this could not be explained by standard cosmology they should really have tested whether or not it's already predicted in existing simulations.

[1] http://adsabs.har...56L.127D
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 25, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
There you are. You have no facts to support your conclusions so you attempt to discredit the scientists who report the facts that you do have.
Mate, the facts are being alluded to by me and now the above researchers!... among others. :)

What does it take, mate, to shift you from old, now irrelevant beliefs and impressions about what are 'facts' and what are not 'facts'?

All the 'facts' you and mainstream have been 'working with' have actually been nothing but confirmation biased assumptions and interpretations from HYPOTHESES, not realities.

Those realities are being discovered NOW, by the above researchers; who point out that the visible mass distribution determines the rotation curves!

See? If exotic non-EM-interacting DM was involved, then you have to explain where is that DM in distribution along with the visible matter? Exotic DM hypotheses have tried all sorts of fantasy 'distributions/properties'. None worked.

Ordinary matter now explains it. :)
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 25, 2016
Hi Phys1.

We seem to be going round in circles, me pointing to new evidence/understandings, and you/others sticking to old now irrelevant/redundant assumptions/interpretations of observations which were not as exhaustive as recent ones using new scopes to find ordinary 'previously dark' matter in abundant quantities everywhere we look now.
You confuse facts with opinions and hypotheses
I just pointed out how it was you/others doing just that; ignoring what I've been pointing out for you based on newer more complete/realistic data, rather than your/others old interpretations of incomplete hypothetically interpreted 'facts'.

I've run out of time for this, mate. I've said all that I can say at present. May I suggest the same thing you suggested to certain others: ie, do more research for yourselves on the matter. Sorry I can't say any more at this time. Good luck updating your relevant knowledge/data base and then reviewing accordingly your previous 'understandings'. :)
Reg Mundy
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
There you are. You have no facts to support your conclusions so you attempt to discredit the scientists who report the facts that you do have.
Mate, the facts are being alluded to by me and now the above researchers!... among others. :)

What does it take, mate, to shift you from old, now irrelevant beliefs and impressions about what are 'facts' and what are not 'facts'?

All the 'facts' you and mainstream have been 'working with' have actually been nothing but confirmation biased assumptions and interpretations from HYPOTHESES, not realities.
etc.
Oh Dear, you are reverting to facts to try to convince Fizz he is wrong. Don't you realise you will only confuse the fellow? He will start raving at you and throwing stupid insults, completely ignoring your reasoned arguments as he does mine. Try soothing him, he likes people who bow down to his superior wisdom and above all don't argue with him. He might even grade your comments with a 2 instead of a 1.
Benni
1 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2016
This is evident from the numbers , if you care to look


.......OK, so put up the numbers. If there are such numbers as you claim there to be, then those numbers can be verified by the quantity of OBSERVED/TESTABLE Visible Mass as compared to the quantity of OBSERVED/TESTABLE Missing Mass.


See https://arxiv.org...8364.pdf and dozens lIke it easily found by Googling the subject.
..........RNP, pulling a Schneibo is that it?

I'm not interested in somebody else's numbers, just your numbers. Or are you the author? If you are the author, I'll click on it & read it, otherwise I'm not interested. And don't come back with the cliche that "his numbers are your numbers", I want to see you on the record with firm numbers you are willing to defend to the last day of the existence of the Universe.

You think it's only the "crazies" who don't believe in things never proven to exist, so let us see your bright star shine.

gculpex
1 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2016
Just how far does anyone think a plasma field can reach?

RC, you're totally coool!
Protoplasmix
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2016
Ordinary matter now explains it. :)
You keep saying that. But you can't prove it. Because it isn't true, and it's evident how scant is your knowledge on current progress.

Here's a paper related to the one IMP-9 posted, it's a good opportunity for you to educate yourself, and a it's a chance to see how wrong you've been regarding your erroneous view that newly discovered baryonic mass accounts for the amount of dark matter in the universe.

See: "Large-scale mass distribution in the Illustris simulation", and try to learn something. Ask questions if you need to.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 25, 2016
Hi Protoplasmix. :)
Here's a paper related to the one IMP-9 posted, it's a good opportunity for you to educate yourself...
Take a look at the complete PDF from which that abstract came:

http://arxiv.org/...25v2.pdf

You will note that the 'paper' was written over a year ago! And the Simulation which it was depending on was itself using longstanding assumptions, techniques, ifs, buts and may be's etc all built into the Simulation!

You will also note that the findings could just as well be describing ORDINARY matter distributions since found!

Hence making all those longstanding 'exotic' non-EM-interacting-DM claims, models and expectations etc etc input to, and shaping, the Simulation MOOT.

This is exactly what I have been trying to get across: all these 'exercises' are flawed, because they automatically build in LONGSTANDING confirmation biased non-EM DM assumptions, methodologies, models, expectations etc.

Just re-read it in light of all my comments. :)
RNP
5 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2016
@RealityCheck
As I said before (but you may have missed it), those initial/outdated assumptions/interpretations are no longer relevant. The new astronomical discoveries have updated the ordinary matter contents/extents ...................;;


WRONG. The paper is only a few months old and the are no "new astronomical discoveries" that significantly change the findings. If you think you know better name one.

For example, your link above deals with a mere bagatelle of matter found within a few hundred light years of the galactic centre. Whereas the new discoveries range throughout the galaxy to its visible edges thousands of LYs ............!


WRONG. The paper clearly states that their data go out to 200,000 Lyr - Did you not read it?

Your final two points, being restatements of the above, are also therefore WRONG. I challenge you to provide evident to the contrary. I.e. Name a paper that illustrates you point.

RNP
5 / 5 (9) Sep 26, 2016
@Benni
I'm not interested in somebody else's numbers, just your numbers. Or are you the author? If you are the author, I'll click on it & read it, otherwise I'm not interested. And don't come back with the cliche that "his numbers are your numbers", I want to see you on the record with firm numbers you are willing to defend to the last day of the existence of the Universe.

You think it's only the "crazies" who don't believe in things never proven to exist, so let us see your bright star shine.


What ON EARTH are you talking about? You want me to INVENT some numbers and then defend them? That may be your idea of science, it is not mine! Indeed, this just about sums up your attitude, and demonstrates how and why you have no understanding of the subject.
RNP
5 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2016
@Benni
If you are the author, I'll click on it & read it, otherwise I'm not interested.

What?? You are not interested in scientific papers? Then why are you here?
Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 26, 2016
If you are the author, I'll click on it & read it, otherwise I'm not interested.

What?? You are not interested in scientific papers? Then why are you here?


I can't explain to you anymore simply than I already have, so I'll say it again: If you are the author I'll click on it & read it. If you're not the author of any of those papers why should I be interested, they're all the same anyway.

The reason I'd like to know if the links are to something you wrote is that I'd be curious if you can ever come up with cogent thought without imputing "crazies" to those who do not look in a mirror everyday & believe 80-95% of them is "missing".
Nattydread
1.7 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2016
I like the dark matter as superfluid theory. But isn't it more likely that spacetime is the superfluid and that is what we see as dark matter.
RNP
5 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2016
@Benni
If you are the author, I'll click on it & read it, otherwise I'm not interested.

What?? You are not interested in scientific papers? Then why are you here?


I can't explain to you anymore simply than I already have, so I'll say it again: If you are the author I'll click on it & read it. If you're not the author of any of those papers why should I be interested, they're all the same anyway.

The reason I'd like to know if the links are to something you wrote is that I'd be curious if you can ever come up with cogent thought without imputing "crazies" to those who do not look in a mirror everyday & believe 80-95% of them is "missing".


PURE obfuscation. Address the science or SHUT UP.
bobbysius
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 26, 2016
Yes it is hard to test. But my point was it is more intuitive and easier to believe than any other nonsensical crap theory out there. Also if you define mass as something that takes up space and has gravity. Then yes in this understanding if anti-matter (anti-matter is still matter) has anti-gravity it also would be called anti-mass. (Yes it is still mass, but mass with anti-gravity) This is also OBVIOUS. Trying to make some ridiculous word play argument doesn't change that.

As antimatter differs only in charge, it is neither intuitive nor "OBVIOUS" that antimatter would have antigravity. Antimatter has positive mass, so it should experience gravity like normal matter. That's what's OBVIOUS.

Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2016
@Benni

If you are the author, I'll click on it & read it, otherwise I'm not interested

What?? You are not interested in scientific papers? Then why are you here?


I can't explain to you anymore simply than I already have, so I'll say it again: If you are the author I'll click on it & read it. If you're not the author of any of those papers why should I be interested, they're all the same anyway.

The reason I'd like to know if the links are to something you wrote is that I'd be curious if you can ever come up with cogent thought without imputing "crazies" to those who do not look in a mirror everyday & believe 80-95% of them is "missing"


PURE obfuscation. Address the science or SHUT UP.
......Awwwww, "obfuscation" one of your favorite words when you're unable to come up with a cogent response. Look, in science we don't care about your faith in things that you're unable to prove exist, so update your DM numbers or SHUT UP.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2016
Sorry, wrong post. deleted.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2016
Hi RNP. :)
The paper is only a few months old and the are no "new astronomical discoveries" that significantly change the findings.
No matter when that paper was written: https://arxiv.org...8364.pdf It still used longstanding assumptions and methodologies etc which have been made less reliable by recent discoveries of ordinary gas/dust/plasma/bodies at a broad range of temps/ionization/radiative-wavelengths states/conditions. Even this paper: https://arxiv.org...10.06409 Says it only 'infers' from models etc. to further halo distances. The first paper you linked to also only estimating/inferring correlation between 'hot gas' and overall baryon densities/distributions.

The actual hot gas 'data' is not as 'reliable indicator' as once thought, since MUCH more cold gas/plasma/dust etc has been found within/around/between galaxies. The whole 'model/methodology/data-set 'needs serious revision in light of recent discovery. That was my point,mate. Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
You don't have to point out stuff for me, I am fully informed.
Except for those times when you have proven not to be so.

I am not ignoring what you say, I am contradicting it. Not quite the same thing.
Un-argued contradiction (which has obviously missed much I have pointed out for you) does not equal reasoned refutation, either.
do more research for yourselves on the matter.
I have already done that and told you the conclusion. You are W R O N G U E.
So much "certainty", mate; yet so not-up-to-date in the new discoveries/understandings; which latter I have scrupulously and fully acquainted myself with and understood the implications of, while apparently you/others seem not to have (yet).
No amount of narcissism and condescendence on your part can change that fact.
And there it is, mate. Why must you insult/project like that? I thought you had turned a corner with that kneejerking, tactics etc. Please try to desist. :)
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 26, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
You are such a jerk RC.
And there it is again, mate. Why do you do it? A true scientist/physicist should be above such personal/subjective prejudicial kneejerking and insulting. I have kept polite, on topic and on science; but you keep coming back with that sort of personal comment?

Mate:

Being polite is not "a crime".

Being on topic is not "devious".

Being on science is not "rubbish".

and

Being correct is not "a personal insult" to you; who may just possibly be the incorrect one in certain instances/issues.

Please just accept that I am not like you/others who insult and troll the person and treat the science discussion as secondary. Please desist with the 'angry personal stuff', mate. Cheer up! :)
Reg Mundy
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2016
@RC
I predict that Fizz will react to your reasoning by reverting to stupid insults, as he usually does when his arguments fail (i.e. all the time...).
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2016
You are such a jerk RC

And there it is again, mate. Why do it? A true scientist/physicist should be above such personal/subjective prejudicial kneejerking and insulting. I have kept polite, on topic and on science; but you keep coming back with that sort of personal comment?


RC, you're too slow in getting it with this guy. His behavior & language is exactly the same as the behavior endemic to the family he's descended from, he's a Zwicky. Zwicky descendents are well known for their foul mouthed defenses of Zwicky since he died a few years after Einstein died.

Zwicky had a daughter who crusaded the circles of science scholars in vain attempts to get those scholars to give glowing speeches about her father's science credentials, this was intended to polish up his tarnished image that he wasn't the zany character as he was often treated by other scientists of his time. Zwicky often disrupted lecture symposiums screaming epithets of profanity at other scientists.
RNP
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2016
@RealityCheck
No matter when that paper was written: https://arxiv.org...8364.pdf It still used longstanding assumptions and methodologies etc which have been made less reliable by recent discoveries of ordinary gas/dust/plasma/bodies at a broad range of temps/ionization/radiative-wavelengths states/conditions.


OK. Name the outdated assumptions and methodologies and give an example of these "recent discoveries " that have made them "less reliable".
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2016
Name the outdated assumptions
...........that 80-95% of the universe was discovered to be missing by a 1930's Asstrophysicist whose demeanor is the same as the "crazies" binge you've been on.

I'm curious R-guy, have you ever been professionally employed in any field of Physical Science? If so, name it, that is unless you don't want to embarrass yourself. If you never answer the question, we can just assume what will be the obvious.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2016
So much "certainty", mate; yet so not-up-to-date in the new discoveries/understandings; which latter I have scrupulously and fully acquainted myself with and understood the implications of, while apparently you/others seem not to have (yet).
You've utterly failed to first acquaint yourself with the basics: Universe 101. The universe is flat, RealityCheck.

For the last ~20 years astronomers have been discovering "substantial reservoirs of gas … in the intergalactic medium, in the halos of galaxies, and in the circumgalactic medium." ( Ref: http://adsabs.har...59...23S ) But there was uncertainty regarding where ~30% of the baryon inventory was specifically located. It's now being located.

Where does your model say all the baryons are located? Oh, wait, you don't have a model, you just have, "ordinary matter now explains it."
RNP
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2016
@Benni
So, STILL no scientific input?

BTW. I would have to add myself to the list of "crazies" were I start giving my personal details to the likes of some of the nutters on this site. So be as curious as you like and assume whatever you want, I will let the science I post speak for itself.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2016
Hi Protoplasmix. :)
You've utterly failed to first acquaint yourself with the basics: http://map.gsfc.n...ter.html
The universe is flat, RealityCheck.
Oh, wait, what have I been telling you for years now, Proto? Oh, that's right!...that the Universal energy-space is 'flat'!

It always has been 'flat', eternal and infinite in extent. :)

Your subjective/personal biases/prejudices obviously made you miss all my explanations re that, and more.

The only ones who claim 'fantasy-contortions' for the universal energy-space extent/lifetime, is the BB/mathematician 'physicists' etc; who had to conjure up "Inflation" and "Expansion" to 'explain' currently observed "flatness" and etc, after a supposedly (and now fast failing hypothetical) BB 'beginning'. :)

Mate, learn to read/comprehend me properly; and don't sound so "certain" in future, especially not when you are effectively repeating back to ME that which I have been telling YOU for years!

continued
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2016
continued @ Protoplasmix:
For the last ~20 years astronomers have been discovering "substantial reservoirs of gas … in the intergalactic medium, in the halos of galaxies, and in the circumgalactic medium." ( Ref: http://adsabs.har...59...23S ) But there was uncertainty regarding where ~30% of the baryon inventory was specifically located. It's now being located.

Where does your model say all the baryons are located? Oh, wait, you don't have a model, you just have, "ordinary matter now explains it."
That "substantial reservoirs of gas" is now an obsolete description for the HUMONGOUS amounts of ORDINARY matter (in many forms) more recently discovered (and still being discovered as we speak). In total it ALREADY SWAMPS the paltry amounts of "Missing Baryon" proportions previously estimated long ago (your own Nasa link above uses old observations/data-analysis/interpretations etc which have long been made redundant and out of date by newer telescopes and observations). :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
Back up your statements with references to reports and papers.
Noite: arrogance, claims of superior knowledge and calling everybody "mate" does not strengthen your case.
It constantly amazes me how cavalierly double-standards are the norm in the attitudes of people who should know better than to apply such when discussing science. For example: Do you recall just a few days ago, when you were asked by some here to present your own references/figures etc? What was your response? You told them to go look on the net! Now you object when I also tell people to go look on the net and find the most recent astronomical discoveries which I am acquainted with but apparently you/they are not. See the double standards in your objection now in order to evade/contradict without any real effort to find for yourself/update yourself on the recent hot/cool/warm ordinary stuff now being found in all sorts of states/forms, as recent astronomical discovery shows? :)

cont..
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2016
I'm curious R-guy, have you ever been professionally employed in any field of Physical Science? If so, name it, that is unless you don't want to embarrass yourself. If you never answer the question, we can just assume the obvious


BTW. I would have to add myself to the list of "crazies" were I start giving my personal details to the likes of some of the nutters on this site. So be as curious as you like and assume whatever you want


Righto, you don't want to embarrass yourself from the lack of credentials you can bring to a website about science where your most frequent input is a lot of name calling like "crazies". "nutters" etc.

