Dark matter might not be interactive after all

April 5, 2018, Royal Astronomical Society
Hubble Space Telescope image of the four giant galaxies at the heart of cluster Abell 3827. An almost three-hour exposure shows the view at wavelengths visible to the human eye, and the near infrared, as used in the original 2015 study. The distorted image of a more distant galaxy behind the cluster is faintly visible, wrapped around the four galaxies. Credit: NASA/ESA/Richard Massey (Durham University)

Astronomers are back in the dark about what dark matter might be, after new observations showed the mysterious substance may not be interacting with forces other than gravity after all. Dr Andrew Robertson of Durham University will today (Friday 6 April) present the new results at the European Week of Astronomy and Space Science in Liverpool.

Three years ago, a Durham-led international team of researchers thought they had made a breakthrough in ultimately identifying what dark matter is.

Observations using the Hubble Space Telescope appeared to show that a galaxy in the Abell 3827 cluster - approximately 1.3 billion light years from Earth - had become separated from the dark matter surrounding it.

Such an offset is predicted during collisions if dark matter interacts with forces other than gravity, potentially providing clues about what the substance might be.

The chance orientation at which the Abell 3827 cluster is seen from Earth makes it possible to conduct highly sensitive measurements of its dark matter.

However, the same group of astronomers now say that new data from more recent observations shows that dark matter in the Abell 3827 cluster has not separated from its galaxy after all. The measurement is consistent with dark matter feeling only the force of gravity.

Lead author Dr Richard Massey, in the Centre for Extragalactic Astronomy, at Durham University, said: "The search for dark matter is frustrating, but that's science. When data improves, the conclusions can change.

A view of the four central galaxies at the heart of cluster Abell 3827, at a broader range of wavelengths, including Hubble Space Telescope imaging in the ultraviolet (shown as blue), and Atacama Large Millimetre Array imaging at very long (sub-mm) wavelengths (shown as red contour lines). At these wavelengths, the foreground cluster becomes nearly transparent, enabling the background galaxy to be more clearly seen. It is now easier to identify how that background galaxy has been distorted. Credit: NASA/ESA/ESO/Richard Massey (Durham University)

"Meanwhile the hunt goes on for dark matter to reveal its nature.

"So long as dark matter doesn't interact with the Universe around it, we are having a hard time working out what it is."

The Universe is composed of approximately 27 per cent dark matter with the remainder largely consisting of the equally mysterious dark energy. Normal matter, such as planets and stars, contributes a relatively small five per cent of the Universe.

There is believed to be about five times more dark matter than all the other particles understood by science, but nobody knows what it is.

However, dark matter is an essential factor in how the Universe looks today, as without the constraining effect of its extra gravity, like our Milky Way would fling themselves apart as they spin.

A supercomputer simulation of a collision between two galaxy clusters, similar to the real object known as the 'Bullet Cluster', and showing the same effects tested for in Abell 3827. All galaxy clusters contain stars (orange), hydrogen gas (shown as red) and invisible dark matter (shown as blue). Individual stars, and individual galaxies are so far apart from each other that they whizz straight past each other. The diffuse gas slows down and becomes separated from the galaxies, due to the forces between ordinary particles that act as friction. If dark matter feels only the force of gravity, it should stay in the same place as the stars, but if it feels other forces, its trajectory through this giant particle collider would be changed. Credit: Andrew Robertson/Institute for Computational Cosmology/Durham University

In this latest study, the researchers used the Atacama Large Millimetre Array (ALMA) in Chile, South America, to view the Abell 3827 cluster.

ALMA picked up on the distorted infra-red light from an unrelated background galaxy, revealing the location of the otherwise invisible dark matter that remained unidentified in their previous study.

Research co-author Professor Liliya Williams, of the University of Minnesota, said: "We got a higher resolution view of the distant galaxy using ALMA than from even the Hubble Space Telescope.

"The true position of the dark matter became clearer than in our previous observations."

While the new results show dark matter staying with its galaxy, the researchers said it did not necessarily mean that dark matter does not interact. Dark matter might just interact very little, or this particular galaxy might be moving directly towards us, so we would not expect to see its dark matter displaced sideways, the team added.

A simulation of the same collision if dark matter consisted of extremely strongly 'self-interacting' particles that feel large forces in addition to gravity. The resulting distribution of dark matter and gas disagrees with what is observed in the real Universe - indeed, the interaction is so strong in this case that the dark matter stopped close to the point of impact. Since this is not seen in the real Universe, this enables us to rule out this particular model of dark matter. Credit: Andrew Robertson/Institute for Computational Cosmology/Durham University

Several new theories of non-standard dark matter have been invented over the past two years and many have been simulated at Durham University using high-powered supercomputers.

Robertson, who is a co-author of the work, and based at Durham University's Institute for Computational Cosmology, added: "Different properties of dark matter do leave tell-tale signs.

"We will keep looking for nature to have done the experiment we need, and for us to see it from the right angle.

"One especially interesting test is that dark matter interactions make clumps of dark more spherical. That's the next thing we're going to look for."

A simulation of the same collision if dark matter didn't exist. The resulting distribution of stars and gas disagrees with what is observed in the real Universe, which provides compelling evidence that dark matter is present in the real Universe. Credit: Andrew Robertson/Institute for Computational Cosmology/Durham University

To measure the in hundreds of galaxy clusters and continue this investigation, Durham University has just finished helping to build the new SuperBIT telescope, which gets a clear view by rising above the Earth's atmosphere under a giant helium balloon.

The research was funded by the Royal Society and the Science and Technology Facilities Council in the UK and NASA. The findings will appear in a new paper in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Explore further: Hubble weighs in on mass of three million billion suns

More information: The new research will appear in "Dark matter dynamics in Abell 3827: new data consistent with standard Cold Dark Matter", R. Massey et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in press.

It follows up the 2015 research paper, "The behaviour of dark matter associated with four bright cluster galaxies in the 10 kpc core of Abell 3827", R. Massey et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 449, Issue 4, 1 June 2015, Pages 3393-3406.

