Scientists refine the search for dark matter

October 30, 2018, Lund University
Dark matter map of KiDS survey region (region G12). Credit: KiDS survey

Researchers from Lund University in Sweden, among others, have developed a more effective technique in the search for clues about dark matter in the universe. They can now analyse much larger amounts of the data generated at CERN.

At the CERN research facility, a long series of experiments is underway on protons colliding in the LHC accelerator at almost the speed of light. The amount of data is constantly increasing, as the accelerator's capacity improves. However, it is more difficult to process and store the vast amounts of data that are produced. This is why there is a continuous evaluation of which data the researchers should examine more closely.

"If we are not careful, we could end up discarding data that contains clues to completely new particles of which we are not yet aware, such as particles that form dark matter," explains Caterina Doglioni, a particle physicist at Lund University and a member of the ATLAS experiment at CERN.

She is one of the researchers behind a recent study focusing on better using CERN's enormous amounts of data. Instead of recording all the information from the experiment and then analysing it at a later date, much of the data analysis is done in a short amount of time so that a much smaller fraction of the event is retained. This technique, which has been employed by other LHC experiments as well, allows to record and store many more events that could contain traces of new particles.

The hope is to find signs of hitherto unknown particles that could be carriers of forces that could create a connection between visible and dark matter, according to Doglioni. "These new particles, which we call 'mediator particles' can disintegrate into extremely short-lived pairs of quarks, i.e. the very building blocks of the protons and neutrons in atoms. When quarks disintegrate, a type of particle shower is formed that we can actually detect with our instruments," says Caterina Doglioni.

The research community has long sought answers about the elusive dark matter that makes up a large part of our universe. Only 5 percent of the universe is matter that we are currently able to perceive and measure. The remaining 95 percent is unexplored and referred to as dark matter and dark energy.

Among other things, this assumption is based on the fact that galaxies rotate as though there were significantly more matter than that which we can see. Dark matter is reported to make up 27 percent of the universe, while 68 percent is dark energy—considered to be what causes the to constantly accelerate in its ongoing expansion. Researchers have declared October 31st "Dark Matter Day," a day with many events dedicated to dark matter all over the world.

"We know that dark exists. Normally, it passes through our measurement instruments, but cannot be registered, but in the case of our research we hoped to see the products of connected to it," says Caterina Doglioni.

She doesn't dare to predict how long it might take before there is a breakthrough in the search for . Meanwhile, Doglioni observes that research initiatives provide spin-off effects as they proceed. Knowledge about how to process these vast amounts of is also valuable outside the , and has led to the launch of various collaborations with industry.

Explore further: Hunting for dark quarks

More information: M. Aaboud et al, Search for Low-Mass Dijet Resonances Using Trigger-Level Jets with the ATLAS Detector in pp Collisions at s=13 TeV, Physical Review Letters (2018). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.081801

Related Stories

Hunting for dark quarks

August 31, 2018

Quarks are the smallest particles that we know of. In fact, according to the Standard Model of particle physics, which describes all known particles and their interactions, quarks should be infinitely small. If that's not ...

A new era in the quest for dark matter

October 5, 2018

Since the 1970s, astronomers and physicists have been gathering evidence for the presence in the universe of dark matter: a mysterious substance that manifests itself through its gravitational pull. However, despite much ...

Video: Dark matter hunt with LUX-ZEPLIN

August 15, 2017

Researchers at the Department of Energy's SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory are on a quest to solve one of physics' biggest mysteries: What exactly is dark matter – the invisible substance that accounts for 85 percent ...

New theory on the origin of dark matter

August 8, 2017

Only a small part of the universe consists of visible matter. By far the largest part is invisible and consists of dark matter and dark energy. Very little is known about dark energy, but there are many theories and experiments ...

Recommended for you

Researchers make shape shifting cell breakthrough

December 11, 2018

A new computational model developed by researchers from The City College of New York and Yale gives a clearer picture of the structure and mechanics of soft, shape-changing cells that could provide a better understanding ...

Novel laser technology for microchip-size chemical sensors

December 11, 2018

Most lasers emit photons of exactly the same wavelength, producing a single color. However, there are also lasers that consist of many frequencies, with equal intervals in between, as in the teeth of a comb; thus, they are ...

143 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
2.4 / 5 (23) Oct 30, 2018
We know that dark matter exists.


Yeah, we just know. We have never identified a single particle of dark matter anywhere at anytime and all the collisions in the LHC have produced not a single identifiable particle of dark matter -- but we just know that it exists.

That is the new science of today. You just know something and spend your time trying to prove what you already know.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (22) Oct 30, 2018
We know that dark matter exists.


Yeah, we just know. We have never identified a single particle of dark matter anywhere at anytime and all the collisions in the LHC have produced not a single identifiable particle of dark matter -- but we just know that it exists.

That is the new science of today. You just know something and spend your time trying to prove what you already know.


And? Your alternative to DM is...................? Otherwise a pointless comment, yes?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (18) Oct 30, 2018
And? Your alternative to DM is...................? Otherwise a pointless comment, yes?


Why does an already FAILED HYPOTHESIS need am alternate? Only because fantasy Pop-Cosmology needs to continue the narrative of an already failed premise.
theredpill
2.9 / 5 (19) Oct 30, 2018
"Why does an already FAILED HYPOTHESIS need am alternate? "

Because it is intelligent and logical to deny all scientific principles in the name of science....right?

"And? Your alternative to DM is...................?

Scientific exploration without a predetermined conclusion, and scrutiny of data without the same predetermined conclusion. But the guy asking that question won't understand what that means.

Dogbert---Nail on the head, well said.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 30, 2018
And? Your alternative to DM is? Otherwise a pointless comment, yes?


Why does an already FAILED HYPOTHESIS need am alternate? Only because fantasy Pop-Cosmology needs to continue the narrative of an already failed premise.


Let's examine your competence for demanding there be an alternative when YOU deem a comment is pointless if it doesn't include an alternative to DM.

You have been here claiming to have an Astronomy degree from the University of Auckland, NZ, you lied about that because myself & others checked U of A curriculum & brought to your attention it offers no such degree. Then you had to change that failed narrative to receiving an Astronomy Based degree form there. Again we checked the curriculum, no such degree.

However you have been here, prior to claiming having those Astronomy degrees, as having been enrolled in U of A's Anthropology curriculum for 1-3 years, and maybe we can believe for obvious reasons, no real substantive science.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (18) Oct 30, 2018
You have been here claiming to have an Astronomy degree from the University of Auckland,


Lie. Show where I claimed that, sh!tforbrains.

U of A's Anthropology curriculum for 1-3 years


Lie. Show where i said that, sh!tforbrains.

While you're at it, guess who said this, after claiming to have spent 6 years studying nuclear engineering, and claiming to understand nuclear physics:

If a free neutron ACTUALLY had a half-life decay rate it would be exactly HALF of 15 minutes, 7.5 and half it's mass would be gone, but that never happens because free neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate.


So, who is lying, and proven to be scientifically illiterate? Lol. You really should stop digging, you Dunning-Kruger afflicted moron.
Scroofinator
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2018
She doesn't dare to predict

What good is a theory without predictions?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (16) Oct 30, 2018
And? Your alternative to DM is...................? Otherwise a pointless comment, yes?


Why does an already FAILED HYPOTHESIS need am alternate? Only because fantasy Pop-Cosmology needs to continue the narrative of an already failed premise.


Errr, you need to explain rotation curves, for a start. You can't, so shut up, yes? Idiot.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (16) Oct 30, 2018
Scientific exploration without a predetermined conclusion, and scrutiny of data without the same predetermined conclusion. But the guy asking that question won't understand what that means.


You really are thick, aren't you? Why do you keep commenting on subjects in which you have no knowledge? Weird. There isn't a pre-dtermined conclusion, you moron; the need for DM comes from observation and measurement. If you chuck DM, then you need to replace it with something that leads to the same observations and measurement. Understand? Probably not.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (16) Oct 30, 2018
However you have been here, prior to claiming having those Astronomy degrees, as having been enrolled in U of A's Anthropology curriculum for 1-3 years


Which, apart from being pure fiction from a lying twat, is somewhat embarrassing, isn't it Benji? Why would someone with an anthropology degree know more about nuclear physics than someone who lies about having studied it for 6 years? As proven repeatedly. Not that I would need a degree to know more about the subject than an uneducated tosspot who told us:

The decay rates of 100 free unbound neutrons created at the same moment in time, all 100 of them will decay at exactly the same precise instant, about 14.7 minutes later. You don't like this immutable law of physics because it kicks the legs out from under the formation of neutron stars.


