Dark Matter? get over it!

[Sensei]

So what's your point, how is it relevant to this discussion?

Proof that you don't even know XIX century (and early XX) classical physics..

Edited April 9, 2015 by Sensei

[beejewel]

Proof that you don't even know XIX century classical physics..

 

Frankly I don't need to know what my smart phone or google can tell me in less time than it takes to write a single one of those numbers.

 

The debate we are trying to settle is, Does electrical potential go asymptotic as it approaches 938 million volts?

 

If it does, your classical theory wrong, it's that simple.

 

Steven

[Sensei]

There is needed excellent understanding of classic and quantum physics to came up with theory that won't be dismissed in a few seconds..

 

If you don't even know how to convert one unit of energy to other unit of energy, it makes you completely unreliable..

Edited April 9, 2015 by Sensei

[ajb]

The debate we are trying to settle is, Does electrical potential go asymptotic as it approaches 938 million volts?

That sounds phrased not quite right. You mean that the potential difference can never actually reach 938 million volts?

[Strange]

Good question, allthough I have done no work on the gravitational lensing that you refer to, GPT is quite clear on the amount of energy stored by space itself, and it's excactly half.

 

But if it were the energy stored by space, then dark matter wouldn't be mainly associated with matter (but sometimes clearly separated from it).

 

after some rediculous algebra

 

I'm glad you said that.

Dark Matter was invented by scientists to explain the anomalous rotation curve, that in itself is a concern.

 

Actually, the initial requirement was to explain the motion within galaxy clusters (another piece of inconvenient evidence that you are ignoring). It was only later that it was realised that dark matter also solved the galaxy rotation curve problem (and several others).

Edited April 9, 2015 by Strange

[michel123456]

 

But if it were the energy stored by space, then dark matter wouldn't be mainly associated with matter (but sometimes clearly separated from it).

 

 

I'm glad you said that.

 

Actually, the initial requirement was to explain the motion within galaxy clusters (another piece of inconvenient evidence that you are ignoring). It was only later that it was realised that dark matter also solved the galaxy rotation curve problem (and several others).

To explain the motion "using Kepler's law"? or what other law is used?

[Strange]

To explain the motion "using Kepler's law"? or what other law is used?

 

Just using Newton's law of gravity is enough to show the problem. As this is an N-body problem, I guess that the expected behaviour can only be found by simulation (but I don't really know). Kepler's law is not applicable here for the same reason it is not relevant to galactic rotations.

 

The Wikipedia page points out that there are three independent ways of calculating the mass of a galaxy cluster, and they are all in agreement that there must be much more matter than is visible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Galaxy_clusters_and_gravitational_lensing

 

(The same page also shows that I was wrong about Zwicky's observations of galaxy clusters being the first evidence that dark matter was required; apparently, there were earlier observations from the Milky Way.)

Edited April 9, 2015 by Strange

[michel123456]

 

Just using Newton's law of gravity is enough to show the problem. As this is an N-body problem, I guess that the expected behaviour can only be found by simulation (but I don't really know). Kepler's law is not applicable here for the same reason it is not relevant to galactic rotations.

 

The Wikipedia page points out that there are three independent ways of calculating the mass of a galaxy cluster, and they are all in agreement that there must be much more matter than is visible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Galaxy_clusters_and_gravitational_lensing

 

(The same page also shows that I was wrong about Zwicky's observations of galaxy clusters being the first evidence that dark matter was required; apparently, there were earlier observations from the Milky Way.)

Right.

The problem arises using classical laws of motion.

So there are 2 ways to resolve the issue;

1. you invent "dark matter" (the easy solution)

2. you go back to the black board.(the hard way)

 

I don't understand why all knoledgeable people here hammer so violently the only one who choose solution 2, the hard way, instead of helping.

Edited April 9, 2015 by michel123456

[Bignose]

I don't understand why all knoledgeable people here hammer so violently the only one who choose solution 2, the hard way, instead of helping.

2 reasons immediately come to mind.

 

1) the vast, vast majority of people who propose 'hard way' solutions, present very incomplete solutions and expect huzzahs. I want to say 'all', but I am not going to claim that I've read all of them. I personally haven't seen one.

 

Incomplete in this case is quite simply that they have never demonstrated that their idea makes predictions that agree in any way with observations. Very often, they get 'hammered' because what is offered can be demonstrated to make predictions that are directly at odds with what is observed.

