Astronomers find that dark matter dominates across cosmic time

December 12, 2018 by Rebecca Johnson, University of Texas at Austin
This composite image of the dusty star-forming galaxy DSFG850.95 shows young stars, seen in blue from Hubble Space Telescope, and dust, seen in red by the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array. Credit: Patrick Drew (UT Austin)/STScI/ALMA

In findings published today in The Astrophysical Journal, University of Texas at Austin astronomers report that they have stumbled on an extraordinary galaxy that may corroborate a recently contested theory about dark matter.

Dark matter is matter that does not give off any light, but is detectable by its gravitational pull on other matter. It was first discovered in the 1970s in studies of spiral galaxies, whose outer regions rotated too fast only to be driven by the visible stars and gas in those regions. Astronomers reasoned there must be more mass that is unseen. Decades of galaxy observations have shown that almost all galaxies contain huge quantities of this "dark matter," and that, in fact, there is about five times as much dark matter as there is normal, visible matter in the universe.

However, a few recent studies have indicated that some galaxies don't follow the same pattern as the "dark matter-rich" galaxies found since the 1970s. These studies showed a handful of galaxies seen around 10 billion years ago do not contain the expected quantity of dark matter. This could mean that galaxies at that time didn't have much dark matter but gained it later, at some point in the past 10 billion years. If that's the case, it would challenge our fundamental understanding of how galaxies form.

Now UT Austin graduate student Patrick Drew and his advisor, professor Caitlin Casey, have found a very distant galaxy that appears rich with dark matter, exactly as expected from long-held theory. Because this galaxy is 9 billion light-years away, it tells us that some galaxies do already contain quite a bit of dark matter in the distant past. The serendipitous finding appears to contradict the other controversial findings of galaxies with little dark matter content.

Drew's team studied this galaxy while they were using the Keck Telescope in Hawaii for a survey of the most extreme star-forming galaxies in the universe, the so-called "dusty star-forming galaxies." They were not intending to study dark matter at all—rather, they sought to understand why these galaxies produce so many stars so rapidly.

But one of their galaxies surprised them, and sent their work off into a new direction.

Because of the random angle at which the galaxy DSFG850.95 was studied with the telescope, the data provided an extremely detailed record of the speed of the galaxy's rotation from the center of the galaxy all way out to its far reaches. Called a "rotation curve," this measurement is just what astronomers use to determine the amount of dark matter in a galaxy.

They showed this data to Susan Kassin, a colleague at the Space Telescope Science Institute. Kassin, an expert on such measurements of rotation curves, immediately recognized that they had found something extraordinary: This galaxy, seen 9 billion years ago, contains all the expected dark matter that theory predicts.

This is in contrast to a 2017 study in Nature that claimed that galaxies at this cosmic epoch, 10 billion years ago, "might not have as much dark , and that they're fundamentally different to galaxies in the present-day universe," Casey said. "The galaxy we found is a clear counter-example of that, where it seems to have behaving in the normal way, as it does in the present-day universe."

The bottom line, Drew says is "this galaxy does what's expected of galaxies like it and it is the first solid confirmation that what happens in these in the current-day universe is the same as what happened in the early ."

Drew plans to follow up this study with further studies of the galaxy in his ongoing project with ALMA.

Explore further: Four newly discovered Milky Way neighbors

More information: Patrick M. Drew et al. Evidence of a Flat Outer Rotation Curve in a Star-bursting Disk Galaxy at z = 1.6, The Astrophysical Journal (2018). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaedbf , https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.01958

Related Stories

Four newly discovered Milky Way neighbors

October 1, 2018

Ultra-faint dwarf galaxies are the smallest, most dark matter dominated, and least chemically enriched stellar systems in the universe, and are important targets for understanding dark matter and galaxy formation. They comprise ...

Image: Hubble's treasure chest of galaxies

August 21, 2018

Galaxies abound in this spectacular Hubble image; spiral arms swirl in all colors and orientations, and fuzzy ellipticals can be seen speckled across the frame as softly glowing smudges on the sky. Each visible speck of a ...

Dark matter less influential in galaxies in early universe

March 15, 2017

New observations indicate that massive, star-forming galaxies during the peak epoch of galaxy formation, 10 billion years ago, were dominated by baryonic or 'normal' matter. This is in stark contrast to present-day galaxies, ...

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 ...

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 ...

Recommended for you

Making stars when the universe was half its age

January 18, 2019

The universe is about 13.8 billion years old, and its stars are arguably its most momentous handiwork. Astronomers studying the intricacies of star formation across cosmic time are trying to understand whether stars and the ...

Saturn hasn't always had rings

January 17, 2019

One of the last acts of NASA's Cassini spacecraft before its death plunge into Saturn's hydrogen and helium atmosphere was to coast between the planet and its rings and let them tug it around, essentially acting as a gravity ...

137 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Bob West
1.3 / 5 (14) Dec 12, 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.
dfjohnsonphd
3.2 / 5 (10) Dec 12, 2018
I have read that a number of cosmologists etc. believe that dark matter is nonsense, and that unaccounted for hydrogen peripheral to galaxies make up the mass, negating a need for dark matter.

How would one kibosh this notion? Perhaps the lack of significant hydrogen absorption lines from objects behind a galaxy's outer edge? I recall that massive amounts of hydrogen are pouring into the disc of the Milky Way. Or Is this "recycled" galactic hydrogen ejected by intermittent bi-polar jets from the core's SMBH? Clearly there is substantial hydrogen not within galaxies. Anybody have even a remote idea how much extra-galatic hydrogen is out there?

This story is quite amazing in that they could actually determine the "rotation curve" of a galaxy 9 billion lys distant. How long would you have to image such a thing to get that value? They are not exactly spinning tops.
JaxPavan
3.1 / 5 (17) Dec 12, 2018
Until someone finds or produces dark matter, both physically and experimentally, it is just a placeholder to keep the prevailing theory of cosmology afloat. Like most placeholders, it likely awaits being supplanted by the truth, whatever that turns out to be.
joel in oakland
4.6 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2018
@ dfjohnsonphd - as for the hydrogen, did you see the series of articles awhile ago?
https://www.googl...CnGNzJhL

As for dark matter being nonsense, keep in mind that Dark Matter is just the name for well-documented but mysterious phenomena. What once seemed the best candidate, a new baryonic particle/s outside the Standard Model now looks less & less likely.

What accounts for the data? Only Bob West (above, who pastes the same unsupported statement to articles about DM) and a few others who regularly post here know for sure. (I expect those others to post here soon).
RNP
3.7 / 5 (15) Dec 12, 2018
@dfjohnsonphd
I have read that a number of cosmologists etc. believe that dark matter is nonsense, and that unaccounted for hydrogen peripheral to galaxies make up the mass, negating a need for dark matter.


There are no real cosmologists that would believe this as it is ruled out by all kids of observations. Give an appropriate link/reference to aforesaid cosmologists if you think you know better.
mollycruz
1 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2018
Seems like solid matter is less dense than dark matter, which is the aspic in which the grapes of spherical bodies of all kinds are semi-fixed. Dark matter is "no thing" . It's everywhere we thought nothing was. That's what I think, but then again, my judgment is rarely mitigated by facts.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 12, 2018
Clearly there is substantial hydrogen not within galaxies. Anybody have even a remote idea how much extra-galatic hydrogen is out there


Researchers find last of universe's missing ordinary matter

https://phys.org/...ary.html

.....and there are more links at the bottom of the recent phys.org article of only a few months ago.

