NASA discovery proves Dark Matter doesnt exist and disproves standard model of cosmology [FALSE!]

[Marius]

SO A FEW YEARS AGO NASA DISCOVERED THERE IS A HUMONGUOUS 10 MILLION-DEGREE HALO OF GAS ENVELOPING THE MILKY WAY:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/hot_gas_halo.html

 

If you look at the illustration, it looks exactly like the hypothetical dark matter halo. Except this one is real. They even say that 'it might be a solution to the missing baryon problem'. 

Well done Nasa.

You finally confirmed Frank Zwicky's gas theory.(that was his vision of 'dark matter', not the current view which is plain sci-fi)

And you also disproved Einsteins relativity theory. 

So long 'gravitational lensing'. Its now clear that it is this super massive super heated gas which distorts or bends the light around galaxies. In the same way the gas from the suns corona does the same thing.

And I believe this also disproves Hubbles expansion theory, which is kind of based on Einsteins relativity (altough Einstein got a contracting universe when he solved his equations, but these are 'minor details', as is the 'cosmological constant' that he inserted to 'fix the problem' and achieve a static, not an expanding universe), and on Doppler redshift due to recessional velocity.

This gas halo, unlike dark matter, interracts with light. And, besides distorting it and creating the so called 'gravitational lensing', it also absorbs and scatters light. But since blue light has a higher frequency than red light, it gets more absorbed/scattered than redlight. That is why most galaxies appear red shifted. It has nothing to do with their 'recessional velocity' ! But with this gas halo which absorbs the blue light, or blocks it from getting out and reaching us.

They even made it blue to show the effect ! Well done, Nasa, well done. 

Edited November 7, 2021 by Phi for All
Don't want to attract crackpots with the title

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, Marius said:

If you look at the illustration, it looks exactly like the hypothetical dark matter halo. Except this one is real. They even say that 'it might be a solution to the missing baryon problem'. 

Well done Nasa.

The article you linked to is discussing missing baryon problem, not to be confused with the dark matter problem or the baryon asymmetry problem. It look like you misinterpreted the paper and draw incorrect conclusions regarding dark matter?

 

Quote

The matter in the halo does not have anything to do with dark matter

http://chandra.harvard.edu/blog/node/399

 

 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Marius said:

And you also disproved Einsteins relativity theory. 

So long 'gravitational lensing'. Its now clear that it is this super massive super heated gas which distorts or bends the light around galaxies. In the same way the gas from the suns corona does the same thing.

Ghideon has made some valid points. Another that struck me was the above claim. It is as far as I know, all mass/energy, baryonic or otherwise that distorts spacetime, and the fact that light/photons, follow geodesic paths in that distorted/warped field. 

 

I do support your "well done NASA"  and is well deserved and note that this as usual is science in its never ceasing path in gaining new knowledge. The Chandra X-ray Observatory was also the probe/scope responsible with the bullet cluster anomaly and the further evidence at that time for non baryonic DM.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Marius said:

This gas halo, unlike dark matter, interracts with light. And, besides distorting it and creating the so called 'gravitational lensing', it also absorbs and scatters light. But since blue light has a higher frequency than red light, it gets more absorbed/scattered than redlight. That is why most galaxies appear red shifted. It has nothing to do with their 'recessional velocity' ! But with this gas halo which absorbs the blue light, or blocks it from getting out and reaching us.

That’s not what the redshift is - it’s not like having redder light at sunrise or sunset, because blue light has been scattered out if the path. It’s light of a known source, and thus known wavelength, shifted to the red.

[Janus]

To expand of swansot's post:   When you look at the spectrum of a distant light source like a star or galaxy, the spectrum will contain bright and dark lines.  These are the emission and absorption lines from the different elements in the source.  Every element has a distinct pattern of lines that occur at a particular point of the spectrum.

If the light from the source is absorbed/scattered, you will see a dimming of a certain part of the spectrum, but those lines will still be there, in the same pattern and same part of the spectrum because all that is happening is that you are receiving a smaller proportion of light from one end of the spectrum.