Related Stories

Hubble weighs in on mass of three million billion suns

January 16, 2018

In 2014, astronomers using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope found that this enormous galaxy cluster contains the mass of a staggering three million billion suns—so it's little wonder that it has earned the nickname of ...

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 ...

Recommended for you

Where is the universe's missing matter?

April 19, 2018

Astronomers using ESA's XMM-Newton space observatory have probed the gas-filled haloes around galaxies in a quest to find 'missing' matter thought to reside there, but have come up empty-handed – so where is it?

New research seeks to optimize space travel efficiency

April 18, 2018

Sending a human into space and doing it efficiently presents a galaxy of challenges. Koki Ho, University of Illinois assistant professor in the Department of Aerospace Engineering, and his graduate students, Hao Chen and ...

101 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Parsec
3 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2018
It doesn't strike me as an especially surprising result that dark matter interactions (assuming they are all attractive) would make clumps more spherical. The same thing is true if there is more matter there. DM interactions have the overall effect of increasing the attraction between DM particles, and thus have the same conglomerate effect as increasing the gravitational forces between them.

Large clumps of matter assume spherical shapes. Why would dark matter clumps be any different?
dnatwork
3 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2018
Huh. There goes one big piece of observational evidence. A single, fuzzy observation was repeated and found to be fuzzy and not repeatable. Wonder what else will happen as actual evidence is gathered?
rossim22
2.6 / 5 (14) Apr 05, 2018
The problem is we don't understand gravity and its role/limitations in the universe. Dark matter is ONLY postulated to exist exactly where the forces of gravity alone fail to explain the motions of celestial objects.

This is like blaming the elves for moving your keys around your house when you can't find them. And your house is about 80% elves.
Bart_A
1.9 / 5 (11) Apr 05, 2018
And the search goes on and on. And on and on. When will this craziness stop?
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 05, 2018
The problem is we don't understand gravity and its role/limitations in the universe. Dark matter is ONLY postulated to exist exactly where the forces of gravity alone fail to explain the motions of celestial objects.

This is like blaming the elves for moving your keys around your house when you can't find them. And your house is about 80% elves.


And if there was anything else in the mix, it'd be being investigated. MOND is one such, but various flavours of that took a kicking from the gravitational wave detections, as well as the Bullet Cluster observations. So, there ain't anything else to look at currently.
dnatwork
5 / 5 (1) Apr 05, 2018
I thought this was the bullet cluster. It's just very similar, I guess. Maybe they need to look more closely at that one, too.
adave
1 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2018
We have a theory of the holographic universe that may work for matter and energy. Can the holographic universe predict a dark universe component? If it can't then DME is not holographic and may not contain information like normal space. If it does not interact with space it might be in the same volume but not in a space time that has uniform laws of physics. If dm could form a black hole it would be cold with low emissions but high gravity. This is Lisa Randalls idea about dm forming a disk in the same galactic plane as normal matter.
jalsck
2.1 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2018
Gravity is not a force. Calling gravity a force and thinking of it as a force is a bad habit. Gravity can exist without matter.
AllStBob
1 / 5 (10) Apr 05, 2018
- cold fusion
- ftl neutrinos
- primordial gravity waves
- dark matterless galaxies

have I missed anything? Maybe these scientists suffer from a over eagerness to make a BIG discovery and get their names in the papers. Maybe we should ignore them till the results are verified by an independent team lest physics go the way of psychology.
NoStrings
3 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2018
"Dark matter might not be interactive after all?" Just any god? Brilliant cop out!
humy
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2018
Gravity can exist without matter.

is there any empirical evidence of this you can reference here?
or can you provide us any other kind of reason why we should believe this?
tallenglish
1 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2018
Simple, its just normal matter that is going backwards in time relative to us (i.e -c in all directions).

That would make it dark, and compress spacetime locally not expand it like matter, and the spaces it leaves empty is what we are expanding into, aka dark energy.

Physicists just need to extract head from rear and realise time is nothing spacial and has all the same properties as space i.e. positive AND negative as well as real AND imaginary and the dimensions of space and time are all interchangable.
tallenglish
1 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2018
think torus universe, matter and what we see expanding from the top, dark matter contracting to the bottom pole.

Those poles are the center of mass of stars and black holes - stars are the top pole expanding spacetime, black holes and neutron stars the bottom pole contracting spacetime and decaying.

The size of the radius is directly proportional to the energy in it and all dimensions are based around Eulers circle.

Matter and light would push dark matter away, dark matter would be round the edges holding it together.
grandpa
1 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2018
All the evidence is that there is dark matter. If it only interacts by gravity it may be more challenging to detect. I don't understand why we don't see its affects in our own galaxy except that it must travel faster than our gravity can hold onto although there could be some by the sun.
granville583762
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2018
Imaginative ripples in space time
Until we can see the gravitational ripples in space time; we have to assume that protons and electrons by virtue of their mass emits gravity in the form of quantum particles of gravitons emitted by protons and electrons
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 06, 2018
an the holographic universe predict a dark universe component?

The holographic universe model doesn't say anything about how much or what kind of matter the universe contains. It works just as well (or badly) on a universe with DM, without DM (or without any form of matter at all).

If dm could form a black hole it would be cold with low emissions but high gravity.

Just like any other black hole then.

"Dark matter might not be interactive after all?" Just any god? Brilliant cop out!

The idea of non-interacting matter isn't new. We know for example of neutrinos which almost never interact with anything. Trlllions of them are fleeting through you every second - yet we know that they exist (first from theory and later from experiment).
Where exactly is your problem with the idea of slightly less interacting forms of matter (if you accept that neutrinos exist, that is)?
Bart_A
2 / 5 (12) Apr 06, 2018
grandpa, ha! Your first comment is a big lie. FAKE NEWS! There is currently ZERO evidence of dark matter. Millions of man-hours and machine-hours have be spent trying to find something. So far everything has come up empy.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2018
Dark matter definitely interacts with matter - but differently. Here we can see a picture of colliding galaxies, this one on the left is definitely much older (oval and yellowish) and as such surrounded by thick coat of dark matter. The galaxy in the center is younger and its matter collides with dark matter field around mature galaxy at distance. Like if the old galaxy would be surrounded by thick coat of invisible jelly or something similar. See also Dark Matter Can Interact With Itself, galaxy collisions show...

