Dark matter less influential in galaxies in early universe

March 15, 2017
Schematic representation of rotating disc galaxies in the early Universe (right) and the present day (left). Observations with ESO's Very Large Telescope suggest that such massive star-forming disc galaxies in the early Universe were less influenced by dark matter (shown in red), as it was less concentrated. As a result the outer parts of distant galaxies rotate more slowly than comparable regions of galaxies in the local Universe. Credit: ESO/L. Calçada

New observations indicate that massive, star-forming galaxies during the peak epoch of galaxy formation, 10 billion years ago, were dominated by baryonic or 'normal' matter. This is in stark contrast to present-day galaxies, where the effects of mysterious dark matter seem to be much greater. This surprising result was obtained using ESO's Very Large Telescope and suggests that dark matter was less influential in the early universe than it is today.

We see normal matter as brightly shining stars, glowing gas and clouds of dust. But the more elusive dark matter does not emit, absorb or reflect light and can only be observed via its gravitational effects. The presence of dark matter can explain why the outer parts of nearby spiral galaxies rotate more quickly than would be expected if only the normal matter that we can see directly were present.

Now, an international team of astronomers led by Reinhard Genzel at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany have used the KMOS and SINFONI instruments at ESO's Very Large Telescope in Chile to measure the rotation of six massive, star-forming galaxies in the distant Universe, at the peak of galaxy formation 10 billion years ago.

What they found was intriguing: unlike spiral galaxies in the modern Universe, the outer regions of these distant galaxies seem to be rotating more slowly than regions closer to the core—suggesting there is less dark matter present than expected.

"Surprisingly, the rotation velocities are not constant, but decrease further out in the galaxies," comments Reinhard Genzel, lead author of the Nature paper. "There are probably two causes for this. Firstly, most of these early massive galaxies are strongly dominated by normal matter, with dark matter playing a much smaller role than in the Local Universe. Secondly, these early discs were much more turbulent than the spiral galaxies we see in our cosmic neighbourhood."

Both effects seem to become more marked as astronomers look further and further back in time, into the early Universe. This suggests that 3 to 4 billion years after the Big Bang , the gas in galaxies had already efficiently condensed into flat, rotating discs, while the surrounding them were much larger and more spread out. Apparently it took billions of years longer for to condense as well, so its dominating effect is only seen on the rotation velocities of galaxy discs today

This explanation is consistent with observations showing that early galaxies were much more gas-rich and compact than today's galaxies.

The six galaxies mapped in this study were among a larger sample of a hundred distant, star-forming discs imaged with the KMOS and SINFONI instruments at ESO's Very Large Telescope at the Paranal Observatory in Chile. In addition to the individual galaxy measurements described above, an average rotation curve was created by combining the weaker signals from the other galaxies. This composite curve also showed the same decreasing velocity trend away from the centres of the galaxies. In addition, two further studies of 240 star forming discs also support these findings.

Detailed modelling shows that while normal matter typically accounts for about half of the total mass of all galaxies on average, it completely dominates the dynamics of galaxies at the highest redshifts.

This research was presented in a paper entitled "Strongly baryon dominated disk at the peak of ten billion years ago", by R. Genzel et al., to appear in the journal Nature.

Explore further: Tracing the cosmic web with star-forming galaxies in the distant universe

More information: Nature, nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nature21685

Related Stories

Hubble sees galaxy hiding in the night sky

May 2, 2016

This striking NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image captures the galaxy UGC 477, located just over 110 million light-years away in the constellation of Pisces (The Fish).

Mystery of ultra-diffuse faint galaxies solved

November 28, 2016

Over the last year, researchers have observed some very faint, diffuse galaxies. The galaxies are as faint as dwarf galaxies, but are distributed over an area just as large as the Milky Way.

Image: Hubble explores the hidden dark side of NGC 24

October 3, 2016

This shining disk of a spiral galaxy sits approximately 25 million light-years away from Earth in the constellation of Sculptor. Named NGC 24, the galaxy was discovered by British astronomer William Herschel in 1785, and ...

Universe's early galaxies grew massive through collisions

January 29, 2014

It has long puzzled scientists that there were enormously massive galaxies that were already old and no longer forming new stars in the very early universe, approx. 3 billion years after the Big Bang. Now new research from ...

Dark matter satellites trigger massive birth of stars

March 9, 2016

One of the main predictions of the current model of the creation of structures in the universe, known at the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model, is that galaxies are embedded in very extended and massive halos of dark matter that ...

Recommended for you

TDRS: An era of continuous space communications

August 17, 2017

More than 50 years ago, at the dawn of human spaceflight, the first brave astronauts were only able to communicate with mission control operators on Earth for about 15 percent of each orbit. If this were true today, the International ...

Supermassive black holes feed on cosmic jellyfish

August 16, 2017

An Italian-led team of astronomers used the MUSE (Multi-Unit Spectroscopic Explorer) instrument on the Very Large Telescope (VLT) at ESO's Paranal Observatory in Chile to study how gas can be stripped from galaxies. They ...

Radio relic discovered in a low-mass merging galaxy cluster

August 16, 2017

Astronomers have detected a new single radio relic in a low-mass merging galaxy cluster known as PLCK G200.9−28.2. The finding, presented Aug. 5 in a paper published on the arXiv pre-print server, could offer some hints ...

NASA studies CubeSat mission to solve Venusian mystery

August 15, 2017

Venus looks bland and featureless in visible light, but change the filter to ultraviolet, and Earth's twin suddenly looks like a different planet. Dark and light areas stripe the sphere, indicating that something is absorbing ...

