Introducing "Dark Matter"

[Michael]

I am of the opinion that if matter is missing, then the gravity it generates will also be missing.

But for some reason I'm constantly being told that the gravity is not missing despite the fact that the matter that generates it is missing.

To me it sounds like gravity can exist without matter.

In big bang cosmology it seems like anything is possible.

But of course......

Anytime they can simply 'make up' new forms of matter and energy on a whim, and ignore every legitimate falsification of their theory, anything and everything is 'possible'.

 

[Michael]

I remember seeing something about how they found out that most of the universe's mass is actually in empty space.

Which would technically make it "non-empty space".

something like 90% the mass of an atom is actually in the space between the particles.

I'm not sure where you heard that, but that isn't actually the case in standard theory. Most of the mass is concentrated in the protons and neutrons in the core, with a minor amount of mass in the electrons in the various shells. Most of atom itself is "empty space" however.

and if you extrapolate that out to the whole universe, then 90% of the universe's mass and gravity actually come from empty space.

Kristian Birkeland believed that all suns were "cathodes" with respect to space, and he was one of the very first scientists to predict that the vast majority of the mass of the universe would NOT be concentrated in the stars themselves, but in the plasmas between the stars. That was another one of his successful predictions.

 

[Michael]

Has Dark Matter Gone Missing?

I think this was my favorite part of that article:

According to standard cosmology, we should be swimming in dark matter. Measurements of the afterglow of the big bang—the so-called cosmic microwave background—and of the distribution of the galaxies suggest that 85% of all matter in the universe is dark matter. What's more, decades of astronomical observations show that the stars within galaxies swirl about faster than they could if only the gravity of the others stars were holding them in. In fact, the speed with which the sun goes around the center of our galaxy suggests that dark matter ought to be about as abundant as ordinary matter at our distance from the galactic center, about 27,000 light-years.

Emphasis mine.

According to mainstream theory, not only should they NOT have found all the necessary matter to explain the rotation patterns in our area (which they actually did), they "SHOULD" (according to their galactic theories) have only 'found' approximately half of the necessary mass in that last study. Instead they found ALL of it!

I love how the mainstream completely IGNORES every single possible falsification mechanism as it relates to their pet theories! Current cosmology theory is like a religion on steroids. No amount of falsification is ever enough to kill off their faith in the 'dark arts'. The really sad part of this study IMO is that it demonstrates that our galaxy mass estimation techniques are HORRIFICALLY (and I mean TERRIBLY) flawed. I seriously doubt however than any of this information will have any effect whatsoever on the 'religion' that passes for modern astronomy today.

 

[[serious]]

But of course......

Anytime they can simply 'make up' new forms of matter and energy on a whim, and ignore every legitimate falsification of their theory, anything and everything is 'possible'.

It isn't making up anything new, it's finding something new and trying to figure out what it is. We see mass, we've ruled out that it's the usual suspects of gas, liquid, or solid. It's something new.

 

[Doveaman]

We see mass, we've ruled out that it's the usual suspects of gas, liquid, or solid. It's something new.

I'm trying really hard to wrap my mind around this.

How exactly can you see mass if you've ruled out that it's the usual suspects of gas, liquid, or solid?

Aren't you now trying to find this new type of mass?

Why are you trying to find something you can already see?

I don't get it.

 

[neutralino7]

I'm trying really hard to wrap my mind around this.

How exactly can you see mass if you've ruled out that it's the usual suspects of gas, liquid, or solid?

Aren't you now trying to find this new type of mass?

Why are you trying to find something you can already see?

I don't get it.

Perhaps it should be rephrased as "We see distortions in space-time, but these distortions do not qualify as known matter interactions.

Mass is really just a concept to help everyone (scientists included) wrap their minds around ultra-dense, transformed energy. A human, rock, and a photon are made up of the same "stuff" when it comes down to it.

 

[[serious]]

I'm trying really hard to wrap my mind around this.

How exactly can you see mass if you've ruled out that it's the usual suspects of gas, liquid, or solid?

Aren't you now trying to find this new type of mass?

Why are you trying to find something you can already see?

I don't get it.

We see it by it's effects. Now it's us trying to figure out what it is that's so heavy out there.

 

[Doveaman]

Perhaps it should be rephrased as "We see distortions in space-time, but these distortions do not qualify as known matter interactions.

Fair enough.

The same can be said of rotation patterns.

We see rotation patterns, but these rotation patterns are not consistent with known matter interactions.

I have no problem with gravitational effects being a hypothesis that explains those patterns until mass is actually found to verify this hypothesis. This way gravitational effects become a falsifiable explanation.

But people keep telling me I'm actually seeing gravitational effects as if gravitational effects are observed facts, which makes them unfalsifiable. This encourages an endless search for mass to account for those "observed facts".

