beecee

I have no problem with any genuine science adherents on this forum or even non mainstream suggestions as Joe put as long as there is evidence that may support said non mainstream idea. Joe of course has no argument against the existence of DM. 41 and counting. Pot, kettle? .......anyway, just one question for you...Do you have a problem with the existence of DM? or how it applies with GR? With DM other lines of evidence that does support and continues to support the concept is the gravitational lensing by galactic clusters and the CMBR itself.... see..... http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter/index3.html Gravitational Lensing by Clusters of Galaxies Yet another independent line of evidence points to the dominance of dark matter in galaxy clusters. According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, space is curved in the vicinity of strong gravitational fields. One consequence of the warping of space by gravity is that the path of light from background galaxies is bent when it passes near a cluster, in much the same way that a glass lens will bend light. The images of the galaxies are distorted by this "gravitational lensing" effect, by an amount that depends on the mass of the cluster. This method gives estimates for the amount of dark matter in galaxy clusters that is in good agreement with X-ray observations. Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation The cosmic microwave background radiation reveals what the universe was like when it was only a few hundred thousand years old, long before galaxies and clusters of galaxies were formed. At this time the universe was an expanding gas composed primarily of protons, electrons, photons, neutrinos, and dark matter. The intensity of the cosmic microwave background radiation is very nearly the same in all directions, but not quite. Small variations of a fraction of a percent have been detected. These variations, or fluctuations, are due to clumps of matter that are either hotter or cooler than the average. The rate at which clumps would grow in a hot, expanding gas can be calculated for different mixtures of photons, protons, neutrinos and dark matter. Comparison of such calculations with observations of the microwave background (especially with the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, or WMAP) and other data indicate that the universe contains about 6 times more dark matter than normal matter. Summary: Amount of Dark Matter: Many different lines of evidence suggest that the mass of dark matter in galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the universe as a whole is about 5 or 6 times greater than the mass of ordinary baryonic matter such as the protons and neutrons. This chart represents the census of the Universe only 380,000 years after the Big Bang. (Illustration: NASA/CXC/M.Weiss) Revised: November 01, 2017

I'm also an old bastard like you, but a couple of years ahead. Firstly the first thing anyone needs to do if they believe they have solved some issue, is to know thoroughly the theory/model you are trying to over throw, or the incumbent explanation. For a start the BB is overwhelmingly supported because it aligns with more observations then any other hypothetical model...secondly the BB was not the creation of the universe, but a description of how spacetime evolved from a hot dense state, starting at t+10-43 seconds. Mthematics also is simply the language of physics. And finally, one of the greatest attributes of science, the scientific method, and scientific theories, is that they are never really proven.....A theory will gain status as it aligns with what we observe and makes successful predictions....any theory can be and often are overthrown or modified as further data comes to light and observations improve. In saying that, theories also grow in certainty over time, as they continue making successful predictions...good example, the relatively recent discovery of gravitational waves that GR predicted 100 years ago. The theory of the evolution of life is as close to certain as we could hope for and others like SR and the BB are not too far behind. I suggest you read some reputable material, stick with forums such as this and learn from the on line experts.....and see what you decide.

I understand Joe. I repeat.....The assumptions are yet to be determined incorrect, and of course the search continues. And I said, The assumptions are yet to be determined incorrect, and of course the search continues. I did. Well in your 40 posts so far on this forum, everyone is addressed to me or at least reference to me. Yes, you need to move on and forget the old days.

The assumptions are yet to be determined incorrect, and of course the search continues. What one thing we are certainly able to learn from the OP article and paper, is that science and scientific theories and models, will always be improved, corrected, and/or changed when necessary, due to further science based on observational and/or experimental data from and by science itself. It will not stagnate because the many thousands of young up and comers, will be doing their best to over turn or invalidate the status quo and get that feather in their cap ....Like I say many times, the scientific methodology makes certain that science is always self correcting when needed and a discipline in eternal progress. The paper in the OP and the Abstract summary, highlights that, and the main part that interests me, is the possibility of the relatively new discovery of gravitational waves, we may have a new method of refining and improving the search for these elusive critters. Let's hope so. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0542-z A new era in the search for dark matter: Abstract There is a growing sense of ‘crisis’ in the dark-matter particle community, which arises from the absence of evidence for the most popular candidates for dark-matter particles—such as weakly interacting massive particles, axions and sterile neutrinos—despite the enormous effort that has gone into searching for these particles. Here we discuss what we have learned about the nature of dark matter from past experiments and the implications for planned dark-matter searches in the next decade. We argue that diversifying the experimental effort and incorporating astronomical surveys and gravitational-wave observations is our best hope of making progress on the dark-matter problem.