This keeps changing at a hurried pace, because new spectroscopy technology is coming on at a frenzied pace just in the last two years.

There are no real cosmologists that would believe this as it is ruled out by all kids of observations. Give an appropriate link/reference to aforesaid cosmologists if you think you know better.
......RNP doesn't know better because he is a dinosaur from the old world of cosmology that extends all the way back to the 19th century of TUG Math.

dfjohnsonphd
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2018
@RNP, not sure what a "real cosmologist" actually is. Not so readily definable, like a butcher, or baker or candlestick maker. At least not to me.

But you have me on that reference. Don't remember where I read this (certainly from a well established source), but I was struck by the notion. We know hydrogen like nobody's biz. Whoever suggested it was well studied. Quite a bit of hydrogen out there from what I understand. Must confess that this is way outside of my discipline (biochemistry), but always willing to learn more.

Still, no one has answered my question about hydrogen making up a significant part of "dark matter". Intergalactic hydrogen is going to be pretty dark stuff. Maybe this is too dull and boring to investigate. Simply saying "it ain't so" doesn't make it.

Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 12, 2018
Still, no one has answered my question about hydrogen making up a significant part of "dark matter". Intergalactic hydrogen is going to be pretty dark stuff. Maybe this is too dull and boring to investigate. Simply saying "it ain't so" doesn't make it.
......first one right here above you.
dfjohnsonphd
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2018
This is the easiest path to some of the speculation about hydrogen I could find. There are others who also hold these views about molecular hydrogen as "dark matter".

From Sky &Telescope January 2000 (reference in quoted text below):

"Using the European Space Agency's Infrared Space Observatory (ISO), Edwin A.Valentijn (Kapteyn Institute, Groningen) and Paul P. van der Werf (Leiden Observatory) detected huge amounts of relatively warm molecular hydrogen in NGC 891, an edge-on galaxy 30 million light-years away in Andromeda. In the September 1, 1999, Astrophysical Journal Letters they claim that their result "matches well the mass required to resolve the problem of the missing matter of spiral galaxies."

cont.
dfjohnsonphd
3.7 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2018
Molecular hydrogen is notoriously difficult to observe. However, the two lowest rotational energy states of this molecule produce weak spectral lines at the far-infrared wavelengths of 28.2188 and 17.0348 microns, a spectral region covered by ISO's Short Wavelength Spectrometer. A few years ago Valentijn reported the first extragalactic detection of these lines in the center of NGC 6946. Now, the study of NGC 891 reveals that molecular hydrogen is all over the place. Valentijn and van der Werf conclude that the galaxy contains 5 to 15 times more molecular than atomic hydrogen (which is easily observed using radio telescopes). They write, "It is well established that if there is about 10 times as much molecular hydrogen as atomic hydrogen in the disks of spiral galaxies, then the missing mass problem [in galaxies] is solved."

end quote.

I will close by simply stating that empirical data kills theories like mouse traps. Very effective.
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (13) Dec 12, 2018
Until someone finds or produces dark matter, both physically and experimentally, it is just a placeholder to keep the prevailing theory of cosmology afloat. Like most placeholders, it likely awaits being supplanted by the truth, whatever that turns out to be.
@Jax, minus the political hyperbole about "keep[ing] the prevailing theory.... afloat," this is what everyone who's knowledgeable about this says too. We still don't know for certain whether it's a separate field (this hypothesis is called "quintessence" and proposes a fifth force), some minor flaw or incompleteness in GRT (a recent article here on physorg proposes that "negative mass" is responsible), or if there really is some particle we haven't found yet (DM particle searches are looking for this). But no matter what it is, it's certain it's there, because that lets us account for galaxy rotation curves and galaxy cluster dynamics.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (15) Dec 12, 2018
@Jax, if you think you're going to overturn ΛCDM cosmology, you're going to need an alternative hypothesis that explains astrophysical results, and so far no one's come up with one that definitively does. What about it, exactly, offends you so?
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (14) Dec 12, 2018
I have read that a number of cosmologists etc. believe that dark matter is nonsense, and that unaccounted for hydrogen peripheral to galaxies make up the mass, negating a need for dark matter.

How would one kibosh this notion? Perhaps the lack of significant hydrogen absorption lines from objects behind a galaxy's outer edge?
@dfjohnson, two different ways depending on whether you're talking about neutral hydrogen atoms, in which case, yes, hydrogen absorption lines are the key and we don't see them, or ionized hydrogen, which if you will recall is protons, which are charged and therefore capable of generating X-rays by both bremsstrahlung in the magnetic fields from galaxies and from inverse Compton scattering, the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. And that's how we know.

[contd]
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (13) Dec 12, 2018
[contd]
I recall that massive amounts of hydrogen are pouring into the disc of the Milky Way. Or Is this "recycled" galactic hydrogen ejected by intermittent bi-polar jets from the core's SMBH? Clearly there is substantial hydrogen not within galaxies. Anybody have even a remote idea how much extra-galatic hydrogen is out there?
Yes, as a matter of fact; we can add up all the visible mass (which includes hydrogen both neutral and ionized) in clusters and we only get about 60% as much as we should. Recently, as @joel correctly pointed out, we believe we have found the missing 40% of the hydrogen in cosmic filaments that connect galaxy clusters. (That's a good article BTW, and you should read it).

If you have a visualization of all of the universe filled with galaxy clusters, that's not what we see at all. We see about 10% of the universe filled with galaxy clusters connected by the cosmic web and 90% filled with vast cosmic voids with nothing much in them.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 12, 2018
[contd]
Now this doesn't mean there's *nothing* in the voids; there's hydrogen, and there's small clusters and individual galaxies. But they're very rare (in terms of volume) and don't account for more than a very small portion of the mass in the universe. Almost all of the mass qua mass is in the filaments, and the clusters they connect. We can see hydrogen falling into the filaments, and this indicates they are the primary source of gravity.

This story is quite amazing in that they could actually determine the "rotation curve" of a galaxy 9 billion lys distant. How long would you have to image such a thing to get that value? They are not exactly spinning tops.
Spectroscopy; You can tell how fast something is by the spectral Doppler shift.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 12, 2018
One last note: 2000 was going on 20 years ago. We've seen a lot more since then, and you'd want something better than S&T as a reference. I'm an amateur astronomer myself, and like S&T, but they are not a journal of record. You should look up the original paper and see how many references there are to it, and how many of them discard it as incorrect. This is not a simple task, but if you are interested enough to follow it this far, perhaps your curiosity will lead you to an answer. Detector sensitivity has improved by leaps and bounds since this was published.
Benni
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 12, 2018
@Jax, if you think you're going to overturn ΛCDM cosmology, you're going to need an alternative hypothesis that explains astrophysical results, and so far no one's come up with one that definitively does. What about it, exactly, offends you so?


Alternative hypotheses? For what?

Rotation curves for spiral galaxies whose mass makes up only 1/3 the TOTAL MASS of the Universe? That's 2/3 of the mass of the Universe that needs no such DM Cosmic Fairy Dust to supposedly keep it glued together, ad hoc Pop-Cosmology at it's best ( or worst, depending on one's frame of reference).
arcmetal
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2018
@dfjohnsonphd
I have read that a number of cosmologists etc. believe that dark matter is nonsense, and that unaccounted for hydrogen peripheral to galaxies make up the mass, negating a need for dark matter.


There are no real cosmologists that would believe this as it is ruled out by all kids of observations. Give an appropriate link/reference to aforesaid cosmologists if you think you know better.

