Origin of Milky Way's hypothetical dark matter signal may not be so dark

May 2, 2017 by Manuel Gnida
An excess of gamma-rays coming from the center of the Milky Way is likely due to a population of rapidly spinning, very dense and highly magnetized neutron stars, called pulsars. Credit: NASA/CXC/University of Massachusetts/D. Wang et al.; Greg Stewart/SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory

A mysterious gamma-ray glow at the center of the Milky Way is most likely caused by pulsars – the incredibly dense, rapidly spinning cores of collapsed ancient stars that were up to 30 times more massive than the sun. That's the conclusion of a new analysis by an international team of astrophysicists, including researchers from the Department of Energy's SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. The findings cast doubt on previous interpretations of the signal as a potential sign of dark matter – a form of matter that accounts for 85 percent of all matter in the universe but that so far has evaded detection.

"Our study shows that we don't need to understand the gamma-ray emissions of our galaxy," said Mattia Di Mauro from the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (KIPAC), a joint institute of Stanford University and SLAC. "Instead, we have identified a population of pulsars in the region around the , which sheds new light on the formation history of the Milky Way."

Di Mauro led the analysis for the Fermi LAT Collaboration, an international team of researchers that looked at the glow with the Large Area Telescope (LAT) on NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, which has been orbiting Earth since 2008. The LAT – a sensitive "eye" for gamma rays, the most energetic form of light – was conceived of and assembled at SLAC, which also hosts its operations center.

The collaboration's findings, submitted to The Astrophysical Journal for publication, are available as a preprint.

A Mysterious Glow

Dark matter is one of the biggest mysteries of modern physics. Researchers know that dark matter exists because it bends light from distant galaxies and affects how galaxies rotate. But they don't know what the substance is made of. Most scientists believe it's composed of yet-to-be-discovered particles that almost never interact with regular matter other than through gravity, making it very hard to detect them.

When astrophysicists model the Milky Way’s gamma-ray sources to the best of their knowledge, they are left with an excess glow at the galactic center. Some researchers have argued that the signal might hint at hypothetical dark matter particles. However, it could also have other cosmic origins. Credit: NASA; A. Mellinger/Central Michigan University; T. Linden/University of Chicago

One way scientific instruments might catch a glimpse of dark matter particles is when the particles either decay or collide and destroy each other. "Widely studied theories predict that these processes would produce gamma rays," said Seth Digel, head of KIPAC's Fermi group. "We search for this radiation with the LAT in regions of the universe that are rich in dark matter, such as the center of our galaxy."

Previous studies have indeed shown that there are more gamma rays coming from the galactic center than expected, fueling some scientific papers and media reports that suggest the signal might hint at long-sought dark matter particles. However, gamma rays are produced in a number of other cosmic processes, which must be ruled out before any conclusion about dark matter can be drawn. This is particularly challenging because the galactic center is extremely complex, and astrophysicists don't know all the details of what's going on in that region.

Most of the Milky Way's gamma rays originate in gas between the stars that is lit up by cosmic rays – charged particles produced in powerful star explosions, called supernovae. This creates a diffuse gamma-ray glow that extends throughout the galaxy. Gamma rays are also produced by supernova remnants, pulsars – collapsed stars that emit "beams" of gamma rays like cosmic lighthouses – and more exotic objects that appear as points of light.

"Two recent studies by teams in the U.S. and the Netherlands have shown that the gamma-ray excess at the galactic center is speckled, not smooth as we would expect for a dark matter signal," said KIPAC's Eric Charles, who contributed to the new analysis. "Those results suggest the speckles may be due to point sources that we can't see as individual sources with the LAT because the density of gamma-ray sources is very high and the diffuse glow is brightest at the galactic center."

Remains of Ancient Stars

The new study takes the earlier analyses to the next level, demonstrating that the speckled gamma-ray signal is consistent with pulsars.

An excess of gamma rays coming from the center of the Milky Way has fueled hopes the signal might stem from hypothetical dark matter particles that collide and destroy each other (left). The radiation could also be produced by pulsars – rapidly rotating neutron stars with strong magnetic fields (right). Credit: Greg Stewart/SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory

"Considering that about 70 percent of all point sources in the Milky Way are pulsars, they were the most likely candidates," Di Mauro said. "But we used one of their physical properties to come to our conclusion. Pulsars have very distinct spectra – that is, their emissions vary in a specific way with the energy of the gamma rays they emit. Using the shape of these spectra, we were able to model the glow of the galactic center correctly with a population of about 1,000 pulsars and without introducing processes that involve ."

The team is now planning follow-up studies with radio telescopes to determine whether the identified sources are emitting their light as a series of brief light pulses – the trademark that gives pulsars their name.

Discoveries in the halo of stars around the center of the galaxy – the oldest part of the Milky Way – also reveal details about the evolution of our galactic home, just as ancient remains teach archaeologists about human history.

"Isolated pulsars have a typical lifetime of 10 million years, which is much shorter than the age of the oldest stars near the galactic center," Charles said. "The fact that we can still see from the identified population today suggests that the pulsars are in binary systems with companion stars, from which they leach energy. This extends the life of the pulsars tremendously."

Dark Matter Remains Elusive

The new results add to other data that are challenging the interpretation of the gamma-ray excess as a dark matter signal.

Simulated distribution of gamma-ray sources in the inner 40 degree by 40 degree region of the Milky Way with the galactic center in the middle. The map shows pulsars in the galactic disk (red stars) and in the galaxy’s central region (black circles). Credit: NASA/DOE/Fermi LAT Collaboration

"If the signal were due to dark matter, we would expect to see it also at the centers of other galaxies," Digel said. "The signal should be particularly clear in dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milky Way. These have very few stars, typically don't have pulsars and are held together because they have a lot of dark matter. However, we don't see any significant gamma-ray emissions from them."

The researchers believe that a recently discovered strong gamma-ray glow at the center of the Andromeda galaxy, the major galaxy closest to the Milky Way, may also be caused by pulsars rather than dark matter.

But the last word may not have been spoken. Although the Fermi-LAT team studied a large area of 40 degrees by 40 degrees around the Milky Way's galactic center (the diameter of the full moon is about half a degree), the extremely high density of sources in the innermost four degrees makes it very difficult to see individual ones and rule out a smooth, dark matter-like gamma-ray distribution, leaving limited room for dark signals to hide.

