Dark matter, split from Is this the Dark Matter Particle?

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course, maybe if they just stop trying to sledgehammer the wrong physics for the wrong state of matter to 99.9% of the universe they won't need hypothetical dark matter anymore?

[beecee]

24 minutes ago, Justatruthseeker said:

Of course, maybe if they just stop trying to sledgehammer the wrong physics for the wrong state of matter to 99.9% of the universe they won't need hypothetical dark matter anymore?

What sledgehammering are you referring too? At this stage of proceedings, we have overwhelming observational evidence for the existence of DM,  although as yet we are unable to identify the exact nature of that matter.

[Justatruthseeker]

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

What sledgehammering are you referring too? At this stage of proceedings, we have overwhelming observational evidence for the existence of DM,  although as yet we are unable to identify the exact nature of that matter.

You mean by sledgehammering a theory to ionized matter that we have tested to be 99.9% accurate regarding non-ionized matter without it?

Gravitational theory has already been shown to be 99.9% accurate describing planetary systems (non-ionized matter) or about .1% of the entire universe. But then they apply that theory to the other 99.9% of the universe (plasma) and suddenly what was just tested to be 99.9% accurate requires them to sledgehammer it to fit with ad-hoc theory to the tune of 96%.

Perhaps if cosmologists used the correct physics for the correct states of matter, one might not need all those ad-hoc theories to make fit what doesn't apply?

 

There is no evidence for Dark Matter. The evidence is that they apply gravitational theory, come up with the wrong answers, then add just enough magical Fairie Dust to make the math fit a semblance of reality. Theory that was just tested to a 99.9% accuracy without that Fairie Dust.

Fairie Dust - Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theory.

Observational evidence shows they are ignoring the behavior of what really exists in halos around the galaxy.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/H-12-331.html

Not one laboratory uses anything but particle physics and electromagnetic theory to describe plasma behavior. But they continue to treat it as ordinary "gas" and to sledgehammer the wrong physics to it, despite those laboratory experiments.

 

Sure, gravitational theories are great at describing non-ionized matter. Of course they believed at one time that 99% of the universe was non-ionized matter, and so began down the wrong course. Now we know that 99.9% of the universe is instead ionized matter, but they still attempt to apply the physics for non-ionized matter to that ionized state. Even if they know they can't from laboratory experiments.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10apr_moondustinthewind

" "We've had some surprising results," says Abbas "We're finding that individual dust grains do not act the same as larger amounts of moon dust put together. Existing theories based on calculations of the charge of a large amount of moondust don't apply to the moondust at the single particle level." "

And this is what we are discussing - a universe composed of 99.9% single charged particles - not clumps of matter. There exists no gravitational theory for the quantum level. Yet they are trying to sledgehammer the theory for clumps of matter to those single particles. Consistently get the wrong answers, which causes them to add that Fairie Dust to a theory 99.9% accurate without it.

We don't need MOND, we don't need to revise anything. Just use the correct physics for the correct states of matter.

One would need the same 96% Fairie Dust if one attempted to apply plasma physics to planetary orbits.... But when applied to plasma....

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by Justatruthseeker

[swansont]

Where in GR does it specify that it only acts on non-ionized matter?

17 minutes ago, Justatruthseeker said:

 

Sure, gravitational theories are great at describing non-ionized matter. Of course they believed at one time that 99% of the universe was non-ionized matter, and so began down the wrong course. Now we know that 99.9% of the universe is instead ionized matter, but they still attempt to apply the physics for non-ionized matter to that ionized state. Even if they know they can't from laboratory experiments.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10apr_moondustinthewind

" "We've had some surprising results," says Abbas "We're finding that individual dust grains do not act the same as larger amounts of moon dust put together. Existing theories based on calculations of the charge of a large amount of moondust don't apply to the moondust at the single particle level." "

And this is what we are discussing - a universe composed of 99.9% single charged particles - not clumps of matter. There exists no gravitational theory for the quantum level. Yet they are trying to sledgehammer the theory for clumps of matter to those single particles. Consistently get the wrong answers, which causes them to add that Fairie Dust to a theory 99.9% accurate without it.

