Unprecedentedly wide and sharp dark matter map

March 2, 2018, Subaru Telescope
Figure 1: 2 dimensional dark matter map estimated by weak lensing technique. The dark matter is concentrated in dense clumps. We can identify massive dark matter halos (indicated by oranges circles). The area shown in this figure is approximately 30 square degrees (a total of 160 square degrees were observed this time). The distribution map without the orange circles is available here. Credit: NAOJ/University of Tokyo

A research team of multiple institutes, including the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan and University of Tokyo, released an unprecedentedly wide and sharp dark matter map based on the newly obtained imaging data by Hyper Suprime-Cam on the Subaru Telescope. The dark matter distribution is estimated by the weak gravitational lensing technique (Figure 1, Movie). The team located the positions and lensing signals of the dark matter halos and found indications that the number of halos could be inconsistent with what the simplest cosmological model suggests. This could be a new clue to understanding why the expansion of the Universe is accelerating.

Mystery of the accelerated Universe

In the 1930's, Edwin Hubble and his colleagues discovered the of the Universe. This was a big surprise to most of the people who believed that the Universe stayed the same throughout eternity. A formula relating matter and the geometry of space-time was required in order to express the expansion of the Universe mathematically. Coincidentally, Einstein had already developed just such a formula. Modern cosmology is based on Einstein's theory for gravity.

It had been thought that the expansion is decelerating over time (blue and red lines in Figure 2) because the contents of the Universe (matter) attract each other. But in the late 1990's, it was found that the expansion has been accelerating since about 8 Giga years ago. This was another big surprise which earned the astronomers who found the expansion a Nobel Prize in 2011. To explain the acceleration, we have to consider something new in the Universe which repels the space.

The simplest resolution is to put the cosmological constant back into Einstein's equation. The cosmological constant was originally introduced by Einstein to realize a static universe, but was abandoned after the discovery of the expansion of the Universe. The standard cosmological model (called LCDM) incorporates the cosmological constant. The expansion history using LCDM is shown by the green line in Figure 2. LCDM is supported by many observations, but the question of what causes the acceleration still remains. This is one of the biggest problems in modern cosmology.

Wide and deep imaging survey using Hyper Suprime-Cam

Figure 2: Expansion history of the Universe. The blue line shows what was believed to be likely in the early days of cosmology. Later this cosmological model fell out of favor because it predicts a higher growth rate and more structures, inconsistent with the observed galaxy distribution. Thus a much lighter Universe model was proposed which is shown by the red line. This light model also solved the so called "age problem," the existence of globular clusters older than the age of the Universe predicted by the blue track. But both the blue and red lines conflict with the inflation cosmology. Later when the acceleration of the Universe was discovered, LCDM represented by the green track, was adopted as the most likely model. Thanks to the addition of the cosmological constant, LCDM becomes consistent with the inflation model. Credit: NAOJ

The team is leading a large scale imaging survey using Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) to probe the mystery of the accelerating Universe. The key here is to examine the expansion history of the Universe very carefully.

In the early Universe, matter was distributed almost but not quite uniformly. There were slight fluctuations in the density which can now be observed through the temperature fluctuations of the . These slight matter fluctuations evolved over cosmic time because of the mutual gravitational attraction of matter, and eventually the large scale structure of the present day Universe become visible. It is known that the of the structure strongly depends on how the Universe expands. For example, if the expansion rate is high, it is hard for matter to contract and the growth rate is suppressed. This means that the expansion history can be probed inversely through the observation of the growth rate.

It is important to note that growth rate cannot be probed well if we only observe visible matter (stars and galaxies). This is because we now know that nearly 80 % of the matter is an invisible substance called dark matter. The team adopted the 'weak gravitation lensing technique." The images of distant galaxies are slightly distorted by the gravitational field generated by the foreground dark matter distribution. Analysis of the systematic distortion enables us to reconstruct the foreground dark matter distribution.

Figure 3: Hyper Suprime-Cam image of a location with a highly significant dark matter halo detected through the weak gravitational lensing technique. This halo is so massive that some of the background (blue) galaxies are stretched tangentially around the center of the halo. This is called strong lensing. (Credit: NAOJ

This technique is observationally very demanding because the distortion of each galaxy is generally very subtle. Precise shape measurements of faint and apparently small galaxies are required. This motivated the team to develop Hyper Suprime-Cam. They have been carrying out a wide field imaging survey using Hyper Suprime-Cam since March 2014. At this writing in February 2018, 60 % of the survey has been completed.

Unprecedentedly wide and sharp dark matter map

In this release, the team presents the dark matter map based on the imaging data taken by April 2016 (Figure 1). This is only 11 % of the planned final map, but it is already unprecedentedly wide. There has never been such a sharp dark matter map covering such a wide area.

Imaging observations are made through five different color filters. By combining these color data, it is possible to make a crude estimate of the distances to the faint background galaxies (called photometric redshift). At the same time, the lensing efficiency becomes most prominent when the lens is located directly between the distant galaxy and the observer. Using the photometric redshift information, galaxies are grouped into redshift bins. Using this grouped galaxy sample, dark matter distribution is reconstructed using tomographic methods and thus the 3-D distribution can be obtained. Figure 4 shows one such example. Data for 30 square degrees are used to reconstruct the redshift range between 0.1 (~1.3 G light-years) and 1.0 (~8 G light-years). At the redshift of 1.0, the angular span corresponds to 1.0 G x 0.25 G light-years. This 3-D dark matter mass map is also quite new. This is the first time the increase in the number of dark matter halos over time can be seen observationally.

What the dark matter halo count suggests and future prospects

Figure 4: An example of 3D distribution of dark matter reconstructed via tomographic methods using the weak lensing technique combined with the redshift estimates of the background galaxies. All of the 3D maps are available here. Credit: University of Tokyo/NAOJ

The team counted the number of dark matter halos whose lensing signal is above a certain threshold. This is one of the simplest measurements of the growth rate. The histogram (black line) in Figure 5 shows the observed lensing signal strength versus the number of observed halos whereas the model prediction is shown by the solid red line. The model is based on the standard LCDM model using the observation of cosmic microwave background as the seed of the fluctuations. The figure suggests that the number count of the halos is less than what is expected from LCDM. This could indicate there is a flaw in LCDM and that we might have to consider an alternative rather than the simple cosmological constant.

The statistical significance is, however, still limited as the large error bars (vertical line on the histogram in Figure 5) suggest. There has been no conclusive evidence to reject LCDM, but many astronomers are interested in testing LCDM because discrepancies can be a useful probe to unlock the mystery of the accelerating Universe. Further observation and analysis are needed to confirm the discrepancy with higher significance. There are some other probes of the growth rate and such analysis are also underway (e.g. angular correlation of galaxy shapes) in the team to check the validity of standard LCDM.

These results were published on January 1, 2018 in the HSC special issue of the Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan. The report is titled "A large sample of shear-selected clusters from the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program S16A Wide field mass maps."

Figure 5: Number of dark matter halos versus their lensing signal strength (black histogram) and number count expected from LCDM and the most recent CMB observation by the Planck satellite. Credit: NAOJ/University of Tokyo

Two-dimensional dark matter map estimated by weak lensing technique. The dark matter is concentrated in dense clumps. Credit: NAOJ

Explore further: Mapping dark matter

More information: A large sample of shear selected clusters from the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program S16A wide field mass maps. arxiv.org/abs/1802.10290v1

Related Stories

Mapping dark matter

July 24, 2017

About eighty-five percent of the matter in the universe is in the form of dark matter, whose nature remains a mystery. The rest of the matter in the universe is of the kind found in atoms. Astronomers studying the evolution ...

New insights on dark energy

October 2, 2017

The universe is not only expanding - it is accelerating outward, driven by what is commonly referred to as "dark energy." The term is a poetic analogy to label for dark matter, the mysterious material that dominates the matter ...

Recommended for you

Video: Net successfully snares space debris

September 19, 2018

The RemoveDEBRIS satellite has successfully used its on-board net technology in orbit – the first demonstration in human history of active debris removal (ADR) technology.

Mercury studies reveal an intriguing target for BepiColombo

September 19, 2018

A month before the planned launch of the joint ESA-JAXA BepiColombo mission to Mercury, two new studies shed light on when the innermost planet formed and the puzzle of its chemical composition. The findings will be presented ...

153 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

grandpa
1.9 / 5 (28) Mar 02, 2018
I'm pretty sure the universe is static as far as expansion or contraction. I think they should be looking for other explanations for the observed phenomena. The explanations are getting more and more bizarre to hold onto the big bang and expansion.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (19) Mar 02, 2018
This is only 11 % of the planned final map, but it is already unprecedentedly wide. There has never been such a sharp dark matter map covering such a wide area.

So this unprecedented effort in GIGO is only going to get grander in scale, swell. Soon we will be graced with the most unprecedented collection of garbage science the world has ever seen.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (21) Mar 02, 2018
The explanations are getting more and more bizarre............


Explain what you find bizarre about it. Preferably with some science, rather than personal belief.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (20) Mar 02, 2018
This is only 11 % of the planned final map, but it is already unprecedentedly wide. There has never been such a sharp dark matter map covering such a wide area.

So this unprecedented effort in GIGO is only going to get grander in scale, swell. Soon we will be graced with the most unprecedented collection of garbage science the world has ever seen.


Awww diddums, just because it goes against your scientifically illiterate, mythology based beliefs, it has to be garbage. Pathetic. Like the rest of the lightning bolt cult. You lot ever going to actually do some science? No, thought not.
billpress11
1.7 / 5 (17) Mar 02, 2018
The explanations are getting more and more bizarre............


Explain what you find bizarre about it. Preferably with some science, rather than personal belief.

How about starting with the BB itself, than add in the inflationary period and the acceleration of the expansion, neither backed up with any local observations.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (20) Mar 02, 2018
The explanations are getting more and more bizarre............


Explain what you find bizarre about it. Preferably with some science, rather than personal belief.