85 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RNP
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 15, 2017
An open access copy of the paper can be found here: https://arxiv.org...4310.pdf
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 15, 2017
"Surprisingly, the rotation velocities are not constant, but decrease further out in the galaxies," comments Reinhard Genzel, lead author of the Nature paper. "There are probably two causes for this. Firstly, most of these early massive galaxies are strongly dominated by normal matter


..........then AFTER these galaxies had been "strongly dominated by normal matter" DM cosmic fairy dust just started showing up out of nowhere.

So how does it happen that huge galaxies can transform from being dominated by VM to becoming dominated & displaced by 80-95% DM? You just gotta love how lamebrained cosmologists overlook the obvious.

Rguy, you get a 1 because you linked to a piece of pseudo-science, but I understand why you journalists do this.
SiaoX
1.2 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2017
Dark matter less influential in galaxies in early universe
The common notion promoted so far was exactly the opposite: the dark matter is believed to be more prominent and abundant in early Universe and it interacted more with observable matter - not less. So you can choose what you want from these interpretations.
RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2017
@SiaoX
The common notion promoted so far was exactly the opposite: the dark matter is believed to be more prominent and abundant in early Universe and it interacted more with observable matter - not less.


This is simply not true. Why do you persist in making these completely unsupported, and actually false, claims? You are not providing evidence for your claims, so what is it that you are trying to preach?
SiaoX
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2017
You are not providing evidence for your claims
For every publication claiming less dark matter in the early Universe I can cite another two ones, which claim the opposite. Maybe you still didn't realize it, but I'm hotlinking literally every sentence in my post. Try to use some link enhancer for your browser, if you cannot see it. I'm not preaching anything - I'm just illustrating, how volatile are the conclusions of contemporary cosmology.
RNP
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2017
@SiaoX

Go on then! I keep asking you to! Provide some links supporting your claims!

I am not going to f*** around with "link enhancers". Why sould I? Just provide normal links.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2017
For every publication claiming less dark matter in the early Universe I can cite another two ones, which claim the opposite
@Siao
except that you haven't provided any at all
but I'm hotlinking literally every sentence in my post
articles are authors interpretations - it's not a study, nor is it based upon anything other than what the author thinks is being said

you are "hotlinking" literally an interpretation, not anything else

if you want to use "hotlinking" to validate your claims you have to hotlink to a journal study, not an opinion site

in science, source is important

just like no one links to reddit aether blogs in real science studies about astrophysics, you shouldn't be linking articles unless you're talking about sociology, perception, psychology or some similar science that is making a point about public interpretations of science
EarthlingToo
2 / 5 (12) Mar 15, 2017
Fact: Dark matter has not been observed, merely "inferred." No proof of its existence has yet come to light, despite multiple studies.

Fact: Dark energy has similarly not been observed, merely alluded to.

All claims regarding the above (their existence in the early Universe or even now) have yet to be PROVEN. Until such time, they are only ideas, theories, hypotheses, fancies or dreams. All of which are not facts.

Science should be based on facts.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2017
Science should be based on facts
@EarthlingToo
how do you think facts are even found?
lets take Air (or the atmosphere) -
how do you know there is a medium there?
it's invisible to the naked eye, and it's existence was only observed by it's interactions with the surrounding environment...

oh, oh... that sounds familiar, doesn't it?
https://en.wikipe...evidence

so again, we can learn a lot by seeing that [x] has an effect that can be observed - so we learn by testing and experimenting until something is found

this is no different than the electron, neutron, higgs, photon, or just about anything else in modern science
All of which are not facts
no one is claiming they're fact except the people who don't understand how science works

a scientific "fact" requires not only evidence, but also validation
until validation it's just a point of investigation, really (just with more evidence than speculation)
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (14) Mar 15, 2017
Dark matter has not been observed, merely "inferred."

Erm...that's the whole point why it got the label Dark Matter, you know? There's an observed effect - but nothing immediately obvious that can be seen to cause it (hence 'dark'). The only thing that we know of that causes an effect like this is matter (hence 'matter').

Get it? Dark. Matter.

The label does NOT mean that theories which do not rely on matter aren't being looked at. They are NOT excluded by the label Dark Matter. But those other theories are have a number of drawbacks
a) they mostly are more complex (and hence less likely).
b) no one knows how to test them (what lab setup do you have in mind to test e.g. MOND?)

So the first step is to look at (and either corroborate or eliminate) theories based on WIMPS or similar and then take it from there.

Science should be based on facts.

Before you get facts you need a theory that makes predictions.
EarthlingToo
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 15, 2017
@Captain Stumpy
Your attempt at formulating an argument is weakened by improper use of the English language, most especially the lack of punctuation and proper capitalization.

If you cannot maintain basic grade-school level written discourse, your arguments will likely be dismissed and your education (including science, since it is the main topic on this site) will be called into question, further weakening your position.

For future reference, links to Wikipedia articles do not constitute neither evidence nor facts. Wikipedia is neither peer-reviewed nor an authoritative source on any topic of serious discussion.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2017
Hyperlinks are too technically challenging for RnP.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2017
@SiaoX
The common notion promoted so far was exactly the opposite: the dark matter is believed to be more prominent and abundant in early Universe and it interacted more with observable matter - not less.


This is simply not true. Why do you persist in making these completely unsupported, and actually false, claims? You are not providing evidence for your claims, so what is it that you are trying to preach?


What are you talking about? Providing evidence for making claims about something? You should have directed that comment to the author of the paper in question here.