In dense aether model the dark matter is vacuum analogy of quasiparticles existing withing superconductors, therefore the behavior of dark matter field is analogous to Meissner effect: it's repulsive during collision, once penetration happens, it gets cohesive instead (Bullet cluster).
Gigel
5 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2018
Simple, its just normal matter that is going backwards in time relative to us (i.e -c in all directions).

You have to design an experiment that can discriminate between this idea and any classical view on DM. That is the only way to make a point in physics. Many ideas are possible but you need an experiment to test them.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2018
The problem with dark matter identification for mainstream science is, the dark matter is not homogeneous stuff and its components behave differently (cold, warm and hot dark matter). It's too slippery concept for deterministic formal models of mainstream science based on regressions. In addition, the dark matter behavior toward matter depends on the state of that matter in similar way, like the behavior of superconductors toward matter depends on the state of this matter (i.e. whether it is magnetized or not). The normal neutral particles are merely inert to dark matter, but these charged get dragged by dark matter field because of ZPE field. And once these particles will get hot and colliding wildly like particles of plasma plasma, then their intrinsic magnetic field will start to interact intensively with dark matter. Because in dense aether model most of dark matter is formed by magnetic fluctuations and vortices of vacuum and the similar things interact mutually the most.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2018
In dense aether model dark matter represents similar rich hyperdimensional transition of large chunks of matter into vacuum like the atmosphere of planets, so it behaves differently depending on context. Therefore we can occasionally learn a lot about dark matter by studying some particular example of galaxy collisions, but from the same reason the wider deductions of dark matter behavior may get misleading, once we adhere on studying of another particular example (Bullet cluster). You should understand first what happens there and why, before starting to adjust the parameters in your equations. Unfortunately the mainstream science has little or no motivation for it until tax payers money are going, because variability of dark matter also provides the neverending source of grants and jobs for theorists...
Spaced out Engineer
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2018
It is a difficult question. Is the curvature just some stable local minimal,, without mass distortion? A sort of stable dip in the blanket that has found some semblance of equilibrium. Or must it be some exotic "thermal"-like emergence based on some kind of gravitational history?
When you try to consider frame dragging with degrees of freedom, like orbital angular momentum, you have to ask about the Ricci curvature in more dimensions.
Can we consider DM to be a cotangent bundle to treat it as non-interacting? If we place all precedence on gravity, this is hogwash as, "thermal" time is what should be considered.
There are good reasons to consider informational preservation into some kind of gravitation substrate. Cyclic Comformal Cosmology is presently thought of as a falsifiable hypothesis, but it still has to consider the CMB and primordial black holes from the last era.
The holographic account is still working on its prioritization.
At least we think it is not just gamma bursts.
Spaced out Engineer
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2018
Simple, its just normal matter that is going backwards in time relative to us (i.e -c in all directions).

You have to design an experiment that can discriminate between this idea and any classical view on DM. That is the only way to make a point in physics. Many ideas are possible but you need an experiment to test them.

Do you have an experiment for the inflationary field?
Observations in the cosmos can help us better understand Nature's telios.
Not all things useful, are falsifiable. Non-causal structure can make thematic predictions, but they are just, that non-causal. Where do we place the ontology and epistemology with a tool like the Riemann Zeta Function? It can make predictions of supposedly divergent functions, which match observables, but this assumes reality possesses discontinuities...
Spaced out Engineer
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2018
What makes a weaker banker to borrow from over a longer period of time (QED), a psuedo-tensor of self energy, a fracturing of super symmetry of a real tensor network?
Symmetry has non informational content, it is the asymmetry that tells us something. Self-energy does not have to be self sustaining, though its negative energetic reservoir could run deep.
It seems we where intended to tolerant different perspectives to explain the same phenomena, even in relational theory. The dialect still has telios.
zorro6204
not rated yet Apr 06, 2018
Well, you throw out that one and all the alternate theories that hold dark matter may not even exist are back in play. That was the biggie, here was a case where you could absolutely say it did exist, that it was some kind of particle, because you could actually see it separate from ordinary matter. Now it could be some kind of emergent phenomena or anything or nothing, just a flaw in our current understanding.
novasp9
5 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2018
If one is interested in the dark matter, take a close look at:
https://arxiv.org...11.10458
"Seven Hints For Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter"

The DM ain't no particle.
geokstr
1 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2018
There is believed to be about five times more dark matter than all the other particles understood by science, but nobody knows what it is.

Does this hold true even if the recent estimate of over a trillion galaxies in the universe (10 times previous estimates) is correct?
https://www.space...als.html
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2018
I think what you are saying, it is neither necessary nor sufficient that dark matter even exist. You are aware that gravity is not a separate force of nature. Source? How long have you been seeing these ghosts?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2018
yeah funny like dat, no source udering dat bipolar field
rossim22
1 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2018

This is like blaming the elves for moving your keys around your house when you can't find them. And your house is about 80% elves.


And if there was anything else in the mix, it'd be being investigated. MOND is one such... So, there ain't anything else to look at currently.


But why are we still looking for any dark matter theory?

Dark matter is purely ad hoc, there's no denying that. No science has ever postulated any reason to think a 'dark' matter must be toying with normal matter solely on a gravitational level.

But is the theory even falsifiable in any way? If you could attain whatever evidence you desire, how could you ever disprove the existence of dark matter?

So is it even a viable theory anymore?