 

If someone -- this thread included -- would show that their 'hard way' ideas make predictions that agree with what it observed, then they will not be hammered. It really is that simple. Scientifically, an idea is useful if is makes good predictions. That is all that needs to happen; yet almost no one does it.

 

2) Related to the above, we actually have maps of dark matter: http://www.space.com/14176-dark-matter-biggest-map-unveiled.html. I certainly have never seen a proposed 'hard way' idea that can recreate anything the looks like the dark matter map.

 

So, yeah, they tend to get hammered. That happens in science when your idea is demonstrably not useful. There simply needs to be a demonstrate that the idea's predictions have some agreement with measurement. It really is a simply concept.

[michel123456]

2 reasons immediately come to mind.

 

1) the vast, vast majority of people who propose 'hard way' solutions, present very incomplete solutions and expect huzzahs. I want to say 'all', but I am not going to claim that I've read all of them. I personally haven't seen one.

 

Incomplete in this case is quite simply that they have never demonstrated that their idea makes predictions that agree in any way with observations. Very often, they get 'hammered' because what is offered can be demonstrated to make predictions that are directly at odds with what is observed.

 

If someone -- this thread included -- would show that their 'hard way' ideas make predictions that agree with what it observed, then they will not be hammered. It really is that simple. Scientifically, an idea is useful if is makes good predictions. That is all that needs to happen; yet almost no one does it.

 

2) Related to the above, we actually have maps of dark matter: http://www.space.com/14176-dark-matter-biggest-map-unveiled.html. I certainly have never seen a proposed 'hard way' idea that can recreate anything the looks like the dark matter map.

 

So, yeah, they tend to get hammered. That happens in science when your idea is demonstrably not useful. There simply needs to be a demonstrate that the idea's predictions have some agreement with measurement. It really is a simply concept.

Your concept is stupid.

 

Not surprising as Kepler's law is not applicable - for rather obvious reasons (that you refuse to address).

 

You think they should just ignore the evidence and not attempt to explain it?

 

By the way, how does your theory explain the gravitation lensing caused by dark matter? Even when separated from a galaxy...

Keppler's law is used, does not compaired to reality, then dark matter is invented so that Keppler law applies again..

i believe you know that. Your post was very bad. You hammered just to use your hammer, not to correct anything.

OTOH I strongly believe that you have the knowledge to propose a law of motion for galaxies, that does not rely on Newton nor on Keppler. It would be a very simple law. But you don't dare.

Edited April 9, 2015 by michel123456

[Strange]

Right.

The problem arises using classical laws of motion.

So there are 2 ways to resolve the issue;

1. you invent "dark matter" (the easy solution)

2. you go back to the black board.(the hard way)

 

There are far more options than that. Many of which have been tried. As more and more evidence is gathered the idea of dark matter as some form of matter (rather than a modification to the laws of gravity, for example) is overwhelming.

 

I don't understand why all knoledgeable people here hammer so violently the only one who choose solution 2, the hard way, instead of helping.

 

I don't think he is been hammered violently. He is been treated far more gently than many engineering project reviews I have been in.

 

However, his proposal has a number of rather fundamental flaws. He is, naturally, being asked to address those.

 

p.s. you might want to ask the mods to move your hijack to a separate thread...

Keppler's law is used, does not compaired to reality, then dark matter is invented so that Keppler law applies again..

i believe you know that. Your post was very bad. You hammered just to use your hammer, not to correct anything.

 

Kepler's law is simply irrelevant to galaxies and galaxy clusters. That is one of the many problems with this proposal.

 

OTOH I strongly believe that you have the knowledge to propose a law of motion for galaxies, that does not rely on Newton nor on Keppler. It would be a very simple law. But you don't dare.

 

I suppose I could come up with yet another variation on the modified gravity theories that have been tried. The thing is, none of them fit the facts. And they use a whole set of ad-hoc assumptions.

[swansont]

Right.

The problem arises using classical laws of motion.

So there are 2 ways to resolve the issue;

1. you invent "dark matter" (the easy solution)

2. you go back to the black board.(the hard way)

 

I don't understand why all knoledgeable people here hammer so violently the only one who choose solution 2, the hard way, instead of helping.

 

Because we have this annoying desire to want models to match reality (because science), and every solution that's gone back to the blackboard has failed to do this. Some part of their model fails.

[Strange]

1. you invent "dark matter" (the easy solution)

 

Actually, it isn't an "easy" solution. It has taken decades of work to understand its properties, determine the distribution, understand its role in structure formation, etc.