I will let the science I post speak for itself.
I keep trying to get you to post something about the "science" of "DM numbers" & all you do is Copy & Paste a link. So when are you gonna "post some science" & dispense with the name calling lead Phys 1 takes you on?

By the way, I'm a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer.

Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

When you say,,,,

continued


,,, don't you really mean,,,,

rerun


Because everybody knows you are just going to write,,,,

Blah, Blah, and some more Blahs.


Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (13) Sep 27, 2016
By the way, I'm a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer.


That's nice to know. So is the glam-Skippy. Me too but not the nuclear kind. Small world, eh?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2016
cont...@ Phys1:
Take for example the sensational discovery of a million kelvin plasma enveloping our galaxy amounting to 130 billion solar masses, that is two thirds of the estimated mass of the Milky Way.

It does not explain the rotation of the Milky Way.
http://phys.org/n...ars.html

Especially about the hot gas 'clearout' around the immediate region of the BH at the centre of our galaxy.

The whole 'hot gas' exercise/analysis/correlations etc is also iffy/incomplete; as the ordinary stuff now being discovered is in range of temps/ionizations/forms/distances/distribution-densities. So their hot-gas-to-visible-matter models/methods for estimating the actual galactic mass/distribution etc is flawed and very inadequate for making such claims/correlations/constraints etc. :)
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2016

Hey RC, here's a support lnk for you, yeah a lot more of this stuff out there than we knew until we got better instrumentation to locate it:

"The solar system is a dusty environment, with trillions of cosmic dust particles left behind by comets and asteroids that orbit the sun. All this dust forms a relatively dense cloud through which the Earth travels, sweeping up the interplanetary dust particles very effectively.
Besides providing substantive information about the atmospheres of other planets, these particles can impact radio communications, climate and even serve as fertilizer for phytoplankton in the oceans."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2016
Poor Uncle Ira, poor bot-voting irrelevance.

He must be seething with rage, now my plasmon-based explanations for two-slit experiment mechanism/results being confirmed again by mainstream.

And now they also confirming what I have been explaining for years re galactic-disc/polar-jets recycling of material into deep space/voids (if you are reading this, Gigel, read this PDF: http://arxiv.org/...25v2.pdf ...and see where it says: "The majority of these baryons have been transported there through active galactic nuclei feedback").

And increasingly confirming my galactic 'rotation curve' explanations based on ordinary 'previously dark' material being now found (as per this present thread article re "Acceleration relation...etc).

Poor poor bot-voting irrelevance, Uncle Ira; his "preferred Skippy's" have been found wanting; and me increasingly confirmed correct all along, on many fronts.

What does this bot-voting irrelevance do now? Crap all over PO's floors, as usual.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2016
REFORMAT: cont @ Phys1:
Take for example the sensational discovery of a million kelvin plasma enveloping our galaxy amounting to 130 billion solar masses, that is two thirds of the estimated mass of the Milky Way. It does not explain the rotation of the Milky Way. http://phys.org/n...ars.html
Your above linked article is just repeating the 'findings' of the same study I and RNP have been discussing, ie: https://arxiv.org...8364.pdf Especially about the hot gas 'clearout' around the immediate region of the BH at the centre of our galaxy. The whole 'hot gas' exercise/analysis/correlations etc is also iffy/incomplete; as the ordinary stuff now being discovered is in range of temps/ionizations/forms/distances/distribution-densities. So their hot-gas-to-visible-matter models/methods for estimating the actual galactic mass/distribution etc is flawed and very inadequate for making such claims/correlations/constraints etc
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2016
@RC
Not only jousting with that waste of space Fizz, but also trying to bop Ira, an obvious grind-bot that churns out almost as much crap as Fizz. I admire your tenacity, but pointing out
And now they also confirming what I have been explaining for years re galactic-disc/polar-jets recycling of material into deep space/voids (if you are reading this, Gigel, read this PDF: http://arxiv.org/...25v2.pdf ...and see where it says: "The majority of these baryons have been transported there through active galactic nuclei feedback").

And increasingly confirming my galactic 'rotation curve' explanations based on ordinary 'previously dark' material being now found (as per this present thread article re "Acceleration relation...etc).

is like writing on the wind. I have been saying for years that there ain't no DM, it only exists if "gravity" exists, but Fizz et al dismiss this without ever thinking it thru'. You really are wasting your time on them, but good luck with your crusade.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2016
REFORMAT: cont
@ Phys1

Blah, Blah, Blah.


Don't matter what you do to him with the reformater. He is still a lot Blahs from out here Cher.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 27, 2016
Poor poor Uncle Ira. :)

Still crapping himself all over PO's floors while driveling in denial and ignorance which is not matched even by the bot-voting program which he installed on his account and now can't un-install because his 'intelligence quotient' is even less than the bot-voting program he is now captive to. What a sad and sorry case of dumber-than-a-bot Internet Troll (and his 'troll-buddy' CapS only compounds their joint-sad-case-ness). Poor 'internet' slobs. :(
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (12) Sep 27, 2016
Poor poor Uncle Ira. :):(


Why you keep saying that Cher? What give you idea I am poor?

I do pretty good for my self. I am not exactly rich, non. But I do alright. My house he is paid for mostly, the truck is too. There is plenty left over for my hobbies and stuffs. Choot, my house is a lot bigger and nicer than yours on the Penguin's Head Road is. Where your playhouse is, that is also the house you live in, eh?

RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2016
Poor poor (in intellect and character) Uncle Ira. Poor poor slob driveling and crapping all over PO's floors as usual. Poor bot-voting irrelevant slob. Money and material possessions is all he can boast; unfortunately for him, it is intelligence, understanding and polite participation is what counts in a science site/discussion. Poor unfortunate (in intelligence and understanding etc) bot-voting internet slob. Sad. :(
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (12) Sep 27, 2016
Poor poor (in intellect and character) Uncle Ira. Poor poor slob driveling and crapping all over PO's floors as usual. Poor bot-voting irrelevant slob. Money and material possessions is all he can boast; unfortunately for him, it is intelligence, understanding and polite participation is what counts in a science site/discussion. Poor unfortunate (in intelligence and understanding etc) bot-voting internet slob. Sad. :(


Well you are the one keep bringing up I am poor. All I did was tell you that you must be thinking about some other Skippy.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 27, 2016
Poor in intelligence, understanding and character Uncle Ira. :)
Poor poor (in intellect and character) Uncle Ira. Poor poor slob driveling and crapping all over PO's floors as usual. Poor bot-voting irrelevant slob. Money and material possessions is all he can boast; unfortunately for him, it is intelligence, understanding and polite participation is what counts in a science site/discussion. Poor unfortunate (in intelligence and understanding etc) bot-voting internet slob. Sad.
Well you are the one keep bringing up I am poor. All I did was tell you that you must be thinking about some other Skippy.
Read the opening address, Ira. Your 'poverty' subsists in your poor intellect, understanding and character, not money or possessions. It also subsists in your internet idiocy which excels in both insensibility and inadequacy; especially in your being captive to the bot-voting program you installed but have since found you are too dumb to un-install. You poor slob. :(
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2016
Well good. I knew you could figure it out if you had a little help. Try to do it a little more often instead all the kneeing and jerking and foolishment and the world will be a better place for humans and scientists. If you need anymore help, all you got to do is ask.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Well good. I knew you could figure it out if you had a little help. Try to do it a little more often instead all the kneeing and jerking and foolishment and the world will be a better place for humans and scientists. If you need anymore help, all you got to do is ask.