There really does seem to be "cosmologists" that aren't convinced of this dark matter silliness. I have noticed that spiral galaxy rotation profiles resemble hurricane velocity profiles. Like a giant vortex in some fluid. ... Thus, no need to invent some extra matter.
https://arxiv.org...012.1384
https://arxiv.org...02.02734
http://nautil.us/...k-matter
valeriy_polulyakh
1.8 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2018
There are some very complicated issues of galaxy formation. Unfortunately, here is the same problem as with the stars. The origin of galaxies remains unclear, in spite of huge activity in the field. What the "formation" means? It means that we have the material that is assembling into galaxies.
https://www.acade...ome_From
https://www.acade...ilky_Way
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (14) Dec 12, 2018
Simple suggestion: do not even vote on @Benni's posts. Not even a 1. Don't bother to care enough.
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Dec 12, 2018
Detector sensitivity has improved by leaps and bounds since this was published.
.......you bet, and not a scintilla of Cosmic Fairy Dust is in the offing.

Sorry schneibo, don't mean to add more ache to your achy breaky heart, but there comes a point where even fantasyland has it's boundaries.
Shootist
4.8 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2018
How long would you have to image such a thing to get that value? They are not exactly spinning tops.


red-shift. matter in rotating galaxy moving away from observer, light is shifted red, moving towards, shifted blue. and it doesn't take long.
laszlogm
1 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2018
The influence of Hollywood is even more than you think...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2018
@arcmetal
Your nautilus link is superb. I am fascinated by Mordechai Milgrom's story, so thank you for providing it.
The "wheel" structure/shape seems to be most favored in the Universe and encompasses all other wheel structures/shapes from within and without galaxies. It allows "spin" which is the very heart of motion of galaxies that is necessary for equilibrium, as well as the pulling inward of Matter to prevent dissociation - just as a spinning ice-skater, after pulling her arms toward her body, spins even faster.
Wondering if "extragalactic normal Matter" might also be pulled into the confines of a galaxy, where that Matter is turned into Energy and back into Matter again.
Perhaps if there was a way to "weigh" a galaxy before and after it acquires new normal Matter from outside?
Just conjecturing.
:)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2018
From Benni's link to a physorg article:

"Researchers have a good idea of where to find most of the ordinary matter in the universe—not to be confused with dark matter, which scientists have yet to locate: About 10 percent sits in galaxies, and close to 60 percent is in the diffuse clouds of gas that lie between galaxies.
In 2012, Shull and his colleagues predicted that the missing 30 percent of baryons were likely in a web-like pattern in space called the warm-hot intergalactic medium (WHIM). Charles Danforth, a research..."

Sometimes, humans forget that all gases are also forms of Matter, so that the 60% that is in diffuse clouds of gas - is 60% Matter. Same with Filaments that connecting stellar bodies, etc. = more Matter.
100% of all the Matter in existence in the Universe is all accounted for, folks. But some of it is hiding - similar to the dust in the corners of your house/flat when you haven't vacuumed in awhile.
So the myth of Dark Matter is still wishful thinking
JaxPavan
3 / 5 (12) Dec 12, 2018
@DaSchneider

The obvious problem is that the patches are bigger than the cosmology theory now: stars that don't exist but should, cosmic inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc. It's too much.

What offends me is not the placeholder theories for the mystery. What offends me is how doggedly those placeholders are being politicized as the truth, from media article spin, to tilted grant funding sources. Since you use the royal "we", I'll include you too.

The larger problem is that this politicization is retarding the progress of the field now.
tallenglish
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 12, 2018
Dark Matter is not hiding anywhere in our universe that we will ever be able to see as a seperate particle as such.

DM is the imaginary part of matter, if matter pushes then dark matter is responsible for the induced spin - like electrisity is real, but the induced magnetic field is caused by that charges effect on DM - e.g. matter/charge induces magnetic field on DM, that creates a charge at the DM side to balance out, that DM charge then induces a magnetic field on matter.

For 3D energy, space force carriers are 2D (3D energy talking to 1D strings), time force carriers are 4D (charm/strange mesons or baryons - e.g. s+s- or c+c- push like light in one of two directions, c+s- or c-s+ spin more like the W+/W- or Z bosons).

Time being 4D needs to be thought of as having 4 colours, r,g,b linking to one 2D space and one white charge to link them all. Thats why we have 3 quarks to 1 lepton and 3D+1T spacetime - DM is in perpendicular time planes.
tallenglish
2.7 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2018
So we won't find the Graviton or Tachyon as the s+s- and c+c- mesons are the equivilent of the Tachyon (aka push/stretch spacetime in one direction), and s+c- and c+s- are the eqivilent of the Graviton (curve/spin spacetime).

The 4D force carriers can also transfer mass by carrying a quark - to make the baryons like uds, udc, etc. 4D force carriers talk between baryons and pentaquarks.

Leptons being time like, can switch from 3D->4D->5D much simpler and as such oscilate between each other using only 2D force carriers (absorbtion/emit of either photon or electroweak.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (12) Dec 13, 2018
@Jax, I said specific.

What "stars that don't exist but should?" Why is inflation a problem for you?

Do you understand the meaning of the Λ in ΛCDM and that it is a term in GRT? Like, as in, a mathematical formal term in the equation?

If there's no funding how did the article on negative mass get published?

Are you seriously contending that there's someone stopping dissident scientists? Really? Really? Do you understand how stupid it is to say that? Have you the slightest idea how scientific publication actually works?
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2018
Also, do you understand that it makes you look like one of the trolls to play 3-year-old games with my handle? Maybe you'll get a clue sometime soon. Personally I think you're a sock account for one of the well-known trolls here, but we'll see what happens.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 13, 2018
Also, do you understand that it makes you look like one of the trolls to play 3-year-old games with my handle? Maybe you'll get a clue sometime soon. Personally I think you're a sock account for one of the well-known trolls here, but we'll see what happens.


Schneibo, lately ALL you do is whine.........you whine & bemoan the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that is stacking up running counter to DM Cosmic Fairy Dust hypotheses.

What with all the new spectroscopy data that's being accumulated revealing huge amounts of baryonic matter that had previously been undetectable.

You overage Trekkies are being reduced to quibbling expletives, expletives arguing that rotation curves of Spiral galaxies can ONLY be explained by your totally elusive cosmic fairy dust narratives because YOU claim those rotation curves can ONLY be caused by a tremendous amount of gravity that can't be accounted for within the mass of spiral galaxies which make up only 1/3 the mass of the Universe.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (12) Dec 13, 2018
What with all the new spectroscopy data that's being accumulated revealing huge amounts of baryonic matter that had previously been undetectable.


Bullshit. The baryonic 'missing' matter that is being detected, was expected to be there and, despite being 'missing', was already factored into the calculation for DM.

https://www.newsc...y-found/
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
What with all the new spectroscopy data that's being accumulated revealing huge amounts of baryonic matter that had previously been undetectable.


Bullshit. The baryonic 'missing' matter that is being detected, was expected to be there and, despite being 'missing', was already factored into the calculation for DM.
......and bs to you, no, it's brand new & never expected by CALCULATIONS to be there, thus being the reason Dark Matter theorists are all in a hot buzz over the implications new spectroscopy is having on their missing mass calculations.