 

And we still don't know what it is (and, of course, alternative explanations are still being explored).

 

So, no. Not easy.

[Bignose]

Your concept is stupid.

Wow, what a well-thought out and thorough rebuttal.

 

Firstly, it isn't just my concept. It is the foundation for pretty much all the successes of modern science.

 

But secondly, I am open minded enough to listen. What objective measure would YOU use to judge the merits of ideas? The objective measure of agreement between prediction and measurement has worked wonders lately, but if you have something better, let's see it.

 

And thirdly, as a personal suggestion, maybe work on your tact a little. If you meant to come across extremely rude, consider it successful. If you're just going to be this rude, don't bother writing me back ever.

[beejewel]

What many have forgotten is that it was Paul Dirac himself that proposed how the electron might be the proton anti particle, and shortly after I think it might have been Weyl who dismisssed the idea because he assumed matter and antimatter had to have the same mass, and because it came from a respected scientist it was presumably taken as law.

 

Every scientist has a responsibility to be sceptical of all past teachings, because the only consistent proof throughout history is that the past teachings were wrong.

 

Contrary to some of the comments above, I have brought to the table a theory which does correctly predict or at least looks like the velocity curves found in nature, something which the newtonian model fails at. So I think it is at least reasonable for those really interested to investigate it a little further.

 

Finding the law of nature that makes a Universe would be an amazing thing, I imagine it being a simple yet beatiful algorithm and would love to see it on a T shirt

 

Steven

[Strange]

Contrary to some of the comments above, I have brought to the table a theory which does correctly predict or at least looks like the velocity curves found in nature, something which the newtonian model fails at.

 

Only if you ignore all the fundamental flaws. Which you are doing a brilliant job of, by the way.

What many have forgotten is that it was Paul Dirac himself that proposed how the electron might be the proton anti particle, and shortly after I think it might have been Weyl who dismisssed the idea because he assumed matter and antimatter had to have the same mass, and because it came from a respected scientist it was presumably taken as law.

 

Dirac only guessed that might be the case because there were no other obvious candidates at the time. He knew the different mass was a problem. If the positron had already been discovered, he would have correctly identified that as the anti-electron.

 

It was Oppenheimer who pointed out that hydrogen atoms would instantly annihilate and thereby convinced Dirac that the proton could not be the anti-electron. He therefore predicted the existence of the positron (which was discovered the following year).

 

This has nothing to do with "coming from a respected scientist". If you really believe that you have a very warped idea of how science works.

[Bignose]

I have brought to the table a theory which does correctly predict or at least looks like

This is quite a broad range here. Either it correctly predicts* (please show % difference between prediction and measurement) or it doesn't. 'Looks like' is not sufficient. The moon 'looked like' green cheese for a long time. That 'prediction' failed pretty miserably.

 

* and I've been reading this thread for quite some time now. I don't see a very good prediction, personally. I see someone claiming that some poorly defined, non-coordinate invariant, forwards and backwards velocities on the planets is somehow applicable on an intergalactic scale. Here's what I'd like to see (I ask for it often, almost never get it): show me a graph with 3 data sets plotted on it. 1st data set is the known measurements (cite very liberally so that everyone is clear where these come from). 2nd data set is the predictions made by the current mainstream ideas (also cite this liberally). 3rd data set is the predictions made by your idea; please expand on the calculations in explicit details so that we can see every assumption made.

 

Show us this graph. And if your predictions data set is closer to the measurements than the current best predictions, then you will get plenty of attention. As above, this is how science works... show us that your ideas are more useful in that they make more accurate predictions.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Bignose

[Sensei]

I have brought to the table a theory which does correctly predict or at least looks like the velocity curves found in nature, something which the newtonian model fails at. So I think it is at least reasonable for those really interested to investigate it a little further.

So far I saw not a single prediction made by you in this thread to be honest..

 

If you claim you made predictions, you probably don't even understand what is prediction, so I will explain to you.

We have object at time t0 at location x0, then at time t1 we have it at location x1.

If you can extend it to future t2>t1, or to past t3<t0,

then it's pretty good prediction.

 

That's daily job of astronomer: predict where will be object he/she is interested in. Predict where will be comet, predict where will be asteroid etc. When it'll collide (if collide at all).

 

Predict where stars will be in the next year from now (and where we will see them, due to delay caused by speed of light).

Predict where planets will be in the next year from now.

