Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Abstract said:Most of the baryons from galaxies have been missing and several studies
have attempted to map the circumgalactic medium (CGM) of galaxies in their
quest. Recent studies with the Hubble Space Telescope have shown that many
galaxies contain a large reservoir of ionized gas with temperatures of about 10[sup]5[/sup] K.
Here we report on X-ray observations made with the Chandra X-ray Observatory
probing an even hotter phase of the CGM of our Milky Way at about 10[sup]6[/sup] K. We
show that this phase of the CGM is massive, extending over a large region around
the Milky Way, with a radius of over 100 kpc. The mass content of this phase is
over ten billion solar masses, many times more than that in cooler gas phases and
comparable to the total baryonic mass in the disk of the Galaxy. The missing
mass of the Galaxy appears to be in this warm-hot gas phase.
Emphasis mine. What a bunch of horse-pucky! They don't know ANYTHING of the sort! They underestimated the mass of large stars. They underestimated the amount of small star compared to larger stars. They claim we can't "detect" something that has in fact been detected.We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is. First, it is dark, meaning that it is not in the form of stars and planets that we see. Observations show that there is far too little visible matter in the Universe to make up the 25% required by the observations. Second, it is not in the form of dark clouds of normal matter, matter made up of particles called baryons. We know this because we would be able to detect baryonic clouds by their absorption of radiation passing through them.
You may need to go to a "GOOGLE" site to get a description of the phenomenon known as "Dark Matter" to bring you up to speed, but I would like the opinion of the board: "What do you think "Dark Matter" is?"
It will be my privelege to respond as promptly as possible.
Julian of York
Revelation 4:11 "For thou art worthy,O Lord, to receive glory and power and honor: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
Emphasis mine. What a bunch of horse-pucky! They don't know ANYTHING of the sort! They underestimated the mass of large stars. They underestimated the amount of small star compared to larger stars.
[serious];60670336 said:So let me get this straight, There is more mass than we can account for by observation of light emission and absorption. We have 2 theories presented. One by experts and the other by you.
Experts: There is more mass than can be accounted for by the emission and absorption we see. Thus we expect there is some form of mass out there that does not interact with light.
You:
There is more mass than can be accounted for by the emission and absorption we see. Thus all calculations of stellar mass must be wrong.
Stars are larger than we observe them,
possibly larger than they should physically be able to be without collapsing into a black hole.
Virtually every aspect of astronomy must be altered to make sure I don't have to think about the possibility of a new type of matter.
wavelength as a measure of surface temperature? No. That would give us a indication of stellar size that won't work the way I want it. Throw it out even if it does work for our sun. Measure of wobble caused by massive nearby orbiting bodies? Nope, even gravity has to be changed to agree with my assumptions about gravity.
Always with the same things every time.
I noticed that when I actually began to skip posts of yours by inspection, they always contain the same things.
I said it before and I say it again (wrote and write, but you get the point):
If the current theory/model is so wrong, they will change it. Simmer down.
Simmer. Down.I'll likely be dead and buried before they "change" and let do of their "dark religion". I've seen how they treat PC/EU theory. It's like their personal brand of an anti-Christ. They HATE PC theory with a passion because it *EMPIRICALLY* threatens their ENTIRE "dark" religion. For seven years I've seen them sit there in pure denial while the data demonstrating their models are flawed accumulates. They haven't budged from their metaphysical position, not even a single percentage point in all those years. What makes you think you'll see any changes over the next 7 years?
Yawn. Mainstream cosmology theory is DOOMED to failure. Everything "dark" in their religion will and must necessarily be replaced with ordinary plasma physical processes. It's simply empirical destiny. Were it not for the funding channel chaos that would occur, change might be possible. As it stands, the greed factor seems to outweigh any real sense of "scientific truth" IMO.