We know jonesy, you & your 19th & 20th century theories about the cosmos are being systematically deconstructed by 21st Century technology & the only way overage Trekkies with Anthropology degrees can handle it is to embark on your usual foul mouthed name calling rants.
Litsci
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2018
If by "dark matter" you mean scientists' ignorance, then the headline is correct. Their cluelessness dominates across cosmic time. They're just to arrogant to admit it.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2018
......and bs to you, no, it's brand new & never expected by CALCULATIONS to be there, thus being the reason Dark Matter theorists are all in a hot buzz over the implications new spectroscopy is having on their missing mass calculations.


Are you blind, you cretin?

But our models of the universe also say there should be about twice as much ordinary matter out there, compared with what we have observed so far.


So, yes, it was accounted for. And has no effect on the DM contribution required. Learn to read.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2018
If by "dark matter" you mean scientists' ignorance, then the headline is correct. Their cluelessness dominates across cosmic time. They're just to arrogant to admit it.


And another clueless poser who no doubt has no understanding of even basic science. Dafuq is wrong with these loons?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 13, 2018
thus being the reason Dark Matter theorists are all in a hot buzz over the implications new spectroscopy is having on their missing mass calculations.


Really? Where is this reported?
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2018
But our models of the universe also say there should be about twice as much ordinary matter out there, compared with what we have observed so far.


So, yes, it was accounted for. And has no effect on the DM contribution required. Learn to read.


You bet mister anthropologist, I "read" "Our models", and I didn't need to read much further although I did anyway, good comic relief reading, just like everything else in your world of Pop-Cosmology fantasyland.

MODELS, MODELS, and more MODELS. You 20th Century dinosaurs live & die by your fake models. Even in your profession of anthropology many of your MODELS in the past were proven to be FAKE, so why wouldn't we be surprised to find YOU here carrying on an old tradition you learned from studying Anthropology at Uni of Auckland, NZ in the 20th Century.
dfjohnsonphd
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
When almost everyone was wrong.

Dark matter. What is it and why it can be something we already know - molecular hydrogen.

Someone noted if this is likely, it would be followed up. There are a number of cases in science where the follow-up was delayed.

Here are three examples of major blunders in modern science:

Heavy nuclei could not be fractured. They are immutable. Nearly the entire world of physics believed this until lowly radiochemist Otto Hahn discovered fission in his test tubes, beyond any doubt. Oops!

Prions - infectious protein particles that cause disease and do not have DNA or RNA. Everybody laughed at this one about 40 years ago or so, but mad cow disease etc. proved it was true, beyond any doubt. Oops!

Birds are dinosaurs. It seems almost everyone believes this now, but the hard evidence, when looked at with an unbiased eye, tells us they are not. This is a pending Oops! Stay tuned to that one. But like the dark ages and dark matter, it could be a while.
JaxPavan
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 13, 2018
@DaSchneib,

Spellchecker.

You are a troll when you ostracize members who post differing beliefs here, like Benni. Yes, that is exactly what is going on as well with carrot-and-stick, media coverage and grant funding.

I am more fully aware than you of how economic realities are created and tended across societies and national borders. This one fits the bill. Take a look at how the media (even here on phys.org) creates a massive amount of hype about "dark matter" or any theory that backstops the prevailing model. While none of the contrary research is publicized, ever.

Big Bang provides a creation event that nicely dovetails with (but is not necessary for) the belief in a supreme being held by most of our colluding class.

Stifling dissent here makes yet another set of blinders to keep the field unaware that the emperor has no clothes, that their patches are questioned by many not holding their hand, that their life's work might be diverted down a rabbit hole.
JaxPavan
2.7 / 5 (12) Dec 13, 2018
@Da Schneib,

To answer your other questions at face value.

If the universe was "only" about 14 billion years old or so we would expect to see some low mass stars in existence today that were created exclusively from hydrogen and helium. None have been spotted.

Again, my problem with cosmic inflation is not much. My observation is that when the combined patches get so big they are larger than the initial theory, then that theory is ready for re-thinking on its face. Here we have stars that don't exist but should, cosmic inflation, and dark matter energy stuff that is supposed to be 99% of the universe. I'd say the patches are bigger than the theory.

I don't have a theory or an agenda. Big Bang could be true, but it looks laughable to me right now.

The sticking point is the SN redshift data, right, which even Hubble thought might not indicate expansion.

So throw that out and start with first principles to explain why galaxies spin and move the way they do.
JaxPavan
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 13, 2018
I have so much pity for my classmates who went into string theory and now believe their life's work was a waste of time.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 13, 2018
Interesting, though not unexpected, since the earlier observations did no make much sense: yes, early galaxies seems different in some respects, but their formation in cosmological models rely on DM.

As for the thread it is as usual when cosmology is described confused and conflicting with science. These comments seems well aware that LCDM - which prominently has "Cold DM" i the name - is the accepted cosmology. Further, it is recently secured by the 3d Planck data release [Planck Legacy Archive], where all cosmological data is aggregated and it is now shown that remaining tensions is unlikely to move it: LCDM is robust.

But, some more detailed comments:
"a number of cosmologists ... not sure what a "real cosmologist" actually is ... seem to be "cosmologists" that aren't convinced of this dark matter ".

-tbctd-
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 13, 2018
-ctd-

How can the same person be sure of "a number" of cosmologists, but not know what a cosmologist is? Scientists are tied to a physics/astronomy department of a university, do active research and publication and are specifically focused on the universe and its evolution. Prominent names are, say Susskind and Guth, and the former has a free cosmology MOOC from Stanford - you can begin to learn about the subject from there.

As referenced above, the Planck Legacy Archive shows hundreds of cosmology authors. They have all been forced to accept dark matter because a) it is observed by many independent means, b) it predicts many independent phenomena (so Milgrom's ideas are both ad hoc and insufficient) and c) its is known that it is not ordinary matter (so IGM hydrogen are both ad hoc and insufficient).

-tbctd-
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 13, 2018
-ctd-

One of the ways it is known is because the cosmic background spectra has a peak that shows the effect of solely matter, another that shows all matter, and the insufficiency of normal matter being all matter is easily seen, rejecting old speculations that are uselessly paraded around here. And please, a "placeholder" is something that can be used in math equations, it is not physics and in any case DM *is robustly observed*. Again, do the MOOC so you can recognize what is and what is not known.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2018
If the universe was "only" about 14 billion years old or so we would expect to see some low mass stars in existence today that were created exclusively from hydrogen and helium. None have been spotted.


The Universe could be a lot younger or, it could be an awfully lot older. What we don't know is what the present state of ENTROPY for the Universe is, we only know it is greater than zero but less than unity(one).The closer to unity ENTROPY is the greater the likelihood it is billions of years older than the 14 billion it's been assigned, contrarily the closer to zero it is, the greater the likelihood it is less.

In between expiration of time from theoretical zero entropy & theoretical unity entropy, mass to energy transformation is not a one way event, there is the reverse transformation of energy to mass. How many are the ways this occurs nobody knows, we only know it occurs, thus it may be forever impossible to know the age of this stellar island.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 13, 2018
This though is not the ordinary anti-DM criticism, I think, and merit specific criticism:

"If the universe was "only" about 14 billion years old or so we would expect to see some low mass stars in existence today that were created exclusively from hydrogen and helium. None have been spotted."

Yes, and not yet. Why would that be a problem as of yet, they would be hard to spot and no single missing data would topple a theory?

"when the combined patches get so big they are larger than the initial theory ... dark matter energy ... 99 % ... SN redshift data".

I don't know what that means. Inflation has been discovered, observed and seems now consensus accepted (cf cosmologist Ethan Siegel comments on that on the Forbes site) since the 70s.