How about starting with the BB itself, than add in the inflationary period and the acceleration of the expansion, neither backed up with any local observations.


Local observations? What, in the nearest Wal-Mart perhaps? How are you going to observe the BB locally? Christ, I wish some of these people would actually try to understand the science before they start criticising it.
dogbert
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 02, 2018
There does not appear to be any limitation on the amount of dark matter we can create with computer modeling and simulation. But we can't seem to find a single particle of the stuff anywhere.
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (22) Mar 02, 2018
There does not appear to be any limitation on the amount of dark matter we can create with computer modeling and simulation. But we can't seem to find a single particle of the stuff anywhere.


Except that the study above is not a computer simulation. Somebody else who can't understand what they're reading! Lensing is what it's about. Gravity does that. For that you need mass. And when that mass is invisible, what should we call it? Answers on a postcard.
billpress11
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 02, 2018
jonesdave, if you reread my post you should notice I did not mention the BB, I used the word "neither" referring to the inflationary period and the expansion of the universe. Which as far as I know are not observed in the local universe, our solar system or galaxy. I wish so called scientist would stop introducing magic into the world of science when they have no logical explanation for something.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 02, 2018
jonesdave, if you reread my post you should notice I did not mention the BB, I used the word "neither" referring to the inflationary period and the expansion of the universe. Which as far as I know are not observed in the local universe, our solar system or galaxy. I wish so called scientist would stop introducing magic into the world of science when they have no logical explanation for something.


When do you think the inflationary epoch was? If the BB isn't local, why would the inflationary epoch be? How far do you think it got in ~ 10^-36 seconds?
And how would you measure expansion 'locally'? We are talking about the overall expansion of the universe. What happens if we look 'locally'? Well, Andromeda is moving towards us, so that kills the theory stone dead, doesn't it? Errr, no. It doesn't work like that, and that is why it cannot be measured 'locally'.
billpress11
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 02, 2018
jonesdave, one simple question, if the expansion is accelerating why wouldn't it be everywhere and measureable locally? We can measure the redshift at a distance and locally, what is the difference? Okay, two questions. The difference in my opinion is one is real, the other magically introduced as needed.
billpress11
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2018
And the inflationary period was magically introduces to explain the uniformity of the observable universe in all directions.
carbon_unit
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2018
I'm pretty sure the universe is static as far as expansion or contraction. I think they should be looking for other explanations for the observed phenomena. The explanations are getting more and more bizarre to hold onto the big bang and expansion.
I'm pretty sure the universe is Newtonian. I think they should be looking for other explanations for the observed phenomena. The explanations are getting more and more bizarre to hold onto entanglement, uncertainty, wave-particle duality...
IwinUlose
3.6 / 5 (14) Mar 02, 2018
jonesdave, one simple question, if the expansion is accelerating why wouldn't it be everywhere and measureable locally? We can measure the redshift at a distance and locally, what is the difference?


Mutually gravitating bodies vs. the lack thereof in the expanse of intergalactic space; that's the difference and you either know that, or at least possess the all the pieces in order to correlate.
IwinUlose
3.7 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2018
And the inflationary period was magically introduces to explain the uniformity of the observable universe in all directions.


If you really believe LCDM is based on bad science, you can't fix it by engaging in worse science.
IwinUlose
3.7 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2018
... And when that mass is invisible, what should we call it? Answers on a postcard.


In a society where virtually all prior history was dominated by religions who so often portrayed any outside belief as a 'dark' art or act, going with the naming conventions 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' were probably a poor choices. Something with more volume but less substance like "SUPERMATTER" or maybe something kitschy like "XTRA Matter" and then the masses would have been all about it.

Edit - "Ghost Matter", that's the one, that should have been it.
IwinUlose
3.4 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2018
Then all the kids would call it GMat
dnatwork
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2018
Lots of ad hominem attacks here.

LCDM does have a lot of unexamined presuppositions. Various counter-proposals have questioned these weaknesses, but they are not as fashionable or deemed to be as well fleshed-out.

Things that bother me:

They assume things are moving because they seem to be getting farther away. That's not the only possible explanation.

They don't seem to address the fact that the rate of expansion, as they measure it, has increased over time. They just add a constant, they don't have a time-dependent factor, so they leave it as a mere coincidence.

Dark matter supposedly doesn't interact with normal matter, but it's always in halos around galaxies. Maybe not with the bullet cluster, but that is also disputed.

This week they announced measurements of the first stars (Australian radio telescope), and the universe was half the temperature they expected.

Maybe these things are connected, with one explanation that does not leave so much to coincidence.
Merrit
3 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2018
They ever consider that maybe space time is just not flat? Our modern science is based on matter warping space time which causes the effect of gravity we are very familiar with. So, yes matter (even unseen) would warp space time and cause lensing. But, the space time could simply be warped for a different reason in addition to that.
dnatwork
4 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2018
General relativity says matter and energy curve space. But what is space? Is it a structure to be bent? Does that require force? In other words, is there a fundamental force that space exerts outward on everything, trying to be "straight" against the curving force of objects and waves?

Well, there's no such force in any of the equations, as far as I know. Unless you count the cosmological constant.

If there is no such force, no underlying structure to space, then the curvature that matter/energy induces has no lower limit. Once an object forms a gravity well, that well should get deeper indefinitely, unless it is acted on by another object or force.

In this view, distant galaxies are not moving away faster and faster. Instead, every galaxy is gradually falling deeper into its own gravity well. Light must follow the geodesics of the curved space of the wells, so it takes longer to climb out of those wells and fall down into ours.
dnatwork
4 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2018
This involves no added energy over time, or different energies over different timespans. On the contrary, it specifically requires that no energy be added; adding energy would be the only way to stop the gravity wells from getting deeper. And we have conservation of energy, so that's nice.

The time-dependency of "expansion" is also addressed. Local galaxies and clusters have not had enough time to develop wells that are separate from our own. Farther ones have had enough time, and even farther ones have gone so deep relative to us that they are beyond the Hubble distance.

Dark matter, needed to explain excessive lensing and galactic rotation curves, would also fall away. This article https://phys.org/...rse.html indicates that galactic rotation curves were not as tight ten billion years ago. That is, dark matter is also time-dependent, at the same timescale as dark energy. Or maybe gravity wells have gotten deeper since then.
dnatwork
4 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2018
Gravitational lensing observations that are used in support of dark matter are coincidentally from objects billions of lights years away, with other objects even more billions of light-years beyond them. If gravity wells develop over time, and light has to take all that time to travel between them and then to us, billions of years is enough create apparent curvature and lensing.

Tightening rotational curves would be an effect of the fact that space (as defined by the object in it because it is not a thing in itself, no structure or forces) has been curved tighter over time by the galaxy itself. Like the water going down a drain.

Inflation would not be inflation, after all. Instead, as the universe cooled from its initial state, it reached a low enough temperature that the force(s) binding all matter together was overcome. Maybe the weak force, I don't know. Anyway, imagine it was a big bubble, and suddenly it popped. What you would have is not a giant explosion.
rhugh1066
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2018
Dnatwork, excellent commentary. You've posed some of the best questions I've read on here, and your last discourse on curving space asks fundamental questions that just never seem to come up here or anywhere else that I've seen. Bravo. Encore, please.

Your initial comment regarding ad hominem attacks is also spot on. So much personal animus that's seemingly triggered by anything and everything.
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2018
Every particle would stay where it was, but the connections between them all would be severed rather suddenly. Like a large soap bubble popping in a high-speed video, and all the little bubbles and bits of film are still there, now unconnected and rapidly contracting in on themselves, presumably due to the same binding force that just failed at the universal scale.

So you don't need as high an initial temperature, or an added force at 10^-136 seconds, to explain the appearance of inflation. It's still just GR, with matter/energy forcing space to curve, overcoming the other fundamental forces that we can actually measure.

But I still have to answer my own question: What would space be here? Only the force lines of electromagnetic energy between bits of matter; the geodesics along with light or any other thing must travel between objects. Imagine them as bubbles that expand indefinitely. Maybe eventually they pop (inflation, Hubble distance, etc.).
dnatwork
1 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2018
Dnatwork, excellent commentary. You've posed some of the best questions I've read on here, and your last discourse on curving space asks fundamental questions that just never seem to come up here or anywhere else that I've seen. Bravo. Encore, please.

Your initial comment regarding ad hominem attacks is also spot on. So much personal animus that's seemingly triggered by anything and everything.


Thanks! You're the first person to like anything I said. I don't have the physics or math to back any of it up. I need to take it up as a serious hobby; just raising a kid takes my time and seems more important.
dnatwork
4 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2018
Weird, I can't edit a typo above: It's not "geodesics along with light or any other thing must travel." It should be "geodesics along which light or any other thing must travel."
IwinUlose
2.3 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2018
Edit: Your comment will be editable for 3 minutes. May as well be 0 minutes if you wrote anything of substance...
winthrom
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2018
Dnatwork, I very much like your logic and approach. I would like to consider an aspect you have postulated in a different way:

General relativity says matter and energy curve space. But what is space?

I would ask "what is space/time" instead of just "what is space". GR assumes the speed of light is constant in any give space frame, and then goes on to show it's effect on relative space. It also works out the "time dilatation" from increased relative velocity and gravity. No one has considered that the "time" in "speed of light" could be a variable beyond the GR and SR restrictions. The ever increasing gravity wells you describe may well be a shifting in the time constant caused by the decreasing density of an expanding universe. Thus the further away we see something, the denser the universe was, and accordingly, the gravity well of the whole thing, which would red shift light. We know light is red shifted by gravity wells, so this is possible.
winthrom
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2018
Correlating changing universe density to redshift would not obliterate universe expansion, but would remove it from the rate of expansion equations. Doing this would clarify the seemingly odd feature of "every observer is seeing all distant astronomical objects flying uniformly away faster as distance increases" implying universe expansion yet the diluted "microwave background" from a much smaller universe is still detectable in all directions. By now it should have vanished or at least been of different values in some directions unless we are at the center of the universe and time is flat! In earlier times the earth was believed flat, and that proved wrong.