No wonder cosmologists are having a hard time giving up on the search for a new type of mass and instead searching for an alternative. It's because they are treating gravitational effects as observed facts rather than a hypothesis.

That's the problem with having a gravity-centric cosmology.

 

[Doveaman]

We see it by it's effects. Now it's us trying to figure out what it is that's so heavy out there.

I agree we are seeing effects, but we don't know what those effects are or what is causing those effects.

Gravity is one hypothesis/explanation, but there is room for others.

 

[[serious]]

Perhaps it should be rephrased as "We see distortions in space-time, but these distortions do not qualify as known matter interactions.

Mass is really just a concept to help everyone (scientists included) wrap their minds around ultra-dense, transformed energy. A human, rock, and a photon are made up of the same "stuff" when it comes down to it.

Err... not quite. We see the effects of mass out there without corresponding e-m interactions or energy. Photons, on the other hand, have no mass and are pure EM energy. There are 4 fundamental forces, Strong, Weak, Gravity, and Electromagnetic. Different types of fundamental particles interact differently. Some have mass, some don't. Some have an electric charge, some don't.

 

[[serious]]

I agree we are seeing effects, but we don't know what those effects are or what is causing those effects.

Gravity is one hypothesis/explanation, but there is room for others.

Occam's razor. A new type of matter is a much smaller thing than a 5th fundamental force.

 

[neutralino7]

Fair enough.

The same can be said of rotation patterns.

We see rotation patterns, but these rotation patterns are not consistent with known matter interactions.

I have no problem with gravitational effects being a hypothesis that explains those patterns until mass is actually found to verify this hypothesis. This way gravitational effects become a falsifiable explanation.

But people keep telling me I'm actually seeing gravitational effects as if gravitational effects are observed facts which are unfalsifiable. This encourages an endless search for mass to account for those "observed facts".

No wonder cosmologists are having a hard time giving up on the search for a new type of mass and instead searching for an alternative. It's because they are treating gravitational effects as observed facts rather than a hypothesis.

That's the problem with having a gravity-centric cosmology.

Truth is stranger than fiction. The naive assumption scientists make is that forces on this planet are proportional to forces in the cosmos, as well as other celestial bodies. "Gravity" may be an inverse-cube law in the Alpha Centauri system. It may be logarithmic in the Betelgeuse system. Perhaps that's not gravity in either systems, but a new way matter interacts with matter that mimics gravity.

Just because something gets you the correct answer doesn't mean it is the unique solution. 2 + f(x) = 4, for f(x)=2, but 2 + f(x) = 4 also for f(x) = limx-->∞[(2x-4)/(x-3)].

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Truth is stranger than fiction. The naive assumption scientists make is that forces on this planet are proportional to forces in the cosmos, as well as other celestial bodies. "Gravity" may be an inverse-cube law in the Alpha Centauri system. It may be logarithmic in the Betelgeuse system. Perhaps that's not gravity in either systems, but a new way matter interacts with matter that mimics gravity.

Perhaps, but that could also be the case on Earth. If they're indistinguishable, there's no point splitting hairs. We have exceedingly good evidence that gravity is gravity, that the same force that makes apples fall is what powers the stars. How do we know? Because science theories have this this wonderful thing called falsifiability: you can prove them wrong. We can use the theory of gravity to predict the Sun's output. It works. This means gravity must operate in the same way as on Earth - if it didn't, we'd see macroscopic changes in the way microscopic particles interact.

Just because something gets you the correct answer doesn't mean it is the unique solution. 2 + f(x) = 4, for f(x)=2, but 2 + f(x) = 4 also for f(x) = limx-->∞[(2x-4)/(x-3)].

Right, but the point is f(x) is equal to two. Whether you write that as '2' or '10[sub]2[/sub]' or whatever, it's equal to two.

What you're proposing isn't analogous to numerical equivalence, though. You're positing a real, measurable difference in how gravity works. Do you know why gravity operates as an inverse square law? We didn't arbitrarily pluck it out of thin air. If gravity is fundamentally different, so such so that the inverse square law is now an inverse-cube or even logarithmic... we wouldn't have stars.

While it's the hallmark of good science to challenge the status quo, it's disingenuous to pretend that any wild conjecture someone cares to posit, is as scientifically solid as what we really know about gravity.

 

[[serious]]

Truth is stranger than fiction. The naive assumption scientists make is that forces on this planet are proportional to forces in the cosmos, as well as other celestial bodies. "Gravity" may be an inverse-cube law in the Alpha Centauri system. It may be logarithmic in the Betelgeuse system. Perhaps that's not gravity in either systems, but a new way matter interacts with matter that mimics gravity.

Just because something gets you the correct answer doesn't mean it is the unique solution. 2 + f(x) = 4, for f(x)=2, but 2 + f(x) = 4 also for f(x) = limx-->∞[(2x-4)/(x-3)].