This work was funded by NASA and the DOE Office of Science, as well as agencies and institutes in France, Italy, Japan and Sweden.

Explore further: Fermi finds possible dark matter ties in Andromeda galaxy

More information: The Fermi-LAT Collaboration, arXiv:1705.00009, 02 May 2017. arxiv.org/abs/1705.00009

Related Stories

Fermi finds possible dark matter ties in Andromeda galaxy

February 21, 2017

NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope has found a signal at the center of the neighboring Andromeda galaxy that could indicate the presence of the mysterious stuff known as dark matter. The gamma-ray signal is similar to ...

No trace of dark matter in gamma-ray background

December 19, 2016

Researchers from the University of Amsterdam's (UvA) GRAPPA Center of Excellence have just published the most precise analysis of the fluctuations in the gamma-ray background to date. By making use of more than six years ...

Possible signature of dark matter annihilation detected

March 28, 2016

We live in a dramatic epoch of astrophysics. Breakthrough discoveries like exoplanets, gravitational waves from merging black holes, or cosmic acceleration seem to arrive every decade, or even more often. But perhaps no discovery ...

Fermi uses gamma rays to unearth clues about 'empty' space

April 20, 2012

The SLAC-built Large Area Telescope (LAT), the main instrument of the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, has been studying the gamma-ray sky for almost four years. During that time, the LAT has identified hundreds of gamma-ray ...

Recommended for you

Camera on NASA's Lunar Orbiter survived 2014 meteoroid hit

May 26, 2017

On Oct. 13, 2014 something very strange happened to the camera aboard NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC), which normally produces beautifully clear images of the lunar ...

SDO sees partial eclipse in space

May 26, 2017

On May 25, 2017, NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, or SDO, saw a partial solar eclipse in space when it caught the moon passing in front of the sun. The lunar transit lasted almost an hour, between 2:24 and 3:17 p.m. EDT, ...

Collapsing star gives birth to a black hole

May 25, 2017

Astronomers have watched as a massive, dying star was likely reborn as a black hole. It took the combined power of the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT), and NASA's Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes to go looking for remnants ...

74 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

brendafoley2309
1 / 5 (8) May 02, 2017
There is evidence of the superfluid dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2017
It doesn't wave it "helicates"
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) May 02, 2017
Re: "Dark matter is one of the biggest mysteries of modern physics. Researchers know that dark matter exists because it bends light from distant galaxies and affects how galaxies rotate."

Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science
Halton Arp

"Prior to the 1950's Fritz Zwicky, the Swiss astronomer who had an illustrious and turbulent career in California, was aware that strong gravitational fields had been shown to bend light rays -- as in the famous eclipse observations of the displacement of positions of stars observed at a grazing angle to the sun's limb. At that time he started looking for an extragalactic object which might be directly behind another, and thus have its outer light rays bent inward by the gravitational field of the foreground object so that it formed a ring or halo. Some 'ring galaxies' were found, but they all seemed to be physical rings around the galaxy and not magnified background objects ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) May 02, 2017
(cont'd)

"... The more common situation to be expected was when the background object was not exactly centered and the gravitational ring collapsed into a one sided arc. But no striking examples of that were found either, so the subject had gone dormant. The sudden revival of gravitational lensing to the huge industry it is today is simply due to the quasars. In the 1960's and 70's I started finding high densities of quasars concentrated around nearby, low-redshift galaxies. Because of their high redshifts, it was felt that they could not be associated with low-redshift galaxies ...

The Einstein Cross ...

... When it was first discovered it caused a panic because it was essentially a high redshift quasar in the nucleus of a low redshift galaxy ... Gravitational galaxy lensing had to be invoked for this one ..."

In other words, what began as two attempts to save a theory are now positioned in the reporting as evidential proof for dark matter.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (10) May 02, 2017
You're claims about the Einstein cross have already been debunked but you ignored this like all arguments that don't conform to your biases.

"you can measure the delay between the quasar images. Quasars fluctuate in brightness and gravitational lensing says that the images will have slight time delays with respect to each other due to the Einstein and Shaprio delays. For Q2237+030, the delays are on the order of 3, 6 and 35 hours [Vakulik 2006]. Yes, hours. And yet if these were separate objects near the lensed galaxy they would be separated by about 4800 light years, and yet they are in almost perfect synchronicity from our unique viewing angle. So either this galaxy is the size of a solar system or it is a gravitational lens."

IMP-9
5 / 5 (11) May 02, 2017
Not only that you're debating the evidence from decades ago like it hasn't changed. There are hundreds of known arcs like the magnificent example in RCS2 032727-132623. There are now dozens of Einstein rings. Several unambiguous examples of the same galaxy being imaged multiple times times like Abell 68, and MACS J1149+2223 which hosted the stunning Supernova Refsdal. As much as you would like to pretend we don't live in the 1980's anymore. The evidence for gravitational lensing is overwhelming.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) May 02, 2017
Re: "the delays are on the order of 3, 6 and 35 hours [Vakulik 2006]. Yes, hours. And yet if these were separate objects near the lensed galaxy they would be separated by about 4800 light years, and yet they are in almost perfect synchronicity from our unique viewing angle."

Arp's model would not suggest anything different here. The ejected quasars SHOULD in most cases be synced up if the changes they are going through are a function of the particle density of the surrounding space. All this means is that as the emitting object rotates, if you draw lines outwards from the two minor axes, they will encounter differing regions of particle density at about the same time.

I know that Arp would counter with this because we also see some synchronization with changes in the axial pair's redshifts -- and he has suggested in his Youtube Intrinsic Redshift talk that there should be five major changes observed ...
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) May 02, 2017
You can observe Arp discussing this himself at the timestamped video link here:

https://youtu.be/...M?t=3243

He states:

"In the center of this active nucleus -- this mysterious engine where the stuff is created (and we can maybe talk about that informally) -- that density is very high.

So, the new particles are in that environment and they're gaining mass from their environment very rapidly. When they step out of the nucleus, they go into a different, much lower density environment into the bulge of the galaxy.

And then if they come out in the plane, they go out here. If they come out along the axis, they drop down here.

These are enormous drops in density, from five of them in the log -- or something like that.

And then finally, when they break out of the local group, they take another step down, and out of the local supercluster they take another drop down ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) May 02, 2017
(cont'd)

"... This means that these particle masses will be gaining mass very rapidly, and the redshift will be dropping very rapidly on one of these steps. And then it levels off, and it does another step, and then drops.