The idea that time itself is variable withing a universe that is changing density would explain a lot.
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2018
@winthrom, sounds good to me. I left off the time portion of spacetime, my bad. If we take GR at its word, time should be different at every point in the universe (i.e., at every point in spacetime) because the gravity is different, or from a different set of mass/energy objects.

But it also seems to me that it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. If it's valid to look at expansion as either (A) everything moving away or (B) everything falling into holes or (C) make up a third logically equivalent option, then we should also find it equivalent to say (X) space is being compressed or (Y) time is being dilated. They both come out to 42.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2018
jonesdave,
There does not appear to be any limitation on the amount of dark matter we can create with computer modeling and simulation. But we can't seem to find a single particle of the stuff anywhere.

Except that the study above is not a computer simulation. ...


No, it is not a simulation. It is computer modeling.
Turgent
5 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2018
Yes, wonderful to see rational discourse.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Mar 02, 2018
No, it is not a simulation. It is computer modeling.


Sigh. Did you bother to read the article? Or, dare I say it, the paper? Here is what they say in the article:

In this release, the team presents the dark matter map based on the imaging data taken by April 2016


So, yes, that particular image may not be what the telescope itself actually saw through its lens, but it is as accurate as a map of the Earth drawn based on satellite photography. The lensing occurred. The map shows where it occurred. This is not the first time that DM has been observed due to lensing. I realise it probably doesn't fit in with your belief system, but that's tough. Evidence is king. Here, have some more:

The weak-lensing masses of filaments between luminous red galaxies
Epps, S. D. & Hudson, M. J.
https://academic..../3059154

dogbert
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2018
jonesdave,

No dark matter has ever been found. We have never produced any in our high energy colliders. It has been over 80 years since dark matter was hypothesized. After so much time and massive effort to establish that hypothesis fails, we should consider other reasons for the gravitational anomalies we observe.

We have not observed DM due to lensing. We have never observed DM. We have only observed the gravitational anomalies.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2018
We have not observed DM due to lensing. We have never observed DM. We have only observed the gravitational anomalies.


Caused by invisible mass. What would you like to call it? Suggestions, please, rather than "we should look for something else", when you haven't got a clue what that "something else" is, nor how it would cause the lensing. Please do tell - there is a Nobel in this for you or anybody else that figures it out.

jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (15) Mar 02, 2018
It has been over 80 years since dark matter was hypothesized.


And how long between Einstein's prediction of gravitational waves and their discovery? Good job we didn't give up on that, eh?
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2018
jonesdave,
We have not observed DM due to lensing. We have never observed DM. We have only observed the gravitational anomalies.

Caused by invisible mass.


You don't know it is caused by invisible mass. You obviously want DM to be the cause of the differences between our models of gravity and what we observe. But you, like everyone else, has never seen or measured a single particle of DM.

It is not scientific to insist that something exists for which we have absolutely no evidence despite massive long term efforts to find it.

We would do better scientifically to try to discover why our models do are not predictive of what we observe.

Or we can continue to seek magic matter which cannot be seen, measured, created or contained but which happily arrives at gravitational anomalies in just the right places and just the right amounts to correct our models to our observations.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2018
^^^^^^^^So, absolutely nothing to add, then? What should they be looking for? And what is causing the lensing? Answer the questions instead of repeating your baseless assertions.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2018
And what is causing the lensing? Answer the questions instead of repeating your baseless assertions.


The answer to the question is that we should be seeking the answer instead of declaring that we know the answer despite no evidence for our declaration.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Mar 02, 2018
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Typical crank. More word salad. I'll ask again; SPECIFICALLY what is causing the lensing? What could be causing it? Therefore, having figured that out, you should be able to tell us what to look for. All you've done so far is tell us to stop looking for a particular thing, which is easily the best candidate for what we see, and for which there is good observational evidence.
Like I said, how long from prediction of GWs until their discovery? Would you have had us stop searching for them? What about neutrinos? Ever seen one? Or electrons?
It's a good thing that scientists don't think like cranks, or we'd still be in the middle ages.
IwinUlose
3.6 / 5 (14) Mar 02, 2018
And what is causing the lensing? Answer the questions instead of repeating your baseless assertions.


The answer to the question is that we should be seeking the answer instead of declaring that we know the answer despite no evidence for our declaration.


The evidence is the lensing and tendency for galaxies to not fly apart, unless something new, aside from matter, is proposed to cause the warping of spacetime.

You keep framing your own declarations from the viewpoint that: those continuing research based on hypotheses that have yet to be falsified and continue to correlate to observation are searching for something specific; whereas "dark matter" is specifically declared to indicate it is not a specific particle. The very name "dark matter" denotes that it's exact nature is not known.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2018
Like I said, how long from prediction of GWs until their discovery?

No GW were discovered, just a grand exercise in confirmation bias and pattern matching.
dogbert
2 / 5 (12) Mar 02, 2018
IwinUlose,
The very name "dark matter" denotes that it's exact nature is not known.


If we were looking for the cause of the observed gravitational anomalies, we would call it 'gravitational anomaly' or some such. Instead, we look for 'dark matter', dark because we hypothesize that is cannot be seen and matter because we have already decided that we are going to find matter as the cause of the anomalies.

The scientific method is to try to determine what is causing the observational anomalies. It is not a scientific method to predetermine what you are willing to find and continue to seek what you want despite continued failure.

People have built whole careers on the search for dark matter. They are unlikely to look for any other possibility with any rigor because they have too much invested in dark matter.

Just saying we should seek the cause rather than seeking what we want the cause to be.
IwinUlose
3.3 / 5 (14) Mar 02, 2018
You wrote,
If we were looking for the cause of the observed gravitational anomalies, we would call it 'gravitational anomaly' or some such. Instead, we look for 'dark matter', dark because we hypothesize that is cannot be seen and matter because we have already decided that we are going to find matter as the cause of the anomalies.


After I wrote,
unless something new, aside from matter, is proposed to cause the warping of spacetime.


Saying we should be seeking 'something else' because dark matter is definitely wrong.

So then he says,
The scientific method is to try to determine what is causing the observational anomalies.


So I say, "And dark matter was proposed and research pursued thusly."

but he says,
It is not a scientific method to predetermine what you are willing to find and continue to seek what you want despite continued failure.

It's not but of course that's not the case no matter the means to suggest or imply otherwise.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (14) Mar 02, 2018
Like I said, how long from prediction of GWs until their discovery?

No GW were discovered, just a grand exercise in confirmation bias and pattern matching.


Wrong. Read the literature. It's a done deal. We can even see the EM signature from the last one, and it very closely matches prediction. Unless, of course, you think, in an effort to prop up your mythology based woo, that dozens, hundreds of scientists on different telescopes are all hiding the truth from the woomeisters? Yeah, right.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2018
Please cd, tell us, with your great scientific knowledge, how do you derive r-process element nucleosynthesis from confirmation bias? Gold is gold, is it not? Or was it just chocolate, or something else, and they aren't telling us? "Memo to everyone who observed this EM signature worldwide; don't mention the bloody chocolate. We don't want the woo merchants getting excited."
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2018
We can even see the EM signature from the last one

Yep, as with the first and second they discovered a blip from an electromagnetic event, probably a GRB.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2018
that dozens, hundreds of scientists on different telescopes are all hiding the truth from the woomeisters?

There are likely but a few who know the truth, the rest are useful rubes that were only able to pass graduate programs due to their wilful mindlessness.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2018
If we were looking for the cause of the observed gravitational anomalies, we would call it 'gravitational anomaly' or some such.Instead, we look for 'dark matter', dark because we hypothesize that is cannot be seen and matter because we have already decided that we are going to find matter as the cause of the anomalies.


Nope. It has to be matter, unless you know anything else that could cause the largest stars, and the tiniest grains of dust, and clouds of gas to all orbit at the same speed. Like I said, if you do, give us a clue. And we know that it can't be seen, because we can't see it! It doesn't interact with light, other than bending it (which also means it has to be matter). Now, if it were enormously dense, dark clouds of .....something.... we would see that spectroscopically. We don't.
So, in short, we know it is dark, and we know it has to be matter. No other options.

jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Mar 02, 2018
that dozens, hundreds of scientists on different telescopes are all hiding the truth from the woomeisters?

There are likely but a few who know the truth, the rest are useful rubes that were only able to pass graduate programs due to their wilful mindlessness.


Lol. What an idiot. Many points to you on the Crackpot Index. All of this to keep your idiotic beliefs alive. Beliefs for which there is no evidence, nor any scientifically viable hypotheses. Hey ho. Such are the ways of woo merchants.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Mar 02, 2018
We can even see the EM signature from the last one

Yep, as with the first and second they discovered a blip from an electromagnetic event, probably a GRB.


Errr, no. Lol. Where do you think the bloody GRB comes from? Jesus. You haven't even read the papers, have you? No surprise, they'd be way beyond you. Please, with your infinite knowledge of LIGO and Virgo, how does a GRB induce a signal, when it arrives 1.7 secs after the wave? Ye Gods. The lengths some people will go to to keep believing Earth used to orbit Saturn!
winthrom
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2018
I think that the space/time issue between some commentators here revolves around whether we define"matter" as the only cause of gravitation, therefore the unseen "matter" must be "dark. Ergo, "dark matter".

As I noted earlier, we permit space to expand, and ASSUME time is constant in any GR/SR frame of reference. As we once assumed the earth was flat because our frames of reference were too limited.

