Why Dark Matter is Even Weirder Than You Thought

originally posted by: ErosA433
well not always, you see, there are ways we can measure distance fairly accurately. These methods are constantly researched and examined. The best is a type 1a supernova, which occur as a result of contact binary stars. It is a run away process that produces a fairly narrow range of energy, along with some reproduced time dependant afterglow etc

This explaination assumes that we know what are supernova Ia, that we have modelled them so well, that their brightness is indeed a constant and that redshift is indeed a measure of absolute distance across cosmological scales. So what we observe is interpreted with a rather high number of assumptions that aren't completely "set" in the sense they have really low falsifiability and zero reproducibility unfortunately.

science continues to hone these measurements and update there accuracy or certainty so the level of 'assumption' is not as high as often people want to suggest.

Surely not in the context of standard models, but not in the absolute sense.

On 'what is distance' 'what is space-time' These questions are valid but also gives an assumption perhaps that the truth is not what we already have. I mean distance and time come into many aspects of our day to day existence, experience, and in the objects we have constructed etc...

I think we would be extremely arrogant to pretend to have the truth. Distance in practical therms is the time it takes for a light signal to "travel" from point A and B, in the old days it was a material yard stick. If we find another kind of measurement distance will get a new meaning. At our scales we understand what is distance. At atomic scales this concept becomes fuzzy. At Planck scales it might not even be possible to define strictly.

It mainly sounds like the normal argument of "How do you know, where you there to see it?" it tries to play down the advances of science and technology as invalid or worthless without actually understanding the details of the theory or what the state of scientific art is. So yes there is quite a few assumptions, we are the first to agree. Though these assumptions are not plucked from vacuum. They are taken on good scientific basis, with evidence. Many alternatives or people who postulate alternatives, mount assumptions ontop of assumptions without any basis or evidence other than, my point really is that more alternatives are based on big straw buildings, the state of science is a little more firm from my own experience.

I never said that those assumptions came from vacuum (how ironic is it that the current model say they ARE coming out of vacuum), they come from older theories, which are never revisioned seriously because they are considered settled science. Somebody should do a completely alternative path, I think it would be the only way to get serious progress, in the end you get stronger theories when you either falsify or not them.
Also, while "standard models" are just a few and define some theories, "alternative theories" is a wider concept that puts in the same cauldron magic, nonsense and scientifically valid tentatives. We should encourage the last ones, not ridicule them and confine them in the same zone as the religious nonsense.

The bigger picture here for many seems to be based on the assumptions that the foundations are wrong, but their own pet theory will fix everything without anything being scientifically different.

The bigger picture is very hard to understand because the foundations wheter wrong or not still have postulates and some unfalsifiable mechanism. We also like to ignore what most of those great physicists of the past said about their theories, or what ELSE they thought about nature. The reality is that we live in a world where the only "scientifically valid theory" is one that is about shutting up and calculate.
What do we detect? Charge gradients, or photons. We don't detect particles, we theorize them to explain the energy/momentum we detect. IS this the only way to achieve such results? I don't think so and I don't see any reason to just stick to a single answer, especially when you need a lot of assumptions that have no other analogy in reality (confinement, fractional charge, virtual particles, matter with mass and no other coupling, an enourmous amount of fields, etc).

I don't have the answer, I am not even sure we can have a complete answer (the real "right" one). QM is used to describe things, but hardly used to produce things. It was born to simplify some calculations in an era where computational power was at its earliest stage of development.
Since supercomputers and telescopes time is limited and expensive, I understand that there needs to be some criterion to assign that time sensibly.

However I encourage you to read the classical theory of R.Mills from Blacklight Power. They are getting real funds from people who aren't exactly "poor ignorants" and seems to do progress. I have no doubts somebody would be able to explain those results with QM or some other DM theory (in fact Mills suggests that his hydrinos may be the component of DM), however it's a very different view and doesn't require QM to make predictions, so models are models, not reality. If a model works in some scope and requires less assumptions it should not be regarded as pseudo-science.

But once more it falls in to the realm of "isn't it all mysterious, we don't understand anything so why bother"

Which just falls ill, and scientific funding in the field of physics is not all that great, year on year big businesses wangle there way out of paying tax probably orders of magnitude of scientific funding gets in Uni's

QM is used to make various things, and its value is in both explaining observations and being practically used. I mean, Computers simply cannot work classically for example.