This has nothing to do with GR. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[beecee]

9 minutes ago, Justatruthseeker said:

Perhaps if cosmologists used the correct physics for the correct states of matter, one might not need all those ad-hoc theories to make fit what doesn't apply?

Well now does that mean in the near future, we will see a paper written up by you, for professional review, pointing out the error in the ways of cosmology over the last 50 years or so? I wait with great anticipation. 

Quote

There is no evidence for Dark Matter. 

Bullshit to put it in as polite terms as possible. But again, perhaps you can show how I am wrong, and far more importantly, how the scientific community on the whole is wrong, by more professional accepted means, rather then claiming nonsense on a forum open to any Tom, Dick or Harry. You know, a scientific paper for peer review. 

 

 

 

[Justatruthseeker]

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

Where in GR does it specify that it only acts on non-ionized matter?

This has nothing to do with GR. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

It has everything to do with GR. It is GR that has been tested to a 99.9% accuracy inside the solar system without the need for that Fairie Dust. yet the second you attempt to apply it to the rest of the universe they suddenly have to add Fairie Dust.

I'm not bashing GR. I think it is an incredibly accurate theory for describing non-ionized matter or .1% of the universe...

 

Well I am at my daily limit, so to reply to beecee

They've already been submitted and the un-qualatatively flat rotation curves obtained. As well as several other predictions that fit was was later discovered.

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation

So we agree. To be polite as possible your denial is based upon pure bullshit. If you want to go that routine, don't be surprised if you get back what you first give. But you, your gonna ask me to put faith in something never observed, never tested in any laboratory, that you have to add to a theory that is already known to be 99.9% accurate without it. I believe the word bullshit that you used is indeed appropriate. Just be looking in the mirror when you apply it....

Now, do you want to try the civilized discussion or are you going to stay the fanatic course?

Edited July 8, 2018 by Justatruthseeker

[YaDinghus]

7 minutes ago, Justatruthseeker said:

It has everything to do with GR. It is GR that has been tested to a 99.9% accuracy inside the solar system without the need for that Fairie Dust. yet the second you attempt to apply it to the rest of the universe they suddenly have to add Fairie Dust.

I'm not bashing GR. I think it is an incredibly accurate theory for describing non-ionized matter or .1% of the universe...

The observations that lead us to the assumption that Dark Matter is needed to explain the movement of stellar bodies in the galaxies is already seen with purely newtonian gravity. GR has givren us the (or a) tool to confirm this assumption with the effect of gravitational lensing. GR is (part of) the solution here, not the problem

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Justatruthseeker said:

It has everything to do with GR. It is GR that has been tested to a 99.9% accuracy inside the solar system without the need for that Fairie Dust. yet the second you attempt to apply it to the rest of the universe they suddenly have to add Fairie Dust.

Since that's not true (in multiple ways) where does that leave us?

Quote

I'm not bashing GR. I think it is an incredibly accurate theory for describing non-ionized matter or .1% of the universe...

Where does this nonsense that it doesn't apply to ionized matter come from? What is your evidence that it's even remotely true?

 

1 hour ago, Justatruthseeker said:

But you, your gonna ask me to put faith in something never observed, never tested in any laboratory, that you have to add to a theory that is already known to be 99.9% accurate without it. I believe the word bullshit that you used is indeed appropriate. Just be looking in the mirror when you apply it....

Now, do you want to try the civilized discussion or are you going to stay the fanatic course?

I guess you would have been in the "tear it down, neutrinos don't exist" camp back in the day. To name just one example of fanaticism.