Okay, let's look at this again: In the beginning the "dominant" makeup of the Universe was 90% Visible Matter. After a few billion years the 90% dominant VM was displaced & reverted to 80-95% DM. Was this reversion a transformative quality of VM? Or, is DM have truly magical qualities wherever it just sort of roams like a creepy crawly mass that just sort of gets into everything.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2017
If you cannot maintain basic grade-school level written discourse, your arguments will likely be dismissed


It's only necessary to read one or two of his Comments & then he starts repeating himself. He's a retired firefighter with a high school level education, at least that's what he's been posting at other sites where he posts by similar handles. I put him on Ignore quite some time ago, this way I can get through the Comments section in half the time without having to put up with all his foul mouthed name calling binges.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2017
Your attempt at formulating an argument is weakened by improper use of the English language, most especially the lack of punctuation and proper capitalization
@earthling
1- this isn't a formal discussion, so it's informal rules
2- this is the internet - you have people from all over the world

will you chastise a native German for improper English syntax? no, because that is f*cking stupid if the evidence clearly points to [x]
links to Wikipedia articles do not constitute neither evidence nor facts
do i really need to argue about your improper English here, oh idiotic hypocrite?

so

how about this then oh literate one: if you read the following references (nicely consolidated here: https://en.wikipe...ferences ) then it presents the exact same evidence as referenced in my post

for future reference, i don't typically use wiki unless i've checked the references and it presents a factual case
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2017
@benji
He's a retired firefighter with a high school level education, at least that's what he's been posting at other sites where he posts by similar handles
nowhere have i ever posted or stated that i only have a high school education, you moronic illiterate troll

LMFAO

of course, that makes debunking you all the worse considering you've claimed a university undergrad while not being able to present even the basic ability to do math or check facts

what would that make you then, besides a complete idiot, troll, and illiterate?

LOL
I put him on Ignore quite some time ago
you put me on ignore because i proved you to be a liar, a fraud and incompetent

if anyone wishes the links to those threads feel free to ask for them
I'll provide anyone the evidence proving benni is an incompetent lying POS who can't do basic maths

LOL

Porgie
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2017
There is no dark matter. the gravity flux is caused by interdimensional upheaval. Nothing more. The dark matter is a medieval concept by ignorant savages.
EarthlingToo
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 15, 2017
@Captain Stumpy
It would be wise if you reviewed the Comments guidelines section. There you will find important information that will (hopefully) make its way into your posts, and thereby replace the current diatribe and drivel. Please feel free to attempt to argue my so-called "improper use" of the English language, but don't hurt yourself.

@Benni
Unfortunately, the Internet is full of foulmouthed dimwits possessing more bravado than substance. I (and hopefully you) have learned to more quickly identify and dismiss such. However, I don't dismiss a well-thought, coherent argument no matter who makes it nor whether or not I agree with it.

rogerdallas
5 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2017
A MOND type theory will have to be more complicated to account for these results: a field that varies over time. But why would we start with something more newtonian that evolves into something less newtonian? There's something wrong here.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2017
A MOND type theory will have to be more complicated to account for these results: a field that varies over time. But why would we start with something more newtonian that evolves into something less newtonian? There's something wrong here.


I understand the point you make about modifying laws of gravity, but to do so will require some drastic alterations to General Relativity & the laws of gravity via which we launch rockets into outer space.

Redefining the proven Einstein Field Equations & Inverse Square Law as these apply to gravitating bodies is an insurmountable wall. You'd need to prove different laws of physics can exist anywhere in the Universe.

Going beyond what has always worked extraordinarily well is foolishness. You'd need to prove via observation & measurement of data for the existence of something that defies known laws of physics in an extraordinary fashion. All this pop-sci stuff about 80-95% of the Universe being missing has no basis in science.
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2017
......then AFTER these galaxies had been "strongly dominated by normal matter" DM cosmic fairy dust just started showing up out of nowhere.

So how does it happen that huge galaxies can transform from being dominated by VM to becoming dominated & displaced by 80-95% DM?


Just read the article! It is explained right there.
Assuming DM is a particle. There was always and still is 80-95%DM, but since DM interacts only via gravity it takes much longer to clump. So in the early universe DM and normal matter were distributed fairly evenly. Normal matter interacting via EM will slow down and clump much quicker then DM. With DM much more evenly spread out in the early universe it obviously would have much less of an effect on galaxy rotation curves.
EarthlingToo
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 16, 2017
"ll this pop-sci stuff about 80-95% of the Universe being missing has no basis in science."

Precisely, since we cannot:
- Know the conditions of the early Universe
- Re-create those conditions now
- Test our theories since we have no proven variables to control
- Find any credible reference point from which to even start

Simply put, it is philosophy of science rather than real science.
Ojorf
3 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
A MOND type theory will have to be more complicated to account for these results: a field that varies over time. But why would we start with something more newtonian that evolves into something less newtonian? There's something wrong here.


Yeah, quite a blow for any modified gravity theory if verified, but it seems quite solid.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
It would be wise if you reviewed the Comments guidelines section
@earthling
i suggest you also read it. especially the part that says
Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted
i provided exactly that in refute of your delusional argument

anything else, like your posts of false or unproven claims and philosophy, is considered OT and irrelevant, and as such can be argued as being trolling pseudoscience
see also: http://www.auburn...ion.html

if you make a claim, provide evidence supporting your claims
considering i did that and you didn't, that makes you... well, a pseudoscience crackpot

in fact, to make an argument that has no substantiation is no different than religion in that it's your opinion and in no way scientific, and only validated by yourself
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2017
There is no dark matter. the gravity flux is caused by interdimensional upheaval.

You have a test for this? Or is this just a fabricated assumption stated as (alternative) fact?

And note: even if your curious assertion were true then that would STILL be 'dark matter'. "Dark Matter" is the *label* for the observed phenomenon. It does NOT imply that this phenomenon must be based on massive particles.