Perhaps my dear friend , neither you, I nor Joe can be certain at this time. But you miss the point. Science, all of science, is always open for new knowledge and discoveries and successful theories.....And as I have said to Joe, any new model I don't believe will gain too much traction at least and until some empirical evidence is found...particularly any model that does not align with GR and the BB which happen to go hand in hand, and are overwhelmingly evidenced. ps: How are you going over at the old place? This is what I meant JoeH..... https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/428649/is-dark-matter-a-superfluid p vote7down vote Dark matter doesn't have to be a superfluid not to interact with itself. We know dark matter doesn't interact via the strong or EM forces because if it did we would have seen it by now. So at most it interacts via the weak force and the weak force is ... well ... weak. Having said that, it has been been suggested that dark matter forms a superfluid phase under the right circumstances. As far as I know this was first suggested by Berezhiani and Khoury in Theory of Dark Matter Superfluidity. However the motivation for this is not allowing dark matter to pass through itself in galaxy cluster collisions. Indeed in this theory the superfluid only forms in galaxies where the dark matter is relatively dense - the superfluid is not formed in lower density regions like galaxy clusters. The motivation is that when the superfluid forms it allows collective excitations that slightly modify the gravitational interaction in a way that matches the MOND theory. For completeness, we should note this is not considered a mainstream theory by most physcists ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The highlighted bit by me is why I suggested you start a new thread in speculations. Let me add from the same link......... Which is word for word what you also said.... but anyway again same link the reply..... highlights by me:

It is far more disturbing as Strange has hinted at, when some join these clubs/forums, with a specific agenda in mind and to conduct some sort of crusade re these deliquents. Obviously most are religious of one sort or another, or have some unsupported, unscientific notion re some mythical Intelligent design, and then scream blue murder, spit the dummy when their threads are closed.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/graphics/resources/handouts/lithos/bullet_lithos.pdf Bullet Cluster: Direct Proof of Dark Matter The “Bullet Cluster” is an extremely important object for astrophysical research including studies of dark matter. This cluster was formed after the violent collision of two large clusters of galaxies moving at great speeds. The Bullet Cluster is located about 3.8 billion light years from Earth. This composite image shows the galaxy cluster 1E 0657- 56, also known as the “Bullet Cluster.” This cluster was formed after the collision of two large clusters of galaxies, the most energetic event known in the Universe since the Big Bang. Hot gas detected by Chandra in X-rays is seen as two pink clumps in the image and contains most of the “normal,” or baryonic, matter in the two clusters. The bullet-shaped clump on the right is the hot gas from one cluster, which passed through the hot gas from the other larger cluster during the collision. An optical image from Magellan and the Hubble Space Telescope shows the galaxies in orange and white. The blue areas in this image show where astronomers find most of the mass in the clusters. The concentration of mass is determined using the effect of so-called gravitational lensing, where light from the distant objects is distorted by intervening matter. Most of the matter in the clusters (blue) is clearly separate from the normal matter (pink), giving direct evidence that nearly all of the matter in the clusters is dark. The hot gas in each cluster was slowed by a drag force, similar to air resistance, during the collision. In contrast, the dark matter was not slowed by the impact because it does not interact directly with itself or the gas except through gravity. Therefore, during the collision the dark matter clumps from the two clusters moved ahead of the hot gas, producing the separation of the dark and normal matter seen in the image. If hot gas was the most massive component in the clusters, as proposed by alternative theories of gravity, such an effect would not be seen. Instead, this result shows that dark matter is required. from your own link..... Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter 05.15.07 The most common substance in the universe is called dark matter. It doesn’t shine or reflect light. We can’t even see it. Image right: This Hubble Space Telescope composite image shows a ghostly "ring" of dark matter in the galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17. The ring-like structure is evident in the blue map of the cluster's dark matter distribution. The map is superimposed on a Hubble image of the cluster. The ring is one of the strongest pieces of evidence to date for the existence of dark matter, an unknown substance that pervades the universe. Click image to enlarge. Credit: NASA, ESA, M.J. Jee and H. Ford (Johns Hopkins University) It is an invisible substance composed of atoms that are far different from those that make up the universe’s normal matter, such as stars and galaxies. In fact, if you drove into a wall made of dark matter, you wouldn’t crack a headlight or inflate an airbag. You wouldn’t even know it happened. But what happens to dark matter during a collision? Astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water. The ring's discovery is among the strongest evidence yet that dark matter exists. Astronomers have long suspected the existence of the invisible substance as the source of additional gravity that holds together galaxy clusters. Such clusters would fly apart if they relied only on the gravity from their visible stars. Although astronomers don't know what dark matter is made of, they hypothesize that it is a type of elementary particle that pervades the universe. The ring-like structure is evident in a composite image of the cluster made from Hubble observations. The ring can be seen in the blue map of the cluster’s dark matter distribution, which is superimposed on an image of the cluster. The Hubble astronomers say it is the first time they have detected dark matter as having a unique structure that is different from the gas and galaxies in the cluster. The researchers spotted the ring unexpectedly while they were mapping the distribution of dark matter within the galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17 (ZwCl 0024+1652), located 5 billion light-years from Earth. The ring measures 2.6 million light-years across. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing as yet you have posted even offers an inkling of evidence supporting your concept hypothetical. JoshH: While you are supporting the concept of DM, the model you are supporting was/is one I had not heard of. After doing some basic research it does appear as a model that is being discussed in scientific circles. So firstly, my apologies for my "pulled out of your rear end" comment. Still I would say it is still an alternative idea and highly speculative and as such I believe maybe you should raise it in a new thread in speculation. But that's up to the mods, and no I havn't reported it and very rarely do any reporting. Also, just to add, if I had been in your position, I would have commented that you had found a new model of DM and then linked to some reputable source, instead of letting people believe it was your idea. Finally the present concept of DM does not conflict with GR, and that certainly is a very important thing to consider. GR is now so well supported and evidenced backed, that it appears unlikely any other conflicting model of DM with GR would be taked seriously...unless some real empirical evidence was found.