A curved time volume (space) in space would act the same as a curved space/time, and do so without any mass. Should we call that time/space curvature "dark matter" or just chocolate? Now you may ask what can curve time, and I point to GR/SR that dilate and shrink time based on speed. The consequences to matter at these speeds is thoroughly defined in GR/SR, but there is no need for a mass to be involved. A moving volume of space will do just as well. Now we will suggest that a curved time/space will exhibit the properties of gravity because it does this in GR/SR near actual masses.
winthrom
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2018
We say space is expanding, but the idea of space in motion befuddles us. They are the same thing. Now let us consider that space is expanding near the galaxies at a rate that provides the extra gravitation needed to hold the galaxies together. Then we also ask is mass needed to induce space expansion. Perhaps it is, and perhaps only sometimes. Near galaxies the movement of the galaxy on its' axis may drag space enough to create space/time movement (i.e., gravitation) and expansion too.

We assume that space is expanding uniformly because we observe the red shift uniformly. My earlier speculation about red shift eliminates this red shift from the equations. What remains is that space may expand, but not uniformly, and only in some situations that induce expansion. One suggestion I make is that space itself moves during expansion, and can do so quite rapidly. The space movement induces a space/time curvature that we call gravitation and then we demand that it be called "Dark Matter
winthrom
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2018
When we talk about the big bang we say it was an expansion of space and matter at a rate exceeding the speed of light. There goes that "variable time" thing again. We then assume that the whole thing settled down once, and for all, to be our universe. Do we dare ask if that kind of cosmic event can take place on smaller scales within our universe and without generating even more mass? That would be rapidly expanding space (and messed up time).
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2018
It is obviously lost on the dark matter acolytes that the above paper pretty much falsified the cold dark matter models via observations once again.
milnik
1 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2018
Is Einstein's theory of relativity a dangerous "anti-scientific isotope" that has destroyed the consciousness of many scientists who now, for all phenomena in the universe, use Einstein's "scientific tools", with which they have not even learned anything or understood yet. The most dangerous contaminating agent in today's science is: the belief in the appearance of BB, to think that the universe is expanding, measuring and calculating something that does not exist, which are dark matter and dark energy. What can science do to cure this "scientific cancer"? Is there any "chemotherapy" that can cure those polluted people, with theories that are beyond all the laws of nature. Why, none of you, do not use your abilities, and many do not know from whom and how and why, and do not use someone else's "rude" evidence.
milnik
1 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2018
Is not it much more logical and easier to say and understand "
UNIVERZUM IS SPHERE WITH AN INFINITE DIAMETER, FILLED BY AETHER SUBSTANCE, WITH WHICH MATERIAL IS FORMATED. From here everything is clear, because there is no spread of the universe, there is nothing "dark", everything is created, it arises from something, which is AETHER. Today's science is struggling in various areas because it does not know: what is matter, energy, gravity, magnetism, light, waves and various radiation, and how it all forms, and from what it forms.
milnik
1 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2018
What scientists think is that galaxies are spreading and that it is the spread of the universe, it is evidence that they do not know the true laws of the motion of celestial bodies, and therefore not the galaxy. Every system of bodies in the universe (as a whole, as our solar system) has its own center of mass (pericenter) around which all the bodies of that system move according to certain laws. In order for a galaxy to form its path, according to these laws, it needs more eons for years, and our "experts" think that this can be seen by telescopes and measured in red shift. If they do not know what light is and how it arises, how can I believe that these measurements are logical? ET CETERA!!
shadybail
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2018
Starkman is calling it 'Macro Dark Matter". What's up with that? Is it ether or dark matter?
carbon_unit
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2018
jonesdave:
Lol. What an idiot. Many points to you on the Crackpot Index. All of this to keep your idiotic beliefs alive. Beliefs for which there is no evidence, nor any scientifically viable hypotheses. Hey ho. Such are the ways of woo merchants.
I'm beginning to wonder if politics is not the only target for the Russian trolls/bots...

(Did I forget the /s on my earlier post?)
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2018
It is obviously lost on the dark matter acolytes that the above paper pretty much falsified the cold dark matter models via observations once again.


Oh dear. Which paper is this that has failed to make international headlines? Which it would if it did what you said.
milnik
1 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2018
Aether is a substance that is neither matter nor energy, but possesses electromagnetic properties. When matter is formed from Aether in a "solid" aggregate state of 3 kg of particles (3 quarks and 3 bonds of gluon), that substance with Aether in which everything is "submerged" causes the phenomenon -GRAVITATION. The second "aggregate state" of matter is "liquid" and these are gluons, with Aether causing the appearance of magnetism.
This explains all the dilemmas and unknowns in the universe. Only this is to be understood and renounced by Einstein's staggering theories that do not allow people to think their head, but they always respect their deity Einstein, as the ancient Jews respected the golden calf, as the deity they prayed when they did not know what to do next.
othergeorge
1 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2018
There is a problem. When a galaxy disappears due to spatial expansion, then there is a last photon that sends to Earth, followed by the first photon that never manages to reach here. But this can only happen if the two photons are separated by tens of billions of light years - otherwise, both photons could reach here. Since the light of the galaxy is compact, at which point were the photons separated? Not logical. Therefore, galaxies are never lost from the sky. We conclude that the speed of light increases proportionally to the expansion of the universe - this does not affect Relativity. If we manage to measure this change, we will be able to determine the size and age of the universe. If the above is correct we should know the most accurate value of c from now ... If is expanding.
granville583762
2 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2018
Radius R is 15billion Lys and still growing
grandpa:- I'm pretty sure the universe is static as far as expansion or contraction. I think they should be looking for other explanations for the observed phenomena. The explanations are getting more and more bizarre to hold onto the big bang and expansion.

If we are to believe matter came out of the vacuum, by inputting the first gram of material into the formula R=2GM/C* it will output a small radii, by continually inputting the matter as it emerges from the vacuum into the formula the radius R will keep on growing. We could make a graph! In other words and expanding singularity so why should it stop, whatever process is allowing matter to emerge out the vacuum within R "inside the event horizon" will to continue to release matter out of the vacuum as now the event horizon R has grown to a 15billion Ly singularity and still growing.
Solon
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2018
There does not appear to be any limitation on the amount of dark matter we can create with computer modeling and simulation. But we can't seem to find a single particle of the stuff anywhere.


Except that the study above is not a computer simulation. Somebody else who can't understand what they're reading! Lensing is what it's about. Gravity does that. For that you need mass. And when that mass is invisible, what should we call it? Answers on a postcard.


"Lensing is what it's about. Gravity does that."

And you can PROVE that it is not another mechanism?

Plasma Theory of 'Gravitational Lensing' of Light
http://www.plasma...sing.htm
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 04, 2018
And you can PROVE that it is not another mechanism?

Plasma Theory of 'Gravitational Lensing' of Light
http://www.plasma...sing.htm


Why would I need to prove anything? There are thousands of observations of lensing, all explained by gravity, and all in the scientific literature. Why would anyone feel the need to reply to a bunch of non peer reviewed word salad posted on a webpage?
You don't get this science thing, do you? If you have an unconventional hypothesis, that goes against a lot of very well established science, then the onus is on the proponents of said hypothesis to prove it; not for others to prove it wrong. If you are only positing it on a random webpage, then there is usually a very good reason for this - it sucks.

granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2018
Gravitational lensing and photons
Photons have momentum, by showing their paths curve under the influence of gravitational fields they also show they have mass, only inertial mass is attracted to gravity. Each photon has a quantity of inertial mass, only a small number of photons are visible as light to our eyes. Over the entire spectrum how many photons occupy are 15billion Ly radius universe. Latest experiments in Bose Einstein states is bringing two photons in close contact creating new states of matter for breath moments in time as two photons briefly form light molecules; How many photons, when totalled, what is their total inertial mass when compared to the dark-matter map and what is their additional total frequency of energy because each photon has its frequency, its inertial mass and its inertial mass can be quoted as E=MC*. There is an enormous of energy and mass unaccounted for in photons and photon can not exactly be described as dark-matter as we can see them
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2018
Photons, their inertial-mass and gravity
By photons showing they have inertial-mass by curving their paths under gravitational fields, their quantity of inertial-mass also exhibits its own gravitational field, the immense clouds of photons moving through the vacuum in uncountable numbers have by virtue of their gravity have a detectable observable gravitational effect on the matter around us.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2018
If you look at the webpage linked by Solon, it makes a case for the gravitational redshift being due to some sort of EM effect. This is proven trivially wrong by the Pound-Rebka experiment, and others which have followed it. Unless the author is saying that ~4m of neutral O2 and N2 are causing the effect? Probably not.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2018
The press release is really making hay out of grainy data.

Whether or not those error bars are 1 or 2 sigma, there is "no conclusive evidence to reject" so it is a successfully passed rejection test. But with a rather unexciting low number, low bin statistic.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2018
Newton's law of gravitational attraction
jonesdave:- it makes a case for the gravitational redshift being due to some sort of EM effect. This is proven trivially wrong by the Pound-Rebka
Gravity only attracts, when a cloud of photons pass's a massive body each individual photons gravity attracts the massive body and the massive body attracts each individual photon, the point being despite the miniscule photons mass, the photon does not experience any force when it attracts the massive body, as gravity only attracts which is why photons lose energy moving away from a massive body, the photon is experiencing the attractive force of gravity, because photons travel at fixed speed they lose kinetic-energy not by slowing down, but by losing energy instead. This is due to matter oscillation due to De Broglie Frequency, the kinetic-energy of motion in matter is stored in the de Broglie frequency of matter waves according to formula E=hv

torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2018
@grandpa: "the universe is static",

We see it is not. Here fig 2 and 5 (overlaid with cluster size) show expansion from data.

@billpress11: "if the expansion is accelerating why wouldn't it be everywhere and measureable locally? We can measure the redshift at a distance and locally, what is the difference?"

It *is* everywhere, but it is just 10^-10 parts/year and the ruler system is based on galaxies. (Besides local rulers are static due to gravity and chemistry clumping overwhelming expansion.)

Sufficiently far away galaxies at that, and then the cosmological redshift measures the average expansion, no difference.