Sometimes people think that particles we can't see (i.e. that don't interact (strongly)) seem weird. But the existence of stuff like the neutrino is beyond doubt. Every person gets bombarded by trillions of these every second. Even in the largest detectors built, where quadrillions of neutrinos oass through on a daily basis you only get on the order of 100 interactions (i.e. detections) per day.

So it's not really all that weird to postulate other particles that interact even less as a first hypothesis.
SiaoX
1 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2017
articles are authors interpretations - it's not a study
And what? This article is also interpretation of some ESO journalist. But it contains the link to actual study in the same way, like the articles I linked. Virtually all pop-sci articles are based on some original scientific study. But the hyperlinks are problem for superficially thinking people - they assume to burrow at least one level deeper into the problem. The clicking to links is also too active attitude for people, who suffer with syndrome of Galileo opponents and they just don't to look for their evidence. It's more effective to pretend for them, no links were provided for them (RNP) or if yes, they didn't lead to original scientific study (Stumpy).
SiaoX
2.8 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
Ironically the information that the dark matter was more common in the past than now already passed into textbooks and encyclopedies. I'm pretty sure, that if I would argue this fact bellow articles which promoted it with respect to the above study, then the trolls there would downovote me anyway. Because what the intellectually lazy people need are no controversies - they're looking for religion and blind acceptation of results - not for scientific method.
dogbert
2 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2017
Not a single particle of dark matter has ever been found. No one has described what it is. We cannot produce a single particle of it in our most energetic particle colliders. Yet is is supposed to compose more than 5 times the amount of normal matter in the universe.

Having created this imaginary substance, we seem incapable of imagining a universe without it.

After many years of failure to find a single instance of it, we should not be so insistent that something we simply made up exists.
Tuxford
1.5 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2017
A MOND type theory will have to be more complicated to account for these results: a field that varies over time. But why would we start with something more newtonian that evolves into something less newtonian? There's something wrong here.

Because that is what is actually happening, as observed.

Firstly, most of these early massive galaxies are strongly dominated by normal matter, with dark matter playing a much smaller role than in the Local Universe.

Dark matter halos grow in proportion to the matter density of the galaxy, since the presence of matter causes more bending of the light in the surrounding halo region, which is then interpreted as dark matter. As galaxies grow more dense from new matter ejected largely from the supermassive core itself, over time the halo then appears to grow as well.
SiaoX
3 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
The above article is about effects affecting the rotational curves as such. No matter if they're caused with particles or whatever else we're still expected to find some explanation for it.

The situation, when the dark matter effects don't depend on the mass of galaxy disfavors the MOND and similar theories - it rather points to particle models from at least two reasons: A) the particle dark matter may be generated with galaxies itself - after then it would be logical, if the younger galaxies will have it less. B) once the old universe has been flooded with dark matter effect, then the relative amount of DM concentrated around galaxies will get lower (analogy of buoyancy effect).
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2017
"Firstly, most of these early massive galaxies are strongly dominated by normal matter, with dark matter playing a much smaller role than in the Local Universe"

-I think dr Randall Mills would want you to believe this reflects the gradual transformation of hydrogen into the hydrino.

"Mills proposes that such hydrino states are the identity of dark matter, and their transitions occur in the Sun as the transient but highly energetic source of coronal heating that causes solar flares and coronal mass ejections. Hydrino transition spectral lines also occur in the interstellar medium and can be detected from galaxies, including lines that defy identification with known emission lines but which match predicted hydrino lines... the identification of hydrino transition lines from the sun, galaxies and interstellar medium."

-Of course he could be wrong but then so could everyone else. Its happened before.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
......Of course he could be wrong but then so could everyone else. Its happened before.


He is. 26 years of his BS has failed to produce anything. It's just another free energy scam.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
......Of course he could be wrong but then so could everyone else. Its happened before.


He is. 26 years of his BS has failed to produce anything. It's just another free energy scam.
Some things take longer than others yes? You might say that hot fusion is a scam for the same reason. But apparently mills has finally discovered a way to produce useful energy and has built a commercial reactor which should be available in the coming months.

He was on CNN recently and also drives a very expensive little sports car which are indications of a successful theory in my book.
SiaoX
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
The presentation activity and academical support of Randall Mills significantly increased in recent years. The true fraudsters usually do not survive that long. After all, Mills isn't claiming the free energy - but the production energy from formation of hydrino. The existence of hydrino gives no meaning for me - but we can observe the production of anomalous energy in solar corona and atmosphere of large planets. Also the interstellar gas gets quite hot at places, where just the dark matter resides. The ignorance of frontier research will indeed spare us some mistakes - but it also may leave us silly.
SiaoX
2 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
He was on CNN recently and also drives a very expensive little sports car which are indications of a successful theory
..

This looks like correct insight for me. The smaller and more sporty vehicle, the better theory.
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2017
......Of course he could be wrong but then so could everyone else. Its happened before.


He is. 26 years of his BS has failed to produce anything. It's just another free energy scam.
Some things take longer than others yes? You might say that hot fusion is a scam for the same reason. But apparently mills has finally discovered a way to produce useful energy and has built a commercial reactor which should be available in the coming months.

He was on CNN recently and also drives a very expensive little sports car which are indications of a successful theory in my book.