-tbctd-
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 13, 2018
-ctd-

Dark matter is not dark energy, they are both independently and robustly observed by independent observations on all cosmological scales, again discovered, observed and accepted over many decades of hard work, they sum to 95 % of matter/energy - as an analogy we do not yet know 99 % of extant species of bacteria and a few centuries ago no one knew about them at all but now everyone agree they exist. "SN redshift" seems to be a mongrel, but expansion is seen in many sets of data independently.

Specifically the inflation era physics is not dependent on the later hot Big Bang era physics that were independently and earlier discovered and accepted (and sets the universe age to 14 billion years robustly). Inflation predicts the homogeneity of the universe as a big bang expansion of itself would not and it predicts the flatness of space - and thus its low initial entropy as I see some comment claim we do not know its value - and some other observations.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
in any case DM *is robustly observed*.


....if it's "observed" then you've got a picture, right?

Oh, you forgot to explain what you meant by "observed", is that it? Like there's another one of those unerring "placeholders" to guide us between what is a PICTURE & what is "observed", like we don't already know about that tactical dodge of semantics.

Hey, I've got a really great idea for you to try before you put up your next Comment, use a dictionary to find the definition of "observed", it does not mean anything like INFERRED which is the word you should have used so you wouldn't find yourself stumbling & bumbling all over the place because your word salad has the wrong mix of ingredients.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2018
Inflation predicts the homogeneity of the universe


No, ENTROPY predicts the homogeneity of the universe. The reason you cling to that "inlation" word is because it gives you an entrance to the perpetual motion semantics of Dark Energy.

You, like quite a few others in this chatroom, should have taken some college classroom studies in Thermodynamics before espousing your love affairs with a Universe in perpetual motion, I have taken those courses, how about you?

RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
@RNP,
@torbjorn_b_g_larsson,
@dfjohnsonphd.

From @dfjohnsonphd:
I have read that a number of cosmologists etc. believe that dark matter is nonsense, and that unaccounted for hydrogen peripheral to galaxies make up the mass, negating a need for dark matter.


@RNP:
There are no real cosmologists that would believe this as it is ruled out by all kinds of observations.


@RNP,
@t_b_g_l.

How can you two STILL arrogantly claim "observations support" your 'iffy' BB-fantasies? Especially after all I have LONG been pointing out to you, IMP-9 etc that DISCREDITS claims to scientific tenability of patently BB-biased INTERPRETATIONS of astro/cosmo observations/data?

Below link illustrates just how OBVIOUSLY UNRELIABLE current bb/inflation model "interpretations" are:

https://phys.org/...rse.html

Therein the OPPOSITE "conclusion" was reached!

Get OBJECTIVE; instead of 'just repeating' old bb/inflation-dependent crap.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2018
How can you two STILL arrogantly claim "observations support" your 'iffy' BB-fantasies? Especially after all I have LONG been pointing out to you, IMP-9 etc that DISCREDITS claims to scientific tenability of patently BB-biased INTERPRETATIONS of astro/cosmo observations/data?


Have you tried explaining ENTROPY to them?
dnatwork
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2018
I used to comment here and read the comments of others, but I realized I came away with a lower IQ every time.

Did none of you notice that they found a SINGLE counter-example at 9 billion years, and they are claiming that invalidates all the previous examples at 10 billion years? Why argue about the rest of cosmology when there's almost nothing here?

Oh, right, you only came here for the fight--you weren't expecting the hockey game to break out.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2018
@DaSchneib,
Thanks. I noticed.

You are a troll when you ostracize members who post differing beliefs here, like Benni.
Of course I am! What do you do with someone who claims to be a nuclear engineer but can't do math? With someone who doesn't know the difference between a vector force and a second-rank tensor force but claims relativity is wrong? With someone who twists other peoples' arguments into things they didn't say and then pretends they're "lying?" This guy's a toon, just like @Jones says. And a trolling toon. I just hand some of his own back to him every so often. Then I ignore him for a long time. Get over it.

I really don't care what you think, mostly because you appear fairly ignorant on subjects you pretend to speak authoritatively on, like ΛCDM cosmology. And below it turns out you have yet another wild conspiracy theory about science and the people who do it, which I will point out when I get to it.

[contd]
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2018
[contd]
Yes, that is exactly what is going on as well with carrot-and-stick, media coverage and grant funding.
I don't do grant funding or media coverage. I'm just a commenter on a science aggregation web site. Maybe you forgot.

am more fully aware than you of how economic realities are created and tended across societies and national borders.
Oh, are you now? You can smell trolls; they always claim knowledge they prove, on examination, not to have. I read widely and among the things I have read are included John Kenneth Galbraith; and that's just for starters. There's a pretty good chance I understand economics better than you do. Oh and BTW economics is not astrophysics. Maybe you forgot.

[contd]

Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2018
[contd]
This one fits the bill. Take a look at how the media (even here on phys.org) creates a massive amount of hype about "dark matter" or any theory that backstops the prevailing model. While none of the contrary research is publicized, ever.
One article on a fairly important discovery is not "massive... hype." It's just an article about a paper that got published in a scholarly journal of astrophysics.

As for your claim that none of the contrary research gets published, this seemed to do fine: https://phys.org/...ass.html
In fact, it got two articles: https://phys.org/...mos.html
And you even commented on one of them. Your first conspiracy theory turns out to be easily disproven bullshiit. And I am by no means done.

[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
[contd]
Big Bang provides a creation event that nicely dovetails with (but is not necessary for) the belief in a supreme being held by most of our colluding class.
No, it doesn't nicely dovetail with religious beliefs. Not only that, but WTF is this doing in a science conversation? Scientists don't care about religion; they only care about following the data, whatever it says. That's how I roll too. I'm not interested in religion either; I'm an atheist. I just wanna know what's out there, what happened and where things come from, but I'm not interested in fairy tales about a super magic sky daddy written by a bunch of drunken stone age sheep herders. I was once, but only for the sociology; I never mistook it for science, which actually gives us knowledge we use in our everyday lives. As an engineer in two different disciplines, I have made a successful career in both, and simply by following the data.

[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
[contd]
And when you talk about a "colluding class," that's conspiracy theory #2. And you are perilously close to including me in it, which is trolling. Apparently you think I'm a real estate agent like the giant orange anus currently running my country off a cliff.

I will quote you something Frank Herbert said in one of his books, speaking from the mouth of a character: "When religion and politics travel in the same cart, the riders believe nothing can stand in their way. Their movements become headlong - faster and faster and faster. They put aside all thoughts of obstacles and forget the precipice does not show itself to the man in a blind rush until it's too late." And it's obvious to me that the Republicans are the riders and are trying to take us with them.

[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
[contd]
Stifling dissent here makes yet another set of blinders to keep the field unaware that the emperor has no clothes, that their patches are questioned by many not holding their hand, that their life's work might be diverted down a rabbit hole.
What rabbit hole? One of the things you don't get is that data are data; they are subject to re-evaluation at any time in the light of a new theoretical framework. But it has to be a framework that explains all of them; and this is where all these wild-ass "theories" break down; they can't explain *all* repeat *all* of the data. The one we have, ΛCDM, does. If your "theory" is inconsistent with data, that's all there is to say, and it's time to give it up and figure out where you screwed up. Because the universe doesn't care about any theory; it is what it is, and that's what the data tell us about.