You seem to think you are the only one relying on experts. Even experts disagree. It's then a matter of which experts you choose to go along with.[serious];60670336 said:So let me get this straight, There is more mass than we can account for by observation of light emission and absorption. We have 2 theories presented. One by experts and the other by you.
Your group of experts claims that the mass cannot be accounted for by observation because they lack evidence.Experts: There is more mass than can be accounted for by the emission and absorption we see.
Simmer. Down.
Anti-christ, HATE, threatens, denial, flawed, yawn, DOOMED, failure, chaos, greed.
(Things you wrote, in case you're wondering)
FYI, even to this day, I spend a lot of time reading papers on Arxiv and from other sources on a variety of cosmology related concepts. It is not as though I haven't studied the information that's out there in the publishing world. I'm also CERTAIN that there are folks that know more about the various topics than I do in terms of mathematical modeling, etc.Just take a step back, listen to what people say (or read what they write). If you haven't worked in the fields they are proficient in as long as they have, maybe, just maybe, they know a tiny bit more than you.
Gee, you are quite the optimist aren't you. I wish I shared your "faith' in 'science". IMO, by the time the facts finally become "evident" to them, I'll likely be dead and buried.Just calm down.
Edit: What I'm saying (writing) is, if they're so wrong they will be able to see the evidence when it becomes evident.
Disillusioned is good, though I would say that after a while one has either to get comfortable with doing nothing about it, or make sure to change it.Thanks for pointing that out to me. I guess my choice of language was a bit "loaded".I guess I'm a tad disillusioned?
It's good that you're aware of that at least. Those papers based on the dark matter/energy, do they all fail since they're founded on unsound science (fail as in they get their prediction or similar wrong)?FYI, even to this day, I spend a lot of time reading papers on Arxiv and from other sources on a variety of cosmology related concepts. It is not as though I haven't studied the information that's out there in the publishing world. I'm also CERTAIN that there are folks that know more about the various topics than I do in terms of mathematical modeling, etc.
There might be a problem that is related to human nature in general, groups act slow.When we get to EMPIRICAL PHYSICS however it's a completely different story. It's clear from our discussions that none of them knows where 'dark energy' might come from, or where to get some or how to control it in an actual "experiment". Ditto with inflation. Many of them have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of even basic EM theory, and few if any of them have ever seriously studied plasma physics. Over the past 7 years I think I've met a total of 3 astronomers (out of maybe 30-50?) that actually have read a book on plasma physics (MHD theory). I can even tell you which specific ones actually answered "yes" when I asked them if they've read or own a book on MHD theory. It's the RARE exception to find someone who's even read Alfven's book "Cosmic Plasma" for instance.
Good, as long as you take into account both evidence for and against.My complaints and my "lack of belief" in their model stems from these types of *EMPIRICAL* failures, not mathematics, nor their "understanding" of the material.
Not unlikely, since the specialization comes at a price.After talking to quite a few astronomers in cyberspace, it's also quite likely that I know more about some of these subjects than many astronomers, particularly MHD theory and also the weaknesses of mainstream theory.
My faith isn't in science, it's in humanityGee, you are quite the optimist aren't you. I wish I shared your "faith' in 'science". IMO, by the time the facts finally become "evident" to them, I'll likely be dead and buried.Birkeland was dead for 50 years before the mainstream astronomy world finally embraced his beliefs about the electrical processes that drive the aurora.
A quick (very) look in Wikipedia:Unfortunately however the mainstream STILL completely misrepresents the energy source that actually drives the auroral processes as "magnetic reconnection", when in fact it's direct CURRENT that is coming right from the sun as Alfven explained to them DECADES ago. I see no evidence at all in fact that the mainstream is even the least bit interested in 'change' particularly any change that moves us out of the "dark ages" of astronomy and toward pure plasma physics.