And there are just about 1-2-3-4-5-6 drops, and there are six major quantization levels, so what we're suggesting is that maybe this redshift quantization that we're seeing in the quasars is a reflection of the density hierarchy in the whole universe."

---

The debunking approach to understanding controversies is a conclusions-first approach which regards ideology as more important than accuracy.

Time and time again, arguments are put forward that already have concrete answers, and since the person putting them forward does not believe it is necessary to systematically map out the arguments on both sides, they leave the incorrect impression with others that there is no rebuttal.

It's an inherently lazy, error-prone approach.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) May 02, 2017
Re: "Not only that you're debating the evidence from decades ago like it hasn't changed. There are hundreds of known arcs like the magnificent example in RCS2 032727-132623. There are now dozens of Einstein rings."

Many of these apparent rings are likely real.

The point of raising this issue here is that the science journalist who has written this article took two different failures of the dominant framework -- the rise in popularity of Einstein rings and the observation of enigmatic galactic rotation curves -- and cast them each as definitive proof for dark matter.

When you remove the ring claims specifically for the quasars with extreme redshifts that we observe interacting with foreground objects, then these examples are in fact disproofs for the Big Bang -- not proofs for dark matter.

Likewise, the observation of engimatic galactic rotation curves is a disproof for gravity as the dominant force at these scales -- not a proof for dark matter.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) May 02, 2017
Time and time again, critics of Arp and the Electric Universe argue from a partial understanding of what has been claimed. This approach has consistently favored the mainstream ideas for the simple reason that it generates so much noise, as well as a burden upon the independent observers to invest inordinate time in the subject in order to formulate a personal opinion.

The results are always superficially compelling, but if a person actually learns the ideas which have been put forward by the against-the-mainstream theorist, they notice that it is not at all an extraordinary situation in astrophysics / astronomy / cosmology to formulate two separate competing models which can each explain the observations.

The mistake repeatedly borrowed of favoring the first explanation that a person runs into has devastating effects upon innovation within the sciences. We've found the problem, and it is your lazy approach.
IMP-9
4.7 / 5 (12) May 02, 2017
The ejected quasars SHOULD in most cases be synced up


Think before you make up some excuse. Simultaneity isn't absolute. Something synchronised from our perspective is not so from other points in the universe. You may think the quasars are somehow synced up (with respect to the galaxy center) but there is absolutely no reason that would appear simultaneous from our perspective given the different light travel times. Your handwaving requires the quasars know where the observer is, or we're just stupendously lucky with the Einstein cross and every other one known. Personally I think that's crazy talk.

You still haven't grasped the criticism much less refuted it

IMP-9
5 / 5 (12) May 02, 2017
Many of these apparent rings are likely real.


Why, because your ideas demand it? That's not good enough. And the cloned galaxies? Just chance again? What about supernova refsdal reappearing in a different multiple image of the same galaxy where and when it was predicted to a year after the original which was itself quadruply lensed? A testable prediction that was verified. That I think that is proof enough for me and I think most members of the community will feel similarity.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (7) May 02, 2017
Re: "but there is absolutely no reason that would appear simultaneous from our perspective given the different light travel times"

In Arp's model, these objects are not at the edge of the universe. You should already know that.

Re: "Your handwaving requires the quasars know where the observer is, or we're just stupendously lucky with the Einstein cross and every other one known."

No, it simply requires that the changes in density are approximately equivalent -- which simply requires that the space around the galaxy is similar on all sides and that the quasars are ejected at similar velocities.

Re: "You still haven't grasped the criticism much less refuted it"

Realize that each of your rebuttals are going into the argument map. You're helping to build out the argument map, despite your preference for laziness.

IMP-9
5 / 5 (12) May 02, 2017
these objects are not at the edge of the universe.


Distance doesn't matter. It's the size of this thing that matters, the differences in distances between the multiple components.

No, it simply requires that the changes in density are approximately equivalent


You're ignoring the effect of light travel time. If the components aren't at the exact same distance then there will be delays from different path lengths. Simultaneity isn't absolute, claiming it is simultaneous in one frame doesn't mean it is simultaneous in all of them. Basic physics.

Two lightning strikes happen. I am equidistant between the two and hear them as simultaneous. You are closer to one than the other and hear the closer one first. Not hard.
Urgelt
1 / 5 (6) May 02, 2017
IMP-9, it's basic physics according to Einstein.

Einstein may well have been right, or even probably so. But here's a factoid to consider. Lorentz, relying on the same equations, argued for a single frame of reference. Einstein ruled out simultaneity on the grounds that nothing could exceed the speed of light - but it's not clear that entangled particles are limited by the speed of light in their interactions. The door is still ajar for simultaneity.

There is no experimental evidence to help us to prefer Einstein's interpretation over Lorentz's.

There is lots of experimental evidence for both GR and SR, of course. But none of that evidence contracts Lorentz's interpretation. It's not as if Lorentz was arguing against time dilation; in fact time dilation is a necessary component of Lorentz's interpretation.

Modern physicists don't prefer Lorentz's interpretation. But it falls into the category of 'ideas that have not been ruled out by evidence.'
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (10) May 02, 2017
It's clear from the imagery that we are equally distant to each of these objects. The idea that you would refuse to consider that it's so is a testament to the power that ideology can have upon a person. If we go back to the first quasar lensing claim, we see very similar logic -- that it MUST be a lens because they cannot imagine how two quasars would have the same spectra.

It turns out that an alternative model can indeed be created, and it has no trouble explaining this object.

The pattern here is that you're not even trying to imagine an alternative explanation (even though much of the work is already done for you) -- and you think that by showing others how to apply the textbook exemplars to observations, you can convince them to be just as lazy as yourself.

Shame on you for teaching your bad habits to others.
TopJimmy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 02, 2017
Couldn't Phys.org do everyone a favor and just create the first post in each thread containing the classics aka plasma ignoramuses blah, God blah, superfluid double slit blah, electricity did it blah and all the other non-sense. Oh, I forgot, they should also capitalize every other work for emphasis to make that other fool feel at home. Only IDIOTS capitalize WORDS for EMPHASIS and act like they are actually SAYING SOMETHING.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (9) May 02, 2017
Yes, TopJimmy, please show us how to ostracize people who advocate the learning of alternative theories in the sciences. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (9) May 02, 2017
The fact that you see the people around you repeating the same peer pressure patterns over and over is no commentary on their legitimacy when the large bulk of the claims in a scientific framework is at risk of being wrong.