Nope, a half decent high school physics student could see why you have never studied any sort of science. Eh, D-K boy?

Bob West
1.3 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2018
Dark matter is a supersolid that fills 'empty' space, strongly interacts with ordinary matter and is displaced by ordinary matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter. The state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter is gravity.

The supersolid dark matter displaced by a galaxy pushes back, causing the stars in the outer arms of the galaxy to orbit the galactic center at the rate in which they do.

Displaced supersolid dark matter is curved spacetime.
theredpill
3.1 / 5 (15) Oct 30, 2018
"You really are thick, aren't you?"

Compared to you my ass hair has a better shot at understanding physics...how science works, and pretty much all aspects of life in general...because you are a psychopath with a computer and far too much time on his hands.

"There isn't a pre-dtermined conclusion, you moron;"

Of course there is, I have pointed it out everytime I even described why things in space move as they do, you laughed and used your ever original "thicko" insult and said I was wrong because your appeals to your authority prove it. And yes, I did state that all of astrophysics using gravity as the only significant force is completely incorrect. But I am not going to respond to any more posts from a useless fuck (You) who thinks he understands physics ...and yet has said the ridiculously stupid things you have here. I saw you actually posted that increased photon emission doesn't constitute "brightening", even dumber than your magnetosphere gaff...donkey.
jonesdave
3.1 / 5 (15) Oct 30, 2018
And yes, I did state that all of astrophysics using gravity as the only significant force is completely incorrect.


And when asked to back that statement up, you couldn't and pussied out, as usual, because your beliefs are faith based only. And I made no gaff about the magnetosphere of a comet, and am still waiting for you to explain your lamebrained understanding of it. I even invited you to a forum to ask an expert, who will back up what I told you, and linked to. Again, you pussied out.
And increased photon emission will only cause visible brightening if the photons are in the visible spectrum, you arse. Seen any x-rays lately? Lol.
theredpill
2.9 / 5 (17) Oct 30, 2018
"I even invited you to a forum to ask an expert"

LMAO...an "expert" who believes what you do is no expert...as time and observation will show.

" who will back up what I told you, and linked to."

You don't tell me anything other than that what you believe is correct because it is currently the mass consensus and then you appeal to your authorities...the ones who have no answers and none of what their theories need to be considered viable by anyone who actually requires proof...instead of mass consensus.

" Again, you pussied out."
Not debating a deranged lunatic like yourself is a logical choice I should have made a long time before I did.

"And increased photon emission will only cause visible brightening if the photons are in the visible spectrum, you arse. Seen any x-rays lately? Lol."

LMAO, "Brightening" is increased photon production regardless of the spectrum you half baked potato, go back to the loonie bin and try not to sneak out again.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2018
You don't tell me anything other than that what you believe is correct because it is currently the mass consensus and then you appeal to your authorities...the ones who have no answers and none of what their theories need to be considered viable by anyone who actually requires proof...instead of mass consensus


No, sh!tforbrains, it is what was predicted from theory (Alfven, 1957), and has since been confirmed by in-situ measurement. Remember Giotto, 1986? Rosetta, 2014-2016? Evidence, dickhead, not consensus.

Not debating a deranged lunatic like yourself is a logical choice I should have made a long time before I did.


Translation; "I'm pussying out of debating with somebody who knows far more about the science than I do." Correct?

Brightening" is increased photon production


Not if you're using it to explain the ***visible*** brightening of a comet. Idiot.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (15) Oct 30, 2018
Aaaaaaand another trainwreck thread brought to you by the DM deniers.

Here's the deal: there are quite a few phenomena- that means observed facts- that show that the movements of galaxies and stars in those galaxies and of galaxy clusters doesn't match the amount of matter we can see. Why? We don't yet know. So we account for that anomalous movement by calling it "dark matter." There's no use denying it; it's observed fact. Is it actually matter? We don't know. Might it be some effect of relativity we haven't yet figured out, or might relativity be wrong? We don't know. But we know for sure *something* is there. We call it dark matter; you can call it something else if you like but a) try to be consistent in what you call it and b) don't say anything that conflicts with known physical law.

These last two requirements appear well beyond your capabilities.
theredpill
3 / 5 (16) Oct 30, 2018
Last post to asylum bulletin board for you to go apeshit over: Visibility depends on what instrument you are viewing with but no matter whom you speak to in the scientific community, increased photon production is described with one word - B-R-I-G-H-T-E-N-I-N-G.
Here are some examples for you, if any of the words are too complicated just ask the cactus to your left for clarification: "The pulsar brightened by a factor of 3 at radio and x-ray wavelengths over an 18 hour time period"...."The flare caused brightening at all wavelengths including the infrared"...

Quit trying to shoehorn "brightening" into only describing visible Phenomenon, I realize it is all you have here but trust me...it doesn't cut it.
theredpill
2.6 / 5 (15) Oct 30, 2018
"Here's the deal: there are quite a few phenomena- that means observed facts- that show that the movements of galaxies and stars in those galaxies and of galaxy clusters doesn't match the amount of matter we can see. "

Because all of the calculations are based on attractive force only....wake the eff up...we are not missing 80% of the matter, we (humanity) have made a 100% incorrect assumption that gravity is the only effective force.

" But we know for sure *something* is there."

It's called a repulsive magnetic field, all stellar sphere's have one. Coupled with the weightless nature of matter in space it is all that is required. If you think they work like "bar magnets" then maybe you can get a bed next to Jones at his place.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (13) Oct 30, 2018
@theredpill forgets that light can be both emitted and reflected, as well as diffracted.

This is the problem with making anti-physical statements on physics sites. You'll always encounter people who know better.

Because all of the calculations are based on attractive force only....wake the eff up...we are not missing 80% of the matter, we (humanity) have made a 100% incorrect assumption that gravity is the only effective force.
Because charged matter inevitably has observable effects we do not observe. And neither the color nor the weak force has the range to do what we see.

If you're going to make stuff up try to make it obey known physical law, K?
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 30, 2018
f you're going to make stuff up try to make it obey known physical law, K?

Well, the darkists are pretty good at that. At least their faerie dust follows some of the laws of physics.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2018
But hey, be fair: at least @theredpill is trying. The problem is, you can't just handwave something that violates known physics.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2018
At least their faerie dust follows some of the laws of physics.
Point out the ones dark matter (which I assume you're calling "fairy dust") violates. Or don't and we'll all assume you were lying again.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2018


Quit trying to shoehorn "brightening" into only describing visible Phenomenon, I realize it is all you have here but trust me...it doesn't cut it.


And if I remember correctly, some fruitloop was suggesting a CME or something or other to explain cometary brightenings. Which was obviously bollocks, as the brightening was in the visible spectrum, and would have come from sunlight reflecting off of dust and/ or ice. I know well enough what x-ray brightening, UV brightening etc, are. So stop trying to f*** with words over a point where you were shown to be wrong. Assuming it was you - and I can't recall talking about brightening in any other thread.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2018
It's called a repulsive magnetic field, all stellar sphere's have one. Coupled with the weightless nature of matter in space it is all that is required. If you think they work like "bar magnets" then maybe you can get a bed next to Jones at his place.


Complete woo. No such hypothesis exists. If somebody has shown how a magnetic field of 0.1 - 1.0 nT can move a star, I'm all ears. Show us the maths, woo boy.

Benni
2 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2018
But hey, be fair: at least @theredpill is trying. The problem is, you can't just handwave something that violates known physics.


Love this, dark matter is "known physics" !!!!!!

Hey, Schneibo ol' boy, if it's such well known physics why hasn't any of it been found?