Whydening Gyre
2.5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2018
Here's a hypothesis for ya'll -
Travelling gravity waves interacting with other waves, gravitational bodies subject to relativity and time to even include it's own orthogonal remnants from a previous time.
Kind of how a liquid with particulate matter of varying sizes works when spiraling (as most gravitational bodies we observe seem wont to do...)
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2018
To be honest, I don't know why some comments seem to be adverse. Basically, there is something 'out there' that appears to have a gravitational property and articles like the above, imho, just seem to be saying that we are still in the dark as to what is causing the effect. Okay, if someone has a theory that can account for the apparent effect, fine, just provide a means for testing that theory and I'm sure there will be some scientists willing to try it. After all the idea is to solve the problem isn't it?
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2018
So is it even a viable theory anymore?


Yes, of course. Things are moving about in a way that they shouldn't ought to be if baryonic matter were all that constituted the universe. We see the strangeness going on in the Bullet Cluster, which defies description without DM being invoked to explain the morphology, and the lensing that we see. And other observations. So, it is the best explanation out there. MOND is just about hanging on, but still has to invoke DM, albeit less of it.
You can't just say, "oh, we'll never figure this out, let's stop looking/ theorising." Things don't add up, and it is human nature to want to see what the cause of the mystery is. Who knew neutrinos had mass until ~ 15 years ago?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2018
Here's a hypothesis for ya'll -
Travelling gravity waves interacting with other waves, gravitational bodies subject to relativity and time to even include it's own orthogonal remnants from a previous time.
Kind of how a liquid with particulate matter of varying sizes works when spiraling (as most gravitational bodies we observe seem wont to do...)

Are you referring to Gravity Waves or Gravitational waves? My understanding is that weak gravitational waves interfere, temporarily I think...that is, pass through one another. If 'strong' then I think (but am not sure of my understanding here) then space-time properties are affected to a point where a singularity might form. I am sure someone here more knowledgeable than me could be more precise.
(If you meant Gravity Waves then fluid mechanics is involved where basically g acts to maintain equilibrium.)
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2018
This doesn't rule out dark matter. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the Bullet Cluster, which clearly shows the separation of dark matter from bright matter. And they started looking around, and they've found other less dramatic looking but equally compelling collisions with dark matter as well. These are impossible to explain with MOND or any other theory based on a defect in GRT. If the mass all moved over *there*, how come there's gravity over *here*? It doesn't make any sense for it to be some correction to GRT. It makes a lot of sense for it to be some form of particulate dark matter.

It doesn't matter for this whether it's self-interactive or interactive with bright matter, or not.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2018
Pretty interesting, @nova, and they've even suggested a way to test for it. We watch LIGO/VIRGO and see if we see any sub-Chandrasekhar limit BH mergers. This will eliminate both BHs and neutron stars as candidates.
humy
5 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2018
So astronomers had first collected some earlier data that implied that a galaxy had become separated from the dark matter surrounding it, an interesting possibility predicted by some but not all dark-matter models, but then later new data showed it hadn't separated after all.
I really don't see how anything of significance can be concluded from that.
Merely showing that this one particular galaxy hadn't separated from it's dark matter very far by itself rules out the possibility that we will later observe a galaxy which we can observe to have indeed separated from it's dark matter.
And it certainly very far by itself rules out the possibility of the existence of any non-gravitational dark-matter-visible-matter interactions.
I think this is a case where we will just have to 'wait and see'.
alexander2468
3 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2018
100% the mass of the universe is composed of normal matter

The Universe is 27% dark matter the remainder consisting of mysterious dark energy. Normal matter, such as planets and stars, contributes a relatively small five per cent of the Universe. Calc98 fires up again, 27% D.M, 68% D.E and 5% N.M, no explanation how 100% of the mass of the universe consisting of planets and stars are composed of a 100% of normal matter (N.M) out of lies to little children come truths – D.M having no relevance in N.M what's the point of D.M?
AndyJay1
3 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2018
It's a long time since I was active in experimental astrophysics (CMB) so please forgive any unintended offence. I truly admire and respect the experimental process to test our posited theoretical framework.
But I can't help thinking there must be something profoundly wrong with our understanding if our current theoretical framework requires something as unreactive (apart from gravity) to represent 80% or more of the mass of the universe.
My own experience (small cog, big wheel) Hunting the Snark of CMB was for something vital but which represented only thousandths of one percent of the density of the universe
I suppose really I'm just asking for help understanding the "need" for dark matter rather than a rethink of our current theoretical framework?
For example, does General Relativity require or anticipate dark matter?
All help to lighten my own darkness gratefully received
alexander2468
not rated yet Apr 07, 2018
Truth slowly emerging

The clouds of dust in the universe "Normal matter, such as planets and stars, contributes a relatively small five per cent of the Universe" are the 5% of N.M. By implication contain no D.M or D.E! D.M and D.E complement, the equivalent of E=MC* in N.M - further proof the dust clouds are composed of normal matter and E=MC* equal 100% the mass of the universe.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
"Out of nothing comes something" 5%=100% of normal matter of the universe

The strange and wacky world of mathematics where 27%+68%+5%=100% where the 5% =100% of all the matter in the universe with untold trillion upon trillion upon trillion tons of matter, strange how mathematics can be accurate while still achieving 100% out of 5% this has conations to milnics famous quotation "out of nothing comes something"

alexander2468> The Universe is 27% dark matter the remainder consisting of mysterious dark energy. Normal matter, such as planets and stars, contributes a relatively small five per cent of the Universe. Calc98 fires up again, 27% D.M, 68% D.E and 5% N.M, no explanation how 100% of the mass of the universe consisting of planets and stars are composed of a 100% of normal matter (N.M) out of lies to little children come truths – D.M having no relevance in N.M what's the point of D.M?

thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2018
Mere mathematical models can never account for universal processes. The human mind is the subsuming evolutionary universal process. The only science that matters is a mission oriented one that benefits humanity's future. All else is irrelevant terra incognita.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2018
The Universe is 27% dark matter the remainder consisting of mysterious dark energy
The considering the dark energy as a part of matter of our Universe follows agenda of Big Bang ideology, but technically it's a misnomer, because for example energy of stars or energy of their gravity field is incorporated in the reminder neither. It's thus solely arbitrary decision whether you'll account the dark energy into mass of Universe or not. The same applies to dark matter, just in lesser extent.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
"However, dark matter is an essential factor in how the Universe looks today, as without the constraining effect of its extra gravity, galaxies like our Milky Way would fling themselves apart as they spin."
Nonsense.
[The Universe is 27% dark matter the remainder consisting of mysterious dark energy ]
More nonsense.
If you reject the existence of "gravity" and embrace expansion theory, none of this nonsense is required.
humy
5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2018
"However, dark matter is an essential factor in how the Universe looks today, as without the constraining effect of its extra gravity, galaxies like our Milky Way would fling themselves apart as they spin."
Nonsense.

dark matter may or may not exist but either way dark matter theory isn't "nonsense" because it is based on actual observations of how galaxies rotate and the perfectly reasonable albeit not necessarily correct assumption that our current understand of the law of gravity corresponds accurately to reality + Occam's razor applies here as the suggested alternatives to the theory are generally more complex than the theory they are meant to replace although I think I may have heard one impressive exception to that (but not from any of these posts but from an article).

To show that something is 'nonsense', you need to show that it is either contradictory or is such that it is very unreasonable to think it could ever be true.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2018
If you reject the existence of "gravity" and embrace expansion theory, none of this nonsense is required.


Excellent. Somebody should reject 'gravity', embrace expansion theory (whatever that is), and jump out of a third floor window, and then report back on how they got on.

humy
3.9 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2018
If you reject the existence of "gravity" and embrace expansion theory, none of this nonsense is required.


Excellent. Somebody should reject 'gravity',

perhaps he thinks gravity is one big global conspiracy made by the greedy parachute manufactures to maintain their cover-up that you don't need a parachute if you jump out of the plane; if you only knew that gravity doesn't exist you could just gently float down to wherever you like.
It is also a government cover-up because they don't want us to know gravity is only in our heads and we can avoid taxation simply by floating away up into the sky to god knows where whenever the tax man visits.
Kron
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2018
The existence of non-baryonic dark matter is heavily dependent on Universe Age approximations. Since "Big Bang Theory" is barely even a hypothesis with nothing more than crude supporting evidence simplistically deduced from background radiation in our observable nook of the Universe in my books, the age of the universe is not even a probabilistic approximation. I'd label the 14 billion or so approximation nothing more than a wild guess gotten to by limited data. The universe could very well be infinite in age, with the mass/energy ever present.

Where this becomes important in regards to dark matter estimates falls to how many generations of stars have existed (and more importantly the number of supernova that have come and passed). How many slow moving neutrinos are out there around us? How many rogue planets? Black holes? etc etc

Within the construct of the Big Bang timeline, there is nowhere near enough of these to account for the gravitational effects observed.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2018
The existence of non-baryonic dark matter is heavily dependent on Universe Age approximations.


No, it isn't.
mackita
not rated yet Apr 07, 2018
End of March now... What's up XENON1T?
rogerdallas
not rated yet Apr 07, 2018
I wonder whether we might have made a mistake by talking about dark "matter", since energy fields have a mass equivalent and a gravitational effect. So I wonder whether the discussion might be advanced by assuming, for the sake of argument, that we are in fact dealing with some sort of unknown energy field. For instance, in the early universe this field might have interacted more strongly with matter, and might have played some role. But now, perhaps, it is just a remnant, displaying gravitational effects and little else.
mackita
not rated yet Apr 07, 2018
OK, but what the field is? In condensed phase physics the field is always state of some environment. Here it's important to realize, that this environment is never observable by its own waves no matter of dense and material it is - if it would, if would represent - an obstacle not an environment for these waves. Therefore the fact that fields of vacuum aren't observable by light waves doesn't contradict the concept of vacuum as material environment at all and it also doesn't pose any intrinsic limit for vacuum density.

What we could say about this environment? Well, the vacuum is elastic and it has an inertia - without it it couldn't spread light in waves of finite speed. Every elastic environment is capable of spreading at least two kinds of waves: transverse and longitudinal. The transverse waves are traditionally attributed to waves of light from Maxwell/Hertz times - so that dark matter can be only longitudinal wave field. This is the way of dense aether model deductions.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2018
If we want to understand the dark matter field, it's IMO impossible to do it without understanding of gravity field nature - why? Because dark matter field is way more complex, it's presence isn't conditioned by matter presence, whereas the presence of gravity field is. The general relativity gives only partial explanation of gravity field, as it implies its manifestation of space-time curvature. But why/how the space-time deforms around massive objects it doesn't explain.

