Why Dark Matter is Even Weirder Than You Thought

originally posted by: ErosA433
Soooo iv not been to ATS for a long time, it was for multiple reasons, though it is interesting how the names change but the general philosophy of "Scientists are all idiots and its all the same as religion/alternative theories need more respect, while the whole time speaking very disrespectfully of the MS"

If this is referred to me, it was misinterpreted. I never once said how stupid etc scientist are and this is the kind of strawman argument I was talking about.
If this is not related to my posts then I see nobody insulting or disrespecting mainstream researchers, I demand much better debates for those things that are considered settled science when in fact it's not. After all those fringe theorist are often "authorities" before being ridiculed so who decides who's the best researcher? Consensus? I don't believe in it, there is no amount of consensus that will prove a theory right.

If you read an article in the media, the article will sound very one sided, it is natural, regardless of if it is scientific or not. So you are left with the impression that we believe in our theories and want to tell you nothing else is possible.

This is very true, sensationalism tends to accrete "hate" on legitimate researches.

The reality is that we are very open to the possibilities of alternatives. Though we have to search in our own way... otherwise nothing would get done and we would sit around just pondering into the sky and achieve very little.

Except the alternatives are always based on the same concepts of exotic particles, GR and multidimensional concepts despite we found no exotic particles and no dimensions, and the black holes solutions of GR are for a single mass in an empty universe.
There is no tentative (I mean supported tentatives, not just fringe blogs) to explain those effects with the mindset that our models may have a deeper underlying problem. It may be a fruitless tentative? Yes, it may be. But in the end if we only search in a context we may end up finding solutions in that context that are ad-hoc and will create problems for the researchers that will do their job on top of that.

So its a good time to watch this space, but also always a good time to look at the theories and figure out if they are the good ones or the bad. What we have now is not some religious cult, but something that doubts almost every step of the way. We love to find holes and things wrong in the theories, which is contrary to popular belief.

If you have to answer frankly, would you accept a classical theory that is able to explain observations? I'll tell you in advance what I think: probably not, because unless somebody presented you a complete theory that explained everything you would stick with current theories. And this means there would be no progress on the classical theory I just mentioned.
See my point? it's not "How stupid and cultits are the researchers", but "How can we officially censor something that if developed may solve a lot of puzzles?".

I'd really like to hear more scientific discussion on why some fringe theory can't work, because in general the process of peer review is not publicly available and what you can find is just some argument like "this is settled science you can't question it", which is too similar to a dogma.

a reply to: Mastronaut

You have complete faith in the probabilistic nature of the universe and have no doubt about it? I guess this is not exactly a scientific stance. Personally I don't know, I believe not in randomness, but I could be wrong. There is no amount of evidence that can confirm a theory and no amount of data that can exclude a classical theory of the universe.

I have 99.9999% faith in the probabilistic nature of the universe. I "believe" in quantum randomness for an array of very strong scientific and philosophical reasons. Lets start with the scientific reasons. You are essentially arguing the same thing that Einstein argued about QM:

Albert Einstein, the most famous proponent of hidden variables, objected to the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics,[1] and famously declared "I am convinced God does not play dice".[2] Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argued that "elements of reality" (hidden variables) must be added to quantum mechanics to explain entanglement without action at a distance.[3][4] Later, Bell's theorem would suggest (in the opinion of most physicists and contrary to Einstein's assertion) that local hidden variables of certain types are impossible.

Hidden variable theory - Wikipedia

We have direct experimental evidence of the violation of Bell's inequality, meaning the only way that determinism can exist is in the form of superdeterminism, and if you want to push the philosophy of superdeterminism as being real then you need to believe that you have no free will and the words you have written in this thread were determined at the moment of the big bang or even before that, and that has serious philosophical consequences which don't particularly appeal to me.

John Bell discussed superdeterminism in a BBC interview:

There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.

Superdeterminism has also been criticized because of perceived implications regarding the validity of science itself. For example, Anton Zeilinger has commented:

We always implicitly assume the freedom of the experimentalist... This fundamental assumption is essential to doing science. If this were not true, then, I suggest, it would make no sense at all to ask nature questions in an experiment, since then nature could determine what our questions are, and that could guide our questions such that we arrive at a false picture of nature.