You bunch of DM Enthusiasts are still chasing shadows of inferred gravity fields after spending so much time wandering around in the high weeds still looking for the FIRST particle of something to hang some inferred gravity onto.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2018
Aaaaaaaaand @Lenni_The_Liar lies again. Dark matter (at least the limited understanding you have of it) is obviously not "known physics."

Trainwreck gathers a few more passenger cars.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2018
And if I remember correctly, some fruitloop was suggesting a CME or something or other to explain cometary brightenings.

Clearly there is an increase in particle and EM energy with CME's, one should expect glow mode plasma to brighten. Only an utter moron would claim differently, enter jonesdumb.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2018
@cantthink69 is afraid to try to show what "physical laws" dark matter violates.

So, lying again.

I just got a question: if you always have to lie, do you not have the introspection to realize that no one is going to believe you?
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2018
Meanwhile, commenting on the article instead of the EUdiots, the problem here appears to be storage space. Hope we get that worked out soon. Then we can store the whole data for repeated later analysis. This appears to be the main task here since the collider can make more data than we can store.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2018
And if I remember correctly, some fruitloop was suggesting a CME or something or other to explain cometary brightenings.

Clearly there is an increase in particle and EM energy with CME's, one should expect glow mode plasma to brighten. Only an utter moron would claim differently, enter jonesdumb.


Glow mode plasma! Lol. Can you see lyman-alpha emission? Can you see x-ray? UV? Idiot. There may well be some fluorescence that occurs in visible wavelengths, but I can't be arsed looking it up. However, I do know that there will be an increase in x-ray due to charge exchange with cometary neutrals. And that, by definition, is not in visible wavelengths. Any excitation of H will be lyman-alpha and that is down in the ~ 100 nm range. Again, not visible.
And why would anyone listen to EU loons on the subject of comets? They have never been right about anything in that area.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2018
@cantthink69 is afraid to try to show what "physical laws" dark matter violates.
How about show us some "physical" DM !!!!!!!

So, lying again.

I just got a question: if you always have to lie, do you not have the introspection to realize that no one is going to believe you?


Just love what you label a "lie". In your Pop-Cosmology fantasyland, a "lie" is the demand for proof of any claims you make.

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 30, 2018
You bunch of DM Enthusiasts are still chasing shadows of inferred gravity fields after spending so much time wandering around in the high weeds still looking for the FIRST particle of something to hang some inferred gravity onto.


Explain galaxy rotation curves using anything other than DM. Go.

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 30, 2018
Just love what you label a "lie". In your Pop-Cosmology fantasyland, a "lie" is the demand for proof of any claims you make.


And anyone refuting DM should be able to point to an alternative that explains galaxy rotation curves, for instance. You can't. Due to being a scientifically illiterate pillock who has a chip on his shoulder about the grief he took at school due to being crap at maths and science. Correct?

Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2018
@cantthink69 is afraid to try to show what "physical laws" dark matter violates.
How about show us some "physical" DM !!!!!!!
Sure. Look at the Bullet Cluster.

Just love what you label a "lie". In your Pop-Cosmology fantasyland, a "lie" is the demand for proof of any claims you make.
So, you got nothin'.

Noted.
rrwillsj
1.9 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2018
Oh! Now you want physical evidence with new words to describe the results of new tech that expands our perspective of cosmic phenomena? Why didn't you say so before?

Since the very advent of the Big Bang, the decay of tau & muon neutrinos has been producing what is popularly known as Dark Matter & Dark Energy.

The tau & muon neutrinos decay into the Majoron Particle. Which is the new title for Dark Matter.

As an ongoing process, accumulating DM/Majoron explains why the there has been a steady rate of growth for Galactic Clusters. The big get bigger & eat the small.

That decay process produces the Majorarcana. Which is my mew name for the phenomena of Dark Energy.

As the decay process has been continuous for 13+ billion years, the amount of Dark Energy as Majorarcana has been cumulative. Explaining the acceleration of Universal Expansion.

And I am trademarking "Stygian Obstinacy" to replace the term "Black Hole".
"Riotous Bewilderment" to replace "Big Bang".
Old_C_Code
1.6 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2018
And? Your alternative to DM is...................? Otherwise a pointless comment, yes?


Newton was *ucking wrong at galactic scales. Simple. Instead, the geniuses come up with fairy dust to ensure the law of universal gravitation works at all scales. But we know already Newton is wrong at the quantum level. So he can't be wrong at the galactic level too?
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2018
Actually, @Old_C, we already knew TUG was wrong. It can't account for the rotation of the major axis of Mercury's orbit. Relativity can.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 30, 2018
You bunch of DM Enthusiasts are still chasing shadows of inferred gravity fields after spending so much time wandering around in the high weeds still looking for the FIRST particle of something to hang some inferred gravity onto.


Explain galaxy rotation curves using anything other than DM


Spiral Galaxies make up 1/3 the mass of the Universe, didn't know that did you?

Elliptical galaxies make up 2/3 the mass of the Universe. The orbital dynamics of all the stars in Elliptical galaxies function in letter perfect dynamics with Newtonian gravity. Didn't know that either did you? Rotation Curves are therefore not an applicable criteria to Elliptical galaxies as they are to Spiral Galaxies.

Therefore, if 2/3 the mass of the Universe is absent notable Rotation Curve criteria, it is therefore a false premise of mathematical extrapolation to infer one upon the other where no such inference is required for case of the orbital dynamics of Ellipticals.
ShotmanMaslo
4 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2018
Newton was *ucking wrong at galactic scales. Simple. Instead, the geniuses come up with fairy dust to ensure the law of universal gravitation works at all scales


Not simple at all. New massive particle is a simpler solution to the problem than modification of GR, hence why it is considered more likely by experts. However, MOND theories are indeed researched.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2018
And? Your alternative to DM is...................? Otherwise a pointless comment, yes?


Newton was *ucking wrong at galactic scales. Simple. Instead, the geniuses come up with fairy dust to ensure the law of universal gravitation works at all scales. But we know already Newton is wrong at the quantum level. So he can't be wrong at the galactic level too?


No, he was right for 2/3 the mass at "galactic scales". Look at my post for the orbital dynamics of Elliptical Galaxies just above.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2018
Only 5 percent of the universe is matter that we are currently able to perceive and measure. The remaining 95 percent is unexplored and referred to as dark matter and dark energy.
Among other things, THIS ASSUMPTION is based on the fact that galaxies rotate as though there were significantly more matter than that which we can see. Dark matter is reported to make up 27 percent of the universe, while 68 percent is dark energy—considered to be what causes the universe to constantly accelerate in its ongoing expansion.


Have they ever stopped to think that that 95% could be just EMPTY SPACE with only bits and pieces of normal Matter and gas floating in it?

Researchers have declared October 31st "Dark Matter Day," a day with many events dedicated to dark matter all over the world.


This is a sign of lunacy in the Astrophysics community - declaring this to the world WITHOUT completely substantiated and validated evidence - as stumptydumpty would put it.

Old_C_Code
3.3 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2018
The orbital dynamics of all the stars in Elliptical galaxies function in letter perfect dynamics with Newtonian gravity. Didn't know that either did you?


No I didn't. I'll shut up now.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2018
"We know that dark matter exists. Normally, it passes through our measurement instruments, but cannot be registered, but in the case of our research we hoped to see the products of particles connected to it," says Caterina Doglioni.


"but cannot be registered". So although their Dark Matter passes THROUGH their measurement instruments, it still does not register - not can it BE registered.
WHAT are these so-called "Particles" that render this Dark Matter UNSEEABLE and cannot register on their delicately calibrated instruments??
Spooky Science, ghostly Dark Matter, faerie dust inhabiting 95% of the known Universe. And THIS is supposedly SCIENCE??? Throw more funding at them for the next thousand years until the Dark Matter woo shows up in their instruments - if ever.
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2018
A circular augment again
jonesdave> anyone refuting DM should be able to point to an alternative that explains galaxy rotation curves, for instance.

When it's pointed out galactic rotation is due to binary rotation in angular rotation of gyroscopic precession
As galactic rotation is the binary rotation of two stars in precessional orbit of 250 million years
As all reason is darkmatter, as the default reason, the default argument, to prove darkmatter, has to be
The circular argumen
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2018
WHAT are these so-called "Particles" that render this Dark Matter UNSEEABLE and cannot register on their delicately calibrated instruments??
Spooky Science, ghostly Dark Matter, faerie dust inhabiting 95% of the known Universe. And THIS is supposedly SCIENCE???


