Dark Matter

[Michael]

FYI, both the *percentages* as well as NASA's *claims* about knowledge about the makeup of dark matter are directly related to their *creation mythos dogma*, not to anything that has ever been observed or measured on Earth or from Earth. In just the past 18 months, SUSY theory has experienced *three hugely significant failures* in real lab experiments, and the standard particle physics theory is complete without any need for any exotic forms of matter to exist.

NASA absolutely does *not* know what it claims to know. Since those lines were first written and published on that website, they have been falsified *repeatedly* and each and every claim has been shown to be false. It's not as though there isn't *plenty* of false advertizing on that website. In fact the whole thing is one giant lie at this point in time. They don't know any of the things that they claim to know, and in fact all those claims have been falsified numerous times since they were first written and posted to that website, but those falsified claims were never changed, fixed or modified as a result of any observation since then.

 

[Michael]

My way of subscribing for entertainment purposes.

Ah, I see.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The only reason why it is called dark matter is because it seems to be exerting something like gravity.
It's a placeholder name. We don't know what it is, what it is made of or what properties it has. We only know the effect of: because we can measure it.

We KNOW there is something there exerting gravity (or something like gravity), because, again, we can measure it.

No scientist ever claimed to know what dark matter is. How could you falsify the idea of "we don't know yet"?

What you most probably mean, is that some scientists might have brought forward ideas to explain what dark matter is and that THOSE ideas were falsified. But "dark matter" itself is not an idea. It's a name for something that measurably exists but of which we don't know what it is.

But we do know what it is, it is plasma. And until recently was undetectable, exactly where DM is prophesied to be.

Colossal Gas Cloud Discovered Around Milky Way | Space.com

And electric currents are the only force known to both attract and repel, and are 10^39 orders stronger than gravity. So a small electric current can have a greater affect than the mass itself does.

MIT Physics Demo -- Forces on a Current-Carrying Wire | MIT Video

And these electric currents in plasma:

Z-pinch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Z-pinch is an application of the Lorentz force, in which a current-carrying conductor in a magnetic field experiences a force. One example of the Lorentz force is that, if two parallel wires are carrying current in the same direction, the wires will be pulled toward each other. In a Z-pinch machine the wires are replaced by a plasma, which can be thought of as many current-carrying wires. When a current is run through the plasma, the particles in plasma are pulled toward each other by the Lorentz force, thus the plasma contracts. The contraction is counteracted by the increasing gas pressure of the plasma."

cause the plasma pinch at the center of the galaxy and cause the emission of all the types of radiation we observe:

Pinch (plasma physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Pinches may also become unstable,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)#cite_note-11 and generate radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum, including radio waves, x-rayshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)#cite_note-12 and gamma rays,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)#cite_note-13 and also neutronshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)#cite_note-14 and synchrotron radiation.

and the acceleration of the plasma jets at relativistic speeds. Only electric fields are capable of accelerating charged particles directly away from a gravitational source. These plasma jets are not being sling shot out, but are accellerating directly away, from the poles, where the currents connect into the pinch.

Demonstrated in the laboratory, despite their using electric currents and plasma in the lab that they then somehow hypothesize is caused by spinning black holes in space. Despite their having to admit the reality.

Plasma experiment recreates astrophysical jets - space - 04 July 2005 - New Scientist
"The formation soon straightened into a jet because of a simple law of physics - currents flowing in the same direction attract each other, while currents flowing in opposite directions repel each other. "

The same with solar flares, that were created with electric currents, that they then ignore and only use magnetic fields in the explanation.

The lab where it is always sunny: Researchers recreate precursor to solar flares | Mail Online

Always the electric currents that created the phenomenon are glossed over and never given any consideration in the explanations. Neither experiment would have been possible without electric currents or plasma. But suddenly it is spinning black holes in space and magnetic field lines.

And you are incorrect, we can NOT measure it. We can observe the effects of a force acting, but have never once measured a single anything from the center of galaxies, as we have NEVER been there. We can "hypothesize" what force is causing these effects, but have never measured anything.

But, everywhere we have ever sent a space probe, electric currents HAVE been measured.