First lecture in any cosmology course, try Susskind@Stanford online.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2018
@dnawork, winthrom: "LCDM does have a lot of unexamined presuppositions", "GR assumes",

As any useful science those have neither philosophical "presuppositions/assumptions" or have not examined its basis. In a hypothesis testing framework there are constraints, but if the test fails so does the constraints besides the rest of the observation or theory tested.

Here test is passed, so constraints successfully examined. LCDM was based on cosmological data, GR was based on observations of universal speed limit; now more cosmological and universal speed limit data confirms.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2018
@dnatwork, granville: "But what is space ... then the curvature that matter/energy induces has no lower limit. Once an object forms a gravity well, that well should get deeper indefinitely, ...", "the event horizon R has grown to a 15billion Ly singularity".

GR and LCDM concern only geometry and nature as system and does not need to explain more space properties as of yet; the universe is trivially not a black hole, first off since it has no outside as a black hole has (and other reasons) [ http://blogs.disc...ck-hole/ ].

@cantdrive: "It is obviously lost ... that the above paper pretty much falsified".

It is obviously lost on you that it failed to do so. Please read the article before commenting.

@milnik: "AETHER".

Does not exists according to observation; and no, crank all caps does not support your claim.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2018
@granville: "How many photons, when totalled, what is their total inertial mass when compared to the dark-matter map".

Photons are trivially included in Big Bang models already at 10^10 (IIRC) photons for every atom due to the matter/antimatter symmetry breaking combining with expansion properties. Little mass energy in total after the initial radiation dominated expansion era (inflation - hot big bang - radiation dominated - matter dominated - dark matter dominated expansion; different phases of the curve in fig 2).

Early lecture in any cosmology course, try Susskind@Stanford online.

"Gravity only attracts".

So you agree with Pound-Rebka. When what is your beef with the experiment, and why are you talking about something else?
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2018
@granville 5...
Newton's law of gravity is true for massive bodies.
When making any conclusions about the black holes: their origin, behavior, and all its properties, as well as the properties and behavior of all celestial bodies, everything is done under the influence of only three factors, such as matter, gravity and magnetism. Everything else arises from the mutual relation of these factors, but they can not exist without some substance from which they form. This substance is AETHER, which fills the infinite universe. Aether is what science calls dark matter, dark energy and vacuum.
Photons do not possess mass, and their turning is carried out under the influence of magnetism, and certainly not under the influence of gravity. Why ? Because the light (photons) possess electromagnetic properties. Under the influence of magnetism and Aether, the motion of an electron (current) occurs, and it undergoes magnetism under the influence of Aether.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2018
Photonic gravitational red-shift
jonesdave:- the gravitational redshift .

The de Broglie frequency of matter waves store its frequency of energy in electromagnetic-radiation, all matter, quarks, photons have mass, matter-waves and an electric field and consequently an electro-magnetic field which is the de Broglie frequency, in photons, the photon is surrounded by electromagnetic field, protons are surrounded by an electric-field which is an electromagnetic-field. The energy of oscillation of the electromagnetic field of matter is proportional to their de Broglie frequency, where their kinetic-energy of motion is stored in electromagnetic matter waves as frequency, by measuring red shift frequency is directly measuring the de Broglie frequency E=hv
milnik
3 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2018
Study this and it will all be easier to explain, than science does today.
Why scientists think that the universe is spreading? "They think that galaxies interact with each other under the influence of something unknown.
Also, check this: if you fix a telescope on Earth and watch the galaxy on, say, 100 million light-years away about us, where will the telescope be directed only for one second of viewing? For one second of time, the Earth will revolve around its axis for 15 seconds (radium): 360.3600 / 24.3600 = 15 "operation.
On a radius of 100 million ls, we escaped, only about 7,000 ly of the galaxy.
What it means ? Take also into account the movement of the Earth around the sun, the free movement of the telescope in the space, the movement of the galaxy, and everything else, what will then be seen only in 1 second of view.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2018
Photons do not possess mass, and their turning is carried out under the influence of magnetism, and certainly not under the influence of gravity. Why ?


Well, that should be a very easy experiment to set up; get a dirty great magnet, such as the ones used to pick up cars at scrap yards, and shine a beam of light close to it. Measure it. Do the same without the magnet. Report results. No, don't bother - we already know the answer.

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2018
Observed since time began
torbjorn_b_g_larsson:- Photons are trivially included in Big Bang models

Quarks, photons, electron and neutrinos have been observed since time began and have gone on to form all the matter that created the galaxies, stars, planets and ultimately ourselves with no help from anything else till we got our telescopes out and started observing a universe that had been managing quite well on its own for 15billion years, and now its falling apart. It makes me think of Laurel and Hardy, they have successful business venture till the shows starts and then everything falls apart.
milnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2018
@jonesdave,
for me it's not entirely clear what you mean about dirty strong magnets.
But you can see for yourself that the current in the magnet is fixed. How and why? You can understand this if you understand the existence of Aether, and its effect on magnet and gluons in the wire.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2018
.....for me it's not entirely clear what you mean about dirty strong magnets.


You said:
Photons do not possess mass, and their turning is carried out under the influence of magnetism


So, I suggested a very simple experiment - turn on a very powerful magnet, and shine a light beam through the magnetic field. Repeat the experiment without the magnetic field. You'll find that there is no difference. You need a significant mass, and therefore gravity.

granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2018
Deflection of slow light in a Stern-Gerlach magnetic field
jonesdave:- shine a light beam through the magnetic field.

Circularly polarized light passing through a rubidium gas cell is deflected by a small magnetic field gradient. The angle of deflection is proportional to the propagation time the of the optical pulse through the cell,
milnik
3 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2018
You did not consider a lot of things:
1. -Who do you look at your scalamery at about half a meter away from your eye, and the photon travels 300,000,000.2 = 6 trillion times longer than this half a meter. Can you see and even measure 1/600 000 000 = 1. 10 ^ -9 sec.
The 2-magnetic field of the sun can very slightly turn the light from its direction, not the magnet on the table.
 3.- It is necessary to know what is light, what is magnetism and how to form and only afterwards make conclusions about their attitude and behavior.
These phenomena have not been clarified by science, because they serve contaminating theories, established for 100 years, and a little later.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2018
Deflection of slow light in a Stern-Gerlach magnetic field
jonesdave:- shine a light beam through the magnetic field.

Circularly polarized light passing through a rubidium gas cell is deflected by a small magnetic field gradient. The angle of deflection is proportional to the propagation time the of the optical pulse through the cell,


See the second last paragraph to the first question on this page:
https://van.physi...?id=2009

It is a quantum effect, and not applicable to what we are talking about.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2018
You did not consider a lot of things:
1. -Who do you look at your scalamery at about half a meter away from your eye, and the photon travels 300,000,000.2 = 6 trillion times longer than this half a meter. Can you see and even measure 1/600 000 000 = 1. 10 ^ -9 sec.
The 2-magnetic field of the sun can very slightly turn the light from its direction, not the magnet on the table.
 3.- It is necessary to know what is light, what is magnetism and how to form and only afterwards make conclusions about their attitude and behavior.
These phenomena have not been clarified by science, because they serve contaminating theories, established for 100 years, and a little later.


You are making no sense whatsoever. Show me where this is written up in the scientific literature, otherwise it's just more crank physics. And there is enough of that about already.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2018
The quantum-world in the macro-world we inhabit
jonesdave:- It is a quantum effect, and not applicable to what we are talking about.

I know, that's not the point; it's the fact that whatever the circumstance photons require for us to observe their magnetic effects, we cannot physically observe this phenomena in the macro-world we inhabit, but in quantum-world photons experience these magnetic effects all the time, even as we as we speak, it's just too small for us to see.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2018
The quantum-world in the macro-world we inhabit
jonesdave:- It is a quantum effect, and not applicable to what we are talking about.

I know, that's not the point; it's the fact that whatever the circumstance photons require for us to observe their magnetic effects, we cannot physically observe this phenomena in the macro-world we inhabit, but in quantum-world photons experience these magnetic effects all the time, even as we as we speak, it's just too small for us to see.



Precisely. So EM cannot be responsible for the lensing we observe.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2018
Observing photons below nano-metres
jonesdave:- Precisely. So EM cannot be responsible for the lensing we observe.

Exactly, this how everyone's idea's are proved by demonstrating that the effects that are being forward are too small to be of any physical effect, because milnik suggestion of photonic magnetic effect is true, but without further digging we would have known.
phprof
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2018
We don't have any solid proof of dark matter. We don't know it's attributes or it's distribution function or it's mechanisms of interaction. However, we have a beautiful map of it.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2018
Observable femto-metre effects
jonesdave:- It is a quantum effect.

The magnetic field and electric field on the surface of the electron is immense, as now were in the femto-metres world which is world the photons inhabit, photons passing in close contact with the electrons are having effects measuring in the femto-metres as this is a question of scale, in the macro-world a femto-metre is equivalent to millions of miles, jonesdave;- photons moving billions of Lys passing on their travels in close femto-metres contact with galactic matter, femto-metres multiplied by the untold trillions of atoms are going to have a observable effect on the photons in the macro-world.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2018
The answer to the question is that we should be seeking the answer instead of declaring that we know the answer despite no evidence for our declaration
Yeah dog but that's exactly what you're doing isn't it? You're declaring that the answer is that it doesn't exist just because we haven't yet detected it directly.

Of course I blame your religion which conditions you to reach conclusions despite evidence.

You call it faith and think it's a virtue while in fact it's a grave debility. This is a far greater problem with humanity as a whole than most people understand.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2018
@jonesdumb says
So, I suggested a very simple experiment - turn on a very powerful magnet, and shine a light beam through the magnetic field. Repeat the experiment without the magnetic field.

This would be a difficult experiment to arrange according to jonesdumb physics. Per jonesdumb's claims, when the electromagnet is turned-off the magnetic field of the electromagnet will "last from some time after the electric current is removed"...
In conclusion, jonesdumb's knowledge of grade school EM concepts is so skewed his opinion on any scientific concept whatsoever is likely as valid as the opinion of a 5-year-old crack smoking autistic Neanderthal...
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2018
@jonesdumb says
So, I suggested a very simple experiment - turn on a very powerful magnet, and shine a light beam through the magnetic field. Repeat the experiment without the magnetic field.