Soooooo you suggest that we need to follow the work of say one or two people from blp, because they got some funding? and ignore centuries of peoples work from around the world, independent on each other, in order to be less 'ignorant' of reality? Doesn't that strike you as a little ironic too? Iv so far not seen any compelling evidence or literature that didnt have massive issues...

Computers works without QM. The discoveries are made then explained, it's not like you need a theory to make things work. The universe existed well before our theories and computers in fact existed before QM, you are referring to transistors which aren't explained in classical therms (especially because nobody ever cared to do this).

As of today researches do researches, find something then theory comes in to explain. Thinking that theories are the reason why things work is a strawman. They do give hints, but in fact we did discover most "things" by chance or intuition.

Yes I suggest you follow more where funding is made by people who aren't used to be deceived by theories, but wants results on the basis of some experiments. Believing in the current paradigm has alway been wrong; I accept that if you want a career you can't avoid the framework, because all funding and academic jobs are driven by peer-reviewed publications, and I'm pretty sure the selection of the reviewers is the key to control where the flow of money is going, independently of the validity of the research.

If you approach science with predjudices you are doing bad science. If you actually do review the scientific work of those people who set the basis of current models you will see what were the needs for such models to be made. Some are practical, some others are necessary, some others are less clear or based on postulates or unfalsifiable assumptions.

And there are massive issues with mainstream science too, it's just a matter of how much effeort has been put to make a model more precise than another.

originally posted by: Mastronaut
Yes I suggest you follow more where funding is made by people who aren't used to be deceived by theories, but wants results on the basis of some experiments. Believing in the current paradigm has alway been wrong; I accept that if you want a career you can't avoid the framework, because all funding and academic jobs are driven by peer-reviewed publications, and I'm pretty sure the selection of the reviewers is the key to control where the flow of money is going, independently of the validity of the research.

Assume much?

I never suggested that theories make things work, or that the theory then the discovery came. its not how its done. But what a theory does that follows it allows predictions or at least if a theory states that if x happens then y should happen too, then you go in search of y to see if it is real or not.

Please, explain to me how you believe university physics is performed? because you appear to believe there is some kind of shadowy organization controlling cash flow (at an international level involving loads of different governments, in order to control the direction our theories go... ?

originally posted by: ErosA433
Please, explain to me how you believe university physics is performed? because you appear to believe there is some kind of shadowy organization controlling cash flow (at an international level involving loads of different governments, in order to control the direction our theories go... ?

Shadowy or not you don't need to controll all researchers if you can control who is good or not. This is a conspiracy site after all, so why not suppose that there is some interests in directing public money towards some researches rather than others. You know the cost of doing high energy physics research? I guess you prolly know it better than me, so you also know that it's an amount that might be controlled on a bigger scale (international scientific community).

We never have to forget that most americans universities are private, CERN is private and in Europe we have both private and public institutes involved in this matter. It wouldn't surprise me much if this subject was entirely controlled (I don't believe so tho), but I don't think it's just a matter of money, it also involves who's an authority at a certain time in the scientific history.
Another thing we always need to remember is that some researches are of military concern, others are of economic concern, in the sense that if you find a breakthrough tech that is easily implemented there would be an enourmous effort in resisting it. If this is the case of today I don't know, I don't assume it is, but the problem is if some alternative theory was able to explain a different way of producing cheap energy off the grid or reveal how to be fully self-sufficient without being part of the economy I am absolutely sure it would be concelead in some way.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
I'm sure I'll have some resident physicists smack me around for saying this but am I the only one who thinks dark matter is stupid? TO me it never made sense. Even as a kid I dismissed it outright as being stupid. Like it was a bad grasping at straws attempt to explain why the math didn't play out exactly right in the early theories of how the universe worked. And now they have too much pride to admit that it's a silly notion. I dunno I'm not a physicist and I'm sure one will come along and tell me to get in where I fit in which is not on some dark matter board. but to me when I first heard of dark matter it sounded like a child had come up with the idea.

Yea, they don't know either,they just kind of make it up as they go, like Einstein with the Cosmic Constant, he couldn't balance his equation so he made up the CC ,to do so. Funny thing is, now it is almost factual, though still not proven, unless some thing happened I'm not aware of.

Then you have Hawking, he was bouncing back and forth between a Open and a Closed Universe, now he has decided Open, so he had to make up Hawking Radiation, to satisfy his Open Universe theory. I lean toward the Closed theory, but acknowledge the possibility of a Open Universe, though I myself have problems with the Open theory and H.R.. It seems this is all good except the Open Theory does not seem to work once you get down below the sub-atomic levels, with what is know about quarks, it does not seem as it would fly. Another thing is that the Higgs Fields, expand with the expanding universe, so where would this lead, to what effect.