[StringJunky]

If the OP, as his username suggests, is looking for 'truth' then science is the wrong discipline to be looking at since that is the realm of philosophy and religion.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Justatruthseeker said:

Well I am at my daily limit, so to reply to beecee

They've already been submitted and the un-qualatatively flat rotation curves obtained. As well as several other predictions that fit was was later discovered.

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation

So we agree. To be polite as possible your denial is based upon pure bullshit. If you want to go that routine, don't be surprised if you get back what you first give. But you, your gonna ask me to put faith in something never observed, never tested in any laboratory, that you have to add to a theory that is already known to be 99.9% accurate without it. I believe the word bullshit that you used is indeed appropriate. Just be looking in the mirror when you apply it....

Firstly, let's note that your hypothetical nonsense has been moved to where it should be...speculations. Let's also note secondly that while DM when first proposed was a " fudge factor"  incorporated by reasonable professional astronomers to explain the anomalous rotational curves of galaxies as observed and measured, has of course since then been supported by many lines of evidence and observations, not the least being the bullet cluster...Thirdly as already pointed out to you, your mistaken belief that GR only applies to some small percentage of the universe, and not to plasma, fourthly of course to finally put your nonsense to bed, in that the Plasma/Electric universe hypothetical was debunked and discredited long ago. So much for your mirror and bullshit claims. 

Quote

 Now, do you want to try the civilized discussion or are you going to stay the fanatic course?

Civilised of course but still recognising the bullshit content of your original claims and the fanaticism imbedded within, in the observation of your first five posts to a forum, in mainstream science, all set out to mistakenly attempt at some form of invalidation and/or derision of accepted incumbent science,  and the fact that this has rightly been moved to speculation. 

Take it easy, OK?

Edited July 9, 2018 by beecee

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Justatruthseeker said:

What more evidence do you need than what was once just 99.9% accurate no longer is the second you apply it outside the solar system?

But sure, whatever you need

As has already been pointed out to you, GR applies to the observable universe as a whole  and all states of matter including plasma.

 

NB: The Plasma/Electric hypothetical that you seem to be championing was put to bed many years ago, as was all the claims of Eric J Lerner and his book " The BB Never Happened"  and is off topic in science section and thread. Take it to speculations.

l 

[Markus Hanke]

11 hours ago, Justatruthseeker said:

So the question is really, are we using the wrong physics for the wrong state of matter to begin with

The laws of gravity do not depend on the state of matter at all. They depend only on the distribution of energy-momentum.

[Justatruthseeker]

17 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

The laws of gravity do not depend on the state of matter at all. They depend only on the distribution of energy-momentum.

Really? Then you wont mind showing me a single plasma experiment that uses the laws of gravity? Plasma is controlled by the electromagnetic forces, which overpower gravity. But that's why I don't have to put my coffee pot below the outlet for it to work....

On 7/8/2018 at 7:14 PM, beecee said:

As has already been pointed out to you, GR applies to the observable universe as a whole  and all states of matter including plasma.

 

NB: The Plasma/Electric hypothetical that you seem to be championing was put to bed many years ago, as was all the claims of Eric J Lerner and his book " The BB Never Happened"  and is off topic in science section and thread. Take it to speculations.

l 

See above. Please provide a single plasma experiment that used the laws of gravitation to describe it's behavior. Plasma is controlled by the electromagnetic forces which overpower gravity. I will await that experimental citation....

On 7/8/2018 at 7:01 PM, beecee said:

Firstly, let's note that your hypothetical nonsense has been moved to where it should be...speculations. Let's also note secondly that while DM when first proposed was a " fudge factor"  incorporated by reasonable professional astronomers to explain the anomalous rotational curves of galaxies as observed and measured, has of course since then been supported by many lines of evidence and observations, not the least being the bullet cluster...Thirdly as already pointed out to you, your mistaken belief that GR only applies to some small percentage of the universe, and not to plasma, fourthly of course to finally put your nonsense to bed, in that the Plasma/Electric universe hypothetical was debunked and discredited long ago. So much for your mirror and bullshit claims. 