It is paradoxically absurd to blanket the entire Universe for that which only 1/3 of the mass requires it's inferred effects.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2018
In short, no other arguments exists
Except the argument
To prove darkmatter
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2018
The orbital dynamics of all the stars in Elliptical galaxies function in letter perfect dynamics with Newtonian gravity.
And @Lenni_The_Liar lies again.

https://astrobite...r-halos/

We can't measure rotation curves in elliptical galaxies; therefore we don't know if they obey Newtonian dynamics or not. Says so right there:
We can't measure rotation curves for elliptical galaxies, which are not flat like spiral galaxies.


You got bit @Old_C. This was a google away. "elliptical galaxy rotation curves dark matter" is your search term.
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2018
New massive particle is a simpler solution to the problem than modification of GR, hence why it is considered more likely by experts. However, MOND theories are indeed researched.
@Maslo earns a 5 for this one. This is correct and is why it's called "dark matter."
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2018
We can't measure rotation curves in elliptical galaxies; therefore we don't know if they obey Newtonian dynamics or not.


Have you even thought about it ? That the reason is because they don't have Rotation Curves. Or maybe you just think it's Cosmic Fairy Dust getting in the way of observing them to get the data?

Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar lies again.

We can't measure rotation curves in ellipticals because it's many times harder to measure them in 3 dimensions than 2 and we don't have the equipment yet. The JWST might help when it gets launched. But it's not gonna magically do it; we have to have the data processing capacity to deal with the cube of complexity versus the square.

This is why people who don't know physics or lie about physics always get caught. Not knowing the difference between a square and a cube is silliness. Didn't they teach you math in those nuclear engineering courses you keep lying about having taken, @Lenni_The_Liar?

I'll let @Jones abuse you some more about half-life and average lifetime, which shows that you don't even know how averages work, which is far simpler than squares and cubes, which you have now demonstrated conclusively you don't understand either.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2018
Hey, hey, schneibo......read,read, read:

"Unlike spiral galaxies, elliptical galaxies are not supported by rotation. The orbits of the constituent stars are random and often very elongated, leading to a shape for the galaxy determined by the speed of the stars in each direction. Faster moving stars can travel further before they are turned back by gravity, resulting in the creation of the long axis of the elliptical galaxy in the direction these stars are moving."

http://astronomy....l+Galaxy

Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2018
And THIS is supposedly SCIENCE??? Throw more funding at them for the next thousand years until the Dark Matter woo shows up in their instruments - if ever.
This isn't even science; it's simple accounting. Just plus this much and minus that much. Rotation curves, gravitational lensing, galaxy movements in clusters, minute fluctuations in the CMB, and galaxy cluster collisions (see the Bullet Cluster I mentioned above) all show there is something other than the bright matter we see out there.

Nobody has claimed anything like what @Lenni_The_Liar says. Every time anyone tries to get @Lenni_The_Liar to look into these supposed claims it lies.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2018
Hey, hey, schneibo......read,read, read:

"Unlike spiral galaxies, elliptical galaxies are not supported by rotation. The orbits of the constituent stars are random and often very elongated, leading to a shape for the galaxy determined by the speed of the stars in each direction. Faster moving stars can travel further before they are turned back by gravity, resulting in the creation of the long axis of the elliptical galaxy in the direction these stars are moving."

http://astronomy....l+Galaxy

@Lenni_The_Liar lies again. Given sufficient data processing power (which we don't have) even such chaotic orbits can be checked against the virial theorem.

Considering you can't even figure out the difference between squares and cubes, not to mention understanding averages or half-life, you're just making stuff up about math you are incapable of understanding.

Stop lying, @Lenni_The_Liar.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar, please explain the virial theorem for us.

I'll give you an hour or so and then explain it myself.

Bring it, @Lenni_The_Liar.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2018
Nobody has claimed anything like what @Lenni_The_Liar says. Every time anyone tries to get @Lenni_The_Liar to look into these supposed claims it lies.


You mean coming from this source it is lying?

http://astronomy....l+Galaxy

"Unlike spiral galaxies, elliptical galaxies are not supported by rotation. The orbits of the constituent stars are random and often very elongated, leading to a shape for the galaxy determined by the speed of the stars in each direction. Faster moving stars can travel further before they are turned back by gravity, resulting in the creation of the long axis of the elliptical galaxy in the direction these stars are moving."

Ahhh Schneibo, you're just bitter.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar is discussing rotation curves and doesn't even understand the virial theorem.

This is like discussing astrophysics with a dog. The dog's a little unclear on the difference between "one" and "two." @Lenni isn't even that smart.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2018
48 minutes remaining to explain the virial theorem, @Lenni.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2018
anyone refuting DM should be able to point to an alternative that explains galaxy rotation curves, for instance.

Oh, you mean like Dr Scott's Birkeland current model, where prediction confirms observations. No faerie dust required. And jonesdumb, the maths isn't wrong.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2018
And jonesdumb, the maths isn't wrong.
And how precisely would you know this? If it's not wrong why isn't it in a major physics scientific journal and Scott's Nobel Prize being debated?
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2018
27 minutes to explain the virial theorem, @Lenni.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2018
@Lenni thinks little virials crawl around on teh galuxies and move teh stars to make it look like fake dark matter.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2018
It's called a repulsive magnetic field, all stellar sphere's have one. Coupled with the weightless nature of matter in space it is all that is required. If you think they work like "bar magnets" then maybe you can get a bed next to Jones at his place.

Yes redpill, they do. However, they also have an "attracting" field in the form of the opposite side (pole) of the sphere. This added in with gravity contributes more of an attraction than repulsion.
So, what do we have left, then? As Da Schneib suggests, it may be something to do with the relative nature of the Universe, as ONE possibility...
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2018
If you think we got a problem with accounting for matter vs. antimatter wait until you try to account for unbalanced electric charge.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2018
7 minutes left, @Lenni_The_Liar.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2018
So Schneibo........how far has your studying been carrying you so far on this:

http://astronomy....l+Galaxy

"Unlike spiral galaxies, elliptical galaxies are not supported by rotation. The orbits of the constituent stars are random and often very elongated, leading to a shape for the galaxy determined by the speed of the stars in each direction. Faster moving stars can travel further before they are turned back by gravity, resulting in the creation of the long axis of the elliptical galaxy in the direction these stars are moving."

Tough reading huh? Some real science tripping you up, making you mad, and launching you into another name calling rant.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2018
Time's up!

I'm going to defer to John Baez, a mathematical physicist from UC Riverside, well known for his work on spin foams in LQG as well as his Crackpot Index.

Here Baez shows good evidence that the virial theorem applies not only to individual particles within a spherical extent but for all the particles in that extent: http://math.ucr.e...ial.html

Note that the fact that the virial theorem applies to a spherical volume means it applies to elliptical galaxies as well as spirals.

@Lenni_The_Liar lies again.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2018
Note that the original discovery of dark matter was by Fritz Zwicky, who called it "dunkel materie" (German, literally "dark matter"). He used the virial theorem on galaxy clusters and found dark matter. As Baez notes, it's shown dark matter at every scale from galaxies to filaments.

It should also be noted that this theorem also applies in thermodynamics and gas dynamics, and is widely used for engineering.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar thinks if it repeats the lie enough it might work.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2018
Note that the fact that the virial theorem applies to a spherical volume means it applies to elliptical galaxies as well as spiral


It is frequently noted that virial theorems are powerful but dangerous theorems; dangerous in the sense that that they may easily be misapplied. Their misapplication then involves stating in untrue propositions as being true as a result of a virial theorem. In this case it is the result of overlapping galactic parameters that creates a mirage of more gravity than actually exists.

Nice try schneibo, your computer science experience is not suitable for explaining the Universe of Real Physics. Capiche? No, as usual probably you don't.
howhot3
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2018
Note that the fact that the virial theorem applies to a spherical volume means it applies to elliptical galaxies as well as spiral


It is frequently noted that virial theorems are powerful but dangerous theorems; dangerous in the sense that that they may easily be misapplied. Their misapplication then involves stating in untrue propositions as being true as a result of a virial theorem. In this case it is the result of overlapping galactic parameters that creates a mirage of more gravity than actually exists.