Again, we need to avoid the pit falls of your attempted pedantic contrary nonsense.

Here's that Greek Angel again, singing a Spanish? number.....Fair dinkum, she could put her glasses on by bed head any day of the week! Beautiful!!

Jupiter also from memory is thought to contain a planetary size rocky core bigger then Earth. This also from memory is why it has attracted such a dense atmosphere of the lighter gaseous elements. Pressures from the atmospheric gases is thought to be enough that hydrogen deep within its depths would be metalic.

Existence is what has come about through the evolution of the universe, the formation of stars, the nucleosynthesis of the elements, Abiogenisis and finally the evolution of life to what we see today....It's that simple. The universe was an accident, and we are simarilly an accident. While it is certainly possible that a Bigfoot exists as per myth, there is little or no evidence to support this concept. What Bigfoot proponents claim as so called evidence for their existence, is greatly outweighed by logic, and the lack of empirical evidence. The same sort of evidence for Bigfoot is akin to the same evidence that supposedly exists for a supreme being/creator/spaghetti monster.

Rubbish! Who knows what a QGT may reveal. We do have plenty of reasonable speculative scenarios though..https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ No there isn't, absolutely not. More '"pulled out of your rear end" crap. The universe could have evolved without any abiogenesis or evolution of life...so no observer.

The expansion of the universe follows laws that just happen to apply to it, and despite the many continued attempts to somehow put it down to some mythical higher power is just another "drag it out of my rear end" solution.....It is also an obvious "short circuit" to the discussion and science of how and why the BB started, what was before etc etc So far, all we know with any reasonable degree of certainty, is that the universe evolved/expanded from a hot dense state from around t+10-43 seconds, to the present day where we find that expansion over large scales now accelerating. Much of course is still an unknown factor but scientists instead of short circuiting things with some magical spaghetti monster rear end idea, are using present day technology to gather further data, conduct research and hopefully in the not too distant future, supply a reasonable answer to some or all of the present unknowns.

To repeat.....Let me say at this time, that many times people here and elsewhere use the term space when they mean spacetime....It may seem pedantic, and generally it is accepted, but my own personal feelings is as I have discussed here....space meaning the space between me and the TV, and spacetime being the unified multi-dimensional framework within which we locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of length, breadth and time. Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for different observers. We all treat space and time as separate and different entities when required....all of us. Spacetime, is the union of the two, in which GR operates.

Yep, certainly as I have explained to you at least twice now. No problems from this end. Again, space stops everything from being together: Time stops everything from happening together: Pretty basic lay persons definitions but also valid. Oh, and again, if you claim that spacetime is not real, what semblance of reality do you give a magnetic field? Let me say at this time, that many times people here and elsewhere use the term space when they mean spacetime....It may seem pedantic, and generally it is accepted, but my own personal feelings is as I have discussed here....space meaning the space between me and the TV, and spacetime being the unified multi-dimensional framework within which we locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of length, breadth and time. Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for different observers.

Here's another for good measure..... https://www.quora.com/Is-spacetime-a-real-thing-or-just-a-mere-concept Is spacetime a real "thing" or just a mere concept? It's a real concept to most people. Space-time is the substance, the location, the ethereal goo that the earth, us, and every other bit of matter travels through every day. However, to understand exactly what space-time is is a little harder. Space-time is the fabric that makes existence what it is. Without space-time, there is no location. How can there be location when there is no measurement, and how can there be measurement when there is no space to measure? Without space-time there would be no time. How can there be time when there is no movement, and how can there be movement when there is nothing to move through, and to measure time from? Basically, space-time is the age old theory of space, the aether, the celestial body, the heavens, that everyone has always known, only it's combined with time, which is also a concept we've always had. This is because time is nothing but a measurement of movement. It's like this. Move your hand one foot in one second. Now, your hand moved a foot in a second, but the same is true in reverse. It also took a second to move a foot. So time is a measurement of how fast an object moves a certain distance. This is why Einstein combined space and time into space-time. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I know what you said, here elsewhere and the other thread and I have not misrepresented you. Yes first there were two entities...then along came GR and for convenience sake the two entities became one. It's not that hard, unless you are purposely being obtuse or contrary..

