Dark Matter? get over it!

[Bignose]

The high priests in the churches of science

uh huh. By calling them priests, you are implicitly saying they take things on faith. Can you actually cite something that is commonly believed true by physicists today that is not supported by evidence?

 

And, you know what kills off 'the high priests'? objective evidence. Just present some objective evidence for your idea, and we'll listen. Otherwise, you asking us to accept your idea is actually YOU ACTING LIKE A PRIEST and telling us to believe something without evidence... i.e. on faith!

 

If you're just here to rail against the establishment, *yawn*. It's been done many times before. Persecution complexes don't actually advance science.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Bignose

[beejewel]

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

 

As I already stated, you don't need to use my theory to solve the rotation curve problem, it's an optical illusion, that's all.

 

Kepler was fooled by an optical illusion, while todays measurements using doppler shift or redshift is not being foled, hence the difference.

 

It's so simple todays measurements of galaxy rotation curves are correct, and Keplers law of diminishing velocity is wrong!

 

Steven

[Mordred]

Why should I develop your model for you? That's your responsibility not mine.

 

I can can calculate the mass of the proton. I can tell you what % is due to the strong force, I can also isolate the internal electromagnetic force contribution to its mass, as well as isolate the quarks mass from it.

 

Can You? I recall posting that procedure in one of the arxiv papers in one of your threads. You evidentally didn't read it.

 

 

Why do you think Sensei asked you to show how to calculate the mass of the proton? Did you honestly believe that's not important?

[beejewel]

Why should I develop your model for you? That's your responsibility not mine.

 

I can can calculate the mass of the proton. I can tell you what % is due to the strong force, I can also isolate the internal electromagnetic force contribution to its mass, as well as isolate the quarks mass from it.

 

Can You? I recall posting that procedure in one of the arxiv papers in one of your threads. You evidentally didn't read it.

 

No mordred, my model can't explain quarks, nor can it explain the strong force, it also has a real problem with the coloumb force, gravity, big bang, dark matter and a whole bunch of other stuff which are the invisible pillars of the standard model.

 

But bring something tangible in your hand and I will try my damnedest to explain it

 

steven

[Mordred]

I did I asked you to model the NFW dark matter profile. Not Kepler, earlier in this thread.

 

You should have realized that is the profile you need to explain with your model as per the title of this thread

That was my direction to modelling the correct profile of dark matter. In regards to galaxy rotation curves.

The above posts was in answer to this false statement

 

 

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

 

Steven

Piece of advise don't state your GPT theory explains aspects of physics that it cannot explain. You stated earlier it explained coulomb force, in another thread numerous mass problems, in this thread the need for no dark matter. You have yet to prove this via your model.

 

No mordred, my model can't explain quarks, nor can it explain the strong force, it also has a real problem with the coloumb force, gravity, big bang, dark matter and a whole bunch of other stuff which are the invisible pillars of the standard model.

 

But bring something tangible in your hand and I will try my damnedest to explain it

 

steven

Those pillars are well tested, very well tested. If you spent as much time studying those subjects as I have (including the peer reviewed competing models opposing them). You will learn why they are the leading models

 

(Ps the above equations was from "Quarks and leptons" (Intro particle physics textbook.) I chose to post a pre Higgs formulation.)

Edited April 10, 2015 by Mordred

[beejewel]

I did I asked you to model the NFW dark matter profile. Not Kepler, earlier in this thread.

 

You should have realized that is the profile you need to explain with your model as per the title of this thread

That was my direction to modelling the correct profile of dark matter. In regards to galaxy rotation curves.

The above posts was in answer to this false statement

 

 

Piece of advise don't state your GPT theory explains aspects of physics that it cannot explain. You stated earlier it explained coulomb force, in another thread numerous mass problems, in this thread the need for no dark matter. You have yet to prove this via your model.

 

Those pillars are well tested, very well tested. If you spent as much time studying those subjects as I have (including the peer reviewed competing models opposing them). You will learn why they are the leading models

 

(Ps the above equations was from "Quarks and leptons" (Intro particle physics textbook.) I chose to post a pre Higgs formulation.)

 

Mordred, please appreciate the amount of time it takes to solve a single problem from first principles, I work alone and do this purely for fun, so don't be offended if I don't rush out and prove every suggestion that has been thrown at me here. I would rather focus in on one problem and show how I would solve it, which is how I started this thread.

 

Now we can go and find some real data from galaxy rotation curves and try my method. I have a friend who is an astronomer, he may be able to get me some real data to play with. Essentially all I need is the visible mass distribution of a galaxy and the observed rotation curves, and I should be able to show that my rotation curve corresponds with the observed rotation curve without introducing any dark matter.