Nope, he hasn't discovered anything. If you read the history of his nonsense, you'll see that he has been "close" to having a commercial product for most of those 26 years. The sports cars are courtesy of the idiots who have been duped into financing his scam.
http://www.intern...t=315572
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
Nope, he hasn't discovered anything. If you read the history of his nonsense, you'll see that he has been "close" to having a commercial product for most of those 26 years. The sports cars are courtesy of the idiots who have been duped into financing his scam.
http://www.intern...t=315572
Your link doesnt work. Whats the date of the last comment?
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2017
A little more on the less than esteemed Randall Mills - from the Nobel laureate Phillip Anderson:

"If you could f*ck around with the hydrogen atom, you could f*ck around with the energy process in the sun. You could f*ck around with life itself. Everything we know about everything would be a bunch of nonsense. That's why I'm so sure that it's a fraud."

http://everything...t_Power/
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2017
Nope, he hasn't discovered anything. If you read the history of his nonsense, you'll see that he has been "close" to having a commercial product for most of those 26 years. The sports cars are courtesy of the idiots who have been duped into financing his scam.
http://www.intern...t=315572
Your link doesnt work. Whats the date of the last comment?


Hmm, not sure why that isn't working. It seems to be a problem with the site at the moment, as I can't reach the homepage currently. It is a current thread that has been going for a while, since somebody showed up a couple of months ago claiming that a commercial product was imminent!
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
Well there you go. According to mills a commercial product is indeed imminent.

Most all the criticism on these sites originated at least a decade ago and doesnt reflect what has happened in the interim. Which is getting harder and harder to debunk. For instance your 'fuck' quote is 20 years old.

But if you want to do so you have to ask more contemporsry questions like

"In 2014, Wilk asked Mills if he had ever isolated hydrinos, and although Mills had previously written in research papers and patents that he had, Mills replied that he hadn't and that it would be "a really, really huge task." But Wilk doesn't see it that way. If the process generates liters of hydrino gas as he has calculated, it should be obvious. "Show us the hydrino!" Wilk pleads."

-Mills is concentrating at the moment on making power and not explaining so much on where it comes from. But evidence like the article above keep popping up which seem to reinforce his theories.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2017
Just read the article! It is explained right there.
Assuming DM is a particle. There was always and still is 80-95%D


Ojo, the article itself is a slop & swill pile of funny farm pseudo-science. It was concocted by a guy name of Fritz Zwicky whom Einstein & other nuclear physicists of their time came to label him as "zany Zwicky".

This Zwicky guy once taught in his classroom that rockets operate on the basic principle that they get forward thrust from the exhaust pushing against the atmosphere, that they will not operate in outer space. Then there's his Tired Light Theory, yet another boondoggle of the laws of physics. His legacy continues to this day with this Dark Matter cosmic fairy dust fantasy.

Look at the history of Zwicky's fantasies & ask yourself: "how can anything he says about anything be believable". It comes down to this, the "believers" simply overlook the zany guy's track record because The Narrative is more important than the guy's grip on reality.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2017
Well there you go. According to mills a commercial product is indeed imminent.


And has been for years! How do you think he is supposed to keep the scam going? By claiming that it's decades away? He has produced squat. Nobody has been able to reproduce his results, except in terms of perfectly standard processes causing some excess heat. He even claimed detection of wavelengths of fractional quantum states of hydrogen, whilst using an instrument that was incapable of actually detecting such wavelengths! It's pure scammery. Still, if you think he's onto something, then mortgage your house and get in on it asap!
Read these first, though:
http://link.sprin...?LI=true
http://iopscience...001/meta
SiaoX
3 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2017
you'll see that he has been "close" to having a commercial product for most of those 26 years
The string theorists or tokamak engineers were close to solution of their theory for forty years and failed, the gravitational waves were sought for sixty years - and successfully at the end. Personally I'm willing to wait at least as long at the case of R. Mills research, because his research could have immediate practical usage with compare to string theory or gravitational waves. And his research is mostly privately funded - the tax payers have nothing to lose there.

I don't think, that the hydrino theory is real - but in recent times many similar plasma energy production methods emerged (Energoniva, Chernetski, John Kanzius or Petros Zografos devices), not to say about many claims of overunity during cavitation of electrolysis of water. These technologies all involve water vapor plasma or high frequency discharge and they look independent each other. Something new may be there...
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2017
And has been for years! How do you think he is supposed to keep the scam going?

Never mind. The guys on here hyping Mills have been hyping Rossi too (just search for their names and "Rossi" (sometimes you need to use previous incarnations because of bans in the meantime)...you'll find no shortage of posts.

Also with the same "he'll show a working powerplant within a few months - just you wait" (which was several years ago, BTW...and if any villages/cities are currently powered by Rossi generators then they've kept pretty quiet about it)
SiaoX
3 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
He even claimed detection of wavelengths of fractional quantum states of hydrogen, whilst using an instrument that was incapable of actually detecting such wavelengths!
In recent time an observations of clusters of alleged dense hydrogen were reported, which could be way more real - but they're also way less stable and they decay in minutes. Their formation requires an energy - it doesn't produce it. If the formation of hydrino would release so much of energy, it would be actually very stable mater and we could see hydrino everywhere, in planets and inside the meteorites and so on instead of hydrogen. Which we canot see - so I don't think, that the hydrino theory is real. If Randell's technology works, such an outcome could invalidate all his patents, which are based on hydrino theory - so we could get his technology for free. In addition, his technology should be easy to replicate - no secret ingredient is here so far. The scientists should therefore attempt for its replication.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2017
Never mind. The guys on here hyping Mills have been hyping Rossi too (just search for their names and "Rossi" (sometimes you need to use previous incarnations because of bans in the meantime)...you'll find no shortage of posts.
............and you come on here hyping zany Zwicky & his 80-95% missing Universe pseudo-science, the only difference being the type of poison you swallow versus the type of poison somebody else swallows (Oh, and don't try using this "placeholder" swill on us, we know you actually believe DM really does exist).