Again, occam's razor. Trying to come up with an entirely new theory of gravitation is a much more complex solution than there being another type of matter. But if you find a new theory that fits everything, go for it. String theorists did it and they are getting good play on it. If all the math works, you'll get some attention.

 

[neutralino7]

Err... not quite. We see the effects of mass out there without corresponding e-m interactions or energy. Photons, on the other hand, have no mass and are pure EM energy. There are 4 fundamental forces, Strong, Weak, Gravity, and Electromagnetic. Different types of fundamental particles interact differently. Some have mass, some don't. Some have an electric charge, some don't.

Who said anything about EM interactions? By Einstein, what is energy? E=mc^2, as in mass and energy are proportional. A human is a superposition of atoms, which is a superposition of protons and electrons, which is a superposition of strong-force and EM force carriers, which is a superposition of energy. Mass is a condensation of wave-packets. When waves bundle, and form particle-packets, you get mass. Photons have "no mass," yes, but a bundle of several nonillions of photons create mass by bundling into wave packets. The photon itself is the particle form of a light wave.

Mass and energy are proportional, which means they are fundamentally the same, and differ by some constant. Therefore, a human, rock and photon are fundamentally one in the same. Two are superpositions, or sums, of the fundamental one.

 

[neutralino7]

Perhaps, but that could also be the case on Earth. If they're indistinguishable, there's no point splitting hairs. We have exceedingly good evidence that gravity is gravity, that the same force that makes apples fall is what powers the stars. How do we know? Because science theories have this this wonderful thing called falsifiability: you can prove them wrong. We can use the theory of gravity to predict the Sun's output. It works. This means gravity must operate in the same way as on Earth - if it didn't, we'd see macroscopic changes in the way microscopic particles interact.

When is the last time you reproduced the results of your theory about the cosmos gravity in a laboratory? Do you understand that if you cannot reproduce the conditions in a laboratory for a layperson to test, it is just philosophy? "Must," "wrong," "falsifiability," etc. are meaningless until you can recreate the solar system, test your theory, and provide laboratory results so clear so that a layperson can follow your exact scientific process and produce the same results. Anything else is just as much conjecture as you accuse me of having.

Right, but the point is f(x) is equal to two. Whether you write that as '2' or '10[sub]2[/sub]' or whatever, it's equal to two.

What you're proposing isn't analogous to numerical equivalence, though. You're positing a real, measurable difference in how gravity works. Do you know why gravity operates as an inverse square law? We didn't arbitrarily pluck it out of thin air. If gravity is fundamentally different, so such so that the inverse square law is now an inverse-cube or even logarithmic... we wouldn't have stars.

While it's the hallmark of good science to challenge the status quo, it's disingenuous to pretend that any wild conjecture someone cares to posit, is as scientifically solid as what we really know about gravity.

You are missing my point. One answer for f(x) is a scalar, the other is a function - specifically a limit. The point was to illustrate that two different answers can make the math work, but doesn't necessarily make it the unique solution. If I said "only a scalar can satisfy the equation of 2 + f(x) = 4," then f(x) = 2 would be the unique solution, even though f(x) = limx-->∞[(2x-4)/(x-3)] satisfies the equation. Also, remember a limit is not an "equals to." Rather, it is a local area value for a function at the given limit. It is erroneous to say that f(x) = limx-->∞[(2x-4)/(x-3)] is 2 because it equals 2. Rather, its limit is equal to 2. The two are not the same. One is an equality, the other is a limit. Plain and simple. Since infinity is undefined, you cannot define the polynomial in the limit, only its limit. So, my point still stands.

The truth is you do not know how gravity works in the cosmos because you cannot reproduce the cosmos in the laboratory (even though there are a plethora of theories asserting themselves as fact[oid].) You may be able to detect effects, but the assumption is still that things remain proportional with earth forces. Gravity is, and will always be an inverse square law since "our math on earth" shows it to be (I am well aware of the derivations.) It is a myopic point of view on the solar system, and especially the universe.

The difference between philosophy and "science" is the ability to reproduce the experiment in a lab so much so that a layperson can follow your lab notes and come up with the same results. Cosmology skips this step. I would love to see a reproduction of the solar system on earth (with sun, planets, moons, and elliptical objects.) Otherwise, we are just having philosophical debate, which is fine with me.

 

[neutralino7]

Again, occam's razor. Trying to come up with an entirely new theory of gravitation is a much more complex solution than there being another type of matter. But if you find a new theory that fits everything, go for it. String theorists did it and they are getting good play on it. If all the math works, you'll get some attention.

So what if it is more complex? Occam's Razor doesn't cut [it] in all dimensions.


Like I said before (regarding string theory and "math works,") just because something gives the correct answer doesn't make it the unique solution.

