Introducing "Dark Matter"

[Nabobalis]

You need to believe that gravity can work without mass to make your argument.

Show me the mass then you will have an reasonable argument. For now all you have is an unverified assumption.

We see the effects of mass on those rotation curves. Either there is more mass there or gravity needs to be modified.

 

[Michael]

We see the effects of mass on those rotation curves. Either there is more mass there or gravity needs to be modified.

There's a third option, but the mainstream refuses to actually "seriously" consider it.

I just showed you three examples where the mainstream GROSSLY underestimated the NORMAL matter in a galaxy. They "could" have elected to double the number of larger stars but for SUBJECTIVE spectroscopic reasons, they elected to simply 'turn up the lights' on the same number of existing point sources, thereby PROTECTING their 'dark religion' and minimizing the damage to their beliefs. By subjectively choosing to do it that way, they only had to increase the NORMAL matter in large stars by 20% rather an 100%. How handy for them. Even still, when we combine that with the fact that they GROSSLY underestimate the number of small stars we can't see directly ("dark stars" in your lingo) compared to the LARGEST ones that we actually can observe, the error gets larger. When we add to that the fact that we blew the mass estimates of supermassive and probably massive black holes as well, things are starting to smell fishy. The mainstream's *MASS ESTIMATE TECHNIQUES* themselves appear to be fundamentally flawed on MANY levels. Nobody seems to really want to consider the possibility that they should be tossed out altogether in favor of EMPIRICAL solutions.

Suppose we simply DOUBLED the point sources and ASSUME the red side of the spectrum is simply more prone to absorption than we ESTIMATED. We could effectively AT LEAST DOUBLE the amount of NORMAL matter that we can account for in a galaxy. If we simply moved some of those smaller (DARK STARS) that we underestimated toward the outside of the galaxy on the galactic plane, we could probably nearly eliminate the need for ''dark matter' entirely. Not many of the mainstreamers are willing to entertain the possibility that their mass estimation techniques, and galaxy layout techniques are fundamentally flawed. They're so emotionally and professionally invested in 'exotic' brands of matter these days that they've literally not budged one single percentage point in terms of how much exotic matter is necessary to fill in the gaps of their otherwise falsified theory of the universe.

 

[Nabobalis]

There's a third option, but the mainstream refuses to actually "seriously" consider it.

I just showed you three examples where the mainstream GROSSLY underestimated the NORMAL matter in a galaxy. They "could" have elected to double the number of larger stars but for SUBJECTIVE spectroscopic reasons, they elected to simply 'turn up the lights' on the same number of existing point sources, thereby PROTECTING their 'dark religion' and minimizing the damage to their beliefs. By subjectively choosing to do it that way, they only had to increase the NORMAL matter in large stars by 20% rather an 100%. How handy for them. Even still, when we combine that with the fact that they GROSSLY underestimate the number of small stars we can't see directly ("dark stars" in your lingo) compared to the LARGEST ones that we actually can observe, the error gets larger. When we add to that the fact that we blew the mass estimates of supermassive and probably massive black holes as well, things are starting to smell fishy. The mainstream's *MASS ESTIMATE TECHNIQUES* themselves appear to be fundamentally flawed on MANY levels. Nobody seems to really want to consider the possibility that they should be tossed out altogether in favor of EMPIRICAL solutions.

Suppose we simply DOUBLED the point sources and ASSUME the red side of the spectrum is simply more prone to absorption than we ESTIMATED. We could effectively AT LEAST DOUBLE the amount of NORMAL matter that we can account for in a galaxy. If we simply moved some of the smaller (DARK STARS) toward the outside of the galaxy, we could probably nearly eliminate the need for ''dark matter' entirely. Not many of the mainstreamers are willing to entertain the possibility that their mass estimation techniques are fundamentally flawed. They're so emotionally and professionally invested in 'exotic' brands of matter that they've literally not budged one single percentage point in terms of how much exotic matter is necessary to fill in the gaps of their otherwise falsified theory of the universe.

In summary, there is more normal matter than we estimate.

Well, apparently cosmologists do consider that but until it is found, they consider other options as well.

 

[Michael]

In summary, there is more normal matter than we estimate.

Well, apparently cosmologists do consider that but until it is found, they consider other options as well.