Nice try schneibo, your computer science experience is not suitable for explaining the Universe of Real Physics. Capiche? No, as usual probably you don't.


And this was said by a climate change denier??? I think @schnebo deserves a moment to respond.

howhot3
2 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2018
Here's the problem that I see with dark matter. First, it implies that there is a particle that does not interact with anything else except by gravity. The first observation about Dark Matter should be that it has spin zero. Because it has spin zero it implies that dark matter is a Boson! As a Boson, its wave nature will be to occupy and attractively collapse into a boson star! If such a boson star exist, where are the Z Boson black holes?

So the question we are left with is if dark matter does not exist, what is driving the universal expansion?
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2018
If it's not wrong why isn't it in a major physics scientific journal and Scott's Nobel Prize being debated?

It's not in a "major astrophysics journal" because the plasma ignoramuses that run them don't get it. And they are not interested in publishing paradigm changing research, the status quo is what they prefer. And stop before claiming "conspiracy!", it's the nature of social groups to resist change.
Whydening Gyre
3.6 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2018
If it's not wrong why isn't it in a major physics scientific journal and Scott's Nobel Prize being debated?

It's not in a "major astrophysics journal" because the plasma ignoramuses that run them don't get it. And they are not interested in publishing paradigm changing research, the status quo is what they prefer. And stop before claiming "conspiracy!", it's the nature of social groups to resist change.

Depends on how much convenience it provides to the group presented with that change...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2018
If it's not wrong why isn't it in a major physics scientific journal and Scott's Nobel Prize being debated?

It's not in a "major astrophysics journal" because the plasma ignoramuses that run them don't get it. And they are not interested in publishing paradigm changing research, the status quo is what they prefer. And stop before claiming "conspiracy!", it's the nature of social groups to resist change.
says CD85

I quite agree. And it is practically the same as J. Marvin Herndon's theory that the 3 steps are required that include ignition of Hydrogen gas for the process of Fusion to begin by first initializing the Fission process in a fissile material in Star-making. And that the heat from the collapse/compression/density in the disk material is not enough to heat Hydrogen gas to begin the chain reaction that will end in Fusion.

None of these scientists want to take a chance and, like mainstream media, they copy off and keep tabs on each other.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2018
-contd-
But, unlike mainstream media in the US, nothing radical is allowed in the scientific method, else it will be deemed suspect and frowned upon, where the upstarts dare to be different - like Herndon and Birkeland.
So they try to beat these radical scientists down by denying them a way to prove their theory, and calling it a "conspiracy theory" - which is downright ridiculous. But that is how the system works in science. That's what "peer-review" comes down to for most new science.
Cptn_Fantastic
2 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2018
The elusive DM will be found within the dreams and imaginings of the unscientific.
Both DM and DE are pure conjecture- perhaps if they collide faith with belief DM will materialize?
Plasma Cosmology is the new Cosmology. The Queen is dead! Long live the Queen!
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2018
It is frequently noted that virial theorems are powerful but dangerous theorems; dangerous in the sense that that they may easily be misapplied. Their misapplication then involves stating in untrue propositions as being true as a result of a virial theorem.
Plagiarized. A simple google search will verify it.

Does the dishonesty never end?
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2018
Here's the problem that I see with dark matter. First, it implies that there is a particle that does not interact with anything else except by gravity.
So far so good.

The first observation about Dark Matter should be that it has spin zero.
Why? Until we find some we don't know that. It still might not even be matter; it might be a defect in relativity.

So the question we are left with is if dark matter does not exist, what is driving the universal expansion?
You've confused dark matter and dark energy. No one is proposing that DE is particles. In fact, most people think it's the L in LCDM, which is a term in the Einstein Field Equations.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2018
Coming back to @Lenni_The_Liar again, have any evidence to show that the virial theorem has been misused in galaxy rotation curves, galactic cluster dynamics, the Bullet Cluster analysis, or gravitational lensing studies?

Just a hint: the virial theorem is not used in at least one of these. Can you tell us which?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2018
If it's not wrong why isn't it in a major physics scientific journal and Scott's Nobel Prize being debated?

It's not in a "major astrophysics journal" because the plasma ignoramuses that run them don't get it. And they are not interested in publishing paradigm changing research, the status quo is what they prefer. And stop before claiming "conspiracy!", it's the nature of social groups to resist change.
No, it's because Scott can't do the math. Has nothing to do with your conspiracy theory.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2018
-contd-
But, unlike mainstream media in the US, nothing radical is allowed in the scientific method, else it will be deemed suspect and frowned upon, where the upstarts dare to be different - like Herndon and Birkeland.
So they try to beat these radical scientists down by denying them a way to prove their theory, and calling it a "conspiracy theory" - which is downright ridiculous. But that is how the system works in science. That's what "peer-review" comes down to for most new science.
Then do the math and get it published.

Birkeland's theory was eventually accepted after proof emerged collected by satellite (which was not possible in 1908).

Herndon is a chemtrails conspiracy theorist with multiple retracted papers due to scientific flaws that were not discovered in peer review.

Next?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2018
Depends on how much convenience it provides to the group presented with that change...
Actually not so much if you can do the math and provide the evidence. Lots of journals would like to be the journal of record where truly groundbreaking science gets published. It not only gets them more readers; it gets them more papers.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2018
And in case anyone thinks I'm just making the plagiarism charge against @Lenni_The_Liar up, here's the source:

http://www.sjsu.e...alth.htm

It is sometimes noted that virial theorems are powerful but dangerous theorem; dangerous in the sense that that they may easily be misapplied. Their misapplication then involves stating in untrue propositions as being true as a result of a virial theorem.
Whydening Gyre
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2018
Depends on how much convenience it provides to the group presented with that change...
Actually not so much if you can do the math and provide the evidence. Lots of journals would like to be the journal of record where truly groundbreaking science gets published. It not only gets them more readers; it gets them more papers.

I was speaking more in terms of general population vs special groups.
Look at the Internet and the smartphone...
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2018
Fortunately they don't get to vote on facts. We've seen how that comes out.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2018
No, it's because Scott can't do the math. Has nothing to do with your conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy!
Scott did the math, using concepts similar to what Birkeland's proposals are based. Scott produced a model of Birkeland's currents, and maths agrees with the model, and the model agrees with observation. Clearly it is you fools who can't do the maths;
http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF
http://www.ptep-o...3-01.PDF
No faerie dust required...
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2018
What math?

Post it or you're lying again.

Right here. Right now. If the math had passed peer review it would be published. It's not. We done here? Or are you gonna post something that we can actually review for ourselves?

Sorry, not opening your PDFs, don't want any viruses thanks.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2018
So basically @cantthink69 has a couple PDFs it wants everyone to click on.

Got it. I don't recommend it. You might use a proxy if you are sure PDFs can't be used to transmit viruses.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2018
Sir Isaac Newton

Gravitational force in precessional orbital
In collective union
In elliptical and spiralling galaxies
Darkmatter in galactic starry precessional orbital
In rotational galaxies as these are only
Wondrous spiral galaxies
So darkmatter
By definition
Only exits
In spiral galaxies
Because of their rotational curves
Only exists
In spiral galaxies
[Bennni> elliptical galaxies are not supported by rotation The orbits of constituent stars are random and elongated, leading a shape for galaxy determined by speed of the stars in each direction]
As darkmatter so to only exist
As spiral galaxies only account
1/3 of all galaxies in the vacuum
As elliptical galaxies
Account for far greater
Number of galaxies in the vacuum
Which by their random orbits
Do not posses rotational curves
And so by definition
By angularity of curve
Do not posses darkmatter
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2018
Mathematica in the inky vacuum of darkmatter
As darkmatter in the vacuum
Posses over 80% the vacuum
A quandary do we posses
For as galactic curves
Only exist in 30%
Of all galaxies in the vacuum
Where even more contradictabley
With 20% matter
With remaining 80% darkmatter
And 30% of galaxies containing darkmatter
With remaining 70% containing matter
[jonesdave> Explain galaxy rotation curves using anything other than DM. Go]
In differential calculus in the inky vacuum
In exponential differential calculus in the inky vacuum
In relativistic exponential differential calculus in the inky vacuum
We need to go back to school
How many need to go back to school
Of mathematical integrity of calculation
In orbital of gravitational curve
In relativistic exponential differential calculus in the inky vacuum
Are darkmatter ducks
so precisely aligned
As to get
All are ducks in a row
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2018
In Constant Angular Velocity