People here always seem eager to forget that 90%+ of the universe is missing. Recall that this is the reason why critics are here, to begin with. Your house is not in order. That simple fact alone should remind all of you that everything you think you know in this field can of course be wrong.

This includes the invitations you see happening around you to ostracize alternative models.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (8) May 02, 2017
People here always seem eager to forget that 90%+ of the universe is missing.


When you look at your reflection in a mirror, how much of that reflection do you think is "missing"?
IMP-9
5 / 5 (10) May 03, 2017
it's basic physics according to Einstein.


No, Einstein wasn't the person who proposed the speed of light was finite. The first measurement of the speed of light precedes relativity by over 200 years. You don't need to believe in relativity for this to be true, it's just geometry. My example used sound not light, no relativity and yet the point is still clear.

It's clear from the imagery that we are equally distant to each of these objects.


That's not clear at all and it still doesn't explain why.

IMP-9
5 / 5 (11) May 03, 2017
The idea that you would refuse to consider that


I did consider that, you didn't read what I wrote again. Ok, you believe mysteriously these 4 objects just happen to be arranged such that they are almost exactly equidistant from our perspective. The probability of that is astronomically small. You then look to all other time delay lenses and you find the same thing, very small delays. They are all arranged such that all the objects are almost equidistant with the other objects in the system. All of these systems are almost perfectly aligned for our viewing angle. That's just not a viable explanation for me, that it's all just some massively unlikely coincidence. Not to mention you haven't explained cloned galaxies or SN refsdal. Your explanation just doesn't fly, refusing to acknowledge problems and branding your critics as lazy doesn't change that.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (7) May 03, 2017
Re: "Ok, you believe mysteriously these 4 objects just happen to be arranged such that they are almost exactly equidistant from our perspective. The probability of that is astronomically small."

But, realize that Arp showed that the probability that ANY quasar is near ANY galaxy, based upon an understanding of the distance from us to the foreground galaxy, is oftentimes on the order of 1 in a million (and many times worse). Take care to understand what I'm saying there, because it also applies to situations where lensing is not a possible inference.

And either way, all it would mean in an ejection scenario is that 4-8 quasars were ejected in immediate succession, on the order of hours (as you point out). It has a physical explanation in this model.

Re: "Not to mention you haven't explained cloned galaxies or SN refsdal."

What has to be done is to go back through all of the lensing claims and sort out the specific type I'm speaking of here.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) May 03, 2017
Notice in this case that something can only be improbable to a person if they do not know of a physical mechanism which can routinely produce it. For instance, without non-velocity redshift and quasar ejections from active galactic nuclei, it is legitimately improbable that the two should ever line up together -- which is why lensing is inferred. But, once those physical mechanisms are added in, it is no longer improbable.

The pattern we see happening amongst astronomers and mainstream physicists is that they refuse to learn any model which disagrees with the Big Bang, then label all observations naturally explained by those alternative models -- but not by the Big Bang -- as improbable.

The approach works only insofar as each member of the community is convinced to mirror the laziness of the "experts". Any approach to science which so heavily depends upon people refusing to learn alternative models is very vulnerable to disruption.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) May 03, 2017
Another important thing to note about probabilities is that each time that some quasar clustering is observed to be within some projected distance from a foreground galaxy, the situation becomes MORE improbable than the situation was before that new observation.

These low probabilities multiply.

What that means is that the probability of each of these instances where Arp has shown quasars to be near foreground galaxies must be multiplied together, and we are talking about hundreds of examples by now.

When you further take into account the fact of the obstruction which has occurred, and the documented instances where astronomers lost their ability to publish at all in the light of publishing inconvenient associations, the situation is even more dire for the Big Bang than we're able to discern from simply looking at the published associations.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (10) May 03, 2017
realize that Arp showed that the probability that ANY quasar is near ANY galaxy


And you've completely dodged the point. I'm not going to debate new fanciful claims of yours when you wont defend the you started with.

all it would mean in an ejection scenario is that 4-8 quasars were ejected in immediate succession, on the order of hours (as you point out)


No, once again you have ignored the finite speed of light. When they were ejected is irreverent. I'm not going to waste my time any longer by trying to explain it for a third time, it's clear you aren't listening. High school students are taught this stuff and yet you don't understand or don't want to. Your model simply isn't consistent with the observations but you don't care to even think about it. I can lead a horse to water but I can't make you think.
IMP-9
4.6 / 5 (10) May 03, 2017
What has to be done is to go back through all of the lensing claims and sort out the specific type I'm speaking of here.


And yet you were using your example of the Einstein cross to attack strong and weak lensing that uses galaxies, not quasars. You didn't care about the type of lensing earlier but now it's suddenly important.

You harp on that your crazy ideas should be given equal stance but you can't even defend them from the most basic criticism. But I'm sure in the next article that comes along which is vaguely related to lensing you will regurgitate the same nonsense sans criticism.

Arp's ideas just don't stand up in the light of todays evidence. Tang and Zhang empirically refuted your claims of incredible probabilities by doing the statistics properly, using a control test.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) May 03, 2017
So, adding another thing to the list of experimentally and observationally confirmed things that EUdiots deny:
Black holes
Gravity
Relativity
Mathematics
Physics theories
Published papers with experimental and observational results
Dark matter
Dark energy
Differential equations
Integral calculus
Gravitational lensing

Just so we're clear on exactly how much of modern physics and astrophysics these individuals deny. Looks like pretty much all of it.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) May 03, 2017
Let's observe how eager you are to misrepresent ...

Re: "Gravity"

No, gravity does not dominate at the largest scales.

Re: "Relativity"

Yes, correct.

Re: "Mathematics"

No, what is argued is that thought experiments are frequently favored over an empirical approach.

Re: "Physics theories"

This is dumb.

Re: "Published papers with experimental and observational results"

What is rejected is peer review which filters by ideology -- a problem already recognized by some of the largest funding agencies in the world who have held conferences to try to fix it. It also goes by the name "gatekeeping".

Re: "Dark matter"

Correct.

Re: "Dark energy"

Correct.

Re: "Differential equations / Integral calculus"

Dumb.