Like I said, it reeks of 'damage control' from the perspective of a skeptic. Even the fact they elected to subjectively favor a 20% increase in mass says VOLUMES IMO. The fact the universe is AT LEAST twice as bright as we once thought is a BOMBSHELL! Everything out there is twice and bright and most likely more than twice as massive as we once thought. We even GROSSLY underestimated the number of 'dark stars' in a galaxy by a factor of FOUR! You can't tell me that the mainstream has made every effort to wean themselves away from exotic physics. Quite the opposite is true in fact. They seem to be making every effort at damage control and to sweep the problems in their mass estimation techniques under the carpet. Little or no effort has been made to rearrange the "dark stars (small stars like our own sun made of normal matter)", now four times as numerous as once thought toward the outside of the disk. Almost NOTHING has been done to try to account for those rotation patterns using STANDARD techniques over the past 3 or 4 years since these revelations first came out. Instead, I've seen NO movement whatsoever in terms of their emotional and professional attachment to "exotic' matter and 'exotic' energy, and a almost fanatical avoidance of plasma physics as it applies to an ELECTRICAL universe.

 

[Resha Caner]

It's not just rotation curves by the way. Since gravity is the only long range force that can be acting on these length scales (it isn't em forces for instance) the assumption it is gravity is on a more sure footing than MOND for instance. And hypothesising dark matter is less of a reach than some new unknown force.

The rotation curves (plus other observed effects) are the evidence. Just like an apple falling is evidence.

What are the "other observed effects"?

Also, while there is a certain reason to taking the conservative approach (i.e. it's better to assume gravity than a new force), what would it take to convince you that there is a new force ... or that "force" is not an adequate descriptor?

 

[Michael]

It's not just rotation curves by the way. Since gravity is the only long range force that can be acting on these length scales (it isn't em forces for instance)

That's where the ASSUMPTIONS and speculations begin. How do you KNOW that the EM fields don't act on large scales again?

the assumption it is gravity is on a more sure footing than MOND for instance. And hypothesising dark matter is less of a reach than some new unknown force.

While I will grant you the first sentence is probably true, the second one completely "depends" on what you mean by "dark matter". If you're talking about EXOTIC (as in never been seen on Earth) forms of matter, it's EXACTLY like creating a new unknown force/form of matter.

The rotation curves (plus other observed effects) are the evidence. Just like an apple falling is evidence.

Rotation curves that INCLUDED EM field effects and INCLUDE small star arrangements along the OUTSIDE of the disk could go a LONG way toward removing any need for exotic brands of matter. It turns out that we can't even correctly estimate the number of suns in a galaxy the size of our own sun! Everything is 'dark' to us because our technology is limited and our mass estimation and galaxy models are HOPELESSLY FLAWED.

Just as there is evidence that "unidentified flying objects" are real, so too there may be some evidence that we can't identify all the mass in a galaxy yet. That doesn't mean that all UFO's seen in the sky NECESSARILY come from another planet, nor does that mean that "unidentified mass" is necessarily contained in some exotic brand of matter.

 

[juvenissun]

Cool. It's always better to get the expert opinion.



This doesn't really answer my question. I realize you can measure the effects. But, as was pointed out, if you don't know what the exotic dark matter is, the name doesn't really matter. You could call it Beauford for all the difference it makes. I suppose "dark" is an appropriate adjective, but maybe "matter" is not the appropriate descriptor.

I don't care what you call it, that's not my point. I'm curious what would need to happen to satisfy you that you know what it is. I'm suggesting that you would need the ability to produce the effect rather than just measure it. Is that part of it?

That is why is there experimental physics in addition to the theoretical physics. We do not know what the Higgs Bosom is until we actually see it's track.

 

[AV1611VET]

"What do you think "Dark Matter" is?"

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

 

[juvenissun]

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

So, numerous sinful angels are doing hard labor in pulling galaxies together. Hmm... not a bad idea.

 

[Michael]

That is why is there experimental physics in addition to the theoretical physics. We do not know what the Higgs Bosom is until we actually see it's track.

The Higgs would complete the last required particle of 'standard' particle physics theory, whereas the evidence for SUSY theory seems to be non existent. Even if SUSY particles exist, there's no evidence any of them would have the required "properties" (like longevity) that would be required to explain that missing mass. It's one thing to "have hope", it's another thing to have evidence. Exotic brands of dark matter may or may not exist, but they won't necessarily fill the gaps of current theory even if they do exist.

IMO somewhere along the line over the past thirty years, the mainstream went from realizing that our technologies and beliefs about the universe are the limiting factor, to believing that our technologies and our existing theories are 'perfect', therefore..."exotic forms of matter must exist".

I think they just need to go back to the drawing board and try again. This time they should put most of those small stars they grossly underestimated, and arrange them around the outside edges of the galaxy rather than near the center. Now if they would only wake up to the flow of currents though space.......

 

[AV1611VET]

So, numerous sinful angels are doing hard labor in pulling galaxies together. Hmm... not a bad idea.