Thanks for that apology. Try not to be so stupid as usual in future, Ira. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2016
Well good. I knew you could figure it out if you had a little help.
@Ira

hyperbole and satirical wit among the fanatical delusional Dunning-Kruger crowd is like handing out the big box of crayons with colouring books to the blind

just sayin'
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Thirdly, the one-to-one correspondence between g[bar] and g[obs] suggests that THE BARYONS ARE THE SOURCE OF THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL.
As you can read for yourself, they give 'lip service' to DM 'arguments', but basically those are too ad hoc and unsatisfactory now that VISIBLE ORDINARY MASS DISTRIBUTIONS PATTERN is reflected in the expected accelerations (even though the full mass content still not fully determined). I will address the study data, methodology, flaws/insufficiencies etc when I have more time. But basically, exotic DM not 'needed' anymore. :)
They wish, but have no gravitational theory that can make this happen.
The point was that the BARYONS are the source of the gravitational potential....and that 'exotic' DM cannot be co-located with the baryon distribution pattern observed. Hence even more ordinary matter to be found there (which is the case even as we speak). See? No 'exotic' DM model suits the new observations. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
REFORMAT: cont @ Phys1: ...

Who cares if a paper repeats a fact reported elsewhere, as long as there is a correct reference? It does not alter the facts.

I don't expect you to able to produce any back up your claims about large quantities of mass that would explain the rotation curves.
I do not believe your claims at all.
You miss the point. It's that RNP and I were already discussing/covering that; so your link and comment was not adding anything new to what was already made clear in RNP and my exchange re outdated data, methodology and claims/interpretations etc flowing from same. In other words, it wasn't 'the repetition' aspect, so much as 'the nothing new' aspect I pointed out to you re that relevant comment and link from you.

I do not believe your claims at all.
It's not your 'belief' I am interested in; it's your own research updating your own relevant database and understandings on the matter. Cheers. :)
RNP
4 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
@RealityCheck
You keep referring to our "discussion" of this paper, but we have never *discussed* it - you have just made wild claims about it while providing NO supporting evidence, despite being repeatedly asked to do so. Do NOT try to use me to validate your (extremely poor) understanding of the subject.

@Benni
As I said......assume whatever you want, I will let the science I post speak for itself.
As for your being a Nuclear engineer, you realize that NOBODY will believe you as long as you continue to show no understanding of science or the scientific method.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
Hi RNP. :)
You keep referring to our "discussion" of this paper, but we have never *discussed* it - you have just made wild claims about it while providing NO supporting evidence, despite being repeatedly asked to do so. Do NOT try to use me to validate your (extremely poor) understanding of the subject.
I allude to the 'points in discussion' I raised for your attention, information and further research for your own up-to-date knowledge and understanding of what is happening in the relevant field(s). I pointed out how the train of assumptions and interpretations and methodological techniques and modeling etc etc etc used in these 'exercises' goes back a long way. This has built a cascade of error potential compounding at each 'link' in that outsourced-dependency chain of inputs/biases which are still being used today. It takes time and lateral thinking reviewers of the 'exercise design/execution' and 'paper writing/peer review' systems to finally clean it all out. :)
RNP
4 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
@RealityCheck
You CONTINUE to make the same unfounded claims. Repeating nonsense does not stop it from being nonsense. So, for the last time, supply supporting evidence if you want to be taken seriously.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2016
Can we get back to the paper which started this thread? Just to focus your minds on what was actually said:-
"Acceleration relation found among spiral and irregular galaxies challenges current understanding of dark matter".
Hopefully, we can collectively examine the evidence for the existence of DM (scant) and think about why it was "invented" in the first place.
RNP
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2016
@RegMundy

Hopefully, we can collectively examine the evidence for the existence of DM (scant) and think about why it was "invented" in the first place.


The difference between the observed and predicted accelerations identified in the paper (and innumerable other papers) is the reason that DM was "invented". This paper argues that the effect does not seem to follow the patterns expected from the standard description of DM. However, it does NOT argue that the effect does not exist. In fact, it argues for a significant change to some even more fundamental physics.
Benni
1 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2016
The difference between the observed and predicted accelerations identified in the paper is the reason that DM was "invented".


No, this is not the reason Zwicky "invented" DM long before this "paper" was written. Zwicky concocted huge envelopes of DM completely enshrouding SPIRAL galaxies as an external countervailing gravitational source preventing the radial arms from being pulled into the central hub.

This paper argues that the effect does not seem to follow the patterns expected from the standard description of DM


The paper "argues" no such thing about "expected DM patterns", the paper is about the elimination of DM as an ad hoc explanation to explain Rotation Curves, go back & reread it & stop trying to insert an interpretation into the paper about which the author clearly states the opposite.

The usual convoluted conclusion by an asstrophysicist, that whatever the author most clearly states in his paper is not what the author meant.

RNP
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
@Benni
..........The usual convoluted conclusion by an asstrophysicist, that whatever the author most clearly states in his paper is not what the author meant.


The author says:

"The natural inference is that this law stems from a universal force such as a modification of gravity like MOND, the hypothesis of Modified Newtonian Dynamics proposed by Israeli physicist Moti Milgrom. But it could also be something in the nature of dark matter like the superfluid dark matter proposed by Justin Khoury,"

So, you are again factually incorrect.
Benni
1 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2016
But it could also be something in the nature of dark matter like the superfluid dark matter proposed by Justin Khoury,"

So, you are again factually incorrect.


Now a team led by Case Western Reserve University researchers has found a significant new relationship in spiral and irregular galaxies: the acceleration observed in rotation curves tightly correlates with the gravitational acceleration expected from the visible mass only.
.......from the article regarding the conclusions of the new research. Nothing there about DM is there? Factually incorrect again you are.

Knock it off with the ad hocing Rguy. You're simply trying to insert conclusions into the article that the researchers clearly state don't exist, so tell us why that doesn't make you one of the "crazies"? One thing's for sure, you're no scientist, just a pop culture ad hocing semaniticist trying to live out a fantasy in a field of Nuclear Physics in which you have no experience.

RNP
4 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
@Benni
You are completely irrational, making arguing with you pointless.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2016
@Benni
You are completely irrational, making arguing with you pointless.


Taking quotes from the actual article which contradict you is something you label "irrational"? Zwicky had the same viewpoint when he would jump into the middle of another scientist's lecture & start screaming epithets & profanity at them because they disagreed with his Tired Light & DM theories. So here I catch you trying to insert your words into the conclusions of the Researcher & you imagine only one of the "crazies" would reject your zany ad hocing of someone else's conclusions.

You need to find something else to do that does not involve the Physical Sciences because you're not very good at this.

Reg Mundy
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
@RNP
@RegMundy

Hopefully, we can collectively examine the evidence for the existence of DM (scant) and think about why it was "invented" in the first place.


The difference between the observed and predicted accelerations identified in the paper (and innumerable other papers) is the reason that DM was "invented". This paper argues that the effect does not seem to follow the patterns expected from the standard description of DM. However, it does NOT argue that the effect does not exist. In fact, it argues for a significant change to some even more fundamental physics.

Don't talk twaddle. DM was invented long before this paper was published, and from quite different reasoning.
RNP
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2016
@RegMundy

DM was first proposed in the late 1920s and early 1930 by astronomers studying the motion of stars in the solar neighbourhood (there were a few papers, but I do not remember any names). They found that the acceleration due to gravity of local stars around the galactic centre was greater than could be explained by the mass of the baryonic matter in the galaxy. Then, in the 1930s, Zxicky made his famous observations of galaxy clusters, finding the same effect, i.e. the acceleration due to gravity of galaxies within the cluster was greater than could be explained by the mass of the baryonic matter within the cluster. DM was therefore proposed to account for these unexpectedly high accelerations. This therefore is, and always has been, the reasoning behind the DM hypothesis.

Give a specific example of one of the early papers with "different reasoning" if you think you know better.
Ultron
1.3 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2016
@Phys1

They are not giving any explanation, but they are stating that it would be extremely hard to fit some dark matter halo to their results. I would suggest that you read the discussion at the end of the paper.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
I will publish my own research as soon as my own space telescope is in orbit.
Is it the same telescope through which Schneibo has been taking pictures of Black Holes? Send us a picture of the telescope before it is launched into orbit with you standing beside it, I just want to check your BMI.