Well, before we abandon this theory we should find a better one, it seems there are some holes in the plasma cosmology, explained by current theory.In fact they "seem" (from the outside looking in) to be INTENTIONALLY dragging their feet in terms of adopting and accepting recent observations related to "missing mass/dark matter". In just the last 4 years alone, mainstream galaxy mass estimation models have been shown to be flawed AT LEAST 4 different ways. Each of those studies demonstrate that they grossly underestimate the amount of ordinary matter in a galaxy. There is now evidence that they grossly miscalculated the amount of mass in large stars we can see. There is evidence they underestimated the number of small stars in a galaxy. There is evidence they underestimate the mass of black holes in the core of the galaxy. There is evidence that ordinary PLASMA makes up the bulk of that "missing mass". There is evidence that the PREDICTIONS of Lambda-CDM theory are USELESS at describing events in our region of the Milky Way. They've successfully ignored all that information now for 4 years. They still haven't budged even one single percentage point in terms of how much 'exotic' type of dark matter you'll find in Lambda-CDM theory. Their whole concept of exotic forms of matter is pure "dogma" at this point. It's also dogma that utterly defies any and all attempts at falsification because they just don't even care if exotic matter theories fail their so called "tests" or they don't. They keep peddling the same exotic matter numbers regardless of the facts and regardless of the revelations of the flaws in the galaxy mass estimation models. In terms of how they've handled 'dark matter' in particular , there is now quite a bit of evidence that they're simply burying their head in the sand. They are TERRIBLE IMO when it comes to UPDATING their models based on NEW information.
Disillusioned is good, though I would say that after a while one has either to get comfortable with doing nothing about it, or make sure to change it.
The best way to change it is to actually get the tools yourself, education and reputation, or you could work with someone who has those two.
Exotic dark matter theories have pretty much failed consistently since they were first proposed. Dark energy cannot "fail" to match it's key prediction since it was POSTDICTED to fit that "observation/prediction" to begin with.It's good that you're aware of that at least. Those papers based on the dark matter/energy, do they all fail since they're founded on unsound science (fail as in they get their prediction or similar wrong)?
This particular group operates at a snails pace in my experience.There might be a problem that is related to human nature in general, groups act slow.
After all those man/woman years of study, not a single one of them can even tell us where "Dark energy" comes from.Also, the area 'physics' is huge. To gain an educated overview is often problematic and time consuming, even the act to gain overview over a small area takes years. To then connect two deep areas and draw conclusions from that will be problematic, to say the least.
It's pure gap filler actually. It's not even a requirement to explain galaxy layout configurations as Perratt's work with PIC models has already demonstrated. MOND theory is even preferable to magic matter theory IMO.From what I've understood, the dark matter issue seem to be a mix of theoretical models (as in as theoretical as they can get) along with some hands on astronomy.
Unfortunately I've been jaded because I've seen that group of humanity in action.My faith isn't in science, it's in humanity
Hubble's "law" is nothing more than a "subjective interpretation" of the redshift phenomenon. It's not the only interpretation of that phenomenon. Modern tired light theories are also capable of explaining the very same data sets:A quick (very) look in Wikipedia:
Plasma cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In his book he also claimed that Alfvén's models do not predict Hubble's law,
That abundance of light elements claim is turning into quite a problem for mainstream theory actually. When we look back in time we don't always observe any substantial change in abundance numbers between "old" galaxies and new ones. In fact, galaxies are often just as "mature" and large 13 billion years ago as they are today. Furthermore most of the mass of the galaxy resides *BETWEEN* the stars and only lighter, highly charged elements are capable of escaping the gravity well of suns. The abundance numbers will NECESSARILY favor lighter elements like hydrogen and helium because they are primary components of the solar wind and they can most easily escape the gravity well of a sun.the abundance of light elements,
FYI, the interaction of starlight, and it's effect on temperature of molecules and atoms in space was actually a much closer "prediction" to the actual temperature of space than anything provided by early BB models. Yawn. BB theory doesn't predict a "gamma ray background' but it's there too.or the existence of the cosmic microwave background."