This would be a difficult experiment to arrange according to jonesdumb physics. Per jonesdumb's claims, when the electromagnet is turned-off the magnetic field of the electromagnet will "last from some time after the electric current is removed"...
In conclusion, jonesdumb's knowledge of grade school EM concepts is so skewed his opinion on any scientific concept whatsoever is likely as valid as the opinion of a 5-year-old crack smoking autistic Neanderthal...


What's up with you. idiot? Why would you leave the frigging magnet in place? If that's the best you can do, get back to thunderdolts with the rest of the wooists. Jesus.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2018
[q cantdrive85:-
jonesdave:- So, I suggested a very simple experiment - turn on a very powerful magnet, and shine a light beam through the magnetic field. Repeat the experiment without the magnetic field.
cantdrive85:- This would be a difficult experiment to arrange according to jonesdave physics. Per jonesdave claims, when the electromagnet is turned-off the magnetic field of the electromagnet will "last from some time after the electric current is removed"... In conclusion, jonesdave knowledge of grade school EM concepts is so skewed his opinion on any scientific concept whatsoever is likely as valid as the opinion of a 5-year-old crack smoking autistic Neanderthal... At least your acknowledging the photonic magnetic effect is true, and an observable effect in the quantum world which makes it effects felt in the macro-world, this was brought up, partly to explain the reasons for photonic red shift.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2018
cantdrive85 , jonesdave.
Arranging these quotes is an acquired skill that needs time, well that's a lesson learnt.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2018
cantdrive85 , jonesdave.
acquired skill.

you have a unique approach to acknowledging the photonic magnetic red-shift effect is true, real and observable

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2018
What's up with you. idiot?

Just pointing out to the crowd what an utter moron you are, but on the other hand you do so quite handily.
@ jonesdumb is quoted as exclaiming (direct quote so there is no question);
"Wrong. Magnetic fields can persist long after the current that created them has disappeared."
That's some quality jonesdumb physics right there (as Feynman is rolling over in his grave...)
According to jonesdumb, the jonesdumb auto wrecking yard only turns the electromagnet on for the first hour of the day, the rest of the day they rely on the "frozen-in" magnetic fields. It saves them a bundle on their electric bill and is why the jonesdumb auto wrecking yard is the Walmart of the wrecking yards. They have the pseudoscientific economic advantage.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2018
What's up with you. idiot?

Just pointing out to the crowd what an utter moron you are, but on the other hand you do so quite handily.
@ jonesdumb is quoted as exclaiming (direct quote so there is no question);
"Wrong. Magnetic fields can persist long after the current that created them has disappeared."
That's some quality jonesdumb physics right there (as Feynman is rolling over in his grave...)
According to jonesdumb, the jonesdumb auto wrecking yard only turns the electromagnet on for the first hour of the day, the rest of the day they rely on the "frozen-in" magnetic fields. It saves them a bundle on their electric bill and is why the jonesdumb auto wrecking yard is the Walmart of the wrecking yards. They have the pseudoscientific economic advantage.


Errr, read what I said, loony tunes. Why would you leave the bloody magnet there?!!!!!!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2018
What's up with you. idiot?

Just pointing out to the crowd what an utter moron you are, but on the other hand you do so quite handily.
@ jonesdumb is quoted as exclaiming (direct quote so there is no question);
"Wrong. Magnetic fields can persist long after the current that created them has disappeared."
That's some quality jonesdumb physics right there (as Feynman is rolling over in his grave...)
According to jonesdumb, the jonesdumb auto wrecking yard only turns the electromagnet on for the first hour of the day, the rest of the day they rely on the "frozen-in" magnetic fields. It saves them a bundle on their electric bill and is why the jonesdumb auto wrecking yard is the Walmart of the wrecking yards. They have the pseudoscientific economic advantage.

The photonic magnetic red-shift effect seem to have effects far beyond what nature envisaged in its totality
milnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2018
@jonesdave,
If I believed in many stupid theories and some "scientific journals," I did not discuss this in such a way. You all disprove the thoughts and claims of others, with others, not with your evidence. What I claim is something, much simpler and more natural than the whole science has "discovered" to this day. Again, to tell you, I have tried several dozen times to publish my findings in scientific journals, but everyone is asking me to pay it, and my works are worth more than the Nobel Prize. I am not surprised that most of you are thinking this way because I know that you have firmly grasped someone's stupid theory and do not possess your intuition that allows you to understand the structure of the universe, and therefore you are wandering through dark matter, energy, vacuum spaces, inventing models .formule and who knows what, justify your ignorance. RETURN TO NATURE AND GOD !!!!
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2018
^^^^^^^^^Ohhh boy. Anyone want to work out a score?
http://math.ucr.e...pot.html
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2018
Errr, read what I said, loony tunes. Why would you leave the bloody magnet there?!!!!!!

I did, you said;
"Wrong. Magnetic fields can persist long after the current that created them has disappeared." jonesdumb
ROTFLMAO!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2018
Stern-Gerlach magnetic field
milnik:- @granville 5...
Because the light (photons) possess electromagnetic properties. Under the influence of magnetism and Aether, the motion of an electron (current) occurs, and it undergoes magnetism under the influence of Aether.

You appear to have discovered The photonic magnetic red-shift effect independently of slow light in a Stern-Gerlach magnetic field which definitively brought out the big bad wolf of a magnet and partly on your behalf I looked Stern-Gerlach, it is true what you're saying about photons in a magnetic field being deflected albeit in the quantum-world but the effects are real as what takes place in the quantum world is directly related to what takes place in the macro-world as they are one and the same
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2018
Errr, read what I said, loony tunes. Why would you leave the bloody magnet there?!!!!!!

I did, you said;
"Wrong. Magnetic fields can persist long after the current that created them has disappeared." jonesdumb
ROTFLMAO!


Errr, you're not getting this are you? Do an experiment in a controlled environment with a magnetic field. Do the same experiment WITHOUT a magnetic field. The word WITHOUT is important here.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2018
Do the same experiment WITHOUT a magnetic field. The word WITHOUT is important here.

I understand your thought experiment, I am only pointing out your skewed understanding of EM theory. This is to show all here that your thought experiments based on your wholly pseudoscientific claptrap is worthy of a 5-year-old crack smoking autistic Neanderthal, if that.

"Wrong. Magnetic fields can persist long after the current that created them has disappeared." jonesdumb

granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2018
Femto-distance of the electron
Errr, read what I said, loony tunes. Why would you leave the bloody magnet there?!!!!!!

I did, you said;
"Wrong. Magnetic fields can persist long after the current that created them has disappeared." jonesdumb
ROTFLMAO!


Errr, you're not getting this are you? Do an experiment in a controlled environment with a magnetic field. Do the same experiment WITHOUT a magnetic field. The word WITHOUT is important here.

Using a big bad magnet used in the scrap yard does in no way compare to the immense strength of the electrons magnetic field within femto-distance of the electron
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2018
Do the same experiment WITHOUT a magnetic field. The word WITHOUT is important here.

I understand your thought experiment, I am only pointing out your skewed understanding of EM theory. This is to show all here that your thought experiments based on your wholly pseudoscientific claptrap is worthy of a 5-year-old crack smoking autistic Neanderthal, if that.

"Wrong. Magnetic fields can persist long after the current that created them has disappeared." jonesdumb



So, where is the current in the solar wind? Hmm? 6 decades of spaceflight, and we can detect the IMF, but no current, even though we can detect currents when they are around. Strange that.
https://arxiv.org...5052.pdf
milnik
1 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2018
@granville,
My knowledge is not based on the findings of any known scientist. I have the knowledge that my intuition allows me. I understood the structure of the universe and learned what matter, gravity, and magnetism are and how they arise. What I have said: gravity does not affect the light, I conclude that the gravity of the phenomenon is caused by the interaction between the Aether's "family" bond and the "solid" aggregate state of matter (3 kg of particles-3 quarks and 3 bonds of gluon), MAGNETISM is such a bond of Aether and the "liquid" aggregate state of matter, and these are free gluons What are magnetists These are celestial bodies composed of quark gluon beaches and their magnetic field is measured by the millions of Tesla Why? Because they are composed of free gluons forming magnetism with Aether .
The other proof is more than many previous theories. so I'm waiting for many to remember and publish it.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2018
Big bad magnets
cantdrive85:-, jonesdave:- This photonic magnetic red-shift effect investigated by the slow light in a Stern-Gerlach magnetic field was idea put forward as a suggestion, not by your selves and you brought in the "big bad magnet" in a joint effort, why? You could have just called it neodymium magnet
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2018
Science did not understand what magnetism is and who challenges it.
Everything in the universe of matter and energy is "submerged" in the substance AETHER, from which the matter is formed and it is transformed into AETHER (black holes).
I told you that magnetism appears as a "family" relationship between Aether and free gluons. About the details, here is not the place to speak, but do you know which chemical elements have the magnetism property?
Why does an electron and some other subatomic particles possess a magnetic moment?
If this is not known, I can briefly explain it to you.
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2018
Our link with nature
milnik:- @granville,
My knowledge is not based on the findings of any known scientist. I have the knowledge that my intuition allows me. I understood the structure of the universe and learned what matter, gravity, and magnetism are and how they arise..

You have Tacit knowledge, everyone has this tacit knowledge on how we are constructed because we are the stuff of stars so we instinctively have an inbuilt knowledge on how nature works as this a descriptive of tacit knowledge, unfortunately classical training and necessary education overrides our tacit knowledge as you learn more on how we are constructed as it is written, it easy to lose are link with our tacit knowledge, like living in a large city we lose are link with nature in the country side as though carrots grow in supermarkets.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2018
Our lost skill
milnik:- Why does an electron and some other subatomic particles possess a magnetic moment
.