In his, when I looked, 2629 posts
That is quite a fixation you have on ME. Where do you find this kind of time? You certainly can't have a real job for all the time you spend here is about all the time there is in a 24 hour day.

there is absolutely nothing of any value to anyone
So why then are you spending so much time on me if there is nothing of any value? It must be a very personal thing is that it? Like my critical comments about one of your family ancestors, zany Zwicky?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2016
You keep referring to our "discussion" of this paper, but we have never *discussed* it - you have just made wild claims about it while providing NO supporting evidence, despite being repeatedly asked to do so
@RNP
get used to it... i've been trying to get actual evidence and proof of his BS claims for years now. i even built a bot to search for links, references and evidence specifically for his profile. closest thing i've seen to anything (reference wise) is his pseudoscience site: http://earthlingclub.com/

i don't suggest reading that until you've been drinking. drinking heavily
it makes far more sense when you can't read the words.

and you're right about benni too

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

You're in denial mode, mate.

It reminds me of the unreasonable demands made by 'the usual suspects' here at PO, re my observations of Bicep2 'exercise/claims'.

They uncritically 'believed and accepted' that bicep2 crap; and were so happy, using that mainstream science/source 'work' to 'bash cranks' with!

But I cautioned them not to; as it was manifestly, obviously, multiply, seriously, FLAWED.

They went into denial mode.

Instead of actually critically assessing the bicep2 work/claims for themselves (as I suggested), they attacked (like you're doing now) the messenger (ie, me, the first here to point them to the types of flaws in that bicep2 'exercise'...which others/mainstream eventually confirmed me correct about once they had a close critical look at it).

So, mate, I've no time to give full courses into all flaws inherent in many 'exercises' like these. I've pointed you to them, now it's up to you to drop 'belief' and scrutinize objectively. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2016
PS: @ RNP. :)

Mate, Stumpy was one of those who attacked me instead of actually taking my suggestion and checking that bicep2 work for the categories of flaws I pointed out for their benefit. He hasn't been man enough to admit I was correct and he totally out of order with his personal attacks. The day he admits it and apologizes for being so anti-science and anti-humanity, is the day he will have finally grown up. Please don't let his continuing prejudiced trolling in ignorance and malice sway your own objectivity either on the science or the person. He and his bot-voting buddy Uncle Ira are busy skewing the metrics on this science site for their own stupid agendas against people irrespective of their being correct on the science or not. Beware such malignant characters on the net, mate. Good luck. Cheers. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2016
@RC
Cut the crap.
Where's your evidence that DM is no longer needed.

@Phys1
don't bother... all she wants is attention. the more you argue with her, the more she posts in an attempt to get people to think she's a victim...

it's one thing to occasionally let someone know of her BS tactics, another entirely to keep her happy with the attention. it's what she craves because she's been a failure all her life and seeks validation for her uber-failures as well as epic delusional beliefs.

.

if you read her earthling site (linked above) you will see that she's not playing with a full deck - and just watch how she replies: never any evidence, always justification as to why she must be correct, intentional delusional reinterpretation of any conversation

...and she will always, always be a "victim" of something/someone

http://www.yourli...artid=65

http://outofthefo...mization

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2016
@RNP
ask the all wise and knowing idiot troll realitycheck to please link the conversation where i attacked her (as she says)
checking that bicep2 work for the categories of flaws I pointed out for their benefit
then ask her to please link those "4 fatal flaws" and 4 other flaws that she says she "pointed out"

LMFAO

then sit back and enjoy the show!
LMFAO

more than 5000 posts and still not one shred of evidence. and you can google that one to show i aint exaggerating!

.

also, see these links so you know what you're dealing with (WRT RC and her BS)
http://www.yourli...artid=65

http://outofthefo...mization
optical
Sep 28, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
I do not believe your claims at all.
It's not your 'belief' I am interested in; it's your own research updating your own relevant database and understandings on the matter. Cheers. :)

OK. I will be more direct. Your claims are not supported by observations. You are objectively wrong when you say they are. Btw why is research by others not enough?
I point out their work and cl;aims for your benefit. You reject the stated work/claims and attack me instead. That is not being objective 'physicist', mate. If you are not prepared to put in the hard objective scrutiny and update yourself as well, then no amount of my pointing things out will get through your biased and uninformed beliefs (just like others did during that bicep2 fiasco when I pointed out the category of flaws).
I hope Benni is not a sockpuppet?
There it is again. Personal irrelevant tactics attacking me instead of actually objectively scrutinizing the 'paper'. :(
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2016
PS: @ RNP. :)

Mate, Stumpy was one of those Blah, Blah, Blah and some extra Blahs


@ Really-Skippy. How you are today Cher? I am good me thanks for asking.

Lookeei here Cher, if you can't say anything but Blah, Blah, Blah over and over some more, why you don't do it in the Earthman Playhouse and leave the smart peoples here alone. RNP-Skippy and Phys1-Skippy are doing a fine job of explaining things and you are only destracting the humans and scientists from telling about their science stuffs.

So knock if off and don't forget to leave your silly looking pointy cap at the door so the next couyon will have one to wear. Oops, my mistake, that is your very own silly looking pointy cap you had custom made for you,,,, you can take it back to the Earthman Playhouse with you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
Poor poor slobs, Uncle Ira and his Stumpy sidekick. They keep posting blah blah about everything but science issues being discussed. And they are engaged in a metrics-skewing bot-voting effort against all proper science method ethics and strictures. What kind of persons do that? And what kind of persons approve/encourage that anti-science behavior on a science site? Oh well, they are irrelevant in the end. Too bad, what wasted lives and intellect, when they could do much better by science and humanity. Sad.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2016
Poor poor slobs, Uncle Ira and his Stumpy sidekick. They keep posting blah blah about everything but science issues being discussed. And they are engaged in a metrics-skewing bot-voting effort against all proper science method ethics and strictures. What kind of persons do that? And what kind of persons approve/encourage that anti-science behavior on a science site? Oh well, they are irrelevant in the end. Too bad, what wasted lives and intellect, when they could do much better by science and humanity. Sad.


Well okayeei, but try to do better while you are doing your diligent Blahing. That might cut-it over in the Playhouse, but these peoples are not all pretend scientists or humans like you guys over here,,,,,

http://earthlingclub.com/

Here on the physorg we have standards to uphold.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
HI Phys1. :)
@RC
Cut the crap.
Where's your evidence that DM is no longer needed.
I already pinted out the facts and logics for you. Did you miss it; or ot understand its implications?

Basically:

- the above study found correlation between pattern/distribution of visible mass and the pattern/distribution of the gravitational potential evident in the observed orbital profiles.

- since 'exotic' (ie, non-EM-interacting type) DM has NOT been found/hypothesized to be co-located with that visible matter distribution/pattern, then NO 'exotic' DM can explain the observations/orbits.

Did you get that? :)

Of course, now you/Da Schneib et al have been brought up to speed (by me) re NON-Keplerian matter/orbital profiles, you will now understand that some of the 'seeming anomalies' can be explained by NOW applying GR correctly in those regimes; and the rest can be explained by the huge additional 'previously dark' material NOW being found practically everywhere we look. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
I do not believe your claims at all.
It's not your 'belief' I am interested in; it's your own research updating your own relevant database and understandings on the matter. Cheers. :)
OK. I will be more direct. Your claims are not supported by observations. You are objectively wrong when you say they are. Btw why is research by others not enough?
I point out their work and claims for your benefit.
I must have missed that. Please repeat the links.
Then I will also be more direct in return: Look it out yourself; stop wasting my time; spend you time and intellect objectively scrutinizing and understanding the implications of the above work for yourself instead of wasting time in denial/attacking me (the bicep2 lessons have not been learned apparently).
You made the exact same silly requirement as that pathetic waste of space.
No mate; I made the exact same 'requirement you/RNP made to Benni. Double standards do not become you. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
No new facts there and your argument is not conclusive.
I could make the same point about a MOND like explanation.
DM is not excluded by this work, just any DM model has to also explain this correlation.
If it was easy it would already have been done.
Don't you understand?
The findings/arguments are strongly indicative of the FURTHER constraints put on 'exotic' DM type hypotheses/explanations. That is the point. With this latest constraint, the 'exotic' DM hypotheses/types/distributions possibilities are practically all eliminated (as many had already been by earlier and even more recent 'negative results' from exotic DM experiments/simulations etc which take into account new data/observations and arguments to make those earlier exotic DM 'possibilities/explanations/claims MOOT).