From the moon:

Electric Moon Zaps Solar Winds | David Reneke | Space and Astronomy News

to Saturn and Jupiter"

Icy Moon Zaps Saturn with Electron Beams

The proper terminology is cathode ray, but electron beam is acceptable. Just in case you are unaware of what causes them.

Cathode ray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DogmaHunter]

We can observe the effects of a force acting

You wasted an enormous amount of time pretending to correct me, while all you did was confirm what I said with that single sentence.

There is something there that is exerting a force. We don't know what it is. So it gets the placeholder name "dark matter".

It's not hard.

 

[Michael]

You wasted an enormous amount of time pretending to correct me, while all you did was confirm what I said with that single sentence.

There is something there that is exerting a force. We don't know what it is. So it gets the placeholder name "dark matter".

It's not hard.

It's not actually even that simple. The *amount* of dark matter that they claim to need relates to the rotation patterns of galaxies based upon a "gravity only' concept of how plasma rotates. It assumes that only gravity has any role in that rotation pattern. That's a false assertion from the start.

Plasmas are *highly* sensitive to electromagnetic influences, particularly the flow of current and the presence of strong magnetic fields. The universe is mostly made of plasma, and it contains all sorts of strong electromagnetic fields.

Peratt created galaxy rotation models based on MHD theory that created the same mass layout patterns we observe in modern galaxies, *without* a single ounce of "dark matter". The electromagnetic fields are helping to rotate the plasma body, much like a homopolar motor:

Homopolar motor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In such a scenario, with *other* influences (besides just gravity) acting on the plasma body, it's *entirely* possible to explain the rotation patterns *without* any dark matter whatsoever.

The "lensing studies" however do make it clear that some mass during a galaxy collision passes on through the collision process relatively unscathed. That would be the black holes and the stellar infrastructures that are unlikely to interact directly due to the vast distances between stars.

We did however discover in 2012 that our galaxy is surrounded by a multimillion degree plasma. Those plasmas *would* begin to collide and interact and interact electrically as well. That's the part that emits x-rays and shows signs of collision. Both behaviors are *easily* explained by ordinary plasmas, some "clumpy", and other plasma formations that are more "spread out".

In reality they don't even know for sure *how much* dark matter is really necessary. They have however demonstrated time and time again that they vastly underestimated the amount of *ordinary* matter in a galaxy based on their very *primitive* earlier models.

None of the numbers listed on NASA's website are accurate, and not a single statement about what they claim to know about dark matter is true. It's all based upon *pure supernatural creation mythos dogma*, not empirical physics.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nothing of the sort took place in that lensing study.

Yes, it did. The plasma magically sorted itself away from the rest of the matter in each cluster, and failed to interact with any of the normal matter. Plasma doesn't do that.

Back to your pathetic use of ad homs in every post. Your debate crutch is so old, it's got a fallacy *named* after it. You need a new song and dance routine.

Back to crackpot websites and a complete lack of peer review for your claims. If you think I am wrong, show me a valid peer reviewed paper showing that the gravitation distortions in the Bullet Cluster were caused by plasma.

 

[Michael]

Yes, it did. The plasma magically sorted itself away from the rest of the matter in each cluster, and failed to interact with any of the normal matter. Plasma doesn't do that.

There's absolutely nothing "magic" about gravity, distance, momentum, and MHD theory, but plasma *absolutely can* do exactly that, and probably *must* do exactly that during a galaxy collision.

The stars within the *stellar infrastructures* of *both* galaxies are separated by vast distances. Furthermore they have a *lot* of mass and momentum due to their mass concentration. During a so called 'collision' between galaxies, the huge distances between stars will mean that most of the stars will pass right through the other galaxy, without much chance of a direct hit. The momentum of the black holes, and the stars in the galaxies will cause them to pretty much "fail to interact" in terms of any massive immediate collisions.

On the other hand, those massive million degree plasma filaments and thin plasmas bodies *will* slam into each other, and they *will* begin to electrically interact, causing all sorts of x-ray and high energy processes to ensue.

The *magic* as you describe it is directly related to *momentum* and *distance*. It's not really magic of course, it's just physics.