IMO you're off to a bad start because you're already "buying into" the dogma of mainstream theory by ASSUMING that these issues are in any way "critical' or even relevant to cosmology theory in general. How about those failed dark matter predictions? Why not write off standard theory as well over that issue?If there is newer studies that would predict that with the same model, you might be onto something.
No, not really. Ari's redshift "interpretation' is just as mathematically valid as mainstream theory. Hubble's "law" is more of a "subjective rule of thumb".Well, before we abandon this theory we should find a better one, it seems there are some holes in the plasma cosmology, explained by current theory.
The only thing that appears "iffy" to me is your insistence that other theories be measured and evaluated based on a few very specific observations and subjective ASSUMPTION from mainstream beliefs (Hubble's law). It's also "iffy" to claim that a "better" theory has to exist before rejecting one that keeps failing all its predictive "tests". That need for a "better" theory is technically not even necessary. I can reject mainstream theory based STRICTLY upon it's own failures WITHOUT anything 'better' to offer. Fortunately I do believe there is a 'better" cosmology theory out there, specifically Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe theory. PC/EU theory does predict a gamma ray background (and many other background wavelengths) because all suns produce gamma rays during flare events and scattering happens in plasma.Anyways, this is taxing. Not only reading and trying to understand all you're writing, but also trying to get my point through.
If somethings iffy with this post, don't hesitate to point it out
You know how speed remains constant without a force to influence it? It adds up in the end.Unfortunately I don't believe it's that simple or straight forward. Alfven had the education and the reputation and the credentials but the mainstream pretty much ignored him completely. Like I said, (far) less than 10% of the astronomers I've met have even read Alfven's book on how to properly apply plasma physics theory to topics in space. If they ignored the guy with the Nobel Prize, what makes you think I'll have any impact on their belief systems?
Of course it was made to match its key predictions, that's how hypotheses are made. Then they are tested. Then they are refined. Then they become theories. Repeat test and refining infinite amount of times.Exotic dark matter theories have pretty much failed consistently since they were first proposed. Dark energy cannot "fail" to match it's key prediction since it was POSTDICTED to fit that "observation/prediction" to begin with.
No doubt, I know many areas that are like that.This particular group operates at a snails pace in my experience.
Seems to me that the area isn't explored enough.After all those man/woman years of study, not a single one of them can even tell us where "Dark energy" comes from.How "educated" in "dark energy" can they actually be anyway? Sounds more like a "dark art" to me.
And gap filler is what most people has been saying/writing hereIt's pure gap filler actually. It's not even a requirement to explain galaxy layout configurations as Perratt's work with PIC models has already demonstrated. MOND theory is even preferable to magic matter theory IMO.
Things always straighten out in the end, one way or the other.Unfortunately I've been jaded because I've seen that group of humanity in action.
Nice layout on the page, they also present the paper nicely. But it would've been easier to have easy access, with pdf or something.Hubble's "law" is nothing more than a "subjective interpretation" of the redshift phenomenon. It's not the only interpretation of that phenomenon. Modern tired light theories are also capable of explaining the very same data sets:
Menu
Theory doesn't seem to be correct. What I've seen indicates it's an hypothesis.That abundance of light elements claim is turning into quite a problem for mainstream theory actually. When we look back in time we don't always observe any substantial change in abundance numbers between "old" galaxies and new ones. In fact, galaxies are often just as "mature" and large 13 billion years ago as they are today. Furthermore most of the mass of the galaxy resides *BETWEEN* the stars and only lighter, highly charged elements are capable of escaping the gravity well of suns. The abundance numbers will NECESSARILY favor lighter elements like hydrogen and helium because they are primary components of the solar wind and they can most easily escape the gravity well of a sun.
BB theory does explain the background radiationFYI, the interaction of starlight, and it's effect on temperature of molecules and atoms in space was actually a much closer "prediction" to the actual temperature of space than anything provided by early BB models. Yawn. BB theory doesn't predict a "gamma ray background' but it's there too.