Put simply, science is totally pointless in a completely deterministic universe, and I don't know about you but I find that prospect to be quite distasteful. I authored a thread some time ago which goes deeper into some of these paradoxes caused by superdeterminism:

If we do live in a fully deterministic universe then we may as well stop doing science right now because it's completely meaningless (not that we would have any free will to stop). A fully deterministic universe completely undermines the entire scientific process and implies that we will most likely reach an invalid conclusion about how our universe works. It also undermines the entire legal system; if killers have no free will, how can we legitimately or logically blame them for their actions when their actions were determined at the start of time?

Luckily, the universe does not appear to be a deterministic clockwork machine. Quantum mechanics and quantum randomness is the undoing of determinism and the clockwork universe. Most scientists did not like quantum mechanics at all when it was first discovered because it totally destroyed their neat little clockwork framework. Their dreams of mathematically modeling every aspect of nature and predicting with absolute precision how systems will evolve was shattered with the introduction of quantum mechanics and the randomness that comes with it.

Existential Musings - Part 1: Determinism & Free Will

There are also many other good philosophical reasons to believe that the universe is is capable of producing truly random events. The fact that we are here in the first place rather than infinite nothingness implies that there must be an intrinsic necessity for truly random quantum mechanics.

Yes I tend to believe in determinism. No, the Bell's theorem is not and cannot be verified experimentally, it can probably rule out relativity and the speed limit of signals, but I don't believe in that either, or at least I am not completely convinced. How is bell's theorem falsifiable? It kinda relies on a postulate, that signals can't be instantaneous, am I wrong?

I am not religious, I don't know if there is some form of consciousness as many calls it, but I find it less of a problem than QM since "random" is a therm humans use to say "we can't find a pattern". Also you still auto-imply the big-bang while I am really not sure there has been one.

If it was true that lack of randomness invalidates science then is no need to learn anything. Just because there could be a fate it doesn't mean we have to stand and accept it, wheter we are already "programmed" to do it or not (and for whatever reason).

I am a total skeptic ChaoticOrder, it took me probably 20 years to start looking at alternatives, because not being an academic means you only get spoon fed from mainstream and bogus religion's dogmas and you don't even hear about fringe or crackpot theories. Those theories are stimulating and fascinating and, don't get me wrong, they are surely incomplete or inconsistent, but may be a trigger for intuition about a totally new theory. A scientist should be trained to find a theory that makes Newton or Einstein or Feynman obsolete, while in fact the entirety of academic training does the opposite.

It's very hard for me to make the point I would like, because first of all english is not my native language so I'm limited. Second every counter argument you use is something that assumes a prior theory to be already settled (for example Sr postulates in Bell's Theorem).

I don't intend to offend anyone, but I remain skeptic and would like to see less denigration for scientists trying to crash the basis of our scientific knowledge, becasue imho it's necessary that somebody does that at every point in time.
So since I'm not able to express my point in a way you can understand (not necessarily agree with) I think it's better if I stop derailing your thread.

ON topic:
I think DM doesn't necessarily need "matter" to be explained and since nothing has been found so far and a lot of studies rule out DM in the local universe, I still think it's possible we'll never find supersymmetric particles nor other exotic things that may explain it in therms of "stuff".
It probably needs a theory where C is not a limit by postulate, there is no BB, no QM and probably no particles, in fact I don't and CAN'T know or I would be famous

a reply to: Mastronaut
Mastronaut
"There is only one thing for sure and is current theories will be "laughed at" in the future. Every breakthrough has been "laughed at" before it became mainstream and then "laughed at" after it was surpassed. This is not a scientific attitude, but it's what humans have done since.. forever."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hear ya, Mastronaut. Honestly, you have NOTHING to apologize for. IMO you’re one of the more intelligent, thoughtful members around this board. I wish there were more like you.

I think I know where you’re coming from on this thread, and I agree with most of what I’ve read. The scientific community has always been plagued with bias, tunnel vision and petty human vanity. That still persists to this day, but now add to that the influence money plays, along with the pressure applied by government and coporate interests. Science is one of the few noble endeavors mankind has embarked on, IMO. There aren’t too many other traits our species can rightfully brag about. It’s a shame that it’s often corrupted by governmental and coporate agendas. It puts a stain on the profession and saps it of it of any purity.