Hawking wants the noble prize, for his HR, but he also needed the formation of the mini black holes to show up in the LHC, which as far as I know have not.Even if these black holes did show up, to me it would not mean much of anything, in theory these black holes occur all the time and simply dissipate, which I would think means, nothing in comparison to Massive Black Holes.

It is possible the Dark Matter is simply, some form of exotic gravity, which is not currently under stood. Just as there are many contradiction, with Dark Energy also.

There is a lot of guess work, we have only just stepped out of the stone age, if you look at those in control of the Planet, it is being run by Morons, for the most part. Simply look at what they are doing to the Earth, they, we, are not some Great Intelligence, yet.

I was at one of those land fills years back, they were digging a massive hole next to the Mountain of trash. I ask what are they doing? The guy said, Oh, we are going to put a lake in to go with the ski slope and rest of the recreation area. I responded with "you can't do that". Well they couldn't, but they were smart, so they moved it across the road, well they finally realized, they couldn't put it there either. No Lake, Period. Now no ski slope, no lake, no recreation area, just a pile of trash.

Another good one was when they, blew off that Nuke up in the Ionosphere, back in the 70s, they had communications messed up for about week I think. Then they dropped that tether, threw the Ionosphere, from the space shuttle, a few years back. To their surprise it exploded, and they went, Oh!! ####.

That's what I say now when I see what these cooks are doing to the Earth, right now. OH!!! ####!!!
And Gruber was right, the American people are, real stupid, but to be fair so is the rest of the world. Me too.

originally posted by: Mastronaut

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Graviton would be separate from higgs concept. Graviton would be the particle that composes the gravity field which is 'warpable'.

Fields aren't composed of anything afaik, bosons are couplings between fields and particles. What you are saying is basically that gravitons are the space-time component, not exactly the gravity one.

Space time doesnt actually exist.

There is a medium which is displaced/(in simple minded 2d models)warped, in the presence of mass.

Do you want to call this medium the gravity field? or do you want to call this medium space time?

Some material/energy in some way must compose this field, this medium, that is displaced in the presence of mass.

Or you are suggesting, mass exists, and other energies and materials exist, and it is mass interacting with those other energies and materials that create the effect of gravity? That there is no particle system/entity/field that exists (like the ocean) that is displaced when mass is present in its midst?

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Mastronaut
Fields aren't composed of anything afaik, bosons are couplings between fields and particles. What you are saying is basically that gravitons are the space-time component, not exactly the gravity one.

Space time doesnt actually exist.

There is a medium which is displaced/(in simple minded 2d models)warped, in the presence of mass.

Do you want to call this medium the gravity field? or do you want to call this medium space time?

Some material/energy in some way must compose this field, this medium, that is displaced in the presence of mass.

Or you are suggesting, mass exists, and other energies and materials exist, and it is mass interacting with those other energies and materials that create the effect of gravity? That there is no particle system/entity/field that exists (like the ocean) that is displaced when mass is present in its midst?

No I'm merely stating the any modern field theory, wheter classical or QFT, do not need any substance to compose the fields. Unless you are talking about a personal theory, spacetime isn't a "thing" and isn't made of anything. When energy is localized a field gets a value, some fields are scalar, other are vectors, but none has "components" so to speak.
In the old times classical field theory required a substance, the aether, then came SR and no substance was needed anymore. Then came GR and the emptyness had properties but still was nothing, and vacuum in quantum mechanics is till composed of nothing but CONTAINS particles/virtual particles or more generically energy forms. Einstein later talked about the mistake of consider spacetime empty, but seems he wasn't anymore the biggest stakeholder

Personally I do believe there is an underlying medium, but my reply was about gravitons which are a zero spin theoretical particle, so if you want to speak about your idea of the component of spacetime you better use a different therm or it's misleading.

a reply to: Mastronaut

I think you are misunderstanding physics here, Atoms are only viewable because the sub-atomic particles ( Electrons protons and neutrons) Orbit in a circular motion. The particles themselves are incredibly small compared to the actual size of the Atom.

That is why they say Atoms are mostly empty space. Its the linear movement of the ossilation occuring that generates the magnetic Feilds.

The This feild is what guides the sub-atomic particles along their paths. As each sub-particle is magnetically charged either in the positive spectrum the neutral spectrum or the negative spectrum.