Civilised of course but still recognising the bullshit content of your original claims and the fanaticism imbedded within, in the observation of your first five posts to a forum, in mainstream science, all set out to mistakenly attempt at some form of invalidation and/or derision of accepted incumbent science,  and the fact that this has rightly been moved to speculation. 

Take it easy, OK?

Says the man that ignores:

1) that 99.9% of the universe is plasma.

2) That in the laboratory we use particle physics and electromagnetic theory to describe it's behavior.

3) What is 99.9% accurate without that "fudge factor" suddenly needs that "fudge factor" when applied to plasma.

4) Who said anything about the electric universe? Does it scare you for some reason that you jump to this conclusion? I am confused as to what you think plasma physics has to do with that?

5) I am still awaiting your laboratory citation where gravity is used to describe the behavior of plasma. I shall of course be waiting till the end of time. It's not used on earth, let alone in the "micro-gravity " of space.....

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, Justatruthseeker said:

See above. Please provide a single plasma experiment that used the laws of gravitation to describe it's behavior. Plasma is controlled by the electromagnetic forces which overpower gravity. I will await that experimental citation....

Plasma has mass-energy and, thus, it alters spacetime and spacetime alters it. Simple.

[Justatruthseeker]

On 7/8/2018 at 5:40 PM, swansont said:

Since that's not true (in multiple ways) where does that leave us?

Where does this nonsense that it doesn't apply to ionized matter come from? What is your evidence that it's even remotely true?

 

I guess you would have been in the "tear it down, neutrinos don't exist" camp back in the day. To name just one example of fanaticism.

Then you wont mind showing me the calculations using GR that work correctly to describe galaxy rotation curves without adding Fairie Dust since none is needed inside the solar system?

No, I expect you will mind, since you can not produce any such thing.

Where? Every single laboratory experiment ever performed with plasma, that's where. But I understand people know little about that state of matter, even if it is 99.9% of the universe. You might want to study up on it. You wont need so much Fairie Dust....

Why would I doubt the existence of neutrino's, they are predicted by the Standard Model which is highly successful. It's your Fairie Dust that isn't predicted nor needed..... To name another example of fanaticism...

10 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Plasma has mass-energy and, thus, it alters spacetime and spacetime alters it. Simple.

And yet stars and clouds of plasma do not orbit according to your gravitational calculations. And what is spacetime made of?

On 7/8/2018 at 7:14 PM, beecee said:

As has already been pointed out to you, GR applies to the observable universe as a whole  and all states of matter including plasma.

 

NB: The Plasma/Electric hypothetical that you seem to be championing was put to bed many years ago, as was all the claims of Eric J Lerner and his book " The BB Never Happened"  and is off topic in science section and thread. Take it to speculations.

l 

That's what you all keep saying. Yet every day observations falsify your beliefs and support the plasma universe..

 

Why now they are looking for "electric dark matter" since they can't find that Fairie Dust anywhere else.... not even searching "noise".....

https://www.livescience.com/62726-dark-matter-electric-charge.html

It's only a matter of time. Just got to wait for the fanatics to die off...

Edited July 10, 2018 by Justatruthseeker

[StringJunky]

21 minutes ago, Justatruthseeker said:

Then you wont mind showing me the calculations using GR that work correctly to describe galaxy rotation curves without adding Fairie Dust since none is needed inside the solar system?

No, I expect you will mind, since you can not produce any such thing.

Where? Every single laboratory experiment ever performed with plasma, that's where. But I understand people know little about that state of matter, even if it is 99.9% of the universe. You might want to study up on it. You wont need so much Fairie Dust....

Why would I doubt the existence of neutrino's, they are predicted by the Standard Model which is highly successful. It's your Fairie Dust that isn't predicted nor needed..... To name another example of fanaticism...

And yet stars and clouds of plasma do not orbit according to your gravitational calculations. And what is spacetime made of?