Re: "Gravitational lensing"

I've clearly stated above that some lenses are in fact valid. The problem is that the technique is becoming a tool for explaining away problems with your favored theory.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) May 03, 2017
Re: "And yet you were using your example of the Einstein cross to attack strong and weak lensing that uses galaxies, not quasars. You didn't care about the type of lensing earlier but now it's suddenly important."

The problem is that the journalists spin lensing as "proof" for dark matter. A technique which is itself debated is not proof for a hypothetical entity which has not been observed; if anything, the technique of lensing is "controversial", and each claim should be inspected on a case-by-case basis. This is hardly unimportant. It's in fact VERY important to pay close attention to the words that science journalists use, because if nobody objects, they will be taken for granted tomorrow.

Notice -- once again -- that somebody is advocating for the lazy approach. If science journalists did not report as representatives of scientific theories, perhaps that might be justified; but they obviously don't.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) May 03, 2017
Re: "You harp on that your crazy ideas should be given equal stance but you can't even defend them from the most basic criticism."

Arp was Edwin Hubble's assistant and a graduate of CalTech who worked on the Palomar telescope. He did not set out on a mission to prove something; he stumbled into discordant OBSERVATIONS of associations of objects of very differing redshifts (contrast with "crazy ideas") which he then validated using statistics. By now, many hundreds of such disproofs for the Big Bang have been observed.

The reaction of the mainstream was to cut off Arp's telescope time at Palomar, to remove the 5% time that was formerly allotted there to non-mainstream observations, and later, when the public asked to use their own (very small) allotted telescope time to inspect these same discordant associations, that program was also shut down.

This is what fear looks like in the astronomical context. The ideology will be defended at all costs.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) May 03, 2017
Re: "once again you have ignored the finite speed of light."

Here's another example which you SHOULD be interested in, by your own logic ...

http://discordanc...-3c-273/

"It is a time-lapsed mosaic of 3C 279 and a stream of material that has been ejected from its core. As indicated by the markings along the axis the bright blob of material at the end of the stream traveled roughly 25 light-years over a period of only 7 years. This would place the velocity of the stream at approximately 3.6 times the speed of light! There have even been jets of material observed in 3C 273 that appear to be traveling at almost ten times the speed of light! How can this be possible when the speed of light cannot be broken? The latest and most accepted explanation proffered by scientists is that these superluminal velocities are merely optical illusions ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) May 03, 2017
(cont'd)

"... These illusions are supposedly generated by relativistic effects caused by the jets traveling very close to the speed of light and at very small angles to the line-of-sight of the observer. However, the length and collimated nature of the jets preclude the possibility that we just happen to be observing both quasars with their jets pointed almost directly at us. Therefore relativistic effects, if they even do exist, would not be the cause of these observations."

The pattern: When the speed of light helps to make the case for the Big Bang, it is a firm speed limit; when it undermines the Big Bang by an order of magnitude, it must -- of course -- be an illusion.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) May 03, 2017
Since it seems necessary to teach the theory as we have our debate, I feel the need to at this point remind the people here that in Arp's model -- which bases upon the same premise as a plasma focus device -- the matter emits from the AGN in a completely unstructured state.

What that means is that your ordinary concepts of mass may not always apply. It's essentially a "soup" of subatomic particles which transforms into the more familiar stable forms as it interacts with the surrounding stable matter.

It's not yet clear what all of the implications of that are, but one that seems apparent is that quantum-like effects can occur for this "soup" across astrophysical distances.

Yet more, the AGN remains connected to the quasar soup post-ejection, through an electrical filament.

When you combine the filament, the quantum soup and these stages of ambient particle density, there is significant explanatory power there for things like synchronized changes.
IMP-9
4.6 / 5 (10) May 03, 2017
The latest and most accepted explanation proffered by scientists


And now you're regurgitating solid lies. Superluminal motion in radio sources was predicted by Martin Rees in 1966 [Rees, 1966]. The explanation was not offered after the observation, it was predicted. Rees even mentioned 3C 273 specifically as a good candidate, a stunning prediction verified. Did Arp predict such a thing? Nope.

However, the length and collimated nature of the jets preclude the possibility that we just happen to be observing both quasars with their jets pointed almost directly at us.


A completely empty assertion which is not justified or cited. Claiming something is precluded without explanation does not make it so. Superluminal motion doesn't require particularly good alignment, a jet travelling 95% the speed of light will appear to travel 3 times the speed of light when viewed at an angle of 18 degrees to the line of sight.

Please stop spamming unrelated nonsense.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) May 03, 2017
Here's another one of your "predictions":

"Only the detection of an irrefutable proper motion of parallax would definitely establish 3C 273 as an object within our Galaxy."

M. Schmidt, "3C 273: A Star-like Object with Large Red-Shift," Nature 197 (March 16, 1963), p. 1040.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (10) May 03, 2017
Any Proper motion is not the same thing as proper motion due to parallax. Parallax is annual, the motion repeats year after year. Parallax has never been measured for 3C 273. You don't think and you don't read either.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2017
No, not so much. I went back to the original paper and it looks like I created some confusion there. The quote is really ...

"Only the detection of an irrefutable proper motion OR parallax would definitely establish 3C 273 as an object within our Galaxy."

Not "of". Apologies.

(I received the quote from an astronomer, btw.)
Urgelt
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2017
IMP-9 wrote, "No, Einstein wasn't the person who proposed the speed of light was finite. The first measurement of the speed of light precedes relativity by over 200 years. You don't need to believe in relativity for this to be true, it's just geometry. My example used sound not light, no relativity and yet the point is still clear."

You misunderstood.

I didn't say Einstein established the speed of light, I said that his interpretation of relativity forbade a single universal frame and simultaneity, while Lorentz's interpretation of relativity permits both a single frame and simultaneity *and* relative frames. Both interpretations rely on the same equations.

Einstein's interpretation is widely embraced. But there are still questions about frames in physics which have not been settled experimentally.
Urgelt
3 / 5 (6) May 03, 2017
IMP-9 wrote, "Parallax is annual, the motion repeats year after year. Parallax has never been measured for 3C 273."

You have the wrong idea of parallax, IMP-9.

Parallax is the viewing of an object from more than one position. A perceptible difference enables the calculation of distance through simple geometry.

You are using parallax when you view an object with two eyes, or when you swing your head to better gauge how far something is.