Then show your calculations for verification.

For real, you need to write application that will calculate it.. Like I did in posts #4 and #13.

 

See f.e.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor

until it hit Earth it was unknown.

But then we could reconstruct its original path in the past.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Sensei

[beejewel]

That sounds phrased not quite right. You mean that the potential difference can never actually reach 938 million volts?

 

That's correct, it should be pretty obvious ..

 

1) I love thought experiments, take two bowls, crack a dozen eggs into each bowl, you now have two bowls with roughly equal amount of egg yolks and egg white.

 

2) Now transfer some egg white from bowl 1 to bowl 2, and some yolk from bowl 2 to bowl 1

 

3) You will agree that the content of one bowl is now more yellow, there is therefore a potential colour difference

 

Obviously in typical "beejewel" fashion we don't stop at the omelett stage we go all the way, and transfer all the yolk to one bowl and all the eggwhite to the other, now it is easy to see that the colour potential has reached a limit. it does not matter how many more eggs yolks I add to bowl 1 it doesn't get any yellower.

 

This is simple cooking logic and has nothing to do with who you are or how may honors and PHD's you have or how long you have been posting on this forum, the simple fact is, electrical potential can not exceed the surface potential of a single proton, and that's what ground potential is about.

 

 

PS: I appreciate your straight forward well thought out relevant questions, unlike some members who just broadly hit out at anything they don't understand or agree with.

So far I saw not a single prediction made by you in this thread to be honest..

 

Then you have not understood what I have been saying, so please ask me questions instead of telling me what I should be doing, I believe the problem is at your end.

 

 

* and I've been reading this thread for quite some time now. I don't see a very good prediction, personally. I see someone claiming that some poorly defined, non-coordinate invariant, forwards and backwards velocities on the planets is somehow applicable on an intergalactic scale. Here's what I'd like to see (I ask for it often, almost never get it): show me a graph with 3 data sets plotted on it. 1st data set is the known measurements (cite very liberally so that everyone is clear where these come from). 2nd data set is the predictions made by the current mainstream ideas (also cite this liberally). 3rd data set is the predictions made by your idea; please expand on the calculations in explicit details so that we can see every assumption made.

 

 

Thanks for reading the thread..

 

I hope you are not making the assumption that I am predicting planets to be somewhere else as a result of moving backwards, if so, you have misunderstood my first post. What I describe as backwards motion is purely a matter of reversing the temporal coordinate (fortunately this does not involve moving any planets).

 

One can take any set of existing data recorded by astronomers, and sum the velocities to get my predicted result, and this is a pure result of lateral thinking, namely to understand that the apparent motion of the planets is counter to the real motion of the planets.

 

I recommend watching the animation of the planets posted by Sensei almost in the beginning of the thread, first you will see the obvious forward motion of the planets, but if you try to reconfigure your brain slightly you will also see that the motion is reversible, it's a matter of looking outside the square.

 

My theory isn't needed to understand the backwards motion of planets, but it correctly predicted it, and made me look twice, and sure enough there it was.

 

Steven

Edited April 10, 2015 by beejewel

[Bignose]

One can take any set of existing data recorded by astronomers, and sum the velocities to get my predicted result, and this is a pure result of lateral thinking, namely to understand that the apparent motion of the planets is counter to the real motion of the planets.

 

...

 

My theory isn't needed to understand the backwards motion of planets, but it correctly predicted it, and made me look twice, and sure enough there it was.

Well, if 'one' can, why isn't this posted in this thread? I mean, I'm not going to do it. This is work that you should do...

 

I also don't understand why backwards is so important. It's just a sign change. This also doesn't explain dark matter or an alternative to it.

 

If you can do this, then let's see it. Just like I asked above, please. Data, mainstream prediction, and your prediction, all on the same chart.

[beejewel]

Well, if 'one' can, why isn't this posted in this thread?

 

[latex] 3-2-1 \neq (-3)+(-2)+(-1)[/latex]

 

A junior school maths problem has sent scientists in search of illusive dark matter.

 

Pretty embarracing headline if it appeared on a science journal

 

But that's the real issue I highlighted in my first post.

 

Steven

[Mordred]

 

All the energy contained in matter is the stored potential energy between the electron and the proton.

 

Steven

Absolutely dead wrong, no possible way.

 

This statement alone means you do not know how first second and third generation fermions work.

 

Protons for example don't even form with stability until they drop out of thermal equilibrium, from the quark/gluon plasma.