With red/blue shift, what we see is all these spectral lines shifted to new positions in the spectrum. So for example, a pattern that normally is in the yellow part of the spectrum will move towards the orange.  You may not even notice much of a change in the overall "redness" or "blueness" in the spectrum as a whole, as non-visible frequencies shift into the visible at the red end, and visible light at the blue end shifts into the non-visible range.

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Janus said:

To expand of swansot's post:   When you look at the spectrum of a distant light source like a star or galaxy, the spectrum will contain bright and dark lines.  These are the emission and absorption lines from the different elements in the source.  Every element has a distinct pattern of lines that occur at a particular point of the spectrum.

If the light from the source is absorbed/scattered, you will see a dimming of a certain part of the spectrum, but those lines will still be there, in the same pattern and same part of the spectrum because all that is happening is that you are receiving a smaller proportion of light from one end of the spectrum.

With red/blue shift, what we see is all these spectral lines shifted to new positions in the spectrum. So for example, a pattern that normally is in the yellow part of the spectrum will move towards the orange.  You may not even notice much of a change in the overall "redness" or "blueness" in the spectrum as a whole, as non-visible frequencies shift into the visible at the red end, and visible light at the blue end shifts into the non-visible range.

 

Spot on as usual. +1

[mistermack]

How do we know that light doesn't lose a tiny amount of energy, as it covers astanomical distances? If it did, would it not give a red shift, similar to what is observed? ( I'm not suggesting that that's what happens, I just wonderd how they excluded it as a possibility )

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, mistermack said:

How do we know that light doesn't lose a tiny amount of energy, as it covers astanomical distances? If it did, would it not give a red shift, similar to what is observed? ( I'm not suggesting that that's what happens, I just wonderd how they excluded it as a possibility )

In a sense that's what's happening, owing to the expansion - it becomes redder, meaning it has less energy.

But if you mean can it lose energy via some interaction with matter, that's scattering, which tends to change the direction of the light. By virtue of the light getting to us, without being smeared out, we know it hasn't done that.

Specific refutations would require the models to be presented, so one could compare predictions with data. A detailed model would be able to predict how the redshift would occur and quantify the effects. People have proposed tired light models, and they don't fit with the evidence

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

[mistermack]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

People have proposed tired light models, and they don't fit with the evidence

Thanks. That was the sort of thing I was toying with. I don't follow the explanations or refutation arguments, but I can see that it has been examined and rejected, which I thought would surely be the case. 

I like the "Tired Light" expression, although it sounds a bit tongue-in-cheek. 

[MigL]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I don't follow the explanations or refutation arguments

If light gives up energy due to universal expansion, only red shift is evident.
If light gives up energy due to other interactions, many more effects are evident and can be observed.
None have been.

 

On 11/7/2021 at 1:36 AM, Marius said:

Well done Nasa.

I was going to give you +1 for that statement, but then I would have had to give you -1 for the rest of your uneducated post.
You're still even; which way you go is up to you.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

In a sense that's what's happening, owing to the expansion - it becomes redder, meaning it has less energy.

Cosmological redshift. While I understand that this happens due to the expansion of intervening space, I'm still not really knowledgable enough to understand how they ascertain cosmological redshift from gravitational and/or Doppler redshift. What tidbits I do understand is that gravitational redshift cancels itself out with falling into and climbing out of a gravitational well, so that leaves us with Doppler. In other words when viewing a distant galaxy, we can have the cosmological redshift due to space expansion, and also the Doppler red (or blue)  shift due to the motion of the individual stars.

[beecee]

On 11/16/2021 at 6:58 AM, beecee said:

Cosmological redshift. While I understand that this happens due to the expansion of intervening space, I'm still not really knowledgable enough to understand how they ascertain cosmological redshift from gravitational and/or Doppler redshift. What tidbits I do understand is that gravitational redshift cancels itself out with falling into and climbing out of a gravitational well, so that leaves us with Doppler. In other words when viewing a distant galaxy, we can have the cosmological redshift due to space expansion, and also the Doppler red (or blue)  shift due to the motion of the individual stars.