Galactic stars in spiralling orbital precession
Irrespective of mass and radii of size
Their orbital rotation period
All way remains the same
Of 250million years
Due to the magical properties
Of gyroscopic orbital precessional motion
By gravitational force of Sir Isaac Newton
As the wobble of stars in their precession
As centrifugal spin in equatorial density
Provides the leverage required
To exert a force on planetary precessional orbital spin
Whereas everyone who knows their gyroscopes
React perpendicularly to that force in precessional spin
Counteracting that force
Newton's third in equal and opposite reaction
In angular precessional orbit
In constant angular velocity
Irrespective of mass
Irrespective of radii
Which is why spiral galaxies
In their starry precessional orbital
Always rotate spiral galaxies in 250million years
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2018
No, it's because Scott can't do the math. Has nothing to do with your conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy!
Scott did the math, using concepts similar to what Birkeland's proposals are based. Scott produced a model of Birkeland's currents, and maths agrees with the model, and the model agrees with observation. Clearly it is you fools who can't do the maths;
http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF
No faerie dust required...


Nope, he fuxxed up the maths, as shown. Post those links on a physics forum, and they will tell you the same thing. It is error ridden crap in a crank journal. And nowhere does the idiot explain how his evidence-free mechanism is moving stars around. He is an idiot.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2018
The Argument to Prove Darkmatter

As this darkmatter conundrum
Lingers to its finality of conclusion
Of whatever resolution
Is possible in the inky vacuum
The obvious reasons apparently explaining darkmatter
Where those reasons are nothing to do with darkmatter
In short, no other arguments exists
Except the argument
To prove darkmatter
jonesdave
3.1 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2018
So basically @cantthink69 has a couple PDFs it wants everyone to click on.

Got it. I don't recommend it. You might use a proxy if you are sure PDFs can't be used to transmit viruses.


The PDFs are safe enough, I think. They just happen to be highly flawed nonsense published in the crank journal 'Progress in Physics'.
Scott screws up the maths horribly, as is shown here;

https://www.chris.../page-12

A bit of a strange forum to have the discussion on, but the crank who was touting this nonsense, Michael Mozina, chose to post there, as he is banned from pretty much everywhere else. And, I believe, also from that forum now! He thinks the Sun is a hollow iron ball with a neutron star at its centre, or some such nonsense, and is an EU apologist. Yet another nutjob.
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2018
At the altar of darkmatter

When science takes this fateful step
Stepping the road of no other argument
Except to prove darkmatter
As science steps hesitantly down this singulaterive of argument in darkmatter
As thought blinkered in science
That no science exist
Except the science
That proves darkmatter
Irrespective of any remnants of traditional scientific investigative endeavour
Blinkered by the holy grail of darkmatter
At the altar of darkmatter
The scientific priests
Doth bow beforeth this darkmatter alter
And so in their increasing numbers
Go forth into the multitudes
So to preach to their flock
The message handed down
From the alter of darkmatter
There exists only one god
As that god is darkmatter
So'eth say'eth the Lord
The Lord of darkmatter
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2018
jonesdumb reposts a thread where it has already been explained his hack buddy is dead wrong. He just parrots the nonsense over and over hoping the rest of y'all are as stupid and ignorant as he.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2018
jonesdumb reposts a thread where it has already been explained his hack buddy is dead wrong. He just parrots the nonsense over and over hoping the rest of y'all are as stupid and ignorant as he.


No he is not wrong, and nor has that been shown. Post those links on a physics forum, and get an independent view. We know you won't, as you know as well as I do that Scott is a moron, and screwed up the maths.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2018
Where did your hack buddy publish his findings? Nowhere? That's what I thought. What is opinion worth? It ain't worth sh!t....
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2018
Where did your hack buddy publish his findings? Nowhere? That's what I thought. What is opinion worth? It ain't worth sh!t....


And where was the paper published? In a crank journal, and therefore isn't worth sh!t. Correct? Scott is a moron, get over it. Got the balls to post the links to his trash on a physics forum? Thought not. You know as well as I do that he f****ed up! Non-event retired EE, with long list of idiotic beliefs, solves the need for DM! Lol.
hat1208
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2018
The PDFs are safe enough, I think.

I would not be too sure of that. I have had my own experience of clicking on one of its links and the next day I got an email with my phys.org login and password threatening me with disclosure of pictures that did not exist if I didn't send it bit coin. I would advise anyone not to click on any of @cantthink or @lenni_the_liar links. This PSA is over. Thank you for your support.
Ryan1981
2 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2018
I don't like Dark Matter. I hope this guy is right:

https://en.wikipe..._gravity
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2018
I don't like Dark Matter. I hope this guy is right:

https://en.wikipe..._gravity


I very much doubt it, based on the criticisms in the article. And the recent work detailed here;

https://phys.org/...ity.html
Joe1963
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2018
@ Da Schneib: It has been a while. I request that you re-consider based on new developments. I have set aside my honeycomb bubble idea, which was lame to begin with. I now believe that the deformation rings around super-clusters like Abell 2218 are caused by repulsive gravity, while lensing from standard normal gravity occurs in small areas within the super cluster. Also, I believe that General Relativity needs to be adjusted wherein we keep time dilation, but ditch the idea of curved space. I explain how and why in the comments below my article. Big news: there is now a reputable Astrophysicist that puts forward a model strikingly similar to my own, though his theory as to the cause of reverse gravity is very different. This is Dr. Jamie Farnes, at Oxford.
Joe1963
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2018
I posit this hypothesis that does away with both dark matter and also dark energy. I posit that at a distance of approximately 1.5 million light-years gravity becomes slightly repulsive, gradually increasing with distance to achieve a peak repulsion, and then decreasing with distance to zero.

Thus, cosmological expansion is caused by galaxies pushing against each other, and galactic rotation can be explained by the fact that each galaxy is surrounded by a "womb" of dust, gas, and other galaxies, and this "womb" pushes with repulsive gravity upon the outer stars of a galaxy to keep them in orbit at a higher speed than expected.

I give a cosmological / mathematical justification for this behavior in my Reddit article:

https://www.reddi...tter_is/

At the bottom, in the responses, I explain how General Relativity can be adjusted so as to retain time dilation while rejecting curved space and retaining flat, 3D, Euclidean space.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2018
I posit that at a distance of approximately 1.5 million light-years gravity becomes slightly repulsive


1.5 m lyrs from where?

while rejecting curved space


How are you explaining gravitational lensing?

Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2018
@Jones, first of all thanks for the link on entropic gravity. I wasn't watching when that article was posted.

@Ryan, the course for entropic gravity seems extremely difficult at this time. It's not quite dead, but some of the better gravity physicists around seem pretty skeptical. It's a good idea but it seems to be hanging up on a number of pretty hard problems, one of which being that one of its assumptions, that any surface including irregular ones shows entropy, has been seriously challenged. I'm now doubtful where I was somewhat more enthusiastic earlier. However, it also seems to be leading to quite a bit of research that will be valuable whether entropic gravity proves out or not. So I'm certainly not critical of Verlinde for proposing it.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2018
@Joe, yes, it has been a long time. Last March or so. I didn't immediately recall our conversation, but when we closed (I guess I stopped paying attention, no insult meant) we had discussed the apparent lensing effects in the Bullet Cluster, and how they appeared along the line of motion but not orthogonally to it. You had questioned the methods for finding lensing, and I had given you some insight into those methods. It still seems to me, having reviewed that conversation, that the original objection stands. Certainly I've seen nothing to challenge the methods for finding lensing in deep sky images.