The dense aether model is very primitive conceptually, it just considers environment, it's two kind of waves and their obstacles. The obstacles result in reflection, refraction and also absorption and shielding of waves. Of these only shielding applies around obstacles, therefore the gravity and dark matter can be only shielding effects. We have two kind of waves, so that we would have two kinds of shielding only.
rogerdallas
not rated yet Apr 07, 2018
If I could tell anyone what the field is, I would be happy to do so. Alas! I do not know. Maybe a remnant of the "inflaton" that drove inflation? What sort of experiment could we perform? Well, we could probably work out the energy required to drive inflation, determine that mass equivalent, and compare that to the total mass of so-called dark matter required to account for the observed gravitational effects. Not much of an experiment but if there is a close match...
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2018
The dense aether model considers, that space-time is filed by waves of both kinds and it remains flat when both transverse both longitudinal waves are in mutual balance. Similarly to water surface, once the surface gets deformed by both transverse, both longitudinal waves, it gets curved, it represents longer path for another waves and this curvature is always positive. Therefore even the curvature of gravity field and dark matter has the same sign.
Now, what happens in shadow of transverse or longitudinal waves around material obstacles? Well, their balance will get broken, the (nearly) flat space-time gets curved and lensing arises. But due to difference in speed of transverse and longitudinal waves this curving will occur at different distance from obstacles. At the water surface the transverse waves are stronger but much slower than longitudinal waves (which represent the sound waves of underwater). Therefore the shielding of transverse waves would occur at much smaller distance.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2018
Mainstream physics already recognizes existence of transverse waves and their shielding as so called Casimir effect. This is the stuff which has already with dense aether model in common. But it still doesn't recognize the existence of longitudinal waves, despite that their shielding has before eyes from Einstein's times: its the gravity field. The theory for this shielding is also known from Newton times (despite it has even deeper Arabian roots) as a Fatio/LeSage theory. The assumption of dense aether model therefore is, the space-time is stuffed by transverse and longitudinal waves and massive bodies shield not only transverse ones at short distances (Casimir field) - but also longitudinal ones and their shielding leads to gravitational field. This model is simple and it has its water surface analogies in spreading of ripples around islands.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2018
The field in dense aether model therefore is the manifestation of disbalance of transverse and longitudinal waves in vacuum. But the Casimir field manifest itself at very short distances and its not observable by lensing of visible light, which has much larger wavelength. As such it cannot also explain the dark matter field, which manifest itself at even longer distances than the gravity field. In dense aether model the nature of Casimir field is of similar nature like the dark matter field, being both formed by relative excess of longitudinal waves of vacuum. But in LeSage gravity model the excess of longitudinal waves can occur only when the shielding of longitudinal waves gets shielded - and this shielding of shielding can result only by presence of another massive bodies, other than these ones which are responsible for gravity field. It's second order effect which occurs only when multiple massive objects share common line or plane..
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2018
This model explains/predicts, why dark matter occurs mostly in filaments connecting large massive bodies. These bodies must reside on common line, which is easy to spot at the case of galactic bars, i.e. it explains, why linear arrangement of matter gets stabilized once this matter gets higher density. It also explains why dark matter field concentrates at the perimeter of massive bodies where shielding of shielding can apply the most - not at their center like at the case of gravity field. And because it depends on arrangement of galaxies rather than their own properties, it also explains, why the dark matter can be sometimes observable without any presence of visible matter, whereas sometimes it occurs without any dark matter.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2018
Gravity is the collective effect of every charge in the universe to a superimposed point at a distance +/-r assuming an equal field or opposite field, that actually exist with respect to each charge center at that instant in time or more defined a mathematical tautology. So adding an unknown to fit theory instead of throwing away the theory? Every charge center see's every field and is mathematically equal to the existence of a charge at a point that will produce the observed.

Truth! Then Theory. Not "theory then it does not compute," or have any measurable affects, this is nonsense using only the field as evidence!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2018
Who started the nonsense? I observe a proton within a cloud chamber while observing "Cosmic" rays, and it moves exactly like an electron only diametrically, I call "particle" an anti-electron? Me, smart! You do not understand from what I speak! Then! Along came dark matter! Soo mysterious!

IDIOTS!
mackita
2.5 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2018
Gravity is the collective effect of every charge in the universe to a superimposed point
This doesn't explain how/why such effect arises and it even contradicts the fact that neutral particles like neutrons also exhibit/feel gravity. You're not smart enough for to call other people idiots.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2018
Gravity is the collective effect of every charge in the universe to a superimposed point
This doesn't explain how/why such effect arises and it even contradicts the fact that neutral particles like neutrons also exhibit/feel gravity. You're not smart enough for to call other people idiots.

A neutron is two field centers, not one, that would be nothing
by the way, particles do not exist, only the field and the field centers, forever and ever
mackita
2 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2018
It still has no charge = no gravity. Your model requires more assumptions than interpretations, not to say predictions = it's source of confusion instead of explanation. But we are living in society which is not even unify on way more trivial facts than the origin of gravity. The problem in progress of Universe understanding by human civilization isn't in its technical difficulty at all, but simply in fact that for various group of people it's more advantageous to keep their own interpretations (or lack of it). It's clearly visible even on discussion here.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2018
or Simply put, the field center and the field are one, Tautology! Necessary and sufficient. Fields do not affect fields only field centers. QED Everything definable even the state of enlightenment ripples in the field. Ripples only created by the motion of the center, nothing else. Energy? A hunk of centers or a hunk of of instability therefore Energy as a stable state or unstable state? using m does not define how m is contained or composed. juz say'n

mackita
1 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2018
In similar way like for scientists for loony twaddlers here it's more advantageous to continue in social interaction as if nothing would be ever spoken here. The artificially maintained lack of solutions represents a welcomed evasion for wasting their time here. They like "finding of solutions" more than the solution itself. Well, and scientists even manage to take money for it - this is the whole difference - but the principle remains very same..
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2018
Don't forget Newton's question, "What is it within mass that can produce such a field?" Newton had optics but not charge. Newton did dot have a clue about atoms, for some uncanny reason the people before him dabbled in nonsense. So he tried alchemy. meh
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2018
Ripples only created by the motion of the center, nothing else
Ripples cannot be formed or spread by motion of points (actually with decreasing the size the effectiveness of wave radiators ceases to zero). This is similar to problem of singularity in general relativity: the LeSage/dense aether model wouldn't allow non-zero shielding in this case, so that matter of black holes cannot be concentrated within a single point - not to say it would contradict the (uncertainty and Pauli exclusion principles of) quantum mechanics too. In brief, you're spreading the ideas based on similarly fringe logic like the mainstream physics, which you're trying to oppose here.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2018
I think this period is marked by the grave site of Hypatia of Alexandria.