OK, essentially I am asking  how they ascertain cosmological redshift from gravitational and/or Doppler redshift.

This does explain it.......

https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/c/cosmological+redshift

 

Although cosmological redshift at first appears to be a similar effect to the more familiar Doppler shift, there is a distinction. In Doppler Shift, the wavelength of the emitted radiation depends on the motion of the object at the instant the photons are emitted. If the object is travelling towards us, the wavelength is shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum, if the object is travelling away from us, the wavelength is shifted towards the red end. In cosmological redshift, the wavelength at which the radiation is originally emitted is lengthened as it travels through (expanding) space. Cosmological redshift results from the expansion of space itself and not from the motion of an individual body.

For example, in a distant binary system it is theoretically possible to measure both a Doppler shift and a cosmological redshift. The Doppler shift would be determined by the motions of the individual stars in the binary – whether they were approaching or receding at the time the photons were emitted. The cosmological redshift would be determined by how far away the system was when the photons were emitted. The larger the distance to the system, the longer the emitted photons have travelled through expanding space and the higher the measured cosmological redshift.

The difference being with Doppler it is "shifted" towards the red end...With cosmological redshift, the wavelength is "lengthened" 

Edited November 16, 2021 by beecee

[Marius]

On 11/7/2021 at 10:06 AM, Ghideon said:

The article you linked to is discussing missing baryon problem, not to be confused with the dark matter problem or the baryon asymmetry problem. It look like you misinterpreted the paper and draw incorrect conclusions regarding dark matter?

 

http://chandra.harvard.edu/blog/node/399

 

 

If you dont have any misconceptions about 'dark matter', then it could represent the same thing. I don't see why dark matter can't be baryonic matter, like gas, when Fritz Zwicky himself thought of it as such ?  The incorrect conclusions are on the part of those who assume or conclude that dark matter MUST BE non-baryionic matter. Because they say so, after they say that they don't know what dark matter is. And after ALL experiments failed to prove that such non-baryionic dark matter does indeed exist.

The article you quoted is not the word of God, its just the unfounded opinion of a Harvard scientist who I have never heard of. But about Fritz Zwicky I have heard, and he theoretised that Dark Matter is a gas halo which envelops the galaxy ! So now when they actually find the gas halo that he predicted to be the mysterious dark matter, they say that it has nothing to do with dark matter ? It has EVERYTHING to do with dark matter, as that WAS THE PREDICTION of what dark matter is, by the guy who coined the term dark matter when this pseudo-savant wasnt even born. I cannot believe how illogical and ignorant that scientist is, and if all are like him then its no wonder why modern cosmology is in crisis after crisis after crisis...because this article he wrote is beyond stupid, its borderline retarded. 

He has no proof that non-baryionic dark matter exists, no empirical evidence based on experiments. Yet he stubbornly insists that it exists, and that it is the real deal. So who's the crackpot, delusional pseudo-scientist who believes in fairy dust despite a total lack of evidence ? Certainly not Zwicky. Because his theoretised gas halo of Dunkle Materie has proved to be real, but this crackpot still believes in fairy dust for some (illogical) reason.

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Marius
*Fritz not Frank

[Marius]

On 11/15/2021 at 7:40 PM, MigL said:

If light gives up energy due to universal expansion, only red shift is evident.
If light gives up energy due to other interactions, many more effects are evident and can be observed.
None have been.

 

I was going to give you +1 for that statement, but then I would have had to give you -1 for the rest of your uneducated post.
You're still even; which way you go is up to you.

No non-baryionic dark matter effects have been observed either (all experiments failed to show these effects), that doesnt stop scientists and crackheads believe fairy dust is real and makes up 85% of the matter in the universe. Can I at least have the same treatment ? 