In the course of a year, Earth moves in its orbit, offering opportunities for parallax observations of stars. But there is also the Sun's movement within the Milky Way to consider. Anything which yields a different line-of-sight angle to an object can be used for parallax.

Seasonal parallax in astronomy is useful, but it's an error to say that 'parallax is seasonal.' Parallax is a much broader concept.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) May 03, 2017
Einstein's interpretation is widely embraced. But there are still questions about frames in physics which have not been settled experimentally.
Can you share some of those please?
Urgelt
2.3 / 5 (3) May 03, 2017
Well, Da Schneib, here's an article that shows that the subject of absolute frames remains a topic of conversation in physics:

https://arxiv.org...8052.pdf

It's a tough nut, and often devolves into quibbles about terms and definitions. But all of this conversation is taking place at the theoretical level. Nobody has imagined an experiment to settle the question.

Part of the problem is that an 'absolute frame' is required by various discredited ether theories which are pretty well ruled out by experimental evidence. Lorentz himself got tangled up in ether theory; in his day it was difficult to imagine waves without a medium through which waves could travel. Most often, when physicists reject an absolute frame, what they are really objecting to is ether theory.

But an absolute frame, or an absolute space-time coordinate system within which observers all occupy relative frames, is not so easily disproved.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) May 03, 2017
The problem with an absolute frame being, there is no experimental method to determine it. As a result it might as well not exist. The situation is the same with the aether.

From a modern point of view, supposedly "empty" space isn't empty at all. It has many fields associated with it. Among them is the EM field. This field is omnipresent; even if its value is zero at a particular point at a particular time, the field is still there. It is this field which changes value, providing the answer to the question, "When a light wave passes through, what's waving?"

One can call that an aether theory if one likes, but it's rather different from what Lorentz had in mind. And it doesn't provide an absolute frame of reference, either.
Urgelt
2.3 / 5 (3) May 04, 2017
Da Schneib, you're saying that Lorentz's absolute frame is untestable.

A more accurate statement might be that no-one has yet thought up a test for it that they could do with available tech and funding.

It's hard slogging, because the differences between Einstein's interpretation and Lorentz's do not reside in relativity equations; they both relied on the same math. But there are quite a few predictions from Einstein that won't hold up if Lorentz is right - wormholes being an example.

Prove wormholes can exist and you will falsify Lorentz's interpretation. Proving simultaneity (FTL) for quantum entanglement effects might be taken as evidence to falsify Einstein's interpretation, which very clearly forbids any sort of FTL simultaneity. There are probably other differences that could be tested.

Not saying it will be easy or cheap to obtain useful evidence, or that it will happen soon.

The bottom line: Lorentz's interpretation isn't dead, though it's unpopular.
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2017
Any area in which science does not wander and orientation in the direction of finding the true causes of phenomena is nothing but ignorance of the structure of the universe and the big misconception that remained of Einstein, Lorentz and the like.
Everything that scientists are seen as a light of different intensity, all types of radiation, it is a chain of processes by which material is formed, and from it, and all of the heavenly bodies. All of this substance formed from immovable ether in which all matter is "flooded". Quasar GRAVATAR, a super, and the like, the process of the disintegration of quark gluon plasma, from which are formed the various chemical elements, a variety of high-energy particles and radiation, photons, and all around it.
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2017
Hence the "disintegration" formed the stars, planets, satellites, planets, going from gas to the formation of these bodies. That's what science thinks it is dark matter, it's ether, which is "irritated" increased magnetism and speed of the particles. This all happens because of gluons (challengers magnetism), and gravity returns the matter back to the form of ether, and it takes place in black holes. With this you can explain everything.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 05, 2017
@Urgelt, wormholes emerge from the math, and not only that but from the math of GRT, not SRT. GRT isn't part of Lorentz' interpretation of SRT, or Einstein's either. I don't think wormholes will differentiate between Lorentz' and Einstein's interpretations of SRT.

I also don't see how entanglement can differentiate between the interpretations. Perhaps you could explain that more.

Given that the two interpretations use the same mathematical background, I'm pretty unclear in general how you could falsify either one without falsifying both.
Urgelt
3 / 5 (2) May 05, 2017
Da Schneib, GRT and SRT are separate mathematical constructs, but the universe doesn't separate itself so neatly. In considering frames for any observer, both SRT and GRT must be taken into account. It's incorrect to say that Lorentz's absolute frame is only pertinent in a discussion of SRT.

The question I'm posing for entanglement is this: if entangled particles are separated - there seems to be no upper limit on how far apart entangled particles can be - and we collapse the probabilities for one of the entangled particles by measuring it, then measure the other immediately, will the collapse of probabilities for the second particle happen sooner than light could travel the distance between the two particles?

Instantaneously, perhaps?

If so, then simultaneity is implied, and thus an absolute frame.
Regulator_Invisible_Council
1 / 5 (3) May 05, 2017
The Dark Forces are not true forces in a physical sense. They are pieces of disinformation to obfuscate the work of the Watchers. It is only the lies to distract the Slaves from finding the truth and freeing themselves to live in the world of universal truth. Galileo, Newton, Rutherford, Einstein are just a few Masters of Universal Truth. It is why they and all the other Masters must fight and re-fight the same age old battles against the Dark Forces who would keep the Truth from all Humankind.

The Masters (scientists) are not trying to sell you something, they are trying help you find the Universal Truth.
Urgelt
2 / 5 (2) May 05, 2017
It's true that 'wormholes emerge from the math,' but there are assumptions going into how the math is used. Einstein's interpretation drives those assumptions. Einstein sees only relative frames existing and no simultaneity; ruling out simultaneity and an absolute frame, he sees each frame of reference as a sort of island, which nevertheless is connected to the other islands, though in a way in which instants can't be synchronized. It's this view that drives how the math is used to generate wormholes.

Lorentz says that though time-instants can be (and will be) stretched or shrunk relative to the time-instants observed elsewhere, the instants can be lined up universally. Even in extreme cases (two observers moving near the speed of light or in deep gravity wells relative to other observers), the instants can be mapped against a universal clock. That's simultaneity.

That universal clock is an assumption; make it, and the wormhole math doesn't work.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 05, 2017
@Urgelt, LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) doesn't deal at all with accelerated frames, just as SRT doesn't. As a result nothing in GRT can prove or disprove it, save an overturn of the entire GRT. So I'm not sure what your statement has to do with what you're trying to show.