So to sum your post up, two conspiracy theories and a claim of economic omniscience. That's three strikes.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
Moving right along,
If the universe was "only" about 14 billion years old or so we would expect to see some low mass stars in existence today that were created exclusively from hydrogen and helium. None have been spotted.
Yeah, they're like more than 10 billion light years away and we don't have telescopes powerful enough to see them yet. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and one of the main goals of the JWST (google it) is to image them directly. We have seen gravitationally lensed galaxies from that far away that have shown spectral lines of stars with no metals, i.e. Population III stars, but we cannot resolve individual stars. The JWST should give evidence, pro or con, on this. It's not like we're not looking (contrary to your conspiracy theories).

[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
[contd]
Again, my problem with cosmic inflation is not much. My observation is that when the combined patches get so big they are larger than the initial theory, then that theory is ready for re-thinking on its face.
What "patches?" We look, we see galaxies that move, and whose outskirts move, in ways that cannot be explained by the mass we see. You can reject the well-tested GRT, or you can add mass we can't see. It's as simple as that. And it was when Zwicky discovered that the visible matter in galaxy clusters doesn't account for the motion of the galaxies in the clusters, and when Rubin discovered that the outskirts of the galaxies move faster than they should, that two pieces of evidence accrued for dark matter; when the gravitational lensing that cannot be accounted for by the mass we see was discovered, that closed the issue for most astrophysicists. Three pieces of compelling evidence with no contrary evidence presented, counsellor.

[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
[contd]
Here we have stars that don't exist but should,
I don't agree. They're just too far away to see. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You've made a logical error; since this is not a trial, we can wait for the evidence. And we already have some and it says you're wrong.

cosmic inflation
Now you're handwaving. Inflation is supported by Planck results you apparently are incompetent to understand.

and dark matter energy stuff
Apparently you are unaware of the difference between DM and DE. This further argues your incompetence. @torbjorn is right; you should take the free classes he linked to understand the difference. As it is, you're still handwaving.

I don't have a theory or an agenda. Big Bang could be true, but it looks laughable to me right now.
Based on incompetent understanding of astrophysics slanted by your political problems supporting the giant orange anus.

Got it.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
[contd]
The sticking point is the SN redshift data, right, which even Hubble thought might not indicate expansion.
I don't even understand what this means. You appear to be lying. I said in detail and I meant it, and this looks not even like handwaving but outright lying. Support this with evidence or you are just another liar with a political and religious agenda lying for jebus. This is a major point, and one you put off until the end and hoped wouldn't be addressed. Bring the data, liar.

So throw that out and start with first principles to explain why galaxies spin and move the way they do.
WTF do you think cosmologists are trying to do? You appear to think you're the smartest man in the world.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
[contd]
Let me tell you about that. Three people, a hippie, a mathematician, and the self-proclaimed smartest man in the world are on an airplane with four parachutes. The plane starts to go down, and the pilot and copilot take two of the 'chutes. The smartest man in the world takes one and says, "I'm the smartest man in the world and it can't do without me," straps one on, and jumps out. The mathematician says to the hippie, "You're young, and I've done my best work. Take the last parachute." The hippie says, "Hey, no problem man, the smartest man in the world just took my backpack."

Learn some humility.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
And last but not least: I have the courage to admit I was wrong. And if you look in my posting history you'll find it. Do you, @JaxPavan?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
I have so much pity for my classmates who went into string theory and now believe their life's work was a waste of time.
So do I; they spoke too soon. Nobody knows if string physics works in our universe or not; but Ads/CFT correspondence is a hot field of research right now. Thing is, it takes a great deal of effort. Which is not surprising considering how long it took Einstein to come up with GRT.

Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Meanwhile I'll point out that no other quantum gravity theory has provided any more predictions than string physics. So this is more of your handwaving, @Jax. Sounds like you're talking about all the people who couldn't handle the math.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2018
And last but not least: I have the courage to admit I was wrong. And if you look in my posting history you'll find it. Do you, @JaxPavan?


your posting history is boring, just a collection of foul mouthed filth, so who would want to?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
I'll be frank, @Jax: I expect more handwaving if not outright trolling from you. Maybe you'll accuse me of being geigh, since you've already accused me of being part of the "colluding class." I'm here anytime you think you have something you can support, but you've lied, trolled, made up conspiracy theories, and ignored evidence, so I don't have particularly good expectations of you. Perhaps you should examine the evidence instead of trying to make some up.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
So, @LenniTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist, gonna accuse me of being "teh geigh" again?

Just askin'.

That was pretty revealing. I still have it bookmarked. Would you like to see it?

Since you butted in. Next time keep your nose to yourself unless you want to be pwnt some more.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
Perhaps you should examine the evidence instead of trying to make some up.


....the "evidence" is that almost all your Comments are laden with the worst of the foul mouthed filth that ever shows up in this chatroom.

Just who do you imagine you're pleading your case with? Jonesy? Ha, same MO.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
@LenniTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist, what on Earth did you expect after you called me "gay?"

That was absolutely the stupidest thing you ever wrote.

If I were you I'd never have the balls to post here again.

Speaking of foul-mouthed.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
Here it is: https://phys.org/...ole.html

...........you're gay.
We done here?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
Hey, you said it, and then followed it up with a bunch of stuff about how I got orgasms from being fuucked in the ass, or some shiit. Own it. You said it.

So much for @Jax accusing me of trolling. This is a fact based site and you said what you said. Maybe you shouldn't have said it.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
But after you said it, I get to link it forever.

After you said that, any cred you had here is totally gone. No one is going to believe anything you say after that, evar. Now go away.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
@LenniTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist runs away to hide when faced with its own words.

Pitiful.

https://www.youtu...Z8LmwTds
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2018
So much for @Jax accusing me of trolling. This is a fact based site and you said what you said. Maybe you shouldn't have said it.


Well then schneibo, if this is such a fact based site, then you just go right ahead & do a Copy & Paste of:

Hey, you said it, and then followed it up with a bunch of stuff about how I got orgasms from being fuucked in the ass, or some shiit. Own it. You said it.


C'mon schneibo, Copy & Paste it right here in the chatroom for all to see......but you won't do it will you?

Now why is it you only want to put up links that don't exist on Phys.org? Or make fake claims about who said what here, but you NEVER reproduce those claims based on Comments you claim are made here, so easy to do yet you won't do it.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
I used to comment here and read the comments of others, but I realized I came away with a lower IQ every time.
No, that was your dumb assertions being ablated until you couldn't stand it any more.

I have dealt with people like you in code reviews. I had to deal with one who didn't believe that the leap year is skipped on centuries but not in 2000. You wouldn't believe the fuss.

Did none of you notice that they found a SINGLE counter-example at 9 billion years, and they are claiming that invalidates all the previous examples at 10 billion years? Why argue about the rest of cosmology when there's almost nothing here?

Oh, right, you only came here for the fight--you weren't expecting the hockey game to break out.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
C'mon schneibo, Copy & Paste it right here in the chatroom for all to see......but you won't do it will you?
Here it is: https://phys.org/...ole.html

...........you're gay.
You will own that quote and link forever. You made the accusation of filthy mouths, but it looks like you started it. I will end it, and you will never forget it.

I can't imagine the mentality it takes for someone to think "gay" is an epithet. I have never used it that way and never will. I simply don't care about it, and don't think it's any of my business what kind of sex someone likes. You think it's important, and just fine as a viable accusation against someone's character.

I can't imagine a more revealing character trait.

We done here?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
Well, I sure screwed that one up. Let's try it again: @dnat:
I used to comment here and read the comments of others, but I realized I came away with a lower IQ every time.
No, that was your dumb assertions being ablated until you couldn't stand it any more.