I think you should take this conversation to a more rigorous physics forum, if possible one that has gravity physicists on it; but be prepared for it to be rejected on grounds I'm not competent to assert. I know my way around, but I'm certainly no gravity physicist.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2018
I think you should take this conversation to a more rigorous physics forum.....


https://forum.cos...instream

It will get a fair bit of scientific rigour applied to it there!
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2018
Probably a good suggestion, @Jones. ATM is the right forum for it there.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2018
Probably a good suggestion, @Jones. ATM is the right forum for it there.


Indeed. And for those that just need clarification on some points, and don't want to go gung-ho into non-mainstream hypotheses, they also have a decent Q & A section;

https://forum.cos...-Answers
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2018
That last tenuous shred of trust has gone in infected links
And so has supporting evidence gone down the sordid path of infected links
hat1208> The PDFs are safe enough, I think.
I would not be too sure of that. I have had my own experience of clicking on one of its links and the next day I got an email with my phys.org login and password threatening me with disclosure of pictures that did not exist if I didn't send it bit coin. I would advise anyone not to click on any of @cantthink or @lenni_the_liar links. This PSA is over. Thank you for your support.

Thanks hat1208, for informing one and all, to not click on a pdf and supporting links!
One only has to right click, copy link, and let Google search for the correct link.
You have certainly done every one a favour, if not an inconvenience!
barakn
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2018
A bit of a strange forum to have the discussion on, but the crank who was touting this nonsense, Michael Mozina, chose to post there, as he is banned from pretty much everywhere else. And, I believe, also from that forum now! He thinks the Sun is a hollow iron ball with a neutron star at its centre, or some such nonsense, and is an EU apologist. Yet another nutjob.

Ran into Michael Mozina on the old physforum.com. He was under the impression running difference images from the TRACE or SOHO probes showed physical structures, literally "mountains and valleys and flat plains" on the Sun, and was impossible to debate because he'd just repeat himself. Definitely a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2018
It is good that LHC trigger handling improves. Though now the latest measurement of electron spherical symmetry exclude most of the natural WIMP region as DM candidate. The next really interesting region could be gravitationally interacting only particle at unachievable GUT energy scales.

So the basics, for the DM denialists:

- DM is robustly observed by many independent and agreeing means, from universe scale/early times in the cosmic background radiation over large scales/intermediate times in acoustic baryonic oscillations to small scales/recent times in lensing.

- LCDM cosmology has been *better* at predicting everything from universal scales down to galaxies since 2015. The current area which gives problems is rather star formation, see Science review: http://www.scienc...s-cosmic .

[tbctd]
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2018
A bit of a strange forum to have the discussion on, but the crank who was touting this nonsense, Michael Mozina, chose to post there, as he is banned from pretty much everywhere else. And, I believe, also from that forum now! He thinks the Sun is a hollow iron ball with a neutron star at its centre, or some such nonsense, and is an EU apologist. Yet another nutjob.

Ran into Michael Mozina on the old physforum.com. He was under the impression running difference images from the TRACE or SOHO probes showed physical structures, literally "mountains and valleys and flat plains" on the Sun, and was impossible to debate because he'd just repeat himself. Definitely a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect.


Oh yes, the running difference image fiasco! That also played out in a rather long thread on International Skeptics Forum. It was bloody hilarious!
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2018
[ctd] - LCDM cosmology is rather GR, hence lensing et cetera. And contenders to GR mostly died after the observation of the neutron star collision early this year, only GR implies the same speed for light and gravity.
If you want to comment on DM, at least read up on the state of the art.

****
if I remove the mistaken claims (weak interaction et cetera allowed as long as "dark" weak) and the confusion between dark matter and dark energy in LCDM cosmology, here is the sole relevant question from the thread:

Here's the problem that I see with dark matter. ... As a Boson, its wave nature will be to occupy and attractively collapse into a boson star! If such a boson star exist, where are the Z Boson black holes?


You would not expect that to happen quickly if only gravity is at work. Oddly a paper just looked at it, and due to normal matter cooling there is a possibility, hard to see though: https://journals....1.151301
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2018
DM is robustly observed by many independent and agreeing means,


Robustly "observed" ? Then you have pics? That's what you need for "observed". Oh, no pics?

Well, maybe you at least have a SPECTROSCOPY ? Just remember non-science guy, that math model simulations are neither PICTURES or SPECTROSCOPY, Capiche? No, probably you don't, and neither do you know the difference between pictures & simulated models that are frequently posted here as pictures that are nothing of the sort.

OK, your next Pop-Cosmology fantasy?
691Boat
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2018
DM is robustly observed by many independent and agreeing means,


Robustly "observed" ? Then you have pics? That's what you need for "observed". Oh, no pics?


I observed my cat's turd in the litter box last night, but alas no picture. I guess it wasn't real? I could swear I smelt it, and I could feel the weight of it in the pooper scooper. weird.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2018
Robustly "observed" ? Then you have pics?
Yep.

https://svs.gsfc....ov/30094

Next?
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2018
Here's another one:

https://www.nasa....163.html
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2018
Schneibo needs lessons in photography, as well as lessons so he can graduate from 19th Century Black Hole Math to the 21st Century. I just keep trying to picture just how old you really are?
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2018
Schneibo needs lessons in photography, as well as lessons so he can graduate from 19th Century Black Hole Math to the 21st Century. I just keep trying to picture just how old you really are?


Hey sh!tforbrains, why don't you show us this 21st century maths that disproves Kepler and Newton. Who is saying this, and where are they saying it, gobsh!te? If it is only an idiot like you saying it, we can safely ignore it, given your proven scientific illiteracy.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist brings politics and 15th century preliterate physics to a science fight.

Knife to a gunfight. Just sayin'.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
DM is robustly observed by many independent and agreeing means,


Robustly "observed" ? Then you have pics? That's what you need for "observed". Oh, no pics?


I observed my cat's turd in the litter box last night, but alas no picture. I guess it wasn't real? I could swear I smelt it, and I could feel the weight of it in the pooper scooper. weird.

says boatman

Really? You like to take pictures of your cat's poop? Now that IS weird.
Are you sure that it wasn't YOUR poop in the cat's litter box that you 'smelt' and then felt the weight of it? And it seems that you have brought some of it into this forum to toss around.
ROFLOL
Ojorf
3 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
DM is robustly observed by many independent and agreeing means,


Robustly "observed" ? Then you have pics? That's what you need for "observed". Oh, no pics?


I observed my cat's turd in the litter box last night, but alas no picture. I guess it wasn't real? I could swear I smelt it, and I could feel the weight of it in the pooper scooper. weird.

says boatman

Really? You like to take pictures of your cat's poop? Now that IS weird.
Are you sure that it wasn't YOUR poop in the cat's litter box that you 'smelt' and then felt the weight of it? And it seems that you have brought some of it into this forum to toss around.
ROFLOL


Jesus, you must be the thickest poster on this site.
Whenever you comment on something, your comment has hardly anything to do with what you comment on.
How you manage to misunderstanding literally everything, never mind science, and still be alive is admirable.
Ojorf
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
Says the coward Benni:
Schneibo needs lessons in photography, as well as lessons so he can graduate from 19th Century Black Hole Math to the 21st Century. I just keep trying to picture just how old you really are?


Hey thicko, how about getting up to date with 100 year old physics?
If only you understood just the barest basics of Relativity you would not make such stupid comments.

Start a thread on BHs and DM in the forum, I dare you.

Come on, once again prove to the Phys.org community what a coward you are and run away.

Run Benni, run...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
DM is robustly unobserved

Robustly "observed" ? Then you have pics? That's what you need.


I observed my cat's turd in the litter box last night, but alas no picture. I guess it wasn't real? I could swear I smelt it, and I could feel the weight of it in the pooper scooper. weird.

says boatman

Really? You like to take pictures of your cat's poop? Now that IS weird.
Are you sure that it wasn't YOUR poop in the cat's litter box that you 'smelt' and then felt the weight of it? And it seems that you have brought some of it into this forum to toss around.
ROFLOL


Jesus, you must be the thickest poster on this site.
Whenever you comment on something, your comment has hardly anything to do with what you comment on.
How you manage to misunderstanding literally everything, never mind science, and still be alive is admirable.
Ojorf

And your point is...? Or are you just jumping into his sh!t, like you usually do.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
Says the coward Benni:
Schneibo needs lessons in photography, as well as lessons so he can graduate from 19th Century Black Hole Math to the 21st Century. I just keep trying to picture just how old you really are?