Back to crackpot websites and a complete lack of peer review for your claims.

I've handed you all sorts of peer reviewed work, including Peratt's galaxy mass layout papers. Your side is the one citing unpublished websites and handwaving at non peer reviewed material. I see you haven't given up on your ad hom crutch yet either.

If you think I am wrong, show me a valid peer reviewed paper showing that the gravitation distortions in the Bullet Cluster were caused by plasma.

Show me they weren't! The term you're using "dark matter" is simply a *placeholder term for human ignorance*, nothing more. We already know that 99+ percent of the known universe is in the plasma state, so the odds are certainly in my favor.

You've had three straight failures of exotic matter theory in the just the last 18 months!

Worse yet however, is look what's occurred since that 2006 study in terms of what we discovered about your now falsified galaxy mass estimation techniques. We learned since that 2006 study that:

A) Galaxies are *twice as bright* as we first imagined, meaning they are *more massive* than we imagined.
B) We discovered in 2009 that you also have been *grossly* (by a factor of four) underestimating the number of *entire stars* in a galaxy, again *underestimating* the mass of the galaxies.
C) In 2012, we discovered more mass in the form of million degree plasma around the galaxy than is contained in all the rest of the mass of the stars *put together*!

We now even *know why* and *how* you botched the mass estimates, and we now have 20/20 hindsight in terms of all those failures at LHC, at LUX and in the electron roundness experiments.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt as you put it.

 

[Michael]

Oh ya, I forgot:

D) Supermassive black holes are also much larger than we imagined in 2006, in fact they created a whole new term and category for them since 2006, "Ultramassive".

Ultramassive Black Holes May Be Bigger, More Numerous Than Astronomers Realized
Gigantic Black Holes Just Got Even Bigger | Ultramassive Black Holes | Space.com

There's now *plenty* of evidence that your 2006 galaxy mass estimation techniques were wrong in nearly every conceivable way.

 

[Loudmouth]

There's absolutely nothing "magic" about gravity, distance, momentum, and MHD theory, but plasma *absolutely can* do exactly that, and probably *must* do exactly that during a galaxy collision.

Peer reviewed papers? No? Just crackpot websites, right?

 

[Michael]

Peer reviewed papers? No? Just crackpot websites, right?

http://www.plasmauniverse.info/downloads/AdvancesII.annotated.pdf

Your ad hom crutch is both ironic, and stale.

Why do I need any DM in the first place?

 

[Michael]

Curious About Astronomy: What happens when galaxies collide?

Even your own "experts" can explain how a galaxy collision *actually* works for you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your ad hom crutch is both ironic, and stale.

As Chuck Swindoll once pointed out:

When a person is running a race, there are those who stand on the sideline and cheer you on, while others stand on the sideline and take potshots at you.

 

[Michael]

As Chuck Swindoll once pointed out:

When a person is running a race, there are those who stand on the sideline and cheer you on, while others stand on the sideline and take potshots at you.

Their basic problem in a nutshell is that because I am advocating a pure form of empirical physics, that's about all they really *can* do.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You wasted an enormous amount of time pretending to correct me, while all you did was confirm what I said with that single sentence.

There is something there that is exerting a force. We don't know what it is. So it gets the placeholder name "dark matter".

It's not hard.

No, you claimed "We KNOW there is something there exerting gravity (or something like gravity), because, again, we can measure it." We have only observations, and hypothesis that only considers the gravitational force, while ignoring everything else. We have measured no gravitational force at all, or any force for that matter. We have merely measured the velocity of plasma clouds, not the stars themselves. For all we know the stars may be orbiting at different speeds than these plasma clouds that being strongly influenced by EM forces, would orbit by the EM force, not gravitational.

In fact, several recent studies suggest this is very much the case. That the plasma clouds and stars are orbiting at different velocities.