That's what you all keep saying. Yet every day observations falsify your beliefs and support the plasma universe..

 

Why now they are looking for "electric dark matter" since they can't find that Fairie Dust anywhere else.... not even searching "noise".....

https://www.livescience.com/62726-dark-matter-electric-charge.html

It's only a matter of time. Just got to wait for the fanatics to die off...

What's so special about plasma? it's only dissociated atoms. 

[beecee]

50 minutes ago, Justatruthseeker said:

It's only a matter of time. Just got to wait for the fanatics to die off...

Not wise to wait for your own demise.......

Quote

That's what you all keep saying. Yet every day observations falsify your beliefs and support the plasma universe..

As I previously informed you as nice as possible...bullshit. The universe came to be the way it is because of the phenomenon we call gravity...EMF's resulted from that gravitational collpase and interactions.

Quote

And yet stars and clouds of plasma do not orbit according to your gravitational calculations. And what is spacetime made of?

The stars on larger scales as per galaxies, orbit as per GR and DM contributions of gravity.

I am not a professional, but I can add to your limited knowledge by informing you that spacetime is simply  a unified multi-dimensional framework within which it is possible to locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of spatial coordinates and time. The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light is invariant: It can be and has observed to be twisted, curved, warped and waved in the presence of mass. And please note carefully, something does not need to be physical to be real...Is a magnetic field a physical entity? 

Quote

Then you wont mind showing me the calculations using GR that work correctly to describe galaxy rotation curves without adding Fairie Dust since none is needed inside the solar system?

No, I'm unable to do that as like you,  I am not a professional.

Quote

 

Says the man that ignores:

1) that 99.9% of the universe is plasma.

 

You must be getting desperate in the fact that now you claim untruths. Let me educate you as others already have...the 99% plasma is still governed by GR. got it?

Quote

2) That in the laboratory we use particle physics and electromagnetic theory to describe it's behavior.

Gravity, as described by the BB and GR describe the universe/spacetime we inhabit to a high degree of accuracy.

 

Quote

3) What is 99.9% accurate without that "fudge factor" suddenly needs that "fudge factor" when applied to plasma.

GR works admirably with that which in its first inception was a fudge factor...Of course with your desperate tactics and support of the defunct Plasma/Electric nonsense, you ignore the fact that since then evidence has been forthcoming as already given to you.

Quote

4) Who said anything about the electric universe? Does it scare you for some reason that you jump to this conclusion? I am confused as to what you think plasma physics has to do with that?

The Plasma/Electric universe are both defunct. Why would I be scared?  That's rather childish to even suggest. 

Quote

5) I am still awaiting your laboratory citation where gravity is used to describe the behavior of plasma. I shall of course be waiting till the end of time. It's not used on earth, let alone in the "micro-gravity " of space....

Gravity is responsible for the universe we see and inhabit. Gravity will be responsible for the final death of stars [plasma] and everything else.

https://www.everythingselectric.com/plasma-cosmology-debunked/

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18950/how-to-debunk-the-electric-universe

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/testing-electric-universe/

 

 

Let me reiterate a couple of points you have ignored...

[1] If you are so positive of this previously defunct hypothetical, gather your evidence and write up a paper for professional peer review.

[2] Why so much obvious fanaticism when we can see at a single glance how every post of yours [not many granted] since you joined are out to attempt to invalidate and/or deride the current accepted cosmological model.

Edited July 10, 2018 by beecee

[Markus Hanke]

5 hours ago, Justatruthseeker said:

Really? Then you wont mind showing me a single plasma experiment that uses the laws of gravity?

The sun.

5 hours ago, Justatruthseeker said:

Plasma is controlled by the electromagnetic forces

Yes, just like any other type of matter too. And the weak and strong interactions also play their role. Generally speaking, which of these interactions has the strongest effect depends on the scale; for example, on atomic scales the EM interaction will be dominant, on subatomic scales the weak and strong interactions, and on macro scales it will be gravity. But in any case, they are all present.