The movement is so fast it generates surface area, The objects are not always perfectly round Either. That is because of the magnetic geometry. Which is what causes the Golden ratio to be displaced so evenly across the observable universe.


Now when he speaks of a medium, Just the same as i spoke of a medium. The fragments of mass that make up sub-atomic particles themselves are sliver particles, They also rely on a magnetic feild ( All the particles need to be within harmonizing ranges or the wave function will collapse and the particle will reappear and disappear)

They also require a medium to slow down velocity.

If there was truely empty space with nothing inbetween it. Particles would simply excellerate so fast that the sub-atomic particles would shoot off in random directions. There needs to be a Medium slowing down excelleration because in true zero F (Zero friction- Hot or cold Friction applies as well, Since friction is the loss of movement and energy by an opposing force) There would be nothing slowing down mass. Mass actually wouldn't beable to form at all.

Everything would just continually excellerate and excellerate and excellerate. If the Universe is Endless on all corners. Then all the mass would just simply go on till entropy depletes it and poof no more universe ever again.

There has to be a medium to slow down mass.

Light is limited by the medium. And also is possible that light exists within the medium as well.
There is no such thing as time. Time is just a measure of movement. That's all it's even been.
We can't exactly go into the passed because the passed doesn't exist anymore. There is no future. There is only the present and the present continues on endlessly.

a reply to: AnuTyr

Well, this is intresting, but I was talking about mainstream view, not my personal opinion. In the MS view electrons have instrinsic spin, don't orbit the nucleus and there is no medium for movement/wave propagation. Leptons are assumed pontlike (only the electric and magnetic fields have an extension), hadrons are theorized as being composed by quarks which can't exist individually because of color confinement. Atoms are "viewed" because to observe you need a reflected/emitted radiation from the excited electrons of the outer shells.

I am not a scientist, but neither completely uneducated
Wheter you want to believe it or not

a reply to: Mastronaut

Spin Physics

Spin is one of two types of angular momentum in quantum mechanics, the other being orbital angular momentum. Orbital angular momentum is the quantum-mechanical counterpart to the classical notion of angular momentum: it arises when a particle executes a rotating or twisting trajectory (such as when an electron orbits a nucleus).[3][4] The existence of spin angular momentum is inferred from experiments, such as the Stern–Gerlach experiment, in which particles are observed to possess angular momentum that cannot be accounted for by orbital angular momentum alone.[5] In some ways, spin is like a vector quantity; it has a definite magnitude, and it has a "direction" (but quantization makes this "direction" different from the direction of an ordinary vector). All elementary particles of a given kind have the same magnitude of spin angular momentum, which is indicated by assigning the particle a spin quantum number.[2] The SI unit of spin is the joule-second, just as with classical angular momentum. In practice, however, it is written as a multiple of the reduced Planck constant ħ, usually in natural units, where the ħ is omitted, resulting in a unitless number. Spin quantum numbers are unitless numbers by definition. When combined with the spin-statistics theorem, the spin of electrons results in the Pauli exclusion principle, which in turn underlies the periodic table of chemical elements.

Not sure what you were trying to mean in your post. But Electrons sit on the outer rings so are the first to come and go, when exchanging charges.

The oject still spins even when moving. Also how fast the object is move *Velocity wise* towards a destination would need a medium to slow it down. Here on Earth we have the Earths magnetic pull. But the Earth itself relies on a medium so that it doesn't excellerate and just shoot off into space.

There is also large distance and gaps between objects, So something has to be slowing down mass from reaching critical velocity.

Yeah the sub-atomic particles orbit and move along channeled paths, But they require a slowing effect to or similarly would go flying in random directions.
Galaxies wouldn't beable to hold themselves together. Which is exactly why scientists are saying such a medium must exist.

And are directly trying to prove it's existance because as stand, In a model of truely empty space with no medium to slow down particles. We come to a paradox. And when we get to paradoxs it means that the theory is incorrect.

So the medium must be accounted for.

Even then, There is more than just the need for an explanation of a medium. There needs to be an explaination of how matter and energy even came into existance in the first place. Where does Energy come from? It comes from Charged mass. How does mass become charged? Does mass that has lost it charge become nearly invisble to us?

Entropy eats away at energy. So energy does not last forever. Mass is seen as energy or containing it at least, Since mass can turn into energy and energy into mass. It is how mass is able to take so many forms, and how the universe we see today came about.