 

So how could all energy of matter be the result of protons and electrons during temperatures where there are zero zip stable protons?

 

How does this possibly account for the energy of particles that DO NOT interact and proven not to interact with the electromagnetic force?

 

Such particles are proven beyond doubt to exist.

 

Can your model explain the bare mass of an electron and the cutoff limits of renormalization?

 

Can you show how it explains the fine structure constant?

 

At what range is the Coulomb force no longer accurate?

 

How does the last question relate to bare mass?

[latex]\alpha^0=0.130 MeV[/latex]

 

[latex]m_o=-103.3 MeV[/latex]

[latex]\Lambda=3.65 TeV[/latex]

[latex] m_e=0.511 MeV[/latex]

[latex] m_u=105.7 MeV[/latex]

[latex] M_t=1.002 GeV[/latex]

 

[latex]\alpha=X_3\alpha_o[/latex]

 

[latex]Z_3=1\frac{\alpha_o}{3\pi}(ln\frac{\Lambda^2}{m_e^2}+ln\frac{\Lambda^2}{m_u^2}+ln\frac{\Lambda^2}{m_t^2})[/latex]

 

 

How does your model correlate the above first, second and third generation Lepton mass?

Edited April 10, 2015 by Mordred

[beejewel]

Absolutely dead wrong, no possible way.

 

This statement alone means you do not know how first second and third generation fermions work.

 

Protons for example don't even form with stability until they drop out of thermal equilibrium, from the quark/gluon plasma.

 

So how could all energy of matter be the result of protons and electrons during temperatures where there are zero zip stable protons?

 

How does this possibly account for the energy of particles that DO NOT interact and proven not to interact with the electromagnetic force?

 

Such particles are proven beyond doubt to exist.

 

Can your model explain the bare mass of an electron and the cutoff limits of renormalization?

 

Can you show how it explains the fine structure constant?

 

At what range is the Coulomb force no longer accurate?

 

How does the last question relate to bare mass?

 

The high priests in the churches of science have spun up a lot of ideas in the last 100 years to explain what they did not understand, you mention a few such as quark glon plasma, dark matter, coulomb force, strong force, electroweak force, gravity etc.. What they all have in common is that hey are invisible magic substances required to explain what I essentially believe to be a faulty theory. That's why I work from first principles, deliberately ignoring any science that falls into the made up category.

 

Your first sentences above more or less tells me that you are not thinking independantly, but rather comparing my theory to the standard model and determining that it doesn't fit, so it must be wrong.

 

GPT is literally a rethink from the ground up, and it can explain many things already, but it is not as mature as the standard model yet.

 

It looks as if all your questions above are ones that you already believe you know the answer to so I'm not going to go there, instead I would like you to tell me or show me how it is theoretically possible to create a potential exceeding 938 million volts, which is the postulate my theory relies on.

 

If you can show me a way to do this, I will pack up and stop paying the renewal fees for my web site

 

Steven

[Bignose]

[latex] 3-2-1 \neq (-3)+(-2)+(-1)[/latex]

 

A junior school maths problem has sent scientists in search of illusive dark matter.

 

Pretty embarracing headline if it appeared on a science journal

 

But that's the real issue I highlighted in my first post.

uh huh. and this answers my request for a comparison between current best model, your model, and experimental values... how?

[Mordred]

I will once you start showing some science instead of stubbornly assuming proton and electron interactions can solve EVERY mass problem which it CANNOT do.

 

The above is a clear limitation

 

The high priests in the churches of science have spun up a lot of ideas in the last 100 years to explain what they did not understand, you mention a few such as quark glon plasma, dark matter, coulomb force, strong force, electroweak force, gravity etc.. What they all have in common is that hey are invisible magic substances required to explain what I essentially believe to be a faulty theory. That's why I work from first principles, deliberately ignoring any science that falls into the made up category.

 

Your first sentences above more or less tells me that you are not thinking independantly, but rather comparing my theory to the standard model and determining that it doesn't fit, so it must be wrong.

 

GPT is literally a rethink from the ground up, and it can explain many things already, but it is not as mature as the standard model yet.

 

It looks as if all your questions above are ones that you already believe you know the answer to so I'm not going to go there, instead I would like you to tell me or show me how it is theoretically possible to create a potential exceeding 938 million volts, which is the postulate my theory relies on.

 

If you can show me a way to do this, I will pack up and stop paying the renewal fees for my web site

 

Steven