Thanks. So that means that Fritz Zwicky, who invented the term Dark Matter, was uneducated as well, because that gas theory is his not mine !

I find it amusing that scientists who obviously confirmed his theory, by detecting that huge amount of gas he predicted to be the missing or dark matter, are also the ones who infirm it, by inventing a lame excuse like 'but its baryionic matter'- which has no relevance whatsoever, as Zwicky never said it has to be non-baryionic, and it makes no difference if the missing dark matter is baryonic or non-baryionic, or both. They probably just added that part to get funds for countless failed experiments in search of their non-baryonic fairy dust.

Edited November 30, 2021 by Marius

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Marius said:

No non-baryionic dark matter effects have been observed either (all experiments failed to show these effects), that doesnt stop scientists and crackheads believe fairy dust is real and makes up 85% of the matter in the universe. Can I at least have the same treatment ? 

The extra matter needed is from non baryoinic and unseen normal baryonic matter the last time I looked.

https://m.scirp.org/papers/110084

Experimental Evidence of Non-Baryonic Dark Matter in High Energy Physics

Abstract:

 If most of the universe is made of baryons, we encounter a serious contradiction in explaining the observed structure formulation. Therefore, we need non-baryonic dark matter to comprise the universe. In a previous paper, the present author proposed an infinite sub-layer quark model in which there exists an infinite number of up quark qu (∞) and down quark qd (∞) at an infinite sub-layer level. These quarks have non-baryon quantum number with one-half electric charge. Thus, qu (∞) and qd (∞) quarks are candidates for the non-baryonic dark matter. It is then shown that CP is violated only in the doublet of qu (∞) and qd (∞) quarks to account for the asymmetry of the number of particles and anti-particles in the present universe. It should be emphasized that if the internal space of qu (∞) and qd (∞) quarks in the first generation is a noncommutative geometry, CP violation can be explained without increasing the number of particles and generations. Thus, a pair of an infinite number of qu (∞) and qd (∞) quarks would be produced in the first moments after the Big Bang and form the hadrons including the nucleons and remain as the non-baryonic cold dark matter for all time. From the qf (∞) quarks with the flavors f = u, d, s, c, t, and b, we compared our prediction value of the cross-section ratio R with the experimental values. We obtained the theoretical branching ratio R = 15/4 = 3.75 which is in good agreement with the experimental values from 12.00 GeV to 46.47 GeV in electron-positron annihilation into muon pairs and quark pairs.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

1 hour ago, Marius said:

Thanks. So that means that Fritz Zwicky, who invented the term Dark Matter, was uneducated as well, because that gas theory is his not mine !

Zwicky was an otherwise good scientist/astronomer when he correctly theorised the gas streams between galaxies, but it does not fill in anywhere near the amount needed...If he was alive today, he would more than likely agree with the evidenced backed mainstream. Which would leave you and your historionics way out on a limb somewhere.

1 hour ago, Marius said:

I find it amusing that scientists who obviously confirmed his theory, by detecting that huge amount of gas he predicted to be the missing or dark matter, are also the ones who infirm it, by inventing a lame excuse like 'but its baryionic matter'- which has no relevance whatsoever, as Zwicky never said it has to be non-baryionic, and it makes no difference if the missing dark matter is baryonic or non-baryionic, or both. They probably just added that part to get funds for countless failed experiments in search of their non-baryonic fairy dust.

I find you amusing with your unsupported historionics and claims.

Much of your other claims have been shown to be wrong including gravitational lensing and large scale expansion.

Even MOND needs non baryonic DM......