The skill is combing your tacit knowledge with classical Newtonian physics, as two complement each other, because Isaac Newton used his powers of observation and his tacit knowledge 330years ago when all he had was a quill pen, even Albert Einstein had to his calculation on pen and paper exactly as Isaac Newton and the calculations Albert Einstein did in head and pen and paper now take super computers to compute
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2018
granville,
You are confused with the knowledge. My knowledge is not instinctive, because only animals act by instinct. In this knowledge, I skipped the intellect and used intuition, which connects my consciousness with the Absolute Awareness of the Universe (ACU), which allows to understand the true causes of the phenomenon. Paper, pencil computers, and in them various models are formed from human beings, only with these means a faster process speed is achieved, and new knowledge can in no case be obtained from what we are doing. That is why science has entered a dead-end street from where it will never come out, if it does not accept the existence of the Spiritual Entity of the Universe (SEU). This has nothing to do with religion. This is the truth that explains natural laws.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2018
Milnik:- Instinct, intuition, tacit knowledge essentially they are one of the same. Tacit knowledge (as opposed to formal knowledge) is the kind of knowledge that is difficult to transfer to someone else by means of writing it down or verbalizing it. The ability to speak a language, knead dough, play a musical instrument, or design and use complex equipment requires all sorts of knowledge that is not always known explicitly, even by expert practitioners is difficult or impossible to transfer to other people, which is our in built tacit knowledge. This is why it is difficult for some else to try and copy your ideas. It is also why you faced the barrage of the "big bad magnet" your tacit intuition told you that photons as electromagnetism are attracted to magnetic fields, but you had to face the barrage of criticism and the big bad magnet, then he admitted to me that photons are attracted to magnetic fields, if you read my comments you see how I've explained it!
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2018
They are unlikely to look for any other possibility with any rigor because they have too much invested in dark matter.


Wrong, modified gravity theories are an active area of research. Dark matter is the most obvious explanation but people are very much looking for other possibilities, too.
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2018
jonesdave, one simple question, if the expansion is accelerating why wouldn't it be everywhere and measureable locally? We can measure the redshift at a distance and locally, what is the difference?


Expansion linearly depends on distance. It is visible over billions of ly but is too weak in local space. This is elementary stuff.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2018
My knowledge is not based on the findings of any known scientist. I have the knowledge that my intuition allows me. I understood the structure of the universe
Sometimes ah sits an thinks an sometimes ah jus sits.

My my all that power and it's entirely imaginary.
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2018
modified gravity theories are an active area of research


Modified gravity theories still posit matter/mass as the necessary source of the gravity, or more precisely, the curvature of space.

Consider this for example: since we observe gravitational waves propagating through space, we have local curvature of space which appears to us as gravity without a local mass as its source. Alright, so the universe is awash with gravitational waves which interfere with one another, and may form standing wave patterns easily where there is no matter or mass whatsoever.

The large scale mass distribution of the universe can form a sort of oscillatory system, like two masses connected by a spring. There is a wave propagating through this spring, which forms a resonant system with its associated nodes and antinodes that appear as compression and expansion of the spring in a snapshot picture without anything special in those locations compressing or stretching it.
Eikka
not rated yet Mar 05, 2018
Another alternative is that the source of the gravity is no longer in our universe, or never was. Think of a thin razor blade suspended on the surface of water by its surface tension. Something breaks the surface tension and causes the blade to sink.

But the energy stored in the curvature of the water doesn't vanish - the heavy razor blade drops to the bottom of the bowl and leaves a wave propagating on the surface where it was. Other stuff floating around on the surface break the wave into local ripples.

It then seems, seen from the surface, that there isn't enough mass in the universe to explain why the space is rippled like that, so it is assumed that with each of those ripples there's an invisible, untouchable piece of matter still floating there, and we call it dark matter.

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2018
The dominating force that determines dark-matter is gravity, and as everyone knows gravity is universal, it is indistinguishable from ordinary-matter and dark-matter. You cannot tell from the force of gravity whether it from dark-matter or ordinary-matter. All this newly discovered dark-matter could in actuality be ordinary-matter!
modified gravity theories are an active area of research


Eikka:- Modified gravity theories still posit matter/mass as the necessary source of the gravity, or more precisely, the curvature of space.

.


dnatwork
not rated yet Mar 05, 2018
@dnatwork: "But what is space ... then the curvature that matter/energy induces has no lower limit. Once an object forms a gravity well, that well should get deeper indefinitely, ..."[\q]

GR and LCDM concern only geometry and nature as system and does not need to explain more space properties as of yet; the universe is trivially not a black hole, first off since it has no outside as a black hole has (and other reasons).


I didn't say or imply that the universe is a black hole, but I wonder how you would know it does not have an outside? We have the Hubble distance, beyond which we cannot see. How is that functionally different from an event horizon?

And this geometry, is it static or dynamic? I'm suggesting the structure of space changes (compresses) over time, simply because there is nothing pushing outward to stop, causing the lensing and rotation curves that are taken as evidence of dark matter. What shows that gravity wells stop at a fixed point?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2018
You cannot tell from the force of gravity whether it from dark-matter or ordinary-matter. All this newly discovered dark-matter could in actuality be ordinary-matter!


Not really. For instance, the lensing caused by DM filaments cannot be due to ordinary matter, as it would be observable at some wavelength or other. If there were huge HI clouds lurking about, we should see them in 21cm in radio, or ~121nm as lyman-alpha. Given how much DM there needs to be, then we should see a signature of something everywhere we look.
dnatwork
5 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2018
The DM enthusiasts here declare everyone else religious fanatics and dimwits. But they are displaying fanaticism of their own. Unforgivably, given the vitriol they are spewing. MOND theories are reputable, and variations don't call for dark matter and/or dark energy.

This article https://phys.org/...ics.html and others more recently by the same group (all peer-reviewed) sound akin to what I suggested above.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2018
If we are to believe matter emerged out the vacuum inside the event horizon, matter continually emerges out the vacuum inside the event horizon, so as our light radius star (blackhole) continues to expand where the matter is created according the formula R=2GM/C* where R is now 15billion Lys. I just do not get this dark-matter at all! What's it for, it's not needed
You cannot tell from the force of gravity whether it from dark-matter or ordinary-matter. All this newly discovered dark-matter could in actuality be ordinary-matter!


jonesdave:- Not really. For instance, the lensing caused by DM filaments cannot be due to ordinary matter, as it would be observable at some wavelength or other. If there were huge HI clouds lurking about, we should see them in 21cm in radio, or ~121nm as lyman-alpha. Given how much DM there needs to be, then we should see a signature of something everywhere we look.

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2018
The matter is visible all around us
It is irrelevant whether matter is dark-matter or ordinary-matter the matter emerged out the vacuum inside the event horizon and continues to do so according to R=2GM/C*. The point being that at 15billion years and growing, the universe has been, and is, and will always be a fully functioning universe even if we had never existed. Whatever anyone thinks of matter or dark-matter, matter has always been and always will created in accordance with Karl Schwarzschild's formula R=2GM/C* In other words we are looking for something that already exists in the quantises required for a fully functioning universe, the matter is visible all around us! otherwise the universe would not exist.
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2018
Dark-matter filamentary lensing
So far it no dark matter has been observed, lensing of light appears to be observed, the actual force that diffracts, lens's, bends has not been seen because you cannot see gravity. If what you're saying is true, your implying ordinary-matter-gravity is causing normal lensing so by implication you're postulating that the dark-matter filaments have a force which produces the same lensing effect that gravity produces, but which is not gravity!

You cannot tell from the force of gravity whether it from dark-matter or ordinary-matter.


jonesdave:- Not really. For instance, the lensing caused by DM filaments cannot be due to ordinary matter, as it would be observable at some wavelength or other..

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2018
If what you're saying is true, your implying ordinary-matter-gravity is causing normal lensing so by implication you're postulating that the dark-matter filaments have a force which produces the same lensing effect that gravity produces, but which is not gravity!


Gravity is gravity, whether caused by ordinary matter or dark matter. Both, therefore, should cause lensing. Ordinary matter quite obviously does cause lensing, as observed. There is absolutely no reason to assume that DM wouldn't do the same.

granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2018
This is the "The slippery eel" theory!
Just when you think you're getting a handle on it slips through your fingers like a slippery eel.
Galaxies are interconnected with filamentary matter, and they orbit each other and form long string of galaxies, the intergalactic filamentary matter is normal-matter. It appears the normal Intergalactic filamentary matter is being described falsely as dark-matter and as you have pointed out normal + dark-matter emits the same identical gravity which comes full circle to what was said earlier - I just do not get this dark-matter at all! What's it for, it's not needed!

If what you're saying is true..


jonesdave:- Gravity is gravity, whether caused by ordinary matter or dark matter. Both, therefore, should cause lensing. Ordinary matter quite obviously does cause lensing, as observed. There is absolutely no reason to assume that DM wouldn't do the same.


granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2018
Intergalactic filamentary matter does not make it make dark-matter
The universe is made up of the interconnected galaxies; you cannot rename existing intergalactic filamentary matter and call it something else. The universe is 100% made up of normal matter, and filamentary matter is difficult to see and there is a large percentage of the mass of the universe locked up in intergalactic filamentary matter, but that still does make it dark-matter!
dnatwork
not rated yet Mar 05, 2018
You know, if you imagined the life of the universe as an extremely slow-motion movie of a soap bubble that has just popped, you would see voids and filaments, with the voids getting bigger and all the stuff in the filaments compressing closer and closer on itself, and the smaller bubbles popping along the way.

If communication between smaller bubbles could only happen along the filaments, then everything on the filaments would seem to be getting farther apart as the voids got bigger. Even moreso as the smaller bubbles popped and became smaller themselves.

But none of those things would actually be moving or accelerating. There would just be the appearance of motion, from the perspective of someone inside a small bubble.

No energy would be added or coming from outside; you'd just be changing from higher energy concentration (all in one bubble) to lower (many small bubbles).