 

Steven

[Mordred]

That's fine in that sense your doing good science. The NFW profile is a part of the virial power law for the actual rotation curve. In essence it represents the rotation curve contribution due to dark matter. This is the portion you must account for. Ie explain without DM. (Its also used for gravitational lenses, due to DM)

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Seven pages and no evidence has been produced (see posts above asking for graphs showing comparisons to observations and NFW profile). Final chance before the thread gets closed.

Please do not respond to this modnote in thread.

[ajb]

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 conjectured this based on the candidates that we known at the time. Once he realised the electron and proton cannot be 'partners' he predicted a 'doubling' of all the known particles in the Universe. Anyway, the moral is even Dirac was able stand to be corrected.

 

 

 

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.

Honestly, and at the risk of being rude, you have shown some amazing ignorance of basic physics. This means that people just won't trust your ideas, even if there were something in it.

 

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.

But what you presented is an analogy and I don't see that 'colour potential' is a potential in the standard use of the word.

 

If I paint a white wall white, then it does not get any whiter. So what?

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..

I think you have now really dug yourself into the quack hole. This sounds such rubbish and I was hoping you would not go down this route.

 

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.

What they all have in common is a mathematical model that can be used to make predictions that can be tested against nature.

 

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.

As the standard theories of physics are well tested, this is very natural and the correct thing to do.

 

... show me how it is theoretically possible to create a potential exceeding 938 million volts, which is the postulate my theory relies on.

You know that there are technical difficulties in reaching such levels. I know people create potential differences in the order of 20 million volts. Standard theory would allow such potential differences, just building a device may be impossible due to limitations on materials.

 

As an energy scale we have probed that at CERN. Your 938 million volts is about 1 GeV.

Edited April 10, 2015 by ajb

[Strange]

 

As I already stated, you don't need to use my theory to solve the rotation curve problem, it's an optical illusion, that's all.

 

Kepler was fooled by an optical illusion, while todays measurements using doppler shift or redshift is not being foled, hence the difference.

 

It's so simple todays measurements of galaxy rotation curves are correct, and Keplers law of diminishing velocity is wrong!

 

Steven

 

I assume we can we take your repeated refusal to produce a quantitative comparison of your predictions, current models and reality to mean that your model doesn't work.

[michel123456]

(...)

 

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

 

 

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

 

(...)

I don't think so. Kepler's law is the basis of the search for Dark Matter

From http://www.darkmatterphysics.com/Galactic-rotation-curves-of-spiral-galaxies.htm enhancing mine

By analyzing the spiral galaxies' spectrum such as the Andromeda Galaxy (which section is visible), it is possible to calculate the curve from its rotation. The curve of rotation describes the number of revolutions of the galaxy according to the distance to the center. This curve of rotation is a direct measurement of the total distribution of matter in the galaxy. The maximum speed of rotation of a spiral galaxy is located at a distance of a few kiloparsecs from the center. It is then supposed to decrease, following a Keplerian decrease. Indeed, the stars at the periphery of the galaxy are in orbit around the center (in the same way as planets orbit around the Sun). The stars in periphery of the galaxy thus turn less quickly than those closer to the center. The curve of rotation, after a maximum, starts to go decrease again.

However, Vera Rubin observed that the stars located at the periphery of the Andromeda Galaxy - as for other spiral galaxies - appeared to rotate too fast (speed remained almost constant when the distance to the center increased). The curve of rotation of spiral galaxies (some of them) was flat. Speed did not decrease whereas one moved away from the center. Many other similar observations were carried out in the 1980s, reinforcing those of Vera Rubin. These observations raised deep questions, because the curve of rotation is a good measure of the dynamic mass. No assumption about the age or the stars' mass distribution is necessary

A possible explanation was to think of the existence of a huge nonvisible matter halo surrounding the galaxies; a halo which would represent up to 90% of the galaxy's total mass. Thus all the stars are almost in the center of the true extension of the "galaxy" (this time made up of the visible galaxy and the matter halo), and thus rotate normally. In other words, the stars located at the visible periphery of the galaxy, are not "far enough" from the center to decrease the curve of rotation. It still remains to directly observe this famous matter to confirm that it is the right explanation.

Edited April 10, 2015 by michel123456

[ajb]

Kepler's laws are not the only thing pointing to dark matter; here we mean the galactic rotation curves.

 

You also have application of the viral theorem. We should have that the total kinetic energy of a galaxy is half the gravitational binding energy. This suggests missing mass.