The rotation curve of spiral galaxies and its cosmological implications

Yes, and that placeholder is plasma and electric currents, that is confirmed even in laboratory experiments, that somehow becomes black holes when discussing astrophysics. The problem is astronomers refuse to give up their exotic claims for that placeholder, for a force we have observed everywhere we have gone and taken a measurement, electric fields and electric currents. Instead they stick to their tired old theory, because they refuse to admit they have been wrong for close to 100 years. Instead they will continue to waste billions of tax payers dollars searching for an exotic particle that does not exist. But exclaim with a 98% certainty that these particles exist, when their own studies place the odds at .19% greater than just a noise only detection. How one is 98% certain from a theory that is only .19% better than just plain random noise is beyond me, unless that 98% certainty is more a matter of faith and wishful thinking.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Curious About Astronomy: What happens when galaxies collide?

Even your own "experts" can explain how a galaxy collision *actually* works for you.

The question is how many are actually colliding, and how many are actually separating due to electrical stress? Astronomers only have gravity to work with, since they consistently ignore the electric and magnetic forces. So collisions is all they can use to explain what they see in space.

 

[bhsmte]

Their basic problem in a nutshell is that because I am advocating a pure form of empirical physics, that's about all they really *can* do.

Michael,

What do you mean by; "pure form of empirical physics"?

 

[Michael]

Michael,

What do you mean by; "pure form of empirical physics"?

I mean that as it relates to cosmology theories, I "lack belief" in anything that cannot be demonstrated in a lab in controlled experimentation. Homopolar motors work in the lab. Inelastic scattering and Doppler shift work in the lab too. There's really nothing to "pick on" in terms of demonstrating the actual cause effect relationships to photons and my beliefs via empirical physics.

Compare and contrast that to the mainstream's utterly bogus claims about space expansion having some tangible effect on a photon, or dark energy, or exotic matter theories. They have demonstrated no empirical cause/effect relationships between the behaviors of photons and *any* of their claims! They are all *assumed* and ultimately amount to a multiple affirming the consequent fallacy run amok.

Since they cannot hope to demonstrate any of their claims, and they don't want to discuss all those recent lab failures they had with exotic matter claims, they are therefore left with very little to do other than to play "kill the messenger'. They are essentially and effectively in exactly the same boat as any YEC when it comes to demonstrating their claims via actual experimental *physics*. All they can do to pick on EU/PC theory is what YEC's do, namely try to cast doubt on the science offered, or attack the person, or both. What they *cannot* and *will* not do is offer any controlled empirical support for their claims about photons being affected by *supernatural* constructs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You've had three straight failures of exotic matter theory in the just the last 18 months!

I have 2 points for you.

1. science is not about taking sides, it's a collective effort to find out how the universe works. This "you've had.." talk is ridiculous. "We' didn't have anything. Physicists are positing ideas and testing them. MOST ideas that are presented in science turn out to be wrong after testing. And that's fine.

2. 4th time. "dark matter" is not a specific thing. It's a place holder. These "exotic matter theories" you speak off, are pretty much irrelavent to the point about dark matter. It's not a thing. It's a place holder. We know there is something, but we don't know what. We need a name to refer to that which we know exists but are unable to explain. No physicist claims to know what it is. It could very well be that it turns out to be something really unexpected (in fact, I'ld say that that is most likely). But it does not matter at all to the point being made. There is something have an observable effect. We don't know what it is nore what its properties are. But it's there.

I find it hilarious that you apparantly think that you have it all figured out. Why isn't this information rocking the scientific community as we speak? I know the answer, but do you?

 

[Loudmouth]

Curious About Astronomy: What happens when galaxies collide?

Even your own "experts" can explain how a galaxy collision *actually* works for you.

Show us the peer reviewed papers that demonstrate that the areas of mass said to be dark matter are indeed areas of plasma. Where are they? Or can these conclusions only be found on PU crackpot websites?

 

[Michael]

The question is how many are actually colliding, and how many are actually separating due to electrical stress? Astronomers only have gravity to work with, since they consistently ignore the electric and magnetic forces. So collisions is all they can use to explain what they see in space.

You're right of course, but even by *their* (gas rather than plasma) standards, it's easy enough to understand why the plasma interacts and collides whereas the stars do not. LM acts like the mass located in suns must be 'magical' simply because the stars didn't collide, and pass on through. Apparently great distances between suns are a form of "magic" to LM.