I have dealt with people like you in code reviews. I had to deal with one who didn't believe that the leap year is skipped on centuries but not in 2000. You wouldn't believe the fuss.

Did none of you notice that they found a SINGLE counter-example at 9 billion years, and they are claiming that invalidates all the previous examples at 10 billion years? Why argue about the rest of cosmology when there's almost nothing here?
You think that's the only one we'll find now we're looking for them?

Oh, right, you only came here for the fight--you weren't expecting the hockey game to break out.
Your hockey game doesn't appear to have rules. Throw me the hockey ball.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
And in case anyone thinks I'm lying about @LenniTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist is plagiarizing, here's the thread: https://phys.org/...ark.html

Search on "plagiar" and the quote and search the thread. It's perfectly plain, @LenniTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist plagiarizes a quote out of context from http://www.sjsu.e...alth.htm

and here it is:
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.
@LenniTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist then adds this as if the preceding were its own words:
In this case it is the result of overlapping galactic parameters that creates a mirage of more gravity than actually exists.
No link, no quotes, no attempt to do anything but pretend it wrote this.

Plagiarism plain and simple.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
C'mon schneibo, Copy & Paste it right here in the chatroom for all to see......but you won't do it will you?
Here it is: https://phys.org/...ole.html

...........you're gay.
You will own that quote and link forever. You made the accusation of filthy mouths, but it looks like you started it. I will end it, and you will never forget it.


C'mon schneibo, Copy & Paste the entire Comment, not just a one word snippet. Why don't you want to do that? For somebody who claims to know how to do code reviews you are having a really tough go of getting MY entire Comment right here in front of everybody to read it. Must be something about your link? Now what could that be?

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2018
@LenniTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist, that's all you posted except a quote. It was your entire post.

If you claim you said something more post it. It's right there in black and white.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2018
@LenniTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist, that's all you posted except a quote. It was your entire post.

If you claim you said something more post it. It's right there in black and white.


No, you're the one who claims I wrote something "more", but YOU ARE THE ONE who refuses to prove it.

C'mon here mister master of CODE REVIEW, do a Copy & Paste of more than a snippet for which you claim I'm the author. You won't do it will you? Maybe you don't know how? Or maybe it has something to do with the links you put up as being the reason you want ME & others to go THERE as opposed to YOU bringing it HERE to this chatroom?

Schneibo, old retired computer programmers like you are simply not as smart as you would like to imagine yourself to be, You spent the entire day yesterday, probably at least 10-12 hours worth of typing & editing time in your Word file to come up with over a dozen "cont'd" ranting & rambling Comments, this is ALL you have left in life?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Dec 14, 2018
MODELS, MODELS, and more MODELS. You 20th Century dinosaurs live & die by your fake models. Even in your profession of anthropology many of your MODELS in the past were proven to be FAKE, so why wouldn't we be surprised to find YOU here carrying on an old tradition you learned from studying Anthropology at Uni of Auckland, NZ in the 20th Century.


And more ignorance and lies from the simple minded fuckwit.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2018
@LenniTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist, that's all you posted except a quote. It was your entire post.

If you claim you said something more post it. It's right there in black and white.


No, you're the one who claims I wrote something "more", but YOU ARE THE ONE who refuses to prove it.
You're outright lying. You said
...........you're gay.
Right here: https://phys.org/...ole.html

Now stop lying about what people said. It's not gonna work and it further damages your cred.
hat1208
3.6 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2018
@Da Schneib

Great read! Thanks again.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2018
Spiral galaxies are overstated in their mass
@Jax, if you think you're going to overturn ΛCDM cosmology, you're going to need an alternative hypothesis that explains astrophysical results, and so far no one's come up with one that definitively does

Benni> Alternative hypotheses For what
Rotation curves for spiral galaxies whose mass makes up only 1/3 the TOTAL MASS of the Universe That's 2/3 of the mass of the Universe that needs no such DM Cosmic Fairy Dust to supposedly keep it glued together, ad hoc Pop-Cosmology at its best or worst, depending on one's frame of reference

Rotational curves fall flat as you point out only apply to 1.3 of all galaxies is flawed thinking
thinking without thinking of all the total galaxies as a whole
this circular thinking is a mind set
unless all galaxies require the dark stuff
the flowing amber nectar
that like Heineken
refreshs gravity that is dark
rotational curves are a smoke screen
For something dark
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2018
the flowing amber nectar
that like Heineken
refreshs gravity that is dark
rotational curves are a smoke screen
For something dark


.....now here finally is a dark flowing substance I can believe in, I have more than just observed the evidence of it, I have consumed it's frothy flow.
gculpex
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 15, 2018
the flowing amber nectar
that like Heineken
refreshs gravity that is dark
rotational curves are a smoke screen
For something dark


.....now here finally is a dark flowing substance I can believe in, I have more than just observed the evidence of it, I have consumed it's frothy flow.

Me too, love a good root beer!
dnatwork
1 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2018
Logic isn't circular, folks. You can't prove an assertion by pointing to the assertion.

But it seems some things are circular. I made the mistake of reading that thread from last month, and even though I know I never read it before, I couldn't tell. There was no difference from any other thread you people have created. Most of the insults were copied verbatim from your previous encounters.

What was that definition of insanity, again?

Lucky for me, I get to go back to not being here. Enjoy whatever it is you're doing.
JaxPavan
3 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2018
Funny the visceral reaction to my offhand criticism of Big Bang theory.

Again, there is empirical evidence (pioneer anomaly, moon reflectors, etc) that the speed of light is decreasing by about 2cm/s per year. If you assume that and hold photon energy constant at the putative time of emission, them that completely accounts for the red shift. And, there is no Big Bang.

I know when a theory is ready for the toilet. Look into your toilet and see what it tells you. When space contracts it behaves like a galaxy. No dark matter required unless you put it there.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
What "visceral reaction?" You made a bunch of misstatements and I corrected them. If you don't have any better response than "the speed of light is decreasing" when it's pretty obvious we could measure it doing so ahd haven't, this is the handwaving I expected. And if you want to know why I think you're a YEC, this is a common YEC assertion to avoid having to account for redshift measurements.

What's ready for the toilet is the manure you're trying to spread on this site, YEC.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
Just so we're all clear on this, what do you think changes in the speed of light would do to LIGO?

A tip on how science works, most great discoveries start with someone scratching their head and thinking, "Gee, that's strange. I wonder why it does that."
JaxPavan
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
@Larsson

Easy on the term "Mongrel", I meant SN as in supernova types for studying luminosity and red shift. Please respond to my post above, in particular the numeric assertion. (All the other commentators here it seems are political frick and frack trolls pretending to argue).
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2018
So you're still saying that LIGO, which measures in nanometers, wouldn't be disturbed by a change in the speed of light of centimeters per year?

Seriously?

How about atomic clocks? Do you suppose they'd be disturbed, and we wouldn't notice it because we never measure the Earth's rotation?