Not exactly ... is iron used only for jail cells?

When the angels sinned, God took some dark matter, condensed it and shaped it into chains, and ... well ... you know the rest.

 

[Nabobalis]

Like I said, it reeks of 'damage control' from the perspective of a skeptic. Even the fact they elected to subjectively favor a 20% increase in mass says VOLUMES IMO. The fact the universe is AT LEAST twice as bright as we once thought is a BOMBSHELL! Everything out there is twice and bright and most likely more than twice as massive as we once thought. We even GROSSLY underestimated the number of 'dark stars' in a galaxy by a factor of FOUR! You can't tell me that the mainstream has made every effort to wean themselves away from exotic physics. Quite the opposite is true in fact. They seem to be making every effort at damage control and to sweep the problems in their mass estimation techniques under the carpet. Little or no effort has been made to rearrange the "dark stars (small stars like our own sun made of normal matter)", now four times as numerous as once thought toward the outside of the disk. Almost NOTHING has been done to try to account for those rotation patterns using STANDARD techniques over the past 3 or 4 years since these revelations first came out. Instead, I've seen NO movement whatsoever in terms of their emotional and professional attachment to "exotic' matter and 'exotic' energy, and a almost fanatical avoidance of plasma physics as it applies to an ELECTRICAL universe.

I am shocked, the idea of science responding to new evidence. Utterly shocked!

When you mean the mainstream, you are referring to theorists who work in cosmology whose job is to come up with as many ideas as possible to a problem and then let the people who observe the universe to sort out which one is right. That is who this field works, most fields in fact. It is a very inexact process and can be very slow.

The main issue here, is that dark matter and dark energy go against your theology, you need an electric universe in order to have any base for your "empirical god". That is the crux of the argument here.

 

[Nabobalis]

What are the "other observed effects"?

Also, while there is a certain reason to taking the conservative approach (i.e. it's better to assume gravity than a new force), what would it take to convince you that there is a new force ... or that "force" is not an adequate descriptor?

I know it wasn't directed at me but I'll try to answer.

Another example is gravitational lensing, not all examples are explained by the matter we can see.

On the issue of a new force, I don't think dark matter would require a new force. I think the only two solutions to those rotation curves is that either our understanding of gravity is wrong at these scales or we have more matter than we can currently detect.

 

[Nabobalis]

The Higgs would complete the last required particle of 'standard' particle physics theory, whereas the evidence for SUSY theory seems to be non existent. Even if SUSY particles exist, there's no evidence any of them would have the required "properties" (like longevity) that would be required to explain that missing mass. It's one thing to "have hope", it's another thing to have evidence. Exotic brands of dark matter may or may not exist, but they won't necessarily fill the gaps of current theory even if they do exist.

You do know that SUSY is still hypothetical? There is no evidnce for it yet and some people hope to see some at the LHC in 10 years time but that will be a long wait.

If SUSY gets the mass of the Higgs right, then there is some indirect evidence for it.

IMO somewhere along the line over the past thirty years, the mainstream went from realizing that our technologies and beliefs about the universe are the limiting factor, to believing that our technologies and our existing theories are 'perfect', therefore..."exotic forms of matter must exist".

That is how science has worked. We use the current models until they are replaced. Until we find better models, we have to use what we have available.

I think they just need to go back to the drawing board and try again. This time they should put most of those small stars they grossly underestimated, and arrange them around the outside edges of the galaxy rather than near the center. Now if they would only wake up to the flow of currents though space.......

String theory for example is just that. There are many ideas around in the theory circles for new starting points. But there isn't enough people working on all the ideas to get them to a point where we can test them. It can take years for people to work through new ideas.

 

[Doveaman]

The rotation curves (plus other observed effects) are the evidence. Just like an apple falling is evidence.

It seems like everything that appears to be falling or rotating in space is evidence for gravity, even if there appears to be no mass to generate the gravity.

I don't buy into that kind of logic.

My logic is:

Mass therefore Gravity therefore Gravitational Effects.

Your logic is:

Gravitational Effects therefore Gravity therefore Mass.

Except that you haven't found any mass to generate any gravitational effects.

 

[Elendur]

It seems like everything that appears to be falling or rotating in space is evidence for gravity, even if there appears to be no mass to generate the gravity.

I don't buy into that kind of logic.

My logic is:

Mass therefore Gravity therefore Gravitational Effects.

Your logic is:

Gravitational Effects therefore Gravity therefore Mass.

Except that you haven't found any mass to generate any gravitational effects.