They're probably at it right now.IMO you're off to a bad start because you're already "buying into" the dogma of mainstream theory by ASSUMING that these issues are in any way "critical' or even relevant to cosmology theory in general. How about those failed dark matter predictions? Why not write off standard theory as well over that issue?
It seems like I have to take back what I said if it isn't theories we're talking (writing) about.No, not really. Ari's redshift "interpretation' is just as mathematically valid as mainstream theory. Hubble's "law" is more of a "subjective rule of thumb".
I don't really insist on anything subjective, if I have then I think I've made a mistake writing.The only thing that appears "iffy" to me is your insistence that other theories be measured and evaluated based on a few very specific observations and subjective ASSUMPTION from mainstream beliefs (Hubble's law). It's also "iffy" to claim that a "better" theory has to exist before rejecting one that keeps failing all its predictive "tests". That need for a "better" theory is technically not even necessary. I can reject mainstream theory based STRICTLY upon it's own failures WITHOUT anything 'better' to offer. Fortunately I do believe there is a 'better" cosmology theory out there, specifically Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe theory. PC/EU theory does predict a gamma ray background (and many other background wavelengths) because all suns produce gamma rays during flare events and scattering happens in plasma.
You know how speed remains constant without a force to influence it? It adds up in the end.
From a skeptics (atheist's) perspective, it's a bit like a "God did it" hypothesis without any falsification mechanism because the CAUSE and the effect ("did it") are unfalsifiable. Where does dark energy come from?Of course it was made to match its key predictions, that's how hypotheses are made. Then they are tested. Then they are refined. Then they become theories. Repeat test and refining infinite amount of times.
The problem from my perspective is that Kristian Birkeland knew more about, and was further ahead in understanding the universe 100 years ago than astronomers of today, most specifically in determining REAL cause/effect relationships. His experimental efforts produced REAL real empirical KNOWLEDGE, and true scientific "predictions" that came out of those experiments. The mainstream today is still groping around in the dark ages. The average astronomer typically knows FAR less about the behaviors of plasma in EM fields than Birkeland did. At least Birkeland understood real physics and real experimentation.No doubt, I know many areas that are like that.
Ya, but they call it a "big bang THEORY none the less. The difference between hypothesis and theories and "laws" are meaningless and interchangeable terms in astronomy today. Hubble's "law" isn't even a real "law" in the first place, it's a SUBJECTIVE HYPOTHESIS related to "expanding space", another thing that defies laboratory support.Seems to me that the area isn't explored enough.
By the way:
Dark energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energyis a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe."
If they showed more interest in PC/EU theory and/or other forms of pure empirical physics, I might buy the idea that they aren't really emotionally attached to these concepts and their "dark dogma". Instead what you find on the internet in astronomy forums is a pure form of irrational hatred toward a pure form of empirical physics (PC theory) within that community. Why? Whatever limitations it has, it's not like THEIR theories are devoid of limitations.So it seems to me it hasn't even passed the hypothesis stage yet, no wonder most people don't work with it.
Cute.And gap filler is what most people has been saying/writing here
It's more a question of WHEN that might happen. My lifetime?Things always straighten out in the end, one way or the other.
I suspect that your electronics background actually puts you light years ahead of many "astronomers" today. Many of the worst "haters" have no understanding of even BASIC EM theory, and only 3 of them I've ever met have read a book on MHD theory (plasma physics). I wouldn't be intimidated if I were you.Nice layout on the page, they also present the paper nicely. But it would've been easier to have easy access, with pdf or something.
And I'm not going into a deeper discussion, I haven't studied physics in a long time (and not further than basic electronics and mechanics).
People (including scientists) constantly call it "big bang theory". The word THEORY is paraded around IN SPITE of the fact that it's propped up by no less than THREE "hypothetical" entities. Hubble's LAW is nothing more than a HIGHLY subjective, and dubious interpretation of the redshift phenomenon. It requires "space", which is physically undefined to somehow magically 'expand'. That just NEVER happens in a lab. Objects move, but "space" cannot and does not ever "expand" and thereby put more distance between two objects.Theory doesn't seem to be correct. What I've seen indicates it's an hypothesis.