If you're not up to date/not understanding implications for exotic DM, compared to Ordinary matter and correct GR application in non-Keplerian regimes, then you'll miss it all.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2016
Hi Phys1.:)
You have to explain that "double standards" accusation.
Can you be less vague?
Not vague if the context is admitted:

When Benni asked you/RNP to post your figures for DM, you told him to look on the net for them.

When you keep asking me for more and more stuff that is already on record in my past posts and in the relevant papers I allude to, you complain that I am evading.

See where your double standards subsist?

You think it's OK to tell Benni to look around on the net to acquaint himself with the info he wants from you/RNP.

But when I tell you/RNP do do likewise, you COMPLAIN and attack me instead of updating yourselves and scrutinizing the papers/work in question.

It cannot be put more clearly, mate. Have you got it now? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
If you're not up to date/not understanding implications for exotic DM, compared to Ordinary matter and correct GR application in non-Keplerian regimes, then you'll miss it all.
1) You have no case that DM is excluded.
2) You claim that ordinary matter and ordinary gravity can explain the rotation.
That contradicts the present article as well as any other science pertinent to galaxy rotation.
Can't you think further than what is specifically stated? The IMPLICATIONS are many. More ordinary matter is being found. Correct application of GR to that ordinary matter distribution/pattern of gravitatinal potential tells you that NO 'exotic DM can be involved. And the many exotic DM possibilities have ALREADY BEEN ELLIMINATED via recent observations/experiments.

Bluntly put in return: If one not up to date, then one remains uninformed and with obsolete 'beliefs'; so it's NOT "arrogance" to be UP TO DATE, mate; it's intelligent, objective scientific. :)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Now I have got.
Thanks for getting it. It was clear (except to you) all along, mate. Thanks for tacitly admitting to double standards. You're honest. Kudos. :)
What [Benni] shouted was this:
OK, so put up the numbers. If there are such numbers as you claim there to be, then those numbers can be verified by the quantity of OBSERVED/TESTABLE Visible Mass as compared to the quantity of OBSERVED/TESTABLE Missing Mass.
The answer is given by any page on DM. All over the place......The ratio between "observable/testable" ordinary and "observable/testable" dark matter is about 5.5. Now I ask you: Why would anyone just want the same old (increasingly irrelevant/wrong) DM ratios/figures in Wiki/papers that have been 'doing the HYPOTHETICAL rounds' for yonks?

I understood Benni to be asking for YOUR/RNP's figures; so he could judge for himself how up to date, logical, reality-referential they are given recent discovery/rethinking etc like per above study. :)
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 28, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are again Cher?

Did you remember to "volumetricate" your NON-Keplerian orbits? (Volumetricate, that's a good one, you got the Cajun in you some, eh?) Here is a little refresher on "volumetricating" in case you have not done it in awhile,,,,,,,

In effect, the absolute points-line fabric of the VSmatrix constitutes volumetricated 'vector' Direction (not to be confused with original undifferentiated 'scalar' Direction concept). Thus constituting a classical Spatial arena manifesting as a rigid and passive 3-D points-line energy matrix from which looped-quanta of Direction randomly Realise into a flexible relative-context Reality dynamics (from which they eventually DeRealise back to VSmatrix context). Therefore, the primary vacuum substrate we call Space embodies the Absolute Frame of Reference.


Read more at the Really-Skippy-Earthman-Playhouse,,,,, http://earthlingclub.com/
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Now I have got.
Thanks for getting it. It was clear (except to you) all along, mate. Thanks for tacitly admitting to double standards. You're honest. Kudos. :)
What [Benni] shouted was this:
OK, so put up the numbers. If there are such numbers as you claim there to be, then those numbers can be verified by the quantity of OBSERVED/TESTABLE Visible Mass as compared to the quantity of OBSERVED/TESTABLE Missing Mass.
The answer is given by any page on DM. All over the place......The ratio between "observable/testable" ordinary and "observable/testable" dark matter is about 5.5.
Now I ask you, Phys1: Why would anyone just want the same old (irrelevant/wrong) DM ratios/figures in Wiki/papers that have been 'doing the HYPOTHETICAL rounds' for yonks?

I understood Benni to be asking YOUR/RNP's figures so he could judge for himself how up to date, logical, reality-referential they are given recent discovery/rethinking etc like per above study. :)
Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2016
Hi Phys1. :) Blah, Blah, Blah and I am going to double post my Blah because it is such a good Blah.


Skippy, we saw the first time. Now you are spam-blahing.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
I understood Benni to be asking YOUR/RNP's figures so he could judge for himself how up to date, logical, reality-referential they are given recent discovery/rethinking etc like per above study.


On the money RC. The reason he's not responding is because of what HE considers a caveat framed into the query, that caveat being TESTABLE/OBSERVABLE, he doesn't like what he considers a peculiar tone to those words.

You see, these DM Enthusiasts realize no one has a test tube of this stuff for TESTABILITY, they also realize there are no pictures whereby it can be OBSERVED, therefore Rguy relegates my query as entrapment & he simply isn't about to go down that road because he figures there's another fork in it somewhere that he'll need to take.

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2016
You see, these DM Enthusiasts realize no one has a test tube of this stuff for TESTABILITY
it never fails to surprise me when some random geriatric idiot quack takes knowledge and pisses on it because they don't understand it...
Although dark matter has not been directly observed, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects such as the motions of visible matter, gravitational lensing, its influence on the universe's large-scale structure, and its effects in the cosmic microwave background. Dark matter is transparent to electromagnetic radiation and/or is so dense and small that it fails to absorb or emit enough radiation to be detectable with current imaging technology
IOW - it's a placeholder name for a set of *observed* and *measured* effects that we don't know more about, thus can't specifically label or define with clarity

and that was found in only .03 seconds on a basic search for the term "dark matter"
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2016
I see the retired fireman has decided to check in with the standard gobbleygook about inferred gravitational effects. More Asstrophysics from Stumpo.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
Now a team led by Case Western Reserve University researchers has found a significant new relationship in spiral and irregular galaxies: the acceleration observed in rotation curves tightly correlates with the gravitational acceleration expected from the visible mass only.


.......from the article regarding the conclusions of the new research. Nothing there about DM is there?

2) You claim that ordinary matter and ordinary gravity can explain the rotation.
That contradicts the present article
...........hey, 1st semester physics guy, first you gotta read the the "present article" which flatly contradicts what you just wrote.

Get out of the armchair, move around a little bit & get some blood flowing to the brain so you can come up with the stamina to read, I helped you out a little bit in the leadoff of this post, but you need to at least make an effort in reading the "present article" because it obviously states the opposite of what you claim.

RNP
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2016
@Benni
I quote the paper's AUTHOR'S OWN WORDS and you say:

You're simply trying to insert conclusions into the article that the researchers clearly state don't exist.


This demonstrates, yet again, that you have not read or understood the article/paper (as do all your subsequent nonsensical posts). Then you have the temerity to tell me that I am "no scientist". Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!

You really are a sorry excuse for a "nuclear engineer" aren't you?
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2016
You really are a sorry excuse for a "nuclear engineer" aren't you?


.....and you are simply a classic example of one of your "crazies" as you continue reading over:
Now a team led by Case Western Reserve University researchers has found a significant new relationship in spiral and irregular galaxies: the acceleration observed in rotation curves tightly correlates with the gravitational acceleration expected from the visible mass only.
......before you attempt to give this Nuclear/Electrical Engineer lessons in science, you need to first sit in a classroom & learn some as I did for six years.

RNP
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2016
@Benni
Now a team led by Case Western Reserve University researchers has found a significant new relationship in spiral and irregular galaxies: the acceleration observed in rotation curves tightly correlates with the gravitational acceleration expected from the visible mass only.