Logic allows a collection of points to occupy a point,you can even stack them as + or -, anyway GR is nonsense.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2018
But your stubborn denial of what exist is what you deny. Is that the square of stupid?
milnik
1 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2018
Very interesting discussion, but only for the "darkness" of ignorance of what is being discussed. You all talk about something "dark" about which you do not have any proof or whether it exists, and you know the percentage of that "dark" in the universe. Who is "dark" here or what does not exist at all. Mackett keeps talking about some dense ether, but never says what the ether is. In your discussions, there are 90% of "cocktails" of some unqualified proof and fabrication. Whoever does not see the existence of the Spiritual Entity of the universe, it does not know the structure of the universe, nor any natural laws. Science has allowed itself to have a formula, model, or some kind of fabrication that will lead them to the true causes of the phenomenon. These are all fatamagers and there is no need to waste time proving that such nebulosities are true.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2018
Dark matter is dead again, we live in an Electric Universe where EM controls on the largest scales.
https://youtu.be/iErTweE7JTk
mackita
1 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2018
Dark matter particles behave like repulsive ones, and I even presume, there are lotta positrons and charged atom nuclei between them - but the physics of dark matter is much richer than just physics of plasma. For proponents of plasma Universe can be misleading, that the equations of gravitomagnetism (which describe dark matter behavior at large scales) are similar to both Maxwell equations both fluid equations: but they all apply at different energy density and distance scales.

Einstein: "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler."
milnik
1 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
Think about observing dark matter at distances to hundreds of thousands of light years. If someone can see it dark there, then on our moon we could see ants like dinosaurs. It seems that someone has paid you to refresh the "truth" about the existence of dark matter. Nothing about it is unknown, and you have calculated that it has the correct percentage of the universe's reflections, and yet nothing is known about the univerism of the universe.
What does that look like? Is it a science and a stock market in a flea market?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2018
So much for arbitrary properties/behaviors 'needed' from "'exotic' Dark Matter" to 'explain' the 'guesses/interpretations' of/for what is 'seen'!

It started OK many decades ago when Zwicky first posited (then) unseeable (ie, "dark") ORDINARY Matter for observed galaxy-cluster motions.

But THEN it 'got crazy'; when theoretical/mathematician 'physicists' started an 'Exotic-DM-Fantasy-Series'; ie...

1) needed to 'clump'; and draw ordinary matter to clump also, due to gravity effect only;

2) 'clump-ing' NOT observed; so it was then supposed to form 'halos' around galaxies;

3) 'halo-ing' NOT observed; so it was then supposed to be totally non-interactive;

4) now the latest 'supposition' is that it must be interactive;

5) but 'interactivity' NOT observed!...so what now?

The ONLY 'dark' matter ACTUALLY FOUND has been ORDINARY Matter 'detectable' by NEW scopes/instruments; with MORE ORDINARY 'stuff' YET to be found; in various energy/configurational/motional states! :)
ptl
not rated yet Apr 09, 2018
Is it at all feasible that Dark Matter is a remnant of the previous universe after implosion and before the Big Bang created a different, new (our) universe?
FredJose
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2018
@RealityCheck: From my own very limited understanding of how the term "Dark Matter" actually arose in academic ranks, I tend to agree with you. Simple (simplistic, if you will) logic indicates that the simplest answer is usually the best.
mackita
not rated yet Apr 09, 2018
Dark Matter is a remnant of the previous universe after implosion and before the Big Bang
In dense aether model the Universe is eternal and infinite. If some process similar to Big Bang happens, then it runs at the scale of individual galaxies which condense and evaporate again like giant fluctuations. In this model the dark matter represents the first and last stage (most sparse one) of matter condensation from dark matter and radiation and evaporation into dark matter and radiation.
mackita
not rated yet Apr 09, 2018
Either the Sun Is Getting Smaller or Gravity Is Getting Weaker . Follow up on Physic Forums and in my blog. This stuff is actually quite old a probably related to both dark matter, both global warming period.
milnik
1 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2018
In dense aether model the Universe is eternal and infinite.
mackita,who established this model and when it was done, because I would like to see it and compare it with this Aether I'm talking about.
Again I have to agree: all those who use the consequences of the invented BB are not scientists. They are participants in the "rewriting activity", none of them gives their opinion, but only with the head of the head and confirms that it is "true".
mackita
not rated yet Apr 09, 2018
who established this model and when it was done
This model doesn't have to be established - it's default hypothesis free of any ad hoced assumptions so it doesn't have to be done. Einstein did believe in steady-state Universe too - so it must be of pretty old history.. Dense aether model was raised by Oliver Lodge in 1904 - but for example Rene Descartes and Robert Hooke (1687) did talk about this concept too.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2018
If you reject the existence of "gravity" and embrace expansion theory, none of this nonsense is required.


Excellent. Somebody should reject 'gravity', embrace expansion theory (whatever that is), and jump out of a third floor window, and then report back on how they got on.


Look, Dumbo, I say that the surface of the expanding Earth rushes up to where that third floor window was, but you think there is this mysterious force that no-one can reproduce/deflect/shield against/etc. What evidence do you have that you are right and I am wrong?
Incidentally, the ONLY evidence for Dark Matter is that it must exist to explain the motions of matter under the "laws" of "gravity". No wonder they can't find it......
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2018
If you reject the existence of "gravity" and embrace expansion theory, none of this nonsense is required.


Excellent. Somebody should reject 'gravity', embrace expansion theory (whatever that is), and jump out of a third floor window, and then report back on how they got on.


Look, Dumbo, I say that the surface of the expanding Earth rushes up to where that third floor window was, but you think there is this mysterious force that no-one can reproduce/deflect/shield against/etc. What evidence do you have that you are right and I am wrong?
Incidentally, the ONLY evidence for Dark Matter is that it must exist to explain the motions of matter under the "laws" of "gravity". No wonder they can't find it......

Dark matter exist in order for stupid professionals to sound even stupider!
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2018
Look, Dumbo, I say that the surface of the expanding Earth rushes up to where that third floor window was,......


And you're calling me dumb...???!!! Lol. Go write it up woo boy.

savvys84
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2018
dark matter coupled to time is the cause of gravity
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2018
All those who claim and think that there is a dark matter, have in their brain something indeterminate, which is ignited by consciousness, and even more is the nebulosity to say that dark matter and time cause the appearance of gravity. Let's light a little light on that dark vision.
Signs and time and dark matter were formed before the onset of gravity, second: both time and dark matter have attractive traits. How then a photon was born to whom, as they say gravity works, means that he is a dark matter. What makes up the particles that are not gravitated? If gravity gathers matter into groups of mass, it means that everything is formed of dark matter, but we have not yet seen anything or seen or measured it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Apr 10, 2018
Of course dark matter is un-interactive.