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/382/1/29/983268

extract:

"An analysis of the Bullet Cluster 1E0657-558 surface density Σ-map and convergence κ-map data by Angus, Famaey & Zhao (2006) and Angus et al. (2007) based on Milgrom's Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) model (Milgrom 1983; Sanders & McGaugh 2002) and Bekenstein's relativistic version of MOND (Bekenstein 2004) failed to fit the data without dark matter. More recently, further evidence that MOND needs dark matter in weak lensing of clusters has been obtained by Takahashi & Chiba (2007). Problems with fitting X-ray temperature profiles with Milgrom's MOND model without dark matter were shown in Aguirre, Schaye & Quataert (2001), Sanders (2006), Pointecouteau & Silk (2005) and Brownstein & Moffat (2006b). Neutrino matter with an electron neutrino mass m_ν∼ 2 eV can fit the Bullet Cluster data (Angus et al. 2006, 2007; Sanders 2006)." 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

https://viewspace.org/interactives/unveiling_invisible_universe/dark_matter/bullet_cluster

 

DARK MATTER: BULLET CLUSTER

Multiple wavelengths shed light on the dark universe.

Dark matter is an enigma; scientists know more about what it is not than what it is. The mystery makes it one of the most exciting areas of astronomy. Though dark matter has not been detected with telescopes, we know it exists because of its effect on objects we do see—objects that emit or reflect light. When space is warped by dark matter’s gravity, the light of distant galaxies appears distorted. Using this and other methods, astronomers calculate that there is much more undetectable dark matter in the universe than detectable, “normal” matter.

The Bullet Cluster is composed of two clusters of galaxies that collided and moved past each other, though this is not clear when viewing the region solely in visible light. Multi-wavelength observations of the Bullet Cluster provided the first strong observational evidence that dark matter does not interact with normal matter, or with itself, and holds the majority of mass in a galaxy cluster. Astronomers use visible-light images to map the location of the clusters’ mass, based on how the light of background galaxies is warped. Most of that mass is dark matter. X-rays show that the majority of normal matter, in this case gas, is in a different location than the dark matter of each cluster—it lags behind. This is because the normal matter of the two galaxy clusters collided, while the dark matter sailed through and kept going without interacting at all. Many mysteries remain as to the nature of dark matter, and the Bullet Cluster provides key evidence in the scientific investigation.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

In summing and understanding that Zwicky as a scientist, would probably align with today's current scientific data on non baryonic DM, one can only hope that you yourself may also see the light, and recognise the evidence for non baryonic DM.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Marius said:

If you dont have any misconceptions about 'dark matter', then it could represent the same thing. I don't see why dark matter can't be baryonic matter, like gas, when Fritz Zwicky himself thought of it as such ?  The incorrect conclusions are on the part of those who assume or conclude that dark matter MUST BE non-baryionic matter. Because they say so, after they say that they don't know what dark matter is. And after ALL experiments failed to prove that such non-baryionic dark matter does indeed exist.

There are observations that support the existence of dark matter. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence

 

10 hours ago, Marius said:

The article you quoted is not the word of God, its just the unfounded opinion of a Harvard scientist who I have never heard of.

That's hardly a valid criterion. The fact remains that the article that you linked to does not mention this as a dark matter issue.

 

10 hours ago, Marius said:

But about Fritz Zwicky I have heard, and he theoretised that Dark Matter is a gas halo which envelops the galaxy ! So now when they actually find the gas halo that he predicted to be the mysterious dark matter, they say that it has nothing to do with dark matter ?

How about you comply with the rules and present a rigorous analysis, rather than vague assertion? 

 

10 hours ago, Marius said:

 

It has EVERYTHING to do with dark matter, as that WAS THE PREDICTION of what dark matter is, by the guy who coined the term dark matter when this pseudo-savant wasnt even born. I cannot believe how illogical and ignorant that scientist is, and if all are like him then its no wonder why modern cosmology is in crisis after crisis after crisis...because this article he wrote is beyond stupid, its borderline retarded. 

!

Moderator Note

We can do without such invective.