This has been explained to you before. It says that the observed acceleration CORRELATES with the expectation. It is NOT equal to it. Perhaps in your 6 years of learning you never learnt the meaning of the word correlate?
RNP
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2016
@Benni
Here a definition of correlation for you. https://en.wikipe...pendence
You will note its says "correlation does not imply causation".
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2016
.....and you are simply a classic example of one of your "crazies" as you continue reading over:
ROTFLMFAO
@BenjiTROLL

so... if you say it then it must be true, but if anyone else says it then it's just denigration, attacks, delusion, hearsay, or some other pseudo-scientific belief/argument you have?

RNP quotes the author but you say it's RNP "trying to insert conclusions into the article that the researchers clearly state don't exist"... that is clearly demonstrative of either:
illiteracy on your part
delusion on your part
bias on your part
blatant stupidity on your part
lying on your part

take your pick which!

ROTFLMFAO
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
I am more and more convinced that you and Benni come from the same rectum.
I do not have my own figures. No one has, science is a collective effort. I quote public figures.
So it is a stupid request, that only a moron would make. So you admit to being a moron just like Benni.
I'll overlook insults, mate; as I'm sure deep down you're better than this. :)

As to 'the figures/proportions', these have varied as new observations found more and more Ordinary stuff; but inertia in the wiki/literature/hypotheses still working/repeating obsolete 'figures/proportions'. I understood Benni to be testing your own 'up to date-ness' re those. Otherwise there would be no point asking you for anything and no point in discussing anything, since just 'parroting old stuff' would obviate any need to be up to date oneself and discuss from one's own understandings of what applies NOW not long ago and obsolescent. :)

PS: Be less 'emotional/insulting'; more 'objective/polite'. :)
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2016
Hi Phys1 and RNP. :)
@Benni/RC
...you are wrong since g_obs>>g_bar except at relatively small distance from the center.
Phys1, don't start constructing your own versions of reality. It's obvious I am not Benni, since in the past I have criticized him about his attacks on Zwicky, and also have had occasion to correct him on certain issues/understandings. He doesn't bear a grudge against me; he accepts my corrections and/or politely agrees to disagree with me. I have no problem with either. But you seem to have 'emotional' need to insult and bear grudges; which is not the sign of a true physicist/scientist or polite/objective intellect. Instead of being so demeaning, both to yourself and me/others (and to the true spirit and ideals of science itself), just relax and be polite and objective. :)

PS: I already knew 'g_obs>>g_bar'. That's why I explicitly said 'pattern of distribution' and 'more ordinary matter to be found there' and 'no co-located exotic DM involved'. :)
RNP
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2016
@RealityCheck
How many times are you going to make the same unsupported and erroneous statements. Do you not understand that, in order to provide a rational argument, you must be able to support it.
Your implication that you are more up-to-date than the rest of us is another unsupported (and, almost certainly, erroneous) claim for which you have REFUSED to provide evidence.

Please note that there is nothing emotional in my post, simply objectivity.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2016
Hi RNP. :)
@RealityCheck
How many times are you going to make the same unsupported and erroneous statements. Do you not understand that, in order to provide a rational argument, you must be able to support it.
Your implication that you are more up-to-date than the rest of us is another unsupported (and, almost certainly, erroneous) claim for which you have REFUSED to provide evidence.
Please read my last post, addressed to Phys1 and yourself; you posted just as I was editing it.

And if my interlocutors are not up to date as I am, naturally you will have missed the necessary recent discoveries and rethinks going on. That's not my problem, mate. I just go with the newer observations/facts/revisions, and leave others to do the same. I am not here, nor do I have the time, to discuss every issue at length; I would not have any time left for my own work. I've pointed you all to what you should be doing for yourselves (as I did in the bicep2 case). The rest is up to you. :)
RNP
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2016
@RealityCheck
I am not here, nor do I have the time, to discuss every issue at length;.....


What are you talking about, you refuse to even discuss ONE. That's all you were asked for.
Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are again today Cher? Non change I see, you really should work on that. I'm good, thanks for asking.

Hi Phys1. :)

Blah, Blah, Blah,

I'll overlook insults, mate; as I'm sure deep down you're better than this.
Well I for one think that is mighty nice of you. And you even gave up some of your Blah spaces to write it. Did you really-Really-Skippy mean it?

PS: Be less 'emotional/insulting'; more 'objective/polite'. :)


What does "overlook" mean when you are down there in Australia?

Oh yeah, I almost forget. If you got the time, in-between your scientifical Blahs, could tell what the "volumetrication" is? It sounds like something ol man Jules-Burcheron-Skippy (he live up in St Martin Parish, really ornery man him.) would say and it would be anybody's guess what he was trying to say.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2016
Your implication that you are more up-to-date than the rest of us is another unsupported (and, almost certainly, erroneous) claim for which you have REFUSED to provide evidence.
......Hey, Rguy....... why don't you actually read this article so you can be the one to be updated?

It's become evident you're not "updated" because you still have yet to read this part of the article:
Now a team led by Case Western Reserve University researchers has found a significant new relationship in spiral and irregular galaxies: the acceleration observed in rotation curves tightly correlates with the gravitational acceleration expected from the visible mass only.
.......you didn't know this was there did you?

Comprehension is a low level priority for you I know, so is "correlation" as well.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2016
Hi RNP. :)
I am not here, nor do I have the time, to discuss every issue at length;...
What are you talking about, you refuse to even discuss ONE.
And the many other 'one issue' too! It would be a full time occupation here on PO, mate. :)

Anyhow, been there; done that; waste of time; trolls, denialists, not-up-to-date 'Ira-preferred Skippy's' et al didn't care; just attacked, even after I proved correct all along.

They haven't apologized for trolling/insulting me while they were being incorrect and me correct.

Instances too many, over many years now.

Most recently 'Plasmoid in sun' and 'Non-Keplerian regimes' issues which Da Schneib et al were incorrect and me correct on; the 'bicep2' issue I was correct and antialias_physorg et al incorrect on; my 'plasmonics' explanations for the two-slit effects/results; my longstanding observations that 'exotic' DM NOT 'needed' as more than enough Ordinary stuff out there and correct application of GR explains the rest. :)
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2016
you have the temerity to tell me that I am "no scientist"
........absolutely correct......you're an asstrophysicist on a "crazies" binge trying to redfine the words of the dictionary to your own liking.
RNP
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2016
@Benni and RealityCheck
So, more nonsense and ***STILL*** no actual scientific input. This is getting boring. Bye Bye.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2016
They haven't apologized for trolling/insulting me while they were being incorrect and me correct
I think your answer can be found in the subtle rearrangement of the last few words of this statement of yours.

:)
https://www.youtu...AIQG_CPI

Give otto a break pleez-
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
As to 'the figures/proportions', these have varied as new observations found more and more Ordinary stuff;
Have they?...
but inertia in the wiki/literature/hypotheses still working/repeating obsolete 'figures/proportions'.
Are you now suggesting that the figures I quoted are obsoIete? Or are you not?
understood Benni to be testing your own 'up to date-ness' re those.
Benni is a ...
since just 'parroting old stuff' would obviate any need to be up to date oneself
Unless that oneself is the totally deluded, clumsy, incapable Benni.
We're going round and round, mate; you're not listening. If you're not up to date, you're not actually discussing reality, but only obsolete beliefs.
PS: Be less 'emotional/insulting'; more 'objective/polite'. :)
You are objectively and dead wrong.
Sounds familiar! Oh yes, Da Schneib also kept insisting that while insulting me re 'plasmoids in sun'; he was the one proved objectively dead wrong. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2016
@Benni and RealityCheck
So, more nonsense and ***STILL*** no actual scientific input. This is getting boring. Bye Bye.
@RNP
sorry you had to deal with that... now you know why most people just ridicule them and their delusional statements

something for you to play later, should you really want to have fun:
red flag crackpot Bingo: http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

here is another great assessment tool for posters: http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

Enjoy those links

for the future, i also suggest using a proxy if you open any link from here - this is one good one: http://proxy2974....oxy.php?

i also suggest, if at all possible, using a HOST file and great AntiVirus, firewall and malware/spyware ... and if you can, definitely use TOR to combat their phishing tactics (in case the proxy doesn't work): https://www.torproject.org/
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2016
Hi RNP. :)
This is getting boring. Bye Bye.
Please read my last post to Phys1 also. It gives you an indication of who has been correct all along and who not. The trouble is that people miss all the relevant posts, then just 'believe' the trolls/metrics-skewers' lies.

