Dark Matter

[Michael]

No, you misunderstood the article. There is gravitational lensing by both the stars and something that does not glow. The plasma is no "glowing brightly".

Perhaps if you understood the evidence for dark matter better you could come up with a better argument against it.

I've actually read the whole paper several times now, and even the title of their paper should demonstrate their lack of understanding of some core facts about "science". There is no such thing as 'proof' of anything in science. There certainly is no such thing as 'proof' in an uncontrolled observation, devoid of any control mechanisms entirely. The *most* you can hope to provide is "evidence" in the realm of real physics. What they *actually* have is nothing more than lensing evidence of "missing mass" from an area inside the collision zone that isn't "visible' to us with our *relatively primitive* technology. Yawn.

What you have are the stellar infrastructures of both galaxies passing through each other relatively unscathed, including their supermassive "black holes" in each galaxy. The x-ray zone is clearly the plasma that is still colliding and interaction and glowing brightly still in x-ray. The "stuff around the stellar infrastructure that they don't see" is the light plasma that has already *passed through* the collision zone, and all the neutrally charged particles and dust that are unlikely to have any EM influences on each other as they "pass on through".

Lensing data, and/or the ability to "see" the plasma at these distances in *no way* implies or requires the existence of "exotic matter".

There is no doubt at all that there is *missing mass* in that image alright. We know for instance they *underestimated* the stellar infrastructure by a whopping factor of four, and they underestimated the brightness by *at least* a factor of 2. Furthermore, from 20/20 hindsight we also know that they *underestimated* the size of the supermassive black holes, and they only just recently found/confirmed the existence of the plasma around the galaxies as late as 2012. Who knows what *else* they haven't found yet?

Looking at that lensing data and claiming it's necessarily made of "exotic" matter, rather than ordinary dust and plasma is the like seeing something unusual in the sky and *assuming* it's *necessarily* built by an intelligent race from another planet!

Sure, there is that *possibility*, but it certainly wouldn't be the first conclusion I *leap* to, particularly considering the relatively primitive state of our technologies, and the consistently *demonstrated flaws* in mainstream galaxy mass estimates.

The real "kicker" however is that they treat all particles alike, regardless of *charge*, and that's just utterly ridiculous, particularly when discussing *this particular* data. The charged particles in the plasma will *repel/interact* with each other more readily, and from a greater distance, than any *neutrally charged* particles. The neutral part of those dust clouds will likely just "pass on though" the collision, while the charged particles will definitely be more *interactive* with the charged particles from the other dust cloud. All "plasmas" have 'dust', some of which *will not have a charge*!

The fact the mainstream *utterly ignores the charge of the various particles* makes their claims utterly absurd and childish. Their thinking is just *so primitive* in terms of plasma physics, it's not even funny.

 

[Michael]

Ha!The Bullet Cluster ...Interesting subject indeed!


[FONT=&quot]The dark matter hypothesis for the bullet cluster is contradicted by the cold dark matter [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ΛCDM[/FONT][FONT=&quot] model.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Mastropietro & Burkert (2008) have shown that an initial relative velocity of the two colliding clusters would need to be around 3000 km/s in order to explain the observed shock velocity, X-ray brightness ratio and morphology of the main and sub-cluster. However, Jounghun and Eiichiro (2010) have shown that such a high infall velocity is incompatible with the predictions of the cold dark matter [/FONT][FONT=&quot] model. The probability that such an event could occur is roughly one in 10 billion! The lower velocity simulations of, for example Milosavljevic et. al. (2007) and Springel& Farrar (2007), that could be compatible with [/FONT][FONT=&quot], do not reproduce the weak lensing data of the Bullet cluster. What this means is that it is pretty much impossible that the lensing effect seen in the Bullet cluster can be due to dark matter, based on the cold dark matter models Jounghun and Eiichiro .
[/FONT]

Oh, don't even confuse them with any falsification process based on their own so called 'predictions'.

They don't actually care about any *tests* of their beliefs anymore. They certainly aren't interested in *falsifying it* by their own maths. If they did, those exotic matter lab failures over the last 18 months would do the trick. The rest of their failures are trivial 'details' to simply be swept under the carpet and ignored.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ha!The Bullet Cluster ...Interesting subject indeed!


[FONT=&quot]The dark matter hypothesis for the bullet cluster is contradicted by the cold dark matter [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ΛCDM[/FONT][FONT=&quot] model.