 

 

10 hours ago, Marius said:

He has no proof that non-baryionic dark matter exists, no empirical evidence based on experiments. Yet he stubbornly insists that it exists, and that it is the real deal. So who's the crackpot, delusional pseudo-scientist who believes in fairy dust despite a total lack of evidence ? Certainly not Zwicky. Because his theoretised gas halo of Dunkle Materie has proved to be real, but this crackpot still believes in fairy dust for some (illogical) reason.

 

There were severe problems with Zwicky's data and analysis regarding dark matter

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/08/24/who-really-discovered-dark-matter-fritz-zwicky-or-vera-rubin/?sh=4478bd0217a7

[Marius]

10 hours ago, beecee said:

Quote

The extra matter needed is from non baryoinic and unseen normal baryonic matter the last time I looked.

Unseen normal baryionic matter is gas. But that is not what that Harvard scientist wrote. He clearly wrote that DM is non-baryionic, and that gas is made of baryions so it cannot be dark matter, but like I said that was HIS illogical and unfounded opinion. 

Quote

Another popular question was whether this hot gas could be an explanation for the mysterious dark matter thought to be the dominant form of matter in the universe. The short answer is no and this is something we tried to address in the press release. The hot gas is made of baryons, particles such as protons and neutrons that make up more than 99.9% of the mass of atoms found in the universe, including our bodies, the Earth and the stars. The mass in baryons, otherwise known as normal matter, is a small fraction of the total mass in the universe, and the rest is dark matter. 

He clearly makes a difference between baryonic matter as being normal matter, and the rest (non-baryionic) being dark matter. Which makes no sense what so ever, as electrons, neutrinos are non-barions and are not considered as dark matter.

Quote

 Zwicky was an otherwise good scientist/astronomer when he correctly theorised the gas streams between galaxies, but it does not fill in anywhere near the amount needed...If he was alive today, he would more than likely agree with the evidenced backed mainstream. Which would leave you and your historionics way out on a limb somewhere.

I think he would more than likely agree with his own theory, that dark matter is made of gas, especially when this gas has been proven to exist in huge amounts as he predicted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

I find you amusing with your unsupported historionics and claims.

What are those unsupported historionics ?

Much of your other claims have been shown to be wrong including gravitational lensing and large scale expansion.

If gravitational lensing is an effect created by the curvature of space around massive objects, like the sun, then this effect should also be visible beyond the sun's corona, which is an actual part of the sun. No such effects have been observed. (in our solar system, that is)

If the universe expands then why are galaxy clusters colliding with each other ? And why do not galaxies appear to be smaller and smaller if they are moving farther and farther away from us at these incredible speeds ?

If some distant galaxies are moving away from us at over light speed, how is the light traveling through a space that is expanding faster than it can travel ?  How does that light even reach us ? If a car is traveling at 100km/h on a street that is expanding with 200km/h in the opposite direction, how will it ever get to the other end of the road ?

 

In summing and understanding that Zwicky as a scientist, would probably align with today's current scientific data on non baryonic DM, one can only hope that you yourself may also see the light, and recognise the evidence for non baryonic DM.

Today's current data on non-baryonic DM is contradictory and doesnt allign with anything, especially with the missing baryion problem.

If there is a missing baryion problem in the universe, and a missing matter or dark matter in galaxies, this can only imply that the dark matter is baryionic in nature. Otherwise, by stating that dark matter (which allegedly makes up 85% of all matter) is non-baryionic, this only further enhances the missing baryion problem, to a point where it cannot logically be solved, or found. Because it generates a paradox, which is that you expect to find the missing baryionic matter in an ocean of non-baryionic dark matter. Which makes no sense what so ever.

So if there is a discrepancy of 2 to 1 of baryionic matter from the early universe to the current universe, then how do you expect to ever find it, when you assume 85% of all matter is non-baryionic (dark matter) ? That means baryionic is fixed at 15 % since non-baryonic is fixed at 85 %, and there is no way to ever find more baryonic matter !  Because you set the ratio of non-baryionic matter in such a way there is no room for increasing the baryionic one to 30% (as was in the early universe), which makes finding the missing baryion matter a logical imposibility.