I could read up on all the technical terms to describe what exactly im talking about but talking average joe armchair theorist style is easier for people to understand.

Channeling harmonizing magnetic forces also increases velocity. Particles naturally generate their own magnetic push and pull.

Without a medium to slow this down, The objects that are working together like clock work would simply increase their velocity way to much. Beyond the strength of the feild generated. Mass already shoots off because of increased velocity caused by these mechanics. So without a medium. It would be extremely unlikely mass could form at all.

If you understand what im saying.

In zero F, Zero friction (Which is the old scientific theories model of the Universe)
Particles free flowing in space would have nothing to slow them down except each other.
Problem is, magnetic excelleration would effect pretty much all mass in the universe. So there wouldn't be much to hold each particle back from Excellerating.

Mass is constantly leeking energy, Which charges mass around it empowering the magnetic effect. So in Zero F.
The leeking energy would force the particles into critical velocity. Since the channeled energy would rapidly increase the masses velocity.

Just like how a particle increases in velocity in the Hadron collider using channeled magnetic paths.

The medium allows mass to settle and to form into what we see today. Without it planets/ stars/ galaxies would not exist.

That medium they are trying to find is Dark Matter and Dark energy.
We also need to explain how energy replenishes itself. So the invisible medium will probably answer that question as it's the most likely candidate.

Hope that helps a bit with understanding the Universe a little more.
And yeah obviously some of the things i'v been saying are not in the current model. but believe me when i say this. I am helping to build the current model.

Because a lot of my theories are popping up in MS.

a reply to: AnuTyr

nice point of view, but you don't answer any real questions...
you talk about a medium that slows all masses down, a friction force right ?
where comes the energy from to power this medium ?
It is doing work, right ? so what powers it ?

If you ask me, I will tell you what makes propagation speed in EM field variable

what is distance between two charges in your world btw ?

Spin physics is largely incomplete. MS has not yet discovered or acknowledged that there exist analog spin values
a reply to: AnuTyr

a reply to: AnuTyr

from Wikipedia

The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves.

This is the MS position on it.
I am ok discussing your theory, but please don't act as if what I was saying is MY POV, because I said multiple times I have many doubts about it.

Regarding your theory of "ether friction", is this like normal friction ie there is exchange of energy between massive objects and the underlying medium? If so what is the medium composed of and does it have a temperature or another way of storing/releasing the energy accumulated by this friction? I ask this because experimental evidence doesn't show any radiation for the so called ground state, thus where is that energy going?

a reply to: intrptr

They took photos and estimated their mass, later everyone padded their own shoulder and said, look, 4% difference, we did a good job estimating. No need for dark mass...

So what is so weird about Dark Matter.

It is only a assumption.

The mystery of existence, is far more weird, than just about anything, I could think of.

People, it seems, are to accustom, to existence, to be really amazed, by it.

Assume you are not here.

originally posted by: OOOOOO
So what is so weird about Dark Matter.

It is only a assumption.

The mystery of existence, is far more weird, than just about anything, I could think of.

People, it seems, are to accustom, to existence, to be really amazed, by it.
...

Dark Matter and Dark Energy is needed to conform equations with the observed.

First, a lot of what we observe is just an illusion, like gravity.
MS Science is treating this acceleration of masses towards each other as a reel existing force.
They scratched together an formula that describes this "force" and use it to calculate things...

Then they realized, that Galaxies refuse what scientists believe to be the only truth, so everybody try to fix it.
They invent another "fundamental particle" or however they want to call it to balance the equation out.
that simple

now resources are spend to find this spooks instead of revisiting they believes



ask me why Gravity is a one way and I will go deeper into this acceleration

a reply to: OOOOOO

I like that rap double triple O

It seems our vaunted scientists are being run around a circle of confusion over and over.

Not that I look down on them and their constantly changing certainty of we know this then we don’t know this.

We know this but don’t know this after all

Cause maybe there’s another theory eventhough we know this to be the truth eventhough there just might be another theory to knock this one out of the park


All that said I know they must really know something since the Atomic bomb, pcs and Iphones are a reality.


Seriously I think this is a great thread!

originally posted eventhough we know this to be the truth eventhough there just might be another theory to knock this one out of the park by: Willtell
a reply to: OOOOOO

I like that rap double triple O


All that said I know they must really know something since the Atomic bomb, pcs and Iphones are a reality.


Seriously I think this is a great thread!

Yea but think about it, till it blew, they were not sure what would really happen.

Yea, I like this thread also.