The precession of Mercury's orbit was contradicted by Newton's Law of instantaneous gravitation. Newton's Laws being wrong did not make the precession in Mercury's orbit go away. It is the same in this case. The observations consistent with exotic dark matter do not go away if the theories meant to explain them are wrong. The observations are still there. What you do is produce a theory that DOES explain the observations.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Mastropietro & Burkert (2008) have shown that an initial relative velocity of the two colliding clusters would need to be around 3000 km/s in order to explain the observed shock velocity, X-ray brightness ratio and morphology of the main and sub-cluster. However, Jounghun and Eiichiro (2010) have shown that such a high infall velocity is incompatible with the predictions of the cold dark matter [/FONT][FONT=&quot] model. The probability that such an event could occur is roughly one in 10 billion! The lower velocity simulations of, for example Milosavljevic et. al. (2007) and Springel& Farrar (2007), that could be compatible with [/FONT][FONT=&quot], do not reproduce the weak lensing data of the Bullet cluster. What this means is that it is pretty much impossible that the lensing effect seen in the Bullet cluster can be due to dark matter, based on the cold dark matter models Jounghun and Eiichiro .
[/FONT]

Which of these directly tackle the observations of the Bullet Cluster? I am guessing none of them, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, don't even confuse them with any falsification process based on their own so called 'predictions'.

Did Newton's Law of Instaneous Gravity falsify the precession in Mercury's orbit?

You have the cart in front of the horse.

 

[Loudmouth]

Even the mainstream explanation *nailed it*. The matter that *passes on through* are the stars and that super/ultramassive black hole. The gas/plasma is the stuff that slams into each other and "glows brightly* as a result.

Wow. You have that so backwards it is scary.

Stars glow. There is no glowing matter in the area where they mapped dark matter. THAT'S WHY THEY CALLED IT DARK MATTER!!

If you can't get something this basic right . . .

 

[Riberra]

[FONT=&quot]The precession of Mercury's orbit was contradicted by Newton's Law of instantaneous gravitation. Newton's Laws being wrong did not make the precession in Mercury's orbit go away. It is the same in this case. The observations consistent with exotic dark matter do not go away if the theories meant to explain them are wrong. The observations are still there. What you do is produce a theory that DOES explain the observations.[/FONT]

[SIZE=+1] Using Einstein's general relativity, it is generally believed that space and time distortions are absolutely required to explain the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. This is untrue. The advance of the perihelion of Mercury was first calculated in 1898 by Paul Gerber [/SIZE](1A)[SIZE=+1]. We show here that this phenomenon can be fully explained using Newton's physics and mass-energy conservation, without any relativity principle. Without having to introduce any new physics, we arrive to the same equation as predicted by Einstein. [/SIZE]
A Detailed Classical Description of the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury

 

[Riberra]

Which of these directly tackle the observations of the Bullet Cluster? I am guessing none of them, right?

Detailed analysis based on peer reviewed papers here:
The Bullet Cluster: Evidence for Dark Matter or Not

 

[Michael]

Wow. You have that so backwards it is scary.

Stars glow. There is no glowing matter in the area where they mapped dark matter. THAT'S WHY THEY CALLED IT DARK MATTER!!

If you can't get something this basic right . . .

Speaking of not understanding the basics.....

Apparently you think that every star, regardless of size is visible in distant galaxies. That's *not* how it actually works. We see only the *largest* of stars in distant galaxies as point sources, we don't "see" small stars at all. We *estimate* the number of small stars based on the number of larger ones and we use a "ratio". It turns out however that your 'ratio' numbers were all messed up! You were actually off by a factor of 4 in fact!

You also keep glossing right over the key problem entirely. The material in that plasma cloud isn't *100 percent ionized*. It contains *dust* and particles that are *not* charged, and well as particles that *are* ionized and are charged. The *charged* material is interacting in that image and emitting x-rays. The *non charged particles* didn't interact, and they don't "glow" because they aren't contained in the suns themselves, they're just "dust" between the stars!

So long as the mainstream continues to ignore the issue of *charge*, and they continue to ignore the implications of all that "missing mass" the found since 2006, that lensing study is dated and useless!

You don't see anything 'exotic' in that image. You see a few "point sources" rated to the *larger* stars, and lensing from a bunch of stars you miscounted to start with!

Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Notice your lensing study was done in 2006, but you didn't figure out that you botched the small star estimates until 2009.

http://www.space.com/18976-ultramassive-black-holes-bigger-than-thought.html

The mainstream has also been consistently underestimating the masses of the black holes at the core of galaxies as well.