You can deny it as much as you like, and of course ignore the fact that what I'm saying is that theories such as Newtonian and GR while both being approximations, are both correct when applied within their applicable zones and give correct answers. And when you say that spacetime is not real, perhaps you also need to ask yourself the question, are magnetic fields real? If you think a bit and apply your philosophical leanings to that question, you will realise that spacetime is certainly real. https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html What is a space time continuum? In 1906, soon after Albert Einstein announced his special theory of relativity, his former college teacher in mathematics, Hermann Minkowski, developed a new scheme for thinking about space and time that emphasized its geometric qualities. In his famous quotation delivered at a public lecture on relativity, he announced that, "The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality." This new reality was that space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object. It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time. Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time. This world-line exists as a complete object which may be sliced here and there so that you can see where the particle is located in space at a particular instant. Once you determine the complete world line of a particle from the forces acting upon it, you have 'solved' for its complete history. This world-line does not change with time, but simply exists as a timeless object. Similarly, in general relativity, when you solve equations for the shape of space-time, this shape does not change in time, but exists as a complete timeless object. You can slice it here and there to examine what the geometry of space looks like at a particular instant. Examining consecutive slices in time will let you see whether, for example, the universe is expanding or not. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" and this.....https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around? No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" This may also help.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

You are taking what can only be seen as a weird position. Firstly Einstein's GR gives us a great description of the universe we inhabit: Stop forcing in your "literally true" Your next faux pax is making a blanket yet untrue statement "then one must" regarding space and time. Space is simply what exists between you and me....and your position and my position at any instant can be calculated with three dimensions. Time is the elapsed period due to the finite, constant speed of light in a vacuum. Einstein, or actually his former teacher Minkowski simply saw the need and observation that a 4D combination of both is more realistic. I'm not sure how you are able to arrive at your conclusion unless for the sake of argument or contrarinness. Einstein did make the occasional mistake and to his credit was big enough to wear such errors of judgement.

Not sure how you interpret that...an agenda again perhaps? I mean I did say "may attempt to describe reality " so how can that be interpreted as a blanket statement. But hey, again let me remind you that philosophy which is your apparent forte, is what we don't know, while science is what we do know....generally speaking that is. And of course sometimes blanket statements certainly do apply.

Well I'm not a scientist, but I'm sure you wont mind me participating. I see space as real [its what separates everything] I see time as real [it stops everything from happening together] I see spacetime as real...it can be warped, twisted, curved, and form ripples in the presence of mass. Quarks etc are even more real and although not seen separately are logically consistent with our models. We cannot observe anything beyond the EH of a BH, but by applying GR and its excellent predictive powers, it tells us that once mass reaches its Schwarzchild limit, further collapse is compulsory, at least up to the quantum/Planck level where the predictive powers of GR fail us.

Ahha, so you are coming round...good. Yes theories may attempt to describe reality and or any truth if at all it really exists and if at all it is really knowable. But it is not and never has been a foregone requirement. If theories such as Newtonian gravity and GR give correct results each within their zones of applicability, and if those results coincide [eg: GR gives the same answers as Newtonian albeit with more accuracy] the theories/models are correct. Let's take another example, while accepting that most models are useful approximations that give answers according to our needs, any future QGT will give further answers we surmise, at levels where GR breaks down. That will not mean GR is wrong.

I remember in the seventies I think, a computer generated simulation with all information re all heavyweight boxers in history, to arive at the best...the final two were Ali and Rocky Marciano. Then the info on these two again were fed to the computer...the result was Ali well ahead on points up to around round 11 and Marciano knocking him out in the thirteenth. The pair also actually met in the ring, "acting" out the predicted computer results. My choice is Marciano

Let me rephrase that...a reputable reference for your claim/opinion

Quarks? why would there existence be in doubt? But you are entitled to your opinion. The majority? Your opinion again, or do you have a reference for that?

It seems like we have another real live one here. Let me inform you that you are nothing more then star stuff....born in the belly of stars, that themselves formed through gravitational collapse from the formation of light elements that evolved from the BB. No divine design necessary...no magic spaghetti monster...just simple evolutionary science backed up by loads of evidence. Now go take your white charger for a rest and accept that you are not capable of mounting any crusade against science.