Hey thicko, how about getting up to date with 100 year old physics?
If only you understood just the barest basics of Relativity you would not make such stupid comments.
Start a thread on BHs and DM in the forum, I dare you.
Come on, once again prove to the Phys.org community what a coward you are and run away.
Run Benni, run...
says ojorf

Why do you ALWAYS seem to feel the need to stick your nose into other people's conversations that you were not a part of in the first place, huh?
That was Benni talking to DaJerko - not to you. Are you lonely? Don't you have a boyfriend or a blowup girlie doll like Schniebo has? You should try to learn to MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS for once. Nobody likes a nosy-body idiot yenta like you, who imitates jones' thicko.
Bart_A
2 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2018
A note to the moderators---please ban the above commentators who just continue to throw insult after insult at each other, with nothing to do about the article at hand. This forum has got to become more respected.
theredpill
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
" This forum has got to become more respected."

Not possible. There are a bunch of wanna be mainstream physicists here who claim they "know physics" or "know physicists" and that physics is a united front. That's the first clue they really don't talk to physicists, sit in a room with 10 and bring up LIGO or dark matter and watch...or just read:

https://arstechni...l-waves/

As long as hostile idiots are here mindlessly defending dogma the rest of us will have to continue to respond in kind. The basic (and I mean REALLY basic) mindset from these clowns is "you are not allowed to believe what you do because what I believe is believed the most and is therefore correct". They think math IS physics. Not a single one of them understands that the only way to prove the math is physical verification, not "inferred" physical verification where if the math works out the theory does.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
"you are not allowed to believe what you do because what I believe is believed the most and is therefore correct".


You believe Earth used to orbit Saturn, loony tunes! And every single time you are asked to explain your beliefs, you pussy out, because you do not understand the science. The best you can do is something like "EM is more important than scientists admit". So, when you are asked to explain a galaxy rotation curve using the observed magnetic field strengths, you disappear. You are a scientifically illiterate troll.

theredpill
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
"You believe Earth used to orbit Saturn, loony tunes!"
Nope, but you do have to make shit up constantly,as psychos often do.
" And every single time you are asked to explain your beliefs, you pussy out, because you do not understand the science."
Weightless bodies with external magnetic fields...simplest concept on earth for anyone but a deranged psycho apparently.
" The best you can do is something like "EM is more important than scientists admit". So, when you are asked to explain a galaxy rotation curve using the observed magnetic field strengths, you disappear. "
No, I simply do not do the math, but understanding a physical concept does not require it. You have demonstrated you have understanding no of physical concepts whatsoever so unless someone whom you dream about blowing under his desk said it, you deny it is possible.
"You are a scientifically illiterate troll."
All the evidence here from your posts makes this ironic beyond belief, loser.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2018
No, I simply do not do the math, but understanding a physical concept does not require it. You have demonstrated you have understanding no of physical concepts whatsoever so unless someone whom you dream about blowing under his desk said it, you deny it is possible.


Then do the maths, you blowhard, which will show unequivocally that your musings are pure BS. Idiot. You believe crap for which there is no evidence, and is easily disproved. That is called faith, woo boy.

http://www.intern...count=54

Now, where are you getting the required increase of 22 orders of magnitude, loony tunes? You aren't, ergo you are talking EU dogma, and that is not science. Just faith.

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2018
but understanding a physical concept does not require it.


Yes it bloody does. If you can't do maths you cannot understand, let alone perform, physics.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2018
All the evidence here from your posts makes this ironic beyond belief, loser.


Go ahead woo boy. Point out where I am wrong in anything I've said to you. Feel free. Perhaps you'd like to take it to a physics forum? Nope - time to pussy out again, yes?
theredpill
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
"Yes it bloody does. If you can't do maths you cannot understand, let alone perform, physics"

This is why you are stupid, and clearly do not have the "physics" experience you claim to. As a matter of fact, this demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt you are a wanna be basement dweller who likely flunked out first year if he made it into a program at all. Either that or you are too old to be commenting on physics in this era. You are a useless human being Jones...
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2018
This is why you are stupid, and clearly do not have the "physics" experience you claim to.


How so, thicko? Show me how you do physics without a mathematical description. You are plainly a moron, with no scientific knowledge of any subject, and have been conned into believing a bunch of neo-Velikovskian crap propagated by equally stupid loons. It helps you deal with the inadequacy you feel at being scientifically illiterate. Correct?
theredpill
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
"Correct?"

1 out of 20 things you say is close to correct...and based on "you"...that is pure luck.

Mathematics - the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics ), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics ).
vs.
Physics - the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics, distinguished from that of chemistry and biology, includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms.

"Show me how you do physics without a mathematical description. "

Experiment - a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact.

Doing physics and describing a physical relationship via math are not even close to the same thing...but a psychotic dinosaur from a fading era won't understand this...you.

jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2018
1 out of 20 things you say is close to correct...and based on "you"...that is pure luck.


Again you pussy out, you blowhard. I said show me what I got wrong. Can't do it can you? In which case, STFU.

Doing physics and describing a physical relationship via math are not even close to the same thing...but a psychotic dinosaur from a fading era won't understand this...you.


Really sh!tforbrains? So, show me any physicist, experimental or otherwise, who isn't using maths to describe their physics. You can include Alfven in that list. Go.

theredpill
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
A five year old pushing around steel balls with a magnet is closer to "doing physics" than any person who describes the interaction via a math equation.. that is doing math, not physics. And how do we know the math is correct, by testing it physically to confirm what was stated mathematically is correct....without the physical test, you are not "doing physics" you are doing math. DM is a perfect example of an answer provided by an equation, but with no physical test of the math it amounts to nothing more than a theory given life by the fact that a math equation produced it...reality hasn't . BH's...same story. Physicists, real ones, know this...wanna be's like you can't differentiate.

I'll restate simply for the thick - Math isn't physics, physics is what either verifies or nullifies the math... if you cannot verify the math physically, you cannot claim the math is describing actual physics. Saying the math is verified by other math also doesn't count ...
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2018
^^^^^So when a cretin like you suggests p!ss weak magnetic fields affect galaxy rotation curves, you are simply making it up, yes? You have no experiment, and the maths trivially shows you to be wrong. Correct? How about showing us this physics that doesn't require maths? Time to pussy out again, yes?

In fact, let me go one step further - have you got anything other than word salad to contribute? And that goes for the whole of your ridiculous cult.
theredpill
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2018
"^^^^^So when a cretin like you suggests p!ss weak magnetic fields affect galaxy rotation curves, you are simply making it up, yes?"

No, I am proposing a physics based solution to a problem you and your dark bunch cannot fathom...that's all. I realize the complexities of combining weightless objects with external magnetic fields can melt the only braincell of a dimwitted shmuck like you, along with the concept of a galactic magnetic field you must feel like a baby turtle trying to play chess.

"have you got anything other than word salad to contribute?"

LOL...right back at ya darkboy...just because your salad has numbers as an ingredient doesn't make it any more than a salad. But what my salad contains is verifiable physics....want some for yours?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2018
But what my salad contains is verifiable physics....want some for yours?


No it doesn't. EM cannot affect anything at the scales we are talking about. This is easily shown. So, where is your proof? Like I said, you are scientifically illiterate, and are just making sh!t up. What is the galactic field strength? What is the charge on a star? Get to it woo boy. Where is your 'hypothesis'? Lol. More word salad incoming.....................
Ojorf
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
Why do you ALWAYS seem to feel the need to stick your nose into other people's conversations that you were not a part of in the first place, huh?
That was Benni talking to DaJerko - not to you. Are you lonely? Don't you have a boyfriend or a blowup girlie doll like Schniebo has? You should try to learn to MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS for once. Nobody likes a nosy-body idiot yenta like you, who imitates jones' thicko.


Because this is a science site you illiterate moron.
If posts are anti-science or just plain BS they should be called out.
You can't tell the difference between science and bullshit so you obviously don't care, but others can and do care.

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.