SiaoX
3 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2017
Zwicky & his 80-95% missing Universe pseudo-science
This is what the mainstream physics says (only 4% of matter are visible in our universe). Zwicky wasn't aware of dark energy at all in his time.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2017
Never mind. The guys on here hyping Mills have been hyping Rossi too (just search for their names and "Rossi" (sometimes you need to use previous incarnations because of bans in the meantime)...you'll find no shortage of posts.
............and you come on here hyping zany Zwicky & his 80-95% missing Universe pseudo-science, the only difference being the type of poison you swallow versus the type of poison somebody else swallows (Oh, and don't try using this "placeholder" swill on us, we know you actually believe DM really does exist).



So what is it, genius? Do please tell us.
EarthlingToo
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2017
Studies continue but nothing has been found, not with the most sensitive and expensive equipment on the planet or currently in orbit.

"Dark matter" is not an observed phenomenon, otherwise it wouldn't be labeled "dark." It is inferred by the maths which compose our standard model of physics. Based on this model (which is far from perfect), the boffins say something must be there.

However, since the standard model is so complex and contradictory in many places, it is far easier to spend countless hours and dollars looking for something that may or may not exist than to correct the model itself. Einstein may have contributed much to it, but with all of his genius and the last 70 years of research combined, we still have an imperfect and wonky model.

We still do not full understand gravity, much less what its effects could have been in the unknowable distant past. See: https://phys.org/...ein.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2017
And has been for years! How do you think he is supposed to keep the scam going? By claiming that it's decades away?
?? By your own admission he continues to receive millions in funding.
He has produced squat
-And again by your own criteria neither has hot fusion.
Nobody has been able to reproduce his results, except in terms of perfectly standard processes causing some excess heat
"In a joint statement, Dr. Bykanov and Dr. Sam Kogan, chief operating officer of Boston-based GEN3 Partners, a company that evaluates new technologies and helps bring them to market, said "[BlackLight Power's] spectral results were identically [and] independently reproduced, and we could find no conventional explanation for the emission of bright light from hydrogen in this very high energy region. We believe that this confirms hydrino emission."

-Like I say making shit up and screaming 'hoax!' arent valid ways of debunking anything.

Try harder.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2017
Personally I'm willing to wait at least as long at the case of R. Mills research
-Thats the spirit.
The guys on here hyping Mills have been hyping Rossi too (just search for their names and "Rossi"
-Herr brickbutt has trouble distinguishing between hyping and discussing. Is deeming the discussion of controversial issues 'hyping', an attempt at mob censorship? Maybe it works in countries with residual fascism/communism where the mob was a valid form of public discourse.
(sometimes you need to use previous incarnations because of bans in the meantime)
Otto has not been banned in a decade. At least.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2017
Like I say making shit up


Zany Zwicky makes up swill that DM makes up 80-95% of the Universe.

and screaming 'hoax!' arent valid ways of debunking anything.


Einstein & other prominent physicists of the day challenge zany Zwicky to "prove it he's right" and Zwicky responds by calling them "spherical bastards" (actually recorded incidents of this) and claims his detractors are perpetuating a "hoax".

So, all you DM Enthusiasts above, who's trying to pull off a "hoax"? The guy who proclaimed Tired Light Theory & taught in his classroom that rockets won't work in outer space because the exhaust gases needs the atmosphere to push against to create forward thrust. No hoaxes here?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2017
Virtually all pop-sci articles are based on some original scientific study
@siaox-zeph
and all modern music have notes in it that were played before in classical music too, but that don't mean all modern music is classical
But the hyperlinks are problem for superficially thinking people
the funniest thing about this is: you are the worst about ignoring a sh*tload of hyperlinks

so by definition you just called yourself superficial, so i guess that means "The clicking to links is also too active attitude for [you in particular], who suffer with syndrome of [being a f*cking pseudoscience troll] and [you] just don't to look for [any] evidence. It's more effective to pretend for [you] "

please show where any of the above arguments with linked references is wrong while you are at it - and use source material, not reddit, pictures or your interpretations, eh?
Tony Lance
1 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2017
Wow. You have just disproved Big Bang Theory. My view is that dark matter was original primordial matter before light of stars first shone. It is bigger than ordinary particles with ineffectual nuclear repulsion field, so more reactive when hit by nova shock wave boundary of Gamma Ray bursters.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2017
and you come on here hyping zany Zwicky & his 80-95% missing Universe pseudo-science,

I hype Zwicky? Again you're making stuff up. The only time I ever wrote anything about Zwicky is to show that his tired light hypothesis doesn't work (a theory that Zwicky himself came to see as not workable, BTW)

we know you actually believe DM really does exist

I don't believe anything. There are observations that are at odds with what should be the case if the observable matter is all there is and the forces we know of are all there is.
What causes these effects I have no idea. All I know is that the label for the effect is 'Dark Matter' and that if you do posit massive particles (which is the easy first guess) as the source then you can calculate a distribution.

Whether massive particles are really the source is something I'm waiting for further evidence on. There are experiments ongoing (e.g. at the LHC).
SiaoX
not rated yet Mar 16, 2017
Wow. You have just disproved Big Bang Theory. My view is that dark matter was original primordial matter before light of stars first shone. It is bigger than ordinary particles with ineffectual nuclear repulsion field, so more reactive when hit by nova shock wave boundary of Gamma Ray busters.
.

Does it imply, that the early galaxies should exhibit higher amount of dark matter or lower?
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2017
@Otto,
-Like I say making shit up and screaming 'hoax!' arent valid ways of debunking anything.


And if you read the papers I linked, you'll find that he has done nothing. His instrument couldn't even detect at some of the wavelengths he was claiming to be seeing. Other results were explained by Phelps as material sputtered from the bloody electrodes! He's been peddling this crap for 26 years, with zilch to show for it, other than a bunch of money invested by idiots who don't understand the physics.
Still, I would highly recommend that you invest every penny you've got in his scam, sorry, enterprise, and let us know in another 26 years how your investment has got on.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
Still, I would highly recommend that you invest every penny you've got in his scam, sorry, enterprise, and let us know in another 26 years how your investment has got on.
.........now I better understand your reluctance for abandoning the the zany Zwicky DM scam, you've got so much of your lifestyle invested in it that you can't let go now.