You do realize that your logic is dependent on the knowledge of gravity and it's effects?
And that knowledge exists because we've observed the effects, and not because we've observed the mass? (Note that I'm not saying we haven't observed mass).

Edit:
Have you heard of induction?

 

[Doveaman]

You do realize that your logic is dependent on the knowledge of gravity and it's effects?

Yes.

And my knowledge is that there needs to be mass in order for there to be gravity and its effects. But in this thread I'm being asked to accept gravity and its effects without any mass. They say they will provide the mass when they find it. In the mean time I must have faith it's there.

 

[Michael]

I am shocked, the idea of science responding to new evidence. Utterly shocked!

When you mean the mainstream, you are referring to theorists who work in cosmology whose job is to come up with as many ideas as possible to a problem and then let the people who observe the universe to sort out which one is right. That is who this field works, most fields in fact. It is a very inexact process and can be very slow.

You're right about mainstream acceptance being a really slow process. I could be dead before they figure anything out. It took the mainstream 60 years to finally accept even ONE PIECE of Birkeland's work on currents in space in the aurrora. He was dead for over 4 decades by then, all the while the mainstream preferred Chapman's erroneous ideas. At the rate the mainstream is going, it will be 200 years from now before they accept the presence of currents OUTSIDE of the aurora.

The main issue here, is that dark matter and dark energy go against your theology, you need an electric universe in order to have any base for your "empirical god". That is the crux of the argument here.

FYI, I'm now 52 years old. I've been a self professed theist for over thirty years now. I did do about a 9 year stint as an atheist before consciously returning to theism. If you check back on this forum in fact, you'll see that I've even posted to this particular forum for longer than I've been into, known about, believed in, or promoted EU theory. My original interest in EU theory was originally motivated by my scientific curiosity and my interest in solar physics, not based upon emotional need. It's a relatively new belief system for me compared to my theism. I think my interest in EU theory began in 2005, about 7 years ago. I was comfortably in my skin as a theist long before 2005, I assure you.

I'm quite comfortable with my FAITH in God, with or without an empirical theory of God. My theism/faith is not now, nor has it really ever been dependent upon EU theory. I accept that my theism is ultimately an act of faith on my part, based on a number of objective and subjective factors, including the personal experiences of my own life.

Once I discovered EU theory, it was simply obvious to see how it could be applicable to the topic of God, that's all. Compared to the metaphysical kludge that passes for modern cosmology (lambda-nonsense), any empirical theory today of God, or even EU theory WITHOUT God, is an empirical breath of fresh air IMO.

I can't say I've ever been much of a fan of CURRENT Big Bang theory. The big bang ideas that I was introduced to in high school and college were NOTHING like the ones the mainstream discusses today. Inflation wasn't talked about in school until probably the late 70's, early 80's, after I was out of college. Guth created the idea did it on a WHIM, a wing and a prayer as far as I'm concerned. Inflation has no scientific precedent whatsoever, but today it's a cult classic of a 'religion' none the less. The notion of "dark matter" was nearly synonymous with MACHO forms of dark matter when I was in college. It's pretty much synonymous with hypothetical SUSY particles these days. Nobody had ever discussed "dark energy" until perhaps 15 years ago. The more they've tinkered with BB theory over the years, the less appealing it's been to me. My displeasure with that theory began with inflation and it's been going downhill ever since IMO.

In terms of "dark matter", IMO it's simply fascinating to watch this train wreck unfolding in slow motion. Not only is the LHC data not looking promising for SUSY theory thus far, it's actually ruled out large swaths of energy associated with SUSY theory and effectively killed the most common brands of SUSY. Worse yet for the mainstream, the more our technology improves, the harder it's getting to ignore all those electrical discharges occurring in space. The energy release alone is simply staggering at the highest energy wavelengths.

 

[juvenissun]

Not exactly ... is iron used only for jail cells?

When the angels sinned, God took some dark matter, condensed it and shaped it into chains, and ... well ... you know the rest.

Goodness, your idea is getting even better. Thanks a lot.

 

[juvenissun]

I am shocked, the idea of science responding to new evidence. Utterly shocked!

When you mean the mainstream, you are referring to theorists who work in cosmology whose job is to come up with as many ideas as possible to a problem and then let the people who observe the universe to sort out which one is right. That is who this field works, most fields in fact. It is a very inexact process and can be very slow.

The main issue here, is that dark matter and dark energy go against your theology, you need an electric universe in order to have any base for your "empirical god". That is the crux of the argument here.

In Psalms and in Hebrews, It says that this world is constantly held up, or maintained, by God. I guess it fits quite well on these dark stuff. So, should we call them God's Matter and God's Energy?