As for entanglement, you haven't shown how that can falsify SRT either.

Also, it's not clear whether Bell tests (which are what you're referring to with entanglement) constrain locality, or realism. They show that one or the other must be false, but don't show which, and this appears to be another of the dualities that appear in QM.

I'll have to take your assertion that there is some way of differentiating between LET and SRT as unproven unless you can provide better evidence.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 05, 2017
@Urgelt, wormholes are a vacuum solution of the EFE. The common movie depiction of a sort of tunnel you go through isn't how wormholes work at all. There isn't any tunnel. There's this side and that side and you're on one or the other; there's nothing between.

I don't see how time dilation or frames have anything to do with it, and relativity of simultaneity emerges from the SRT math that both SRT and LET share. If your version of LET denies the relativity of simultaneity, it is unphysical.
Urgelt
3 / 5 (3) May 05, 2017
Eh. The mainstream view in physics backs Einstein; no simultaneity is allowed. Ether, as articulated by Lorentz, is discredited.

How to interpret entanglement is indeed up in the air, if it appears to operate instantaneously. But it might be suggestive of deeper truths about the nature of the universe than we have thus far obtained from SRT and GRT.

I'm not arguing in favor of Lorentz or ether theory. What I'm saying is that experimental evidence available to us isn't adequate to disprove simultaneity or an absolute frame. It's definitely unproven.

I don't know how to test simultaneity or the absolute frame idea. Maybe it can't be tested; in which case the idea does indeed fall outside of modern physics. Physicists are clever, though; it's one thing to say we have no test, and quite another to say no test will ever be devised. The door remains ajar.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 05, 2017
Errrr, entanglement is in fact a phenomenon restricted to quantum mechanics so far, and since we do not have quantum gravity, it is unsurprising that neither SRT nor GRT has much to say about entanglement. Quantum mechanics has many deeper truths about the nature of the universe than either.

The fact is that absolute simultaneity doesn't exist. The relativity of simultaneity is a fact of the math, not the interpretation. One observer sees two events as simultaneous; another does not. LET and SRT agree categorically on this.

As for an absolute rest frame and aether, neither is necessary; they do not explain any unexplained phenomena. Parsimony (AKA Occam's Razor) dictates that unnecessary assertions not be present in a theory. It's really just that simple.
Urgelt
3.3 / 5 (3) May 05, 2017
Lorentz's contributions to modern physics are frankly immense. Einstein used his math but took it in a new direction. We're looking at two titans of early modern physics struggling to grasp how the universe works and why. That there was agreement between them on the math, but disagreement about the implications of the math, should still be interesting to us.

Reconciling quantum physics with SRT and GRT remains an unfinished work. The universe still has secrets - great big gaping hole secrets - for physicists to plumb.

Questions are the starting point for discovery, not the end point. I rather like the idea of a universal space-time coordinate system, by which the universe keeps book on the location of its disparate parts, but it's disallowed by Einstein's interpretation. It still ought to be an interesting question, though concluding Einstein's interpretation is wrong would be a hell of a long stretch, given available evidence.
rogerdallas
5 / 5 (2) May 06, 2017
Wading right in, it seems that the absolute limit to the speed with which information can be transmitted is light speed-- this is the sort of information useful to a physicist making practical measurements. Entanglement, or any other instantaneous link between events, seems to have no utility in an experimental setting. Can't use QM entanglement to compare clock speeds in different locations, for instance. So if your absolute reference frame exists in a QM linked universe, I can't see it as useful to any experimenter. If the universe has an instantaneous accounting system, that's great. It would not be an accounting system any possible observer could use or access in any way. So it becomes "moot" or "philosophical". At least, that's my interpretation...
Da Schneib
May 06, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) May 06, 2017
Re: "Physics theories"

This is dumb.

What else would you expect from da schnied?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 06, 2017
@Urgelt, the Standard Model of particle physics is explicitly reconciled with SRT. It is only GRT that cannot be reconciled, and specifically and only because we have no viable quantum gravity theory.
Dingbone
3 / 5 (2) May 06, 2017
a signal gamma rays coming from the center of the Milky Way might stem from hypothetical dark matter particles that collide and destroy each other it could also be produced by pulsars
In the largest scheme of things, this finding is not surprising. The steady-state Universe model (and also all Big Bang models where size of Universe is significantly larger than its particle horizon) would require eternal recycling of matter into energy and back again for not end in cold death. Therefore all massive bodies are required to evaporate mass into some form of dark matter (scalar waves of negative space-time curvatures) and photons (positive space-time curvature) and these two components will condense somewhere else again. The black holes and pulsars evaporate dark matter via their jets, even the stars like the Sun exhibit anisotropic gradient of dark matter around itself, which has been detected with periodicity in decay speed of elements in the spaceprobes.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) May 06, 2017
The reality is that the "hypothetical dark matter signal" is little more than evidence of plasma processes. Electric discharge in plasmas emit EM radiation across the entire spectrum.
Urgelt
3 / 5 (2) May 06, 2017
Da Schneib, your certainty that the Standard Model is fully reconciled with SRT, and that the only missing piece for GRT-Standard reconciliation is quantum gravity, strikes me as an indication that you follow very well what is known, but do not see the shape of the boundary between the known and the unknown.

That boundary is where science truly lives.

Einstein saw it. He understood that his work was unfinished, and felt frustrated by the fact of it.

There are so many phenomena we can observe but cannot explain; and there are even more we cannot even observe, like the 20 orders of magnitude below the quantum level and Dark Energy and Dark matter, like the limitations imposed on our observations by sheer distance.

Much of physics remains to be discovered and explained. You should regard current theory as a best-fit but incomplete road map to deeper understanding, not an almost-finished body of work. There are surprises in store for us, and we should be glad of it.
Urgelt
1 / 5 (1) May 06, 2017
Dingbone wrote, "So if your absolute reference frame exists in a QM linked universe, I can't see it as useful to any experimenter."

Well, it's not *my* absolute frame. I am not arguing for a particular interpretation of relativity. I am only asking for more evidence than we have, so as to eliminate as much uncertainty about how the universe works as we possibly can.

There may be practical outcomes, if it can be shown that an absolute frame is compatible with how the universe actually works. Those outcomes need not necessarily be derived from exploiting entanglement. This is fundamental physics we're talking about; anything that advances and refines it may help us in ways we might not even imagine today.