Edited November 30, 2021 by Marius

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Marius said:

What are those unsupported historionics ?

!

Moderator Note

<points at everything you've posted>

You have presented no model and done no analysis. It's all hand-waving and calling people who disagree with you idiots. Which is not science, and not sufficient to sustain a thread.

Last chance.

 

[beecee]

6 hours ago, Marius said:

I think he would more than likely agree with his own theory, that dark matter is made of gas, especially when this gas has been proven to exist in huge amounts as he predicted.

If he was alive today, and was aware of the evidence available, is what I said, here....

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Zwicky was an otherwise good scientist/astronomer when he correctly theorised the gas streams between galaxies, but it does not fill in anywhere near the amount needed...If he was alive today, he would more than likely agree with the evidenced backed mainstream. Which would leave you and your historionics way out on a limb somewhere.

 

[Ghideon]

20 hours ago, Marius said:

The article you quoted is not the word of God, its just the unfounded opinion of a Harvard scientist who I have never heard of.

The article I quoted was a clarification of a common misconception Your opening post is about missing baryon problem.

20 hours ago, Marius said:

So now when they actually find the gas halo that he predicted to be the mysterious dark matter, they say that it has nothing to do with dark matter ?

Because solving missing baryon problem means finding the baryons in standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, where the total mass–energy of the universe contains 5% ordinary matter and energy. Thus, dark energy plus dark matter constitute the other 95% of total mass–energy content. As far as I can tell your article speaks of missing pieces of the 5%. That means your speculation/discussion about dark matter does not apply to the results in the article. 

[beecee]

9 hours ago, Marius said:

If gravitational lensing is an effect created by the curvature of space around massive objects, like the sun, then this effect should also be visible beyond the sun's corona, which is an actual part of the sun. No such effects have been observed. (in our solar system, that is)

Yet this was the first effect showing GR to be correct, in the well known Eddington experiment. "According to Einstein's theory, light traveling past a massive object like the sun should bend due to the object's immense gravity. With the sun's light blotted, Eddington measured the positions of distant stars made visible in the background". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment

9 hours ago, Marius said:

If the universe expands then why are galaxy clusters colliding with each other ? And why do not galaxies appear to be smaller and smaller if they are moving farther and farther away from us at these incredible speeds ?

Because the universal expansion applies only over the largest scales....over smaller scales, the effects of gravity take over and those galaxies are "decoupled"from the overall expansion rate. eg: our local group of galaxies and even beyond.  Or imagine a fish swimming at 5kms/hr, upstream against a current (expansion) of 10kms/hr..... And of course the galaxies that are moving farther and farter away, certainly do appear smaller and smaller. Why would you believe differently? Ever heard of the Hubble deep field?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field

9 hours ago, Marius said:

If some distant galaxies are moving away from us at over light speed, how is the light traveling through a space that is expanding faster than it can travel ?  How does that light even reach us ? If a car is traveling at 100km/h on a street that is expanding with 200km/h in the opposite direction, how will it ever get to the other end of the road ?

https://phys.org/news/2015-10-galaxies-faster.html  https://www.space.com/33306-how-does-the-universe-expand-faster-than-light.html

Denying, and/or not knowing and/or not understanding some of the stuff above that I have referenced for you, makes me have zero confidence whatsoever in the rest of your unsupported claims. re non baryonic DM. In other words before you criticise or deny accepted mainstream science, first understand and know what accepted mainstream science entails.

I suggest you can forget about Stockholm for the forseeable future.

Edited November 30, 2021 by beecee

[DanMP]

On 11/7/2021 at 5:37 PM, Janus said:

You may not even notice much of a change in the overall "redness" or "blueness" in the spectrum as a whole, as non-visible frequencies shift into the visible at the red end, and visible light at the blue end shifts into the non-visible range.

Nice point, but I think that non-visible UV shifts to visible and red to non-visible IR, not as you wrote.