5 hours ago, Justatruthseeker said:

Where? Every single laboratory experiment ever performed with plasma, that's where.

I am not aware of any laboratory experiments that measure plasma to have gravitational effects different from what GR predicts. Can you provide a citation please?

5 hours ago, Justatruthseeker said:

Then you wont mind showing me the calculations using GR that work correctly to describe galaxy rotation curves without adding Fairie Dust since none is needed inside the solar system?

Actually, you are asking the wrong question. We already know that - using GR - the observational data we have is consistent with the existence of dark matter. Without dark matter, it won’t be. The thing with this is that we have absolutely no reason to believe that the laws of gravity are scale-dependent; we know GR works very well on scales of the order of the solar system, so it is reasonable to assume that they also do on larger scales. It follows that the existence of dark matter is a more reasonable explanation, than a modified gravity law.

There is a possibility that gravity is indeed scale-dependent; these are concepts that are being investigated (refer e.g. to Verlinde’s “Emergent Gravity”). At the moment though, none of these alternatives has proven very workable.

As for electromagnetism, it is evidently very different from gravity, both in terms of its nature and behaviour. The idea that gravity is an electromagnetic effect is very old, and self-evidently false, which is why it isn’t part of modern science.

Let me ask you in return - can you provide a model based purely on electromagnetism that correctly replicates all aspects of gravity? I can tell you for a fact that you can’t, because EM does not have a sufficient number of degrees of freedom to do so.

[stephaneww]

 Hi,

You have this also, for example : https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/114217-multiple-black-holes-at-the-center-of-our-galaxy/

Black holes seem to be much more numerous than expected within galaxies.

They are good candidates to explain some (all?) of the dark matter and they have the cool features for dark matter: radiation, invisible, gravitational effect and hidden within galaxies…

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by stephaneww

[Strange]

8 hours ago, Justatruthseeker said:

But that's why I don't have to put my coffee pot below the outlet for it to work....

You have a plasma-powered coffee pot? Impressed.

[Markus Hanke]

I forgot to mention earlier - it is in fact possible to observationally test GR on scales much larger than the solar system. Here is just one recent example:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.08300

Needless to say that all of these tests are consistent with GR predictions.

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Justatruthseeker said:

Then you wont mind showing me the calculations using GR that work correctly to describe galaxy rotation curves without adding Fairie Dust since none is needed inside the solar system?

Not at all. But as your point seems to be that GR is wrong, what would actually be required is a calculation of the replacement theory that doesn't include dark matter.

Quote

No, I expect you will mind, since you can not produce any such thing.

No. That's the whole point of adding dark matter.

Quote

Where? Every single laboratory experiment ever performed with plasma, that's where. But I understand people know little about that state of matter, even if it is 99.9% of the universe. You might want to study up on it. You wont need so much Fairie Dust....

Lack of understanding on my part isn't the issue here. Lack of evidence on your part is.

There's nothing in the theory that depends on the state of matter. There is no experimental evidence that it depends on the state of matter.

So I will ask again, where this notion comes from. And will add: you need to be specific. Vague, hand-wavy statements aren't going to get you anything (nor will the use of the pejorative "fairy dust")

Quote

Why would I doubt the existence of neutrino's, they are predicted by the Standard Model which is highly successful. It's your Fairie Dust that isn't predicted nor needed..... To name another example of fanaticism...

Neutrinos were not predicted before the standard model existed — there's a three decade gap between the prediction and the beginning of the standard model being developed. I knew Pauli was good, but I didn't know he could use the standard model to predict neutrinos before the theory even existed.

Quote

And yet stars and clouds of plasma do not orbit according to your gravitational calculations.

The sun is a ball of plasma, and you admit that the theory works just fine to predict effects involving it.

 

I will ask again for evidence of your claims. If they are not forthcoming, this discussion will not last long. Speculations has rules that must be followed.