And you wouldn't speak of inflation; the bubble was big initially. That's why it popped.
tallenglish
5 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2018
I have an idea that what we call dark matter is actually also the missing anti-matter we don't seem to be able to find. Only it is hiding from normal matter in a ver unique way.

Normal matter and light interact as they move along real time, dark matter moves along imaginary half of time - so the two are never in the same space-time as each other to interact as they are always acting at right angles to each other.

If you think of the square of the wave function to say what the probability of finding the particle or light wave is - matter and light are always positive, dark matter and its form of light are always negative. They do both counter interact with gravity though - so if mass makes gravity wells, dark matter makes gravity hills so would look to make filiments that "stick out" from the mass that it surrounds.
tallenglish
3 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2018
The expansion of mass and light we see would break up the dark matter and thats likely the reason we have more smaller stars now and none of the dark stars that collapse directly to supermassive black holes. All this because of a cyclical universe not an open ended one, star burst would send ripples through space-time over and over again allowing for miniture localised big bangs, voids and everything imbetween. Just like we see all sorts of waves on the ocean (like flat sea to rouge waves).

I have to say if it is like that and dark matter is hidden from us at all times, thats either a monumental fluke where mass and dark matter went in opposite directions to the point they started an infinite oscillation where we can no longer find any starting point or it is very well designed as a momentum engine.

More I understand it, the more I am amazed at its simplisity or complexity depending which way you look at it.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2018
Intergalactic filamentary matter does not make it make dark-matter
The universe is 100% made up of normal matter, and filamentary matter is difficult to see and there is a large percentage of the mass of the universe locked up in intergalactic filamentary matter, but that still does make it dark-matter!


Well then, you need to write that up, because the lensing from these DM filaments has been observed:

The Weak Lensing Masses of Filaments between Luminous Red Galaxies
https://arxiv.org...02.08485
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2018
but it's still attracted to a normal matter so that highest concentration of dark matter resides at the perimeter of massive bodies and galaxies.


So, when galaxies collide we should see a coming together of matter and anti-matter. Wouldn't that create a very obvious EM signature?
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2018
^^^^^Well, @tallenglish said:
I have an idea that what we call dark matter is actually also the missing ***anti-matter*** we don't seem to be able to find....


So, I assumed anti-matter meant anti-matter, and not anti-particles. How silly of me! And I know perfectly well what anti-particles are.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2018
The gravitational lensing of matter
The Galactic interconnecting filamentary matter is tenuous, some is in visible light, but it is mainly visible in a wide range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Being tenuous its gravitational lensing effects are extremely minimal, but the universe contains copious quantise of space and consequently there is an enormous amount of tenuous matter in the unlimited space the vacuum of space contains. In you linking paper it states - "In this paper, we stack the weak lensing signal of an ensemble of filaments between groups and clusters of galaxies. Specifically, we detect the weak lensing signal" Reading between the lines, they are talking about - Galactic interconnecting filamentary matter!
Intergalactic filamentary matter does not make it make dark-matter

Jonesdave:- Well then, you need to write that up, because the lensing from these DM filaments has been observed:
The Weak Lensing Masses https://arxiv.org...02.08485

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2018
Jonesdave:- This paper that you presented is almost certainly an accurate representation of the observations observed, matter, antimatter or darkmatter travelling in a vacuum moves exactly as Isaac Newton stated 330 years in his laws of motion and the 3 states of matter exhibit the same identical gravity as stated by Isaac Newton, where Albert Einstein's law of energy E=MC* is identical for the same 3 states of matter. Albert Einstein's photo-electric effect is also the same for the 3 states of matter so are the quarks, electrons, neutrino's and photons identical; A definitive proof if ever there was one, that all the states of matter exhibit the properties of Matter!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2018
Reading between the lines, they are talking about - Galactic interconnecting filamentary matter!


No need to read between the lines:

The existence of this filamentary structure is widely accepted, however there is limited direct observational evidence of these **dark-matter dominated filaments***. One of the best ways to probe the structure of ***dark matter*** is by weak gravitational lensing, where the distortion of background galaxies can be used to map out the foreground distribution of mass density.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2018
U sure? Why they annihilate with normal particles after then?


Errrm, conservation of energy and momentum. +1 + (-1) = 0. However, this can't just implode into nothingness, as the particles have momentum and energy, and that can't just disappear.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2018
I have no preference for matter, antimatter or darkmatter, I like everyone else just live in a universe full to brim with matter, by matter I am referring to normal-matter. It is just that our antennas are always getting overloaded when Matter gets redefined as darkmatter.
Reading between the lines, they are talking about - Galactic interconnecting filamentary matter!


No need to read between the lines:
i
The existence of this filamentary structure is widely accepted, however there is limited direct observational evidence of these **dark-matter dominated filaments***. One of the best ways to probe the structure of ***dark matter*** is by weak gravitational lensing, where the distortion of background galaxies can be used to map out the foreground distribution of mass density.


granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2018
The search for darkmatter – distinguishing identical properties
A +proton is constructed of 3quarks 2x+2/3 and 1x-1/3 electrical charge consequentially a –proton is constructed of the same quarks of of 3x-1/3 electrical charge where a neutron is constructed of the same quarks of 2x-1/3 and 1x+2/3 electrical charge, the quarks in the +proton are exactly the same as the quarks in the –proton and the quarks in the neutron where the electric field is identical as the difference is the polarity of the electrical field, the electric fields are indistinguishable from each other. This is slippery eel theory of the difference between matter, antimatter and darkmatter; there all one of same and no one can tell them apart from Matter, isolating a particular property is to define its universal properties!
milnik
5 / 5 (1) Mar 06, 2018
You're all terribly imaginative. It is impossible to understand so many variations and features of everything that is unknown about the origin or process of formation. If there is some dark matter in the universe, it should exist here with us on the planet. It is quite clear here that it is unknown: what is matter and how it arises, what is gravity and magnetism, and how they arise. Everything else is unclear, and as far as these three essential issues are concerned, everything will be clear if it is understood, first, what is matter and how it arises. I have said this many times, but if someone is drunk with substances he swallowed, and these are scientific pesticides, it's hard to prove anything to them.
Tell me: what's in the empty pipes of a particle collider? How can a new particle, in the collision of two protons, be 600 times greater than the proton. ?
fsusem36
not rated yet Mar 06, 2018
The first question I have is...because we are looking at vast distances, how are they sure that the GL not caused by Black holes, that are larger than most than those that are closer observational.

And why is it assumed that space is flat, when we are limited to how far we can see (IE the universe is 13.4 billion years old based upon the farthest edge?
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2018
We're scooping handfuls of darkmatter
Milnic:- the descriptive description of darkmatter that it is all around us and were scooping up handfuls as you have just pointed out, when it was put forward years ago at college it practically caused heart failure, it took 18months of hard work and persuasion that darkmatter is all round us, you're correct we are scooping up darkmatter in handfuls! Thanks for pointing it out.

milnic:- If there is some dark matter in the universe, it should exist here with us on the planet.

granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2018
All that scrumptious darkmatter
milnic:- even now the perception is, darkmatter is in the galactic filaments because it is billions of Lys distant, making it more difficult to disprove, which milnic:- by reminding everyone, for darkmatter to exist, it exists on earth in very food that we eat, even now your thinking of all that scrumptious darkmatter.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2018
granville,
If we have at least a little awareness, then we must know that everything that exists as matter and all energies must be formed from something that exists, and we are not able to measure it, not see it, and what is the worst, not understand. This dark matter is Aether, and so I call it.
I can give an explanation that without Aether there is neither magnetism nor gravity, which is proof that matter is formed from Aether.
Neither the science nor the people at all will realize that Aether possesses electromagnetic properties and that it also forms particles that rotate in the opposite directions, forming both electro and magnetic fields, but around the particles that are connected (gluons). For now enough.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2018
yes milnic, that is what we have come up against, when it already it exist yes, but initialy it has come out of nothing and presumably it will go back to nothing implying that it is possible to artificialy create the same circumstances
milnic:- If we have at least a little awareness, then we must know that everything that exists as matter and all energies must be formed from something that exists.

granville583762
1 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2018
If there was was more science on Isaac Newton's application of motion, which is energy, which is emerging out of nothing. Newton's laws of motion indirectly explain the emergence of energy. But it requires a slide rule, log tables, pen and paper
milnic:- matter and all energies.


Once the penny drops it will be as obvious as the stepped acceleration of a particle because of Newton's first
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2018
If we accept that we are not more powerful than the one that human beings formed in this form and the possibilities of understanding, then we will have to understand and accept the order of the process of the creation of everything we see and what we partially understand or do not understand, but we will understand if we accept the following sequence: the universe is infinite, Aether fills this universe, matter forms from Aether and transforms into a bowl in black holes, energy arises from matter, gravity and magnetism are left behind "relational" relationships and the relationships of "aggregate" states of matter with Aether, light, heat waves, radiation generated from these "aggregate" of the situation, under the influence of magnetism. That gravity has no effect, except that it urges the matter to return to the form of Aether from which it is formed and has a closed circle of origin and disappearance, as we have the same thing.
winthrom
not rated yet Mar 07, 2018
Looks like the cosmic Microwave background may be asymetrical:

https://phys.org/...ter.html

If so, my argument about uniform Hubble constant as a flat earth constant will fail.
milnik
not rated yet Mar 07, 2018
Imagine a rocket that goes by the speed of light and that it has front and rear lights turned on. How would Einstein determine the speed of light both ahead and behind the rocket, in order to determine the Hubble formula?. Using common sense and awareness, this is not a difficult problem.
winthrom
not rated yet Mar 07, 2018
Looks like the cosmic Microwave background may be asymmetrical
This is known for decades (at least https://arxiv.org...9312056.

Yep, but I did not know. Incomplete information leads to weak theories. Better to admit than to keep trying to adjust. "Why do people like to keep banging their heads against walls? Because it feels so good when they stop."

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.