 

[Michael]

Mass and energy are proportional, which means they are fundamentally the same, and differ by some constant. Therefore, a human, rock and photon are fundamentally one in the same. Two are superpositions, or sums, of the fundamental one.

Indeed.

 

[Michael]

It isn't making up anything new, it's finding something new and trying to figure out what it is. We see mass, we've ruled out that it's the usual suspects of gas, liquid, or solid. It's something new.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7648192/#post60238728

Perhaps you missed it, but earlier in this thread I cited three relatively recent (last 4 years) observations that demonstrate CONCLUSIVELY that our attempt to "rule out" the usual suspects was premature because the ASSUMPTIONS in those models is FLAWED. It turns out that we GROSSLY underestimated the amount of mass inside ORDINARY STARS! We grossly UNDERSTIMATED the number of "small" stars we can't directly observe. We BLEW it based on FLAWED MODELS.

The mainstream has FAILED to incorporate these new findings. I also showed a recent study that ruled out ANY dark matter in our vicinity of the galaxy around this particular solar system. In effect the mainstream PREMATURELY ruled out the "normal" stuff based on FLAWED galaxy models, and they've yet to FIX the flawed models!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

When is the last time you reproduced the results of your theory about the cosmos gravity in a laboratory?

I remember back in University, when we went through the stellar nucleosynthesis. The Sun basically doesn't work if gravity is somehow 'variable'.

Do you understand that if you cannot reproduce the conditions in a laboratory for a layperson to test, it is just philosophy? "Must," "wrong," "falsifiability," etc. are meaningless until you can recreate the solar system, test your theory, and provide laboratory results so clear so that a layperson can follow your exact scientific process and produce the same results. Anything else is just as much conjecture as you accuse me of having.

Yea, that's not how science works. Forensic scientists don't need to go out and murder someone to test their hypotheses about who the murderer is, and astrophysicists don't need to recreate the solar system to test a hypothesis about it.

In science, if we propose a hypothesis about the universe, we can test that hypothesis by making a testable prediction, and going out and testing it. We could calculate the solar output of various stars under the assumption that gravity operates uniformly (this uniformity is feature in all physical laws, not just gravity). This can be done, and we can calculate the Sun's solar output - and it works.

And as I said, these calculations aren't pulled from thin air. The inverse square law is a common feature in physics, and arises whenever the change in one variable with respect to another is proportional to that second variable. If gravity was variable, the further away from Earth we look, stars simply wouldn't work.

More generally, we simply only need to tests General Relativity to experimentally verify our understanding of gravity. One of the first experimental verifications of Relativity was the ability to correctly explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury.

You are missing my point. One answer for f(x) is a scalar, the other is a function - specifically a limit. The point was to illustrate that two different answers can make the math work, but doesn't necessarily make it the unique solution. If I said "only a scalar can satisfy the equation of 2 + f(x) = 4," then f(x) = 2 would be the unique solution, even though f(x) = limx-->∞[(2x-4)/(x-3)] satisfies the equation. Also, remember a limit is not an "equals to." Rather, it is a local area value for a function at the given limit. It is erroneous to say that f(x) = limx-->∞[(2x-4)/(x-3)] is 2 because it equals 2. Rather, its limit is equal to 2. The two are not the same. One is an equality, the other is a limit. Plain and simple.

You don't seem to understand what limits are. To say "lim[sub]x-->0[/sub] [(2x-4/(x-3)]" is to talk about the limit. That limit is two. It is numerically equivalent to two. They're two different ways of writing the same quantity.

It's trivial that different mathematical terms can be equivalent - the very existence of the equality relation testifies to that.

Since infinity is undefined, you cannot define the polynomial in the limit, only its limit. So, my point still stands.

The truth is you do not know how gravity works in the cosmos because you cannot reproduce the cosmos in the laboratory (even though there are a plethora of theories asserting themselves as fact[oid].) You may be able to detect effects, but the assumption is still that things remain proportional with earth forces. Gravity is, and will always be an inverse square law since "our math on earth" shows it to be (I am well aware of the derivations.)

Given the paucity of correct statements you've made about the nature of science and experimentation, and even simply mathematical concepts, somehow I doubt you've gone through and understood the derivation of Einstein's field equations.

The difference between philosophy and "science" is the ability to reproduce the experiment in a lab so much so that a layperson can follow your lab notes and come up with the same results. Cosmology skips this step. I would love to see a reproduction of the solar system on earth (with sun, planets, moons, and elliptical objects.) Otherwise, we are just having philosophical debate, which is fine with me.

Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between science and philosophy. Science has nothing to do with the layperson - if they can't understand your lab notes, then tough. Science doesn't magically turn into philosophy when someone scientifically illiterate comes along.

According to you, Harry Potter constitutes philosophy, as you cannot reproduce it's claims in a lab. What nonsense!

And, again, you don't really understand how scientific falsifiability works if you think scientists need to rebuild the entire solar system