Notice also that you're *ignoring* the implications of the charge of various particles as it relates to the collision process. That's the core problem.

 

[Michael]

Did Newton's Law of Instaneous Gravity falsify the precession in Mercury's orbit?

Apparently no, and as usual, your own strawman blew up in your face.

 

[Loudmouth]

Detailed analysis based on peer reviewed papers here:
The Bullet Cluster: Evidence for Dark Matter or Not

That is a crackpot PU website, not a peer reviewed paper in a real journal.

 

[Loudmouth]

Apparently no, and as usual, your own strawman blew up in your face.

No, it blew up in yours . . . again. You can't even understand the basic relationship between observation and theory. The observations support exotic dark matter. If the lamda CDM theory is inconsistent with the observation of exotic dark matter, then it is lambda CDM that is wrong, not the observation.

Why you can't understand this is beyond me.

 

[Michael]

That is a crackpot PU website, not a peer reviewed paper in a real journal.

The obligatory ad homs while you run from the Nobel Prize winning authors peer reviewed work with your tail between your legs.

 

[Loudmouth]

Speaking of not understanding the basics.....

Apparently you think that every star, regardless of size is visible in distant galaxies. That's *not* how it actually works. We see only the *largest* of stars in distant galaxies as point sources, we don't "see" small stars at all.

No stars of any size are seen in the areas where they mapped dark matter. None. No luminous matter. None. There is no dust obscuring background galaxies. There is no light being emitted by plasma. Nothing other than the distortion of light paths by gravity.

The material in that plasma cloud isn't *100 percent ionized*. It contains *dust* and particles that are *not* charged, and well as particles that *are* ionized and are charged. The *charged* material is interacting in that image and emitting x-rays. The *non charged particles* didn't interact, and they don't "glow" because they aren't contained in the suns themselves, they're just "dust" between the stars!

We aren't talking about the glowing areas. We are talking about the areas with false blue color. There is no luminous matter in that area.

 

[Michael]

No, it blew up in yours . . . again. You can't even understand the basic relationship between observation and theory.

Yes I do. I also realize how *primitive* your theories are, including the fact you ignored the aspect of *charge* entirely when discussing the collision! I understand the basic relationship between large stars we can see, and the small ones we cannot too. I understand you *botched* that percentage rather dramatically too. I understand your errors all too well in fact.

The observations support exotic dark matter.

False. They do not. The only support *missing mass*, and we know why you missed it now too!

If the lamda CDM theory is inconsistent with the observation of exotic dark matter, then it is lambda CDM that is wrong, not the observation.

Lambda-CDM was falsified three straight times in the lab in just the last 18 months. There is no *other* invisible thingamabob in your theory that even *can* be put to a *real* test in a *real* lab, with *real* control mechanisms in fact. If those three strikes didn't do it, nothing will cause you to abandon your "faith" in the supernatural.

Why you can't understand this is beyond me.

Why you can't understand the implications of *change* as it relates to that collision process is beyond me too. How you can't understand the implications of your stellar miscount is also beyond me as well. I just chalk it up to your denial process.

 

[Loudmouth]

The obligatory ad homs while you run from the Nobel Prize winning authors peer reviewed work with your tail between your legs.

None of that work is on the Bullet Cluster. Again, nothing but red herrings to distract away from your complete lack of scholarship, just like a crackpot.

 

[Riberra]

That is a crackpot PU website, not a peer reviewed paper in a real journal.

Then what about:
Can MOND take a bullet? Analytical comparisons of three versions of MOND beyond spherical symmetry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster#cite_note-16

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/moti_bullet.html

Mordehai Milgrom, the original proposer of MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics), has posted on-line a refutation[16] of claims that the Bullet Cluster proves the existence of dark matter. Milgrom claims that MOND correctly accounts for the dynamics of galaxies outside of galaxy clusters, and even in clusters such as the Bullet Cluster it removes the need for most dark matter, leaving only a factor of two which Milgrom expects to be simply unseen ordinary matter (non-luminous baryonic matter) rather than cold dark matter. Without MOND, or some similar theory, the matter discrepancy in galaxy clusters is a factor of 10, i.e. MOND reduces this discrepancy five-fold to a factor of 2. Another study in 2006[17] cautions against "simple interpretations of the analysis of weak lensing in the bullet cluster", leaving it open that even in the non-symmetrical case of the Bullet Cluster, MOND, or rather its relativistic version TeVeS (Tensor–vector–scalar gravity), could account for the observed gravitational lensing.