But you should check the track record of your Zwicky investment:

-Rockets won't work in outer space because forward thrust is caused by the rocket exhaust pushing against the atmosphere.

-Tired Light theories.

Yeah jonesy, great track record for your investment icon.

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
Hi all. :)

At the risk of getting 'flak' from all 'sides', I again remind all that polite and respectful discussion is possible even under the most trying circumstances if one tries diligently to stick to scientific/common courtesies, objectivity and impartiality at all times/stages of discussion.

To this end I also urge all 'sides' to make science/logic based counter-arguments, and not use 'double standard' based dismissals which only lower the value of any 'rebuttal argument' based on said double standards. Eg, anyone using 'elapsed time' as an argument (against 'whatever') should recall that 'exotic DM' and 'Inflation' hypotheses had 50+ years with no decisive results either. So be extra careful about how you go about 'debunking' others' perspectives/opinions etc, so that your counter-arguments cannot themselves be so easily refuted by self-demonstrable 'double standard' flaw.

DISCLAIMER: In ABOVE post, I make NO comment re veracity/otherwise of claims from any 'side'. :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
Hi again! :)

In THIS post I just wish to remind re current state of play re SOME 'old' perspectives which were formed when observational assumptions/technologies/modelings were naive/inadequate/simplistic.

Egs:

- 'space' was thought to be 'empty', but now we know it is full to the brim with all sorts of material/energy/processes; so even 'tired light' pespective is more tenable now due to photon etc interaction/scattering etc.

- 'dark matter' is now being discovered in huge amounts, and is ORDINARY not 'exotic'; so we should all now take care to distinguish WHICH SORT of 'dark matter' we are alluding to whenever we make any claims/arguments re 'DM'.

- 'maths' based theories are just that, maths-based; not reality-based; this distinction is highlighted most whenever our 'maths based' modeling/assumptions do not 'pan out' in observational reality terms (especially lately due to new astronomical/cosmological discovery/review reported in many PO articles).

Cheers all. :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2017
And if you read the papers I linked, you'll find that he has done nothing
-And if you visited his site you would see impressive vids of unexplainable steady-state reactions. Alleged.
His instrument couldn't even detect at some of the wavelengths he was claiming to be seeing
Funny, your comments serm to contradict Dr. Bykanov and Dr. Sam Kogan, chief operating officer of Boston-based GEN3 Partners, a company that evaluates new technologies and helps bring them to market, as well as a slew of other learned reviewers and validators.

I suggest you take it up with them.
Other results were explained by Phelps as blah sputtered from the bloody blah!
Sorry I know of no phelps. Was he talking about dr Mills' latest reactor with the molten silver electrodes?

Yo benni if youre bitch-rating me to get attention you should know that youre turned off and aint never getting turned back on.

So knock yourself out.
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2017
This observation so distant galaxies is illogical for many reasons, such as
 1) How do scientists think that using a telescope to see the galaxy outside our galaxy, when our planet is one of several thousand billion planets in our galaxy and the sun three hundred billionth of stars. And through such a thick "wood" celestial bodies they see something that is several million times further away from us than the center of our galaxy.
 2.) How to assess speed at such a distance (several billion light-years)? Objections to you heavenly bodies in our galaxy, a galaxy postatrana be seen as a point.
 3.) The dark matter is she knows nothing nor there, and everyone accepts that it is fully known phenomenon. Absurd.
These experts do not own anything known about the organization of the universe, especially if they believe that there was a BB. This is a BB that happened in their brains when they were stuck on stupid Einstein its mirage.
SiaoX
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2017
Dark matter took its time to wrap around early galaxies This article adopts another take for explanation of dark matter paradox: the dark matter was there, but it concentrated slowly about newly formed galaxies. Such an intepretation would favor particle models of dark matter too.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2017
your comments serm to contradict Dr. Bykanov and Dr. Sam Kogan, chief operating officer of Boston-based GEN3 Partners, a company that evaluates new technologies and helps bring them to market


.....so how much longer do you estimate before they bring Dark Matter to the market? When we see advertisements in which these two are selling DM, will you be the first to buy a test tube of the stuff? Then after you make your purchase how will you know if there really is DM in there if you can't do a spectroscopy of the contents of the test tube? DMs only interaction with VM is via INFERRED GRAVITY so a spectroscopy can never be generated & the quantity will be so small that it will not have a gravity signature. Really ghosty stuff.

Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2017
You can always tell the cranks; they deride real scientists.

Case in point: "Zany Zwicky."

Just sayin'.
SiaoX
2 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2017
Zwicky has been also laughed like crackpot even quite recently - especially by the "father of the atomic bomb" Robert Oppenheimer, who had a huge influence on, particularly American, physics research for a long time.
If we could discuss him here before some forty years, he would be considered as crackpot as Hannes Alfven, Hoyle or LaViolette by now for example.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2017
You can always tell the cranks; they deride real scientists.


"Rockets can't operate in outer space because they need the atmosphere to push against to achieve forward thrust" Credit- Fritz Zwicky

Case in point: "Zany Zwicky."


Yeah, I agree, I too would come to the conclusion he's was as much a zany crank as one would ever meet.

Just sayin'.
........that you agree with his theory of Tired Light? It was his theory of tired light that lead to his theory of Inferred Gravity, which also has never been proven.
SlartiBartfast
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2017
You can always tell the cranks; they deride real scientists.