You were "mislead". There is no real "explanation" because nobody can even "explain" where dark energy comes from, let alone how space does magic expanding tricks. The terms "dark" aren't even actual "explanations".BB theory does explain the background radiation, or have I been misled?
Nah. Some of them perhaps, but there's probably more of them bashing EU/PC theory online right now than are bothered about the failures of their own theories.They're probably at it right now.
I've met too many astronomers online to simply "have faith" in them anymore. I've literally been virtually executed for my "sins" of "lacking belief" in their dogma. I've seen how they operate first hand. Dissent isn't to be tolerated.Also I'm not buying into anything other than my faith in them as humans.
Hmm. "Due time" in Birkeland's case was 60+ years. How long should I wait for change before learning about and promoting an alternative theory?I could probably sum my points up. Hmm...
- Those working with it will make progress, in due time.
Maybe, but then it's no skin off my nose if they change or don't change because I've pretty much given up on them at this point. I'm simply pointing out that they've been sitting on their laurels now for YEARS and done virtually nothing to FIX their BROKEN models. I'm not frantic, I'm just ANNOYED at this point.2. You're appearing a bit frantic about the whole thing.
I already know which one is the 'best' one in term of empirical physics. I don't know how else to even begin to grade them.3. I don't care what theory/hypothesis turns out to be the best one.
The last time they "worked on" a failure of their theory, it brought us "dark energy".I trust that if the current leading hypothesis/theory has that many flaws, they are being examined and/or worked on.
I ultimately do trust that truth will prevail OVER TIME, but how long that might be is anyone's guess. I'd rather be a "part of the change" than to sit around and do nothing about bad "dark metaphysical dogma" being taught as "science". I also share your optimism that empirical physics will eventually prevail, but like I said, I have no idea when that might happen. I'll just keep being a thorn in their side till I see some movement or I simply drop dead one day.Believe in humanity, it will prevail.
I was reading a book by a supporter of plasma cosmology a few weeks back.
The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe by Eric J. Lerner (Oct 27, 1992)
Many of the jabs at the big bang theory seemed sensible at the time of print but have since been made obsolete by new scientific findings. It's thought provoking though and anything that does that is worth a read imo.
Just one example - amongst almost everything Michael posts on this topic that is just complete rubbish. I do not know whether his plasma cosmology obsession causes deliberate misrepresentation or he just cannot parse technical literature.In fact, galaxies are often just as "mature" and large 13 billion years ago as they are today.
I am really busy at work presently and sometime soon I will post an in depth rebuttal to the pure garbage Michael posts on all things cosmological. He links to papers he patently does not understand or does not know how to put them in context - typical layman failing. He goes on and on about how some study shows some mass unaccounted for yet does not grasp that they are irrelevancies. One example was about some gamma ray detections from large gas "bubbles" projecting above and below the galactic centre. Yes these structures are large but the estimated total mass of them is utterly negligible. But he puts forth the idea that somehow this is an important part of the galactic mass budget. He repeated something similar about a paper discussing the top end of the IMF - again, it was irrelevant. If I weigh the Earth I do not need to know whether there are 50,000 or 70,000 elephants in Southern Africa. That might be important for calculating the available ivory for poaching but not for whether the Earth has a mass of 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg.Hubble Deep Field Beckwith Paper - AJ 132 (5): 17291755 said:As found in previous observations with the Hubble Space Telescope, galaxies at these high redshifts are smaller and less symmetric in shape than galaxies at lower redshifts. These results confirm the conclusion of the first Hubble Deep Field observations that typical galaxies in the early universe look markedly different than galaxies today, showing that galaxies evolved rapidly in the first few billion years after the Big Bang.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?