Ruling it out is good, too. I'm simply not satisfied that the evidence we have thus far obtained is adequate to do that. Every rejection of Lorentz's absolute frame I've read relies on theoretical arguments, not evidence. Theory is good. Evidence is better.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 06, 2017
Da Schneib, your certainty that the Standard Model is fully reconciled with SRT, and that the only missing piece for GRT-Standard reconciliation is quantum gravity, strikes me as an indication that you follow very well what is known, but do not see the shape of the boundary between the known and the unknown.
The current boundaries of the known and unknown in quantum mechanics are quantum gravity and reconciliation with GRT, the tension between Zeno's Paradox (QM version) and decoherence, the mixing angles in the PMNS matrix, axions and WIMPs and other dark matter candidates, and the possible existence of sterile neutrinos. We're heavily probing the nature and extent of entanglement, so that's not really quite as bleeding edge as it was a decade ago.

There is no tension between QM and SRT, as you are claiming, @Urgelt. The SM is a fully SR theory.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 06, 2017
@Urgelt, I'm willing to chat, but if you're just going to do a bunch of handwaving with neither reasoning nor evidence to back it up, I'm about ready to stop bothering to read or respond any more.

You claimed there are "problems" with frames of reference. You have not shown any.

You claimed entanglement represents a "problem" with SRT. You have declined to present any evidence or reasoning to show it.

You claim Einstein was "frustrated," implying it was with SRT. It was not; Einstein was frustrated with quantum gravity and GRT/EM unification, not SRT.

When challenged you either hand-wave or move on to another subject. Knock it off. Or find someone else to talk to.
Urgelt
3 / 5 (2) May 06, 2017
You oversimplify, Da Scheib. Einstein's frustration was broader. *Everything* that he could not know about the universe frustrated him. That's the kind of man he was.

The 'problem' with framing is just evidentiary. The lack of evidence to rule out an absolute frame - as opposed to purely theoretical arguments - should be the focus of our discussion.

Entanglement - if it operates instantaneously across any distance - might be interpreted as evidence for an absolute frame. That's the only reason to bring it up in a discussion of frames.

I don't regard myself as needing to respond to purely theoretical challenges to the absolute frame or instantaneity, because Lorentz has been there, done that, and I'm no Lorentz. Besides, I don't pretend to know which interpretation is correct. I am not the 'defender of an absolute frame.' I'm just requesting evidence to help us to settle the question Lorentz and Einstein debated in pure theory.
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (1) May 06, 2017
"The lack of evidence to rule out an absolute frame - should be the focus of our discussion."
Yes please.
Thank you both, raised questions, answers, and more questions.
Da Schneib
not rated yet May 06, 2017
The 'problem' with framing is just evidentiary. The lack of evidence to rule out an absolute frame - as opposed to purely theoretical arguments - should be the focus of our discussion.
We're done here. You can't prove a negative. You're a troll. Good bye.
Da Schneib
not rated yet May 06, 2017
@Zerg, you gotta watch like a hawk. The methods can be very subtle, but once you spot one, you can be sure what you're looking at. Shifting the burden of proof in order to put the burden of proving a negative onto the opposition is a sure sign of a crank troll. I think you have to have dealt with them enough to spot these signs.

The correct question, and the one I wouldn't have objected to from @Urtroll, was, where is the evidence to support an absolute frame. Answer, there isn't any, and according to both SRT and LET, there can't ever be. By ignoring this question, the crank troll proves its agenda. Parsimony is the rule in scientific theories. Anyone who ignores it is a crank, and that's that. Advanced Troll Spotting 201.
Urgelt
not rated yet May 06, 2017
Da Schneib, I did not ask you to prove anything.

Once again. I am only advocating for more evidence to settle an old and honest question in physics.

It's quite true that there isn't any evidence to prefer an absolute frame. There isn't any evidence to disqualify the idea, either.

The absence of evidence is not evidence.

I love parsimony; I love Occam's Razor. But parsimony is neither an infallible method for determining truth nor a substitute for evidence. Sometimes, the universe is complicated. Peer at the Standard Model for a few minutes, why don't you? Simple, it is not.

I've been on this site for many years; I have a long track record of posts here. It is not a trollish history. There are certainly trolls present, and kooks, cranks and the like. You can recognize them easily: they are always 100% certain that mainstream physics is wrong and they are right. They have no need for the search for evidence. All the evidence they need resides in their heads.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 06, 2017
Da Schneib, I did not ask you to prove anything.
The lack of evidence to rule out an absolute frame - as opposed to purely theoretical arguments - should be the focus of our discussion.
Don't lie. It's disrespectful. And it's why I have put you on ignore- I probably shouldn't even be responding to this.

It's sufficient to say that there is absolutely no evidence to show absolute frames. Nothing more is required. Sorry if you don't get the whole science thing.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 07, 2017
I'm listening to Pink Floyd, Dogs specifically, as I deal with this troll. It's quite appropriate, actually. The whole salesman thing, making up a story to get the sale done, never mind whether it's the truth or not.

Gotta admit that I'm a little bit confused
Sometimes it seems to me as if I'm just being used
Gotta stay awake gotta try and shake off this creeping malaise
If I don't stand my own ground how can I find my way out of this maze

Deaf dumb and blind you just keep on pretending
That everyone's expendable and no one has a real friend
And it seems to you the thing to do would be to isolate the winner
'Cause everything's done under the Sun and you believe at heart everyone's a killer
Urgelt
not rated yet May 07, 2017
Da Schneib, show me where I demanded that you prove a single thing.

I didn't demand that of you. I've demanded nothing of you.

It's true there's no evidence to support the absolute frame. There's no evidence to support Einstein's interpretation of frames, either - evidence which affirms that there can be no absolute frame at all. There is plenty of evidence for relativity, for the validity of the math. But Lorentz contradicts none of it.

Modern physicists prefer Einstein's interpretation overwhelmingly. They're smart guys. They're probably right. But they aren't basing their preference on evidence, because there are no experiments which show convincingly that Einstein's interpretation of frames is correct and Lorentz's is invalid. They can show the relativity of two frames. They can't rule out the absolute frame with evidence - only with theoretical arguments and rhetorical tools like Occam's Razor.

Science uses tools like Occam's Razor. But evidence is king.

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.