"Rockets can't operate in outer space because they need the atmosphere to push against to achieve forward thrust" Credit- Fritz Zwicky


"I find domestic sheep to be a huge turn-on" --Benni

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2017
Amusingly, Zwicky was an astronomer, not an aerospace engineer. It's like quoting Dr. Spock on the quark structure of neutrons.
SlartiBartfast
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2017
Speaking of Zwicky, he once walked 30 miles through the snow to deliver medicine to a dying woman, and he had to wrestle a bear (unarmed!) on the way.

An inspiration to us all.

Fun fact, you can see what other sites Benni posts on and under what nicknames by googling "zany zwicky" (with the quotes), since he's the only one who's ever used that particular epithet.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2017
Amusingly, Zwicky was an astronomer, not an aerospace engineer. It's like quoting Dr. Spock on the quark structure of neutrons.


I'm neither an astronomer nor aerospace engineer, but even in grade school I knew better than:

"Rockets can't operate in outer space because they need the atmosphere to push against to achieve forward thrust" Credit- Fritz Zwicky.

I guess those of us who grew up to become Nuclear/Electrical Engineers have simply become overzealous in our prowess for science, Zwicky should have tried it, if he had people wouldn't still be discussing what an unaccomplished foul mouthed clown he was.

Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2017
Just curious, can't seem to find a relevent answer...
What would be the EM output of a single hydrogen ion per, say - a square meter, at roughly minus 300 to 350(f)...?
Pretty darn low, wouldn't you think?
Is it even "visible?
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2017
I'm neither an astronomer nor aerospace engineer, but even in grade school I knew better than:
"Rockets can't operate in outer space because they need the atmosphere to push against to achieve forward thrust" Credit- Fritz Zwicky.

Reference? (You're imagination doesn't count...)
I guess those of us who grew up to become Nuclear/Electrical Engineers have simply become overzealous in our prowess for science.

Those of us who actually grew up wouldn't be making such stupid statements...
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2017
Those of us who actually grew up wouldn't be making such stupid statements...


I'll stack my paycheck up against any blowtorch artist anyday.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2017
Those of us who actually grew up wouldn't be making such stupid statements...


I'll stack my paycheck up against any blowtorch artist anyday.

Ahhh... the ol' "mine is bigger" gambit...

You never left middle school, grasshopper.
SiaoX
not rated yet Mar 18, 2017
Reference? (You're imagination doesn't count...)
Actually Wikipedia article about Zwicky cites it. An anecdote often told of Zwicky concerns an informal experiment to see if he could reduce problems with turbulence hindering an observation session one night at Mount Wilson observatory. He told his assistant to fire a gun out through the telescope slit, in the hope it would help to smooth out the turbulence. No effect was noticed, but the event shows the kind of lateral thinking for which Zwicky was famous...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2017
Reference? (You're imagination doesn't count...)

Actually Wikipedia article about Zwicky cites it. An anecdote often told of Zwicky concerns an informal experiment to see if he could reduce problems with turbulence hindering an observation session one night at Mount Wilson observatory. He told his assistant to fire a gun out through the telescope slit, in the hope it would help to smooth out the turbulence. No effect was noticed, but the event shows the kind of lateral thinking for which Zwicky was famous...

It also indicates a wicked sense of the sardonic...
He was joking with the assistant and the assistant took him seriously...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2017
Just curious, can't seem to find a relevent answer...
What would be the EM output of a single hydrogen ion per, say - a square meter, at ...

Apologies, I meant cubic meter...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2017
I'll stack my paycheck up against any blowtorch artist anyday.

That would be fun - to watch your pile of money blowtorched out of existence...:-)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2017
That would be fun - to watch your pile of money blowtorched out of existence...:-)

Yellin and her cronies in the Ponzi Federal Reserve banking system are taking care of that with the assistance of the welfare statists in the fraudster Congress are taking care of that just fine. Your pile is burning too...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2017
That would be fun - to watch your pile of money blowtorched out of existence...:-)

Yellin and her cronies in the Ponzi Federal Reserve banking system are taking care of that with the assistance of the welfare statists in the fraudster Congress are taking care of that just fine. Your pile is burning too...

Good thing I'm in gold...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2017
That would be fun - to watch your pile of money blowtorched out of existence...:-)

Yellin and her cronies in the Ponzi Federal Reserve banking system are taking care of that with the assistance of the welfare statists in the fraudster Congress are taking care of that just fine. Your pile is burning too...

Good thing I'm in gold...

and silver...
DeclanTraill
not rated yet Mar 26, 2017
That finding makes sense as I think the effect of the extra apparent Gravity (due to Dark Matter) is actually due to space-time (the energy field that fills space) being consumed by black holes, and thus carrying the stars embedded in the space with it. In the early universe there would have been fewer and smaller black holes - hence less of an effect.

I have a paper on viXra about this titled "An Explanation for Galaxy Rotation Rates Without Requiring Dark Matter" under my name Declan Traill.
physicsBuff
not rated yet Apr 08, 2017
since dark matter was really the first substance besides protons and atoms i really think that there would be more dark matter in the older stars but i guess you could be right...
The dark ages about 400million years after the "BIg bang" 13.1 billion years ago. Also there is the part where super novas come in though considering that if dark matter influences them they do turn into black holes.There also is the possibilty of a dark star we would have to though clock it age to when it formed and diffrentcials on other dark stars when they formed. with that you really could have the anwser to the true theory,but they are to deep to find and you may never find another.
DeclanTraill
not rated yet Apr 08, 2017
But there is no need for any dark matter - the extra acceleration needed to explain Galaxy rotation rates can be explained by black holes consuming the energy field of the space-time continuum.

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.