• Oxford Journals
• Mathematics & Physical Sciences
• MNRAS
• Volume 371 Issue 1
• Pp. 138-146

Can MOND take a bullet? Analytical comparisons of three versions of MOND beyond spherical symmetry

1. G. W. Angus1,*,
2. B. Famaey2,*,† and
3. H. S. Zhao1,*

1. 1SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, Fife KY16 9SS
2. 2Institut d'Astronomie et d'Astrophysique, Université Libre de Bruxelles, CP 226, Boulevard du Triomphe, B-1050 Bruxelles, Belgium

1. ↵*E-mails: gwa2{at}st-andrews.ac.uk (GWA); bfamaey{at}ulb.ac.be (BF); hz4{at}st-andrews.ac.uk (HSZ)

• Accepted 2006 June 6.
• In original form 2006 June 4.

Abstract

A proper test of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) in systems of non-trivial geometries depends on modelling subtle differences in several versions of its postulated theories. This is especially true for lensing and dynamics of barely virialized galaxy clusters with typical gravity of scale a0. The original MOND formula, the classical single-field modification of the Poisson equation, and the multifield general relativistic theory of Bekenstein (tensor–vector–scalar, TeVeS) all lead to different predictions as we stray from spherical symmetry. In this paper, we study a class of analytical MONDian models for a system with a semi-Hernquist baryonic profile. After presenting the analytical distribution function of the baryons in spherical limits, we develop orbits and gravitational lensing of the models in non-spherical geometries. In particular, we can generate a multicentred baryonic system with a weak lensing signal resembling that of the merging galaxy cluster 1E 0657−56 with a bullet-like light distribution. We finally present analytical scale-free highly non-spherical models to show the subtle differences between the single-field classical MOND theory and the multifield TeVeS theory.



Free peer reviewed paper at Arxiv

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606216

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes I do. I also realize how *primitive* your theories are, including the fact you ignored the aspect of *charge* entirely when discussing the collision! I understand the basic relationship between large stars we can see, and the small ones we cannot too. I understand you *botched* that percentage rather dramatically too. I understand your errors all too well in fact.

Oh please, you can't point to luminous matter where they are detecting matter. Those are the facts.

Lambda-CDM was falsified three straight times in the lab in just the last 18 months.

Cart before the horse once again. Falsifying lambda-CDM does not falsify the observations evidencing exotic dark matter anymore than falsifying Newtonian gravitation falsified the observations of Mercury's precession.

 

[Michael]

No stars of any size are seen in the areas where they mapped dark matter. None. No luminous matter. None.

I doubt you actually even bothered to read the paper. You're pulling another one of those "neurons don't carry current' routines! From the abstract of the paper:

By using both wide-field ground based images and HST/ACS images of the cluster cores, we create gravitational lensing maps which show that the gravitational potential does not trace the plasma distribution, the dominant baryonic mass component, but rather approximately traces the distribution of galaxies.

The lensing contours on page 2 correlate to the stellar infrastructure, not the interacting charged particle mass.

There is no dust obscuring background galaxies.

False. There's always some amount of dust obscuring all background galaxies. It's a question of *how much*, not *if*.

There is no light being emitted by plasma. Nothing other than the distortion of light paths by gravity.

So what? Dust wouldn't be visible from this distance! Small stars aren't even directly visible at that distance for crying out loud!

We aren't talking about the glowing areas. We are talking about the areas with false blue color. There is no luminous matter in that area.

Did you even *read* the paper or are you just winging it again?

Bullet Cluster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In theories without dark matter, such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), the lensing would be expected to follow the baryonic matter; i.e. the X-ray gas. However, the lensing is strongest in two separated regions near (possibly coincident with) the visible galaxies.

 

[Michael]

Oh please, you can't point to luminous matter where they are detecting matter. Those are the facts.

No, actually you made that up. The lensing occurs near the stellar infrastructures. Those are the reported facts.

You can even observe the lensing is centered near the black holes!

Cart before the horse once again. Falsifying lambda-CDM does not falsify the observations evidencing exotic dark matter anymore than falsifying Newtonian gravitation falsified the observations of Mercury's precession.

I don't have to falsify your now falsified galaxy mass estimates. They been falsified *numerous* times since 2006. You have yet to support your claim that the lensing data *requires* exotic forms of matter.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then what about:

Just for the record, you are jumping the plasma bandwagon altogether and jumping on the MOND ship, correct?