 

Then we have gravitational lensing observations and the details of the CMBR which both suggest dark matter.

 

Any realistic solution to dark matter will have to address these issues and not just the galactic rotation curves. This is also why the proposed solution here is very suspect.

[michel123456]

Kepler's laws are not the only thing pointing to dark matter; here we mean the galactic rotation curves.

 

You also have application of the viral theorem. We should have that the total kinetic energy of a galaxy is half the gravitational binding energy. This suggests missing mass.

 

Then we have gravitational lensing observations and the details of the CMBR which both suggest dark matter.

 

Any realistic solution to dark matter will have to address these issues and not just the galactic rotation curves. This is also why the proposed solution here is very suspect.

Yes.

But Strange posted twice that Kepler's law is irrelevant. And that is wrong. And knowing the level of Strange, he could not possibly ignore it. IOW I accuse him of lying. And I accuse all the other staff ignoring his "mistake" on purpose. Guilty. All of you. (Sorry for Bignose who felt insulted alone)

 

Prove me wrong and I will apologise.

[Strange]

I don't think so. Kepler's law is the basis of the search for Dark Matter

From http://www.darkmatterphysics.com/Galactic-rotation-curves-of-spiral-galaxies.htm enhancing mine

 

OK. Sounds like I was wrong. I am surprised that Kepler's laws can be used as an approximation that close to the centre (although they don't say what "a few kiloparsecs" is).

 

 

IOW I accuse him of lying.

 

No, I just overestimated / misremembered / misunderstood (*) the significance of the mass in the disk.

 

(*) Take your pick.

 

 

But Strange posted twice that Kepler's law is irrelevant. And that is wrong.

 

More than twice.

 

However, Kepler's law does not apply closer to the centre (as that article confirms). But it does in the case of planetary orbits. Beejewel does a curve fit (the red line) between zero (the Sun) and the first planet which has no physical meaning and has no supporting data; it is just there to make it look similar to the rotation curve of galaxies. So if you are going to accuse people of dishonesty, why not start there?

[ajb]

I think you can apply Kepler's laws to the outer stars as a reasonable approximation. They orbit round the central mass.

[michel123456]

I think you can apply Kepler's laws to the outer stars as a reasonable approximation. They orbit round the central mass.

You mean the central mass "of observed matter + dark matter"

[Strange]

You mean the central mass "of observed matter + dark matter"

 

And there's the thing. If there were just a central mass (or an approximation to one, in the central bulge) then you would see a fall off in orbital speeds (yes, approximately Keplerian). But that is not what we see.

 

What is observed is behaviour that is consistent with a large amount of mass distributed throughout the entire galaxy. So, in a sense the "obvious" (easy) solution is to say there is that distribution of matter but we just can't see it for some reason. Hence the name "dark matter".

 

Early on it was not clear that "dark matter" was actually matter and many other hypotheses to explain the effect seemed plausible. More evidence has changed that, so it now seems almost certain that the extra mass is some form of matter. And that it is not just hard to see (e.g. minute black holes, cold dark stars, etc) but actually non-interacting.

 

There are a lot of scientists who are unhappy about this. (And some who a really excited.) But that is the way the evidence is currently pointing.

[ajb]

You mean the central mass "of observed matter + dark matter"

Yes. You expect that Kepler's laws will work for the outer stars. So make an estimate of the mass of the central bulge based on what you can see. You notice that this does not work, so either Newtonian gravity is just not a reasonable theory at these scales or there is some missing mass and it is widely distributed.

Edited April 10, 2015 by ajb

[michel123456]

 

And there's the thing. If there were just a central mass (or an approximation to one, in the central bulge) then you would see a fall off in orbital speeds (yes, approximately Keplerian). But that is not what we see.

 

What is observed is behaviour that is consistent with a large amount of mass distributed throughout the entire galaxy. So, in a sense the "obvious" (easy) solution is to say there is that distribution of matter but we just can't see it for some reason. Hence the name "dark matter".

 

Early on it was not clear that "dark matter" was actually matter and many other hypotheses to explain the effect seemed plausible. More evidence has changed that, so it now seems almost certain that the extra mass is some form of matter. And that it is not just hard to see (e.g. minute black holes, cold dark stars, etc) but actually non-interacting.

 

There are a lot of scientists who are unhappy about this. (And some who a really excited.) But that is the way the evidence is currently pointing.

That's how I like Strangeness.

Yes. You expect that Kepler's laws will work for the outer stars. So make an estimate of the mass of the central bulge based on what you can see. You notice that this does not work, so either Newtonian gravity is just not a reasonable theory at these scales or there is some missing mass and it is widely distributed.