"Brilliant Light Power has developed a new commercially competitive, non-polluting, plasma-based primary source of massive power from the conversion of hydrogen atoms of water molecules to dark matter, the previously unidentified matter that makes up most of the mass of the universe. The SunCell® that was invented to harness the new power source catalytically converts hydrogen directly into dark matter form called Hydrino® releasing brilliant high-energy light which is down-converted in energy to facilitate the production of electricity using commercially-available concentrator photovoltaic cells."

-But creating it is very interactive indeed.

Or not. Who knows? This may be the year we find out...
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2018
Look, Dumbo, I say that the surface of the expanding Earth rushes up to where that third floor window was,......


And you're calling me dumb...???!!! Lol. Go write it up woo boy.


Already did. See https://www.amazo...+gravity
If, as I suspect, your IQ is < 50, get somebody to explain it to you.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2018
What I find puzzling that people get hung up over the issue that dark matter doesn't seem to interact with anything. Why does everyone assume that interaction between stuff is the norm (rather than the exception)? Just because interaction is needed to support life and therefore all our senses are geared towards the interacting kind of stuff in the universe?

Methinks there might be an inherent bias in the "stuff-must-interact" attitude.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Apr 10, 2018
In dense aether model the Universe is eternal and infinite.
mackita,who established this model and when it was done, because I would like to see it and compare it with this Aether I'm talking about... This model doesn't have to be established - it's default hypothesis free of any ad hoced blah
I'm wondering if these 2 posters are both zephyr? Anybody else suspect this?

He does covet any excuse to talk about his dense aether AWT rotz-
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2018
Dark matter is the empty space left after you remove all the charges and their fields.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2018
@antialias, that's a pretty good point, and we've already been through this same problem with neutrinos. It took three conservation laws to establish that neutrinos exist in the minds of the scientific community; it's hardly surprising that particle DM hypotheses are still controversial and that various alternative explanations are still being proposed.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2018
Dark matter is the empty space left after you remove all the charges and their fields.
as follows : dark matter=Aether !
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2018
Dark matter is the empty space left after you remove all the charges and their fields.
as follows : dark matter=Aether !

You do know you are renaming a NULL set as Aether.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2018
Dark matter is the empty space left after you remove all the charges and their fields.
as follows : dark matter=Aether !

Maybe you should just get high, Newton did!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2018
Dark matter is the empty space left after you remove all the charges and their fields.
as follows : dark matter=Aether !

Maybe you should just get high, Newton did!

Yeah, that's how gravity got invented.....
Makes you wonder, what was he on?
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2018
@Hyperfuzzy,
How can we not agree in any way !.
There is no vacant space in the universe. There must always be some substance that fills each space, and even the one in the atom fuses the core and the envelopes. This substance fills in and scows subatomic particles. This empty space called vacuum is not empty, there is AETHER. Understand it once and everything will be easier to understand.
What can not be excluded from this vacant space, it is the basis and trigger of phenomena such as gravity and magnetism, and from magnetism and under its influence all other phenomena are created and modified according to certain natural laws through a series of processes.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2018
@Hyperfuzzy,
How can we not agree in any way !.
There is no vacant space in the universe. There must always be some substance that fills each space, and even the one in the atom fuses the core and the envelopes. This substance fills in and scows subatomic particles. This empty space called vacuum is not empty, there is AETHER. Understand it once and everything will be easier to understand.
What can not be excluded from this vacant space, it is the basis and trigger of phenomena such as gravity and magnetism, and from magnetism and under its influence all other phenomena are created and modified according to certain natural laws through a series of processes.

You are just making stuff up. There is nothing other than charge and charge is actually only a point in its field. I remember aether; thought that was what Michelson and Morley proved did not exist.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2018
Who causes the appearance of electro and magnetic fields where they were not? What is the charge and who supports it? You all think it appears only by itself, but none of you is thinking, whether there is something from which all this is formed and who is the one who forms it. Do you believe more about the experiments performed 80-90 years ago than those that are being performed today. Today's experiments are more political than scientific.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2018
Who causes the appearance of electro and magnetic fields where they were not? What is the charge and who supports it? You all think it appears only by itself, but none of you is thinking, whether there is something from which all this is formed and who is the one who forms it. Do you believe more about the experiments performed 80-90 years ago than those that are being performed today. Today's experiments are more political than scientific.

I get it. A nonsensical rant! OK, what is is?
milnik
not rated yet Apr 14, 2018
Gentlemen, we are discussing phenomena observed by scientists and trying to understand the causes of their emergence. Yes, I see all these explanations as a result of the wrong basis on which they build evidence. If you want to find out and explain a phenomenon, you must first of all know three basic concepts and their significance and the causes of their occurrence. But it must be based on natural laws, not on the formulas and on some invented models. These three factors are: matter, gravity, and magnetism. If you know how they originate and what kind of relationships they have, then you will not have any problems in seeing all the features of these factors. Today's science does not adhere to these postulates, and therefore there is no solution to many phenomena in the universe.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Apr 14, 2018
Gentlemen, we are discussing phenomena observed by scientists and trying to understand the causes of their emergence. Yes, I see all these explanations as a result of the wrong basis on which they build evidence. If you want to find out and explain a phenomenon, you must first of all know three basic concepts and their significance and the causes of their occurrence. But it must be based on natural laws, not on the formulas and on some invented models. These three factors are: matter, gravity, and magnetism. If you know how they originate and what kind of relationships they have, then you will not have any problems in seeing all the features of these factors. Today's science does not adhere to these postulates, and therefore there is no solution to many phenomena in the universe.

Simpler to admit only fields exist whose centers we call charge! Since charge is immortal, these field have an infinite range, no matter how small it gets, remember supposition applies!

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.