This is idiotic. And you shouldn't be surprised to be roundly criticized and dismissed on a science site for saying something this ridiculous.
JaxPavan
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
Here it is:

Empirical evidence in favor of varying speed of light, Sanejouand

https://arxiv.org...908.0249

JaxPavan
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
The empirical approximations actually indicate something a bit more than 2 cm/s per year.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2018
Just so folks can get an idea, a centimeter per year is 27,397 nanometers per day. Twice that is over 50 micrometers per day. And LIGO never noticed this? Complete silliness.
JaxPavan
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
Measuring waves and measuring time are not the same. My reference was published in 2009. LIGO then went offline for six whole years.

https://arxiv.org...908.0249

Incidentally, I don't take anyone seriously on a science site who uses swears or insults beyond colorful expressions, nevermind the trolls.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2018
And that's setting aside the Rydberg and fine structure constants which the author of your paper does not address:
However, building such a theory is beyond the scope of this paper.
JaxPavan
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
Address the science:

https://arxiv.org...908.0249
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2018
Measuring waves and measuring time are not the same.
Oops. Guess you forgot about that whole "frequency" thingie. Oh, those pesky physicists.

If you showed evidence of knowing enough physics to see the link between frequency and wavelength and the speed of light, I might bother to have more respect for you. As it is you look ill-informed and mawkish.
JaxPavan
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
He need not address constants. It is an empirical paper.

Point is something stinks in Denmark and it's not just dark matter.

https://arxiv.org...908.0249
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2018
Address the science:

https://arxiv.org...908.0249
I did:

And that's setting aside the Rydberg and fine structure constants which the author of your paper does not address:
However, building such a theory is beyond the scope of this paper.


Then I pointed out that you don't seem to understand the relation between frequency, wavelength, and propagation speed. Nor to understand how LIGO works or how sensitive it is.
JaxPavan
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
You are not a physicist. I was referring to ligo srudying gravity waves.

https://arxiv.org...908.0249

Again, there is evidence that the speed of light is decreasing by about 2 cm/s per year. If you hold photon energy constant at the time of putative emission, then that accounts for the change in FREQUENCY, in other word, the red shift, almost entirely.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2018
He need not address constants. It is an empirical paper.
Excuse me, how exactly do you imagine we measure constants if not empirically? Do you even understand what the Rydberg constant *is*?
JaxPavan
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
You have almost done your job, keeping this looking like an argument. My question was not to you.

@Larsson,

A little advice?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2018
So you have no answer, you don't even understand the grounds on which I'm objecting to your paper (cited 5 times in ten years I note), and having no response attempt to dismiss me.

Typical YEC troll.
JaxPavan
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
A computer programmer is lecturing me about physical? Go away troll.

https://arxiv.org...908.0249
JaxPavan
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
I can barely respond to you before your next attack. Let's see what Larson says before you bury the blog with bull?

https://arxiv.org...908.0249

A little test. If you or your cohorts decline then you are trolls? I'll listen to Larrsson if he has any voice.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2018
Heh, having run out of arguments the YEC troll tries the argumentum ad hominem.

What's the Rydberg constant, YEC troll, and why can't it vary over time without us noticing?
JaxPavan
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
No one is asking a computer programmer. The question was for Larsson.

Start with the hypothesis that you and yours are not the center of the universe.
savvys84
not rated yet Dec 19, 2018
dark matter is what gives mass to matter as we know it, so it has to be everywhere, not just out there
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2018
And despite making a bunch of assertions about politeness, it doubles down on the ad hominem.

Kinda obvious, don'cha think?

Now, back to the Rydberg constant.
JaxPavan
2 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2018
Your definition of ad hominem is pretty loose considering your prior language.

Anyhow, no one is asking you. I'm asking Larsson. You are a programmer and he is a physicist. No insult intended, goodbye. Talk to you later. . .
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2018
Here's the equation, YEC troll:

R = Me⁴/8ε²h³c

Now perhaps you can tell us what it is and why any variation in it would be immediately noticeable. If you actually know any physics, which you don't appear to.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2018
My definition of ad hominem doesn't include making fun of people when they say stupid stuff. Like the speed of light varying by cm/s over a year. Especially when they claim to be making valid physics arguments they can't support because they don't know enough physics.

Don't wanna be made fun of? Don't say stupid stuff. Show a little humility. Ask. Don't tell. I really don't like fake experts and other posers. I generally make fun of them.
JaxPavan
2 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2018
Maybe we should meet?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2018
Not a chance. Now you're descending to physical threats. Reported.
JaxPavan
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
Not a threat by any means, you just seen out of control? My question is not to you. Go away.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2018
Nice try, troll. I suppose I could have baited you into it and had a couple cops show up, but it's too much effort.
JaxPavan
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
It is funny what a coward you are.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2018
Thought it wasn't addressed to me.

Oops.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2018
And speaking of cowards, the Rydberg constant.

Just as a reminder, R = Me⁴/8ε²h³c
JaxPavan
2 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2018
No need for your thumb-sucking fear. No threat here. Come together and find our differences. Unless you want a duel, in which case tell me?

Do you understand that we are the first generation in history where all of us will be archived for historians and our descendants? Our great Gandkids will have more sense than to type the crap you or I type. Funny that.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2018
The Rydberg constant.

Explain this equation and its meaning and application: R = Me⁴/8ε²h³c
JaxPavan
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
You are a computer programmer. Go away.

JaxPavan
2 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2018
Oh oh, too tired because I'm in an arctic time zone. No worries. I'll fill in the blanks. BTW so are many of us. Lol.

You have an unacknowledged problem because this is the first generation to have all the scum logged. Lol

I'm happy to let near term reality be the end? Lots of other interesting stuff in the margin?
JaxPavan
2 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2018

@Larsson,

What say you?

https://arxiv.org...908.0249

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
The Rydberg constant is used to calculate the wavelengths of the spectra emitted and absorbed by the electron shells of atoms.

Its value depends upon the mass of electrons, their charge, the permittivity of free space, Planck's constant, and the speed of light.

Looks like I know more physics than you do. Guess I don't have to be a physicist for that.

Just sayin'.
JaxPavan
2 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2018
Go away.
JaxPavan
2 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2018
@Larsson,

https://arxiv.org...908.0249

If one assumes C is decreasing by 2 cm/s per year and hold photon energy constant at the time of putative emission, then red shift occurs without any necessary expansion.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2018
@Larsson,

https://arxiv.org...908.0249

If one assumes C is decreasing by 2 cm/s per year and hold photon energy constant at the time of putative emission, then red shift occurs without any necessary expansion.


Can't speak for Torbjorn, but it sounds like a bunch of crap to me.

Loser: Variable speed of light cosmology. If the constraints are that gravitational waves and the speed of light must be equal to one part in 1,000,000,000,000,000, then the speed of light couldn't have varied by more than that amount over at least hundreds of millions of years. If you want to change the speed of light, then you'd have to change the speed of gravity as well, and there are tight constraints on combinations of G, c, and h (Planck's constant), the last of which is not allowed to vary due to the consistency of atomic spectra.


https://medium.co...fab04fcb
JaxPavan
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2018
Yes we are discussing spectra.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2018
Yes we are discussing spectra.


Nope, we are discussing an observation that totally rules out varying speed of light theories. They are therefore dead, and irrelevant. As proven. Next.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2018
Worth mentioning that Ethan is talking here about LIGO detections and their effect upon various theories of cosmology and astrophysics. The confirmation of the speeds of light and gravity being within 1 part in a quadrillion is something I had not seen before, and it virtually rules out a change in either one. I found confirmation of this here: https://www.scien...ght-same

It was the neutron star merger that showed it; gravitational waves alone could only constrain it to about 10% either way, but the neutron star merger confirmed it to
within -3 x 10^-15 and 7 x 10^-16 of c.
The scholarly papers are linked at the bottom of the article. Two different teams got the same answer, and that answer is well within the error bars of previous estimates from gravitational waves alone. Nice to see everything coming out with the same answers.

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.