That is what I don't understand.

Kepler's law remains Kepler's law, no matter how much mass is involved. Even with a huge amount of mass, according to Kepler the velocity must decrease with radius. When observation contradicts what is expected, the only thing that can fix things is a new law, not new mass.

Edited April 10, 2015 by michel123456

[Strange]

Kepler's law remains Kepler's law, no matter how much mass is involved. Even with a huge amount of mass, according to Kepler the velocity must decrease with radius. When observation contradicts what is expected, the only thing that can fix things is a new law, not new mass.

 

Kepler's law (only) works for a central point mass. This is an accurate model for the solar system, for example.

 

It is (or was thought to be) a reasonable model for a galaxy once you get far enough outside the central hub that it can be treated as the only significant mass around which the stars orbit.

 

However, if there were a lot more mass distributed throughout the galaxy then, as you move further away from the centre, there is more mass inside the orbit affecting the orbital speed. As you move out, more and more mass is added so you get a non-Keplerian distribution of velocities. The visible matter is not enough to have a significant effect and so you would still get the near-Keplerian fall-off of speed.

 

The observed effects can be explained by the presence of non-visible matter. The required distribution of this matter, matches that obtained by modelling the behaviour of this matter. So it all ties up quite nicely.

 

Lots of people have tried the "new law" approach. So far, none of these have been able to match the evidence. For example, MOND (the best known example) requires a different set of ad-hoc adjustments to work with galaxies than it does with galaxy clusters. And then it doesn't explain gravitational lensing. Or large structure formation. Or ...

Edited April 10, 2015 by Strange

[michel123456]

I still don't undrstand. Inside a specific orbit, let's say there is a random distribution of mass. IIRC Newton showed that all this mass put here and there essentially corresponds to a mass concentrated at a single point at the centre of mass of the orbit. This point should be around (somewhere) the centre of the galaxy. Or am I wrong somewhere?

[ajb]

I still don't undrstand. Inside a specific orbit, let's say there is a random distribution of mass. IIRC Newton showed that all this mass put here and there essentially corresponds to a mass concentrated at a single point at the centre of mass of the orbit. This point should be around (somewhere) the centre of the galaxy. Or am I wrong somewhere?

The dark matter content extends around the galaxy. You can't just use the shell theorem.

[Strange]

Yes, you can always model the mass inside the orbit as being at the centre. The thing is that for the solar system, the central mass inside every planet's orbit is the same (the mass of the sun; the mass of the planets is insignificant).

 

In the case of a galaxy with a distribution of dark matter throughout the galaxy, then there is more mass inside the orbit the further out you go. So at each distance that "central mass" increases. So they are not all orbiting the same central mass. And so they don't follow Kepler's laws.

[Sensei]

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.

 

Did not I already showed you that it's NOT 938 million volts potential difference, but 938.272046 Million electron Volts (MeV) in post #99 where is complete math:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88438-dark-matter-get-over-it/?p=862728

In your incompetence you're removing e from MeV and turning it into yours MV.

 

MeV is unit of ENERGY. And after dividing by c² it's unit of MASS.

Not voltage.

 

You have basically no idea what you're talking about over and over again..

Edited April 10, 2015 by Sensei

[beejewel]

 

MeV is unit of ENERGY. And after dividing by c² it's unit of MASS.

Not voltage.

 

Did you miss the part where I finally divided by 1 electron?

 

This tread is pathetic, you guys are more concerned about what I know than what I say.

 

Just flip the freak'n rotation curve upside down and voila there is your measured rotation curve. It's absolutely rediculous that I should be told to read up on dark matter when the stuff isn't required for my theory, nor is it discoverable by any other means, What does it mean anyway, non baryonic matter?

 

Dark matter has infected physics to the point where it is virtually impossible to find a paper that does not try to justify what it is.

 

 

Here is made up graph showing a very rough mass distribution, keplerian orbit vs. my flipped orbit.

 

 

and here is just one of hundreds of galaxy rotation curve plots, and guess what?....its flipped!

 

 

My solution doesn't require any of your learned science, as I said before it's junior school addition and subtraction.

 

Galaxy rotation curves are a gaping big hole in physics, it's nothing like the subtleties of special or general relativity, those Keplerian curves are so far off the mark, that even a child can see it.

 

I quote the subject heading again.. dark matter, get over it!

 

Steven

 

Formula used in my plot was (mass inside radius)/r^2 for the red line, and the sum of velocities from the red line for the green line (actually negative, but shown here as positive)

Edited April 10, 2015 by beejewel