I have given up trying to get sense, objectivity and politeness out of those types. Which is why I long ago said I would no longer be discussing at length any issue. I would just point those objective intellects to what they should be updating themselves on in both the reality and their own objective rethinking.

As the latest Ghost post above tells you clearly, these trolls are more interested in semantical and personal games to skew or bury the actual objective discourse and waste the time of those they target. It's an old Internet Troll ploy which some particularly malignant troll types still employ. Sad cases.

PS: Your requests for 'supporting evidence' is easily satisfied: update your own 'facts'. :)
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
I am listening, but you are not saying anything useful. You claim your strong opinions are substantiated by data, but they are not. At least I have not seen those data from you. We are not going in circles, we are stuck at a dead end. It is not an insult, nor intended so, that I say that your are dead wrong. It is a fact.
And I keep reminding you of all those times I have been correct and you et all not so. Doesn't that give you pause to think about who might be the one objectively dead wrong now? Remember how "certain" was Da Schneib's belief in his own inerrancy and my erroneousness while insulting and disparaging me and all I tried to point him to for his own benefit and understanding? I have posted all I needed to. The rest is up to you, mate. It's the kneejerking, denial, personal prejudices etc which enables the trolls to road on your coat-tails (eg, you giving '5' to bot-voting idiots etc is insult to intelligence/science, mate).

Good luck, mate. :)
RNP
3 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2016
@Captain Stumpy
Hi
I do appreciate your expression of concern. However, don't worry, I had been watching the site for long enough before I began to contribute that I knew what to expect. None of the abuse bothers me in the slightest. I am just going to try to uphold a scientific viewpoint until I get bored with it.

Also, thanks for the advise. I will certainly look into your suggestions.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2016
HI Phys1. :)
You are objectively and dead wrong.
Sounds familiar!

Of course. You have been dead wrong multiple times.
You still evading the reality where I proved correct all along, on many fronts (I even gave you a few examples for you to think about). But what does your denial and confirmation/personal biases make you do? It makes you default to convenient selfserving assertion which ignores the WHOLE of the reality to date. Mate, it's such subtle signs of your very deeply inculcated biases/personal subjectivity that makes you miss all the important insights/implications which I have tried to point you to, for your own benefit.

But it is a waste of time; since you are obviously already 'certain' that 'it's a fact'....etc.

You and Da Schneib have a similarly cavalier attitude to 'facts' and reality. How many times do I have to correct your 'facts' and 'beliefs' before you pause to objectively consider you may be incorrect? Good luck,mate. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2016
Phys1, don't start constructing your own versions of reality
@RC-TROLL
you mean like this? http://earthlingclub.com/

you've posted 52 times in this thread (min)
you've claimed to link evidence
there are exactly 6 references you used -two are repeats of:
https://arxiv.org...5917.pdf


http://arxiv.org/...25v2.pdf

https://arxiv.org...8364.pdf

https://arxiv.org...10.06409 of those, there is not one that actually validates the claims you've been making

the only link that actually states the same BS you've been spouting is the first link in this post, which is your personal web page, and it's pseudoscience and known debunked bullsh*t

this also makes more than 5000 posts which still haven't provided evidence for the 8 flaws (4 fatal) in BICEP which you still refuse to post, but continually mention, as though keeping it alive somehow makes you correct

just because you believe doesn't mean it's true. it could be schizophrenia

epic fail
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2016
Also, thanks for the advise. I will certainly look into your suggestions.
@RNP
you're welcome...

just for the record: i was hit by something nasty on the thunderbolts site
this is one reason i take a lot of precautions now

- some of the links folk use look legit but end up redirected to spam, pseudoscience or phishing sites

the site also doesn't protect you from this malware/spyware that you can get from the cranks, and just AV and firewall aren't enough

precautions are always a good thing, especially now that the site mostly panders to the trolls etc because of the volume of perceived interest & original log-in's (why else allow zeph and others the multiple socks?)

safe is better: glad to see ya posting and keep up the great work - your posts teach folk how to keep it science (not the BS like rc et al above)
Thanks
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2016
Hi Phys1, RNP. :)

@Phys1:
The trouble is that people miss all the relevant posts, then just 'believe' the trolls/metrics-skewers' lies.
Is that so? The trouble is that you don't have a case, so you resort to dismissing those who tell you so.
While you dismiss all those times I have proven correct all along; and just keep denying and objecting while missing all the subtle and important up to date insights and implications I have tried to point you to. Just stop pandering to trolls/bot-voting idiots. Spend more time updating yourself on all these aspects. :)

@RNP:
@Captain Stumpy....I will certainly look into your suggestions.
Careful there, matey! You're talking to one of the bot-voting idiots engaged in deliberately skewing the metrics on a science site. They are an insult to science and humanity, no matter how you slice it. The pity is that such bullies and trolls cow many posters because they don't want to fall victim to their 'skewing'. Good luck! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
You have no case.
How would you know? You're the one still not up to date on relevant astronomical discoveries/rethinks going on even as we speak. You prefer to give '5' to trolls/bot-voting idiots skewing the metrics on a science site; yet have the temerity to pretend to be 'listening' when I try to point you to hard-earned, novel, important, up to date insights/implications and rethinks. You sound like Da Schneib; so certain of his own 'case' (uniformed as it was) that he missed all the important facts which I proved correct on and he had to eventually admit he was wrong on. It seems that it will take the lessons from bicep2 fiasco a long time to be learned by some. Pity. It wastes so much time that could be better spent learning even more if the biases and flaws which led to bicep2 fiasco have not been ditched despite two years since that 'lesson'.

Never mind, mate; your subjective/comforting 'certainties' about me/reality is irrelevant. Good luck. :)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2016
@RealityCheck
@Benni
This quote from previous RealityCheck post says it all:-
Anyhow, been there; done that; waste of time; trolls, denialists, not-up-to-date 'Ira-preferred Skippy's' et al didn't care; just attacked, even after I proved correct all along.

They haven't apologized for trolling/insulting me while they were being incorrect and me correct.

You are totally wasting your time engaging with Fizz, Irate, Cap'n Strumpo, and all like RNP they have sucked into their quagmire, bot-voting them up while bot-voting down anyone who exhibits more than a smidgin of brainpower. Its a bit like falling for an internet phishing scam, and I was sad regarding RNP who initially showed a little promise. Long ago, when I got fed up with reading childish insults with no originality, I put Cap'n Stumpo and Irate on my ignore list, and recently Fizz joined them. Perhaps you should consider following suit, unless you actually enjoy poking them to see their stupid knee-jerk reaction.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

You are repeating yourself while ignoring the obvious and many instances I have alluded to for your info. You are also not up to date, or else you would have been aware of many of the things I have been aware of but you show no indications of being so while continuing to demand I spoon feed you when you should do as I suggested: objectively research ALL the relevant astro/cosmo discoveries/rethinks going on in mainstream efforts/news. It's no good complaining while you effectively refuse to help yourself, mate; I am not here, nor do I have the time to, give you/others a full course in all the sciences/advances as well as constant lessons/urgings to objective research/thinking for yourself. I am not fussed about what you believe or do not believe personally; I am only interested in the reality; and in you/others doing the hard yards for yourself to gain knowledge/insight which only comes from original/objective effort, not personal insult/denial. Good luck. :)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are again today Cher? I am good me, thanks for asking.

Hi Phys1. :)

You are repeating yourself while ignoring the obvious and many instances I have shown you how bat doo doo crazy I am while I am repeating my Blah, Blah, and more Blahs.


There you go Cher, I fix the typo things for you.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 30, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
@ Really-Skippy. How you are again today Cher? I am good me, thanks for asking.

Hi Phys1. :)

You are repeating yourself while ignoring the obvious and many instances I have shown you how bat doo doo crazy I am while I am repeating my Blah, Blah, and more Blahs.


There you go Cher, I fix the typo things for you.
Thanks for that apology, Ira; but you don't have to keep apologizing like that; your other apology recently was enough. :)

PS: Your time would be much better spent 'fixing' your ignorance/bot-voting 'problems' Ira. :)

PPS: Since my blah blahs have been proving me correct and you ignorant, it is sad you haven't learned anything. :(

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.