For awhile now Physics has had one tire stuck in the mud. Not being able to replace general relativity with a quantum solution is becoming a hindrance to progress. I’ve always been a fan of Einstein’s. He was a giant among giants, with a freakish gift for creativity and thinking outside-the-box. If quantum gravity supercedes GR someday, though, I’m OK with that. It wouldn’t diminish Einstein’s contribution In my mind. Remember, he introduced the idea of the light quanta in his paper on the Photo Electric Effect. So, in a sense, even though he deplored it, he was like one of the pioneers of quantum physics. Whether quantum or classical, though, it doesn’t matter to me as long as it works. Who cares what language the model/solution is in as long as it works? So far every conceptual scheme we’ve invented (quantum/classical) has it’s warts, inadequacies and paradoxes. I could easily be dead wrong, but in physics I do think a game-changing breakthrough is definately in the works sometime soon. Hopefully something out of left field that turns the scientific world on it’s head. You’re right in that someday scientists will look back on all this as the Dark Ages. That’s OK, though; we won’t be there while they laugh at us.

At any rate, never stop questioning and always look ahead.

Cheers!

a reply to: Mastronaut

No, the Bell's theorem is not and cannot be verified experimentally

Bell's Inequality experiment plus interviews

I am not religious, I don't know if there is some form of consciousness as many calls it, but I find it less of a problem than QM since "random" is a therm humans use to say "we can't find a pattern".

Well then you clearly have no understanding of statistics or entropy. One major outcome of proving that Bell's inequality can be violated is to show that there is no possible classical hidden variable theory which can explain the type of randomness you get from QM, with the exception of a superdeterministic system.

Also you still auto-imply the big-bang while I am really not sure there has been one.

I have not "auto-implied" anything about the big bang theory because I don't think it's correct, I tend to lean toward the idea of a quantum vacuum collapse which occurred throughout infinite flat space.

I am a total skeptic ChaoticOrder, it took me probably 20 years to start looking at alternatives, because not being an academic means you only get spoon fed from mainstream and bogus religion's dogmas and you don't even hear about fringe or crackpot theories.

Oh trust me when you browse ATS for half a dozen years you'll have read countless alternative theories, there is no lack of fringe theories around here. In my experience 90% of them are totally wrong and the rest are at least partially wrong. Don't get me wrong I understand the point you are trying to make very well.

Back on the first page I posted a link to my own theory about dark matter which is a highly fringe theory involving the idea of negative mass, and I doubt mainstream scientists will ever touch it. But that's fine, I don't expect my fringe theories to change the world, unless I can provide solid proof that I am right. Science requires strong evidence, and if you can provide strong evidence then scientists will be forced to listen.

Your problem is clearly that you only want to believe things which personally appeal to you. You say you're just skeptical but you're clearly highly selective about the theories you choose to believe. Regardless of how much evidence anyone presents to you, there are just some ideas you can't accept. You're not basing your opinion on where the evidence is pointing and you just ignore any evidence which doesn't point where you want it to point.

I think DM doesn't necessarily need "matter" to be explained and since nothing has been found so far and a lot of studies rule out DM in the local universe

You don't need matter but you do need to explain why there "seems" to be hidden mass. In fact that's exactly what my theory of negative mass does, it says that the empty space between all galaxies is filled with negative mass but our galaxy is surrounded by a cavity of negative mass because it's repelled from the positive mass in our galaxy. That roughly spherical cavity of negative matter causes a gravitational illusion that makes the galaxy appear to be engulfed in a huge halo of invisible matter.

a reply to: ErosA433

Is dark matter being the 'outgoing waves of gravity field', on the list?

QM works in various ways tho some of the theories are a little loopy. Basically it all has to do with Resonating frequencies.

Matter is constantly leaking energy. This leaking of energy think of it as a tether if you will. The distance is greater than the actual object itself. It is possible to super charge a tiny object with Electricity and observations will show it's magnetic feild will increase. But what i was trying to explain is that Feild was already there it's just to weak to notice because of the planet. However chose an *Artificial* 'Signal' If you will. It phases the matter into a different magnetic range, When you have 2 particles that are at a distinct vibration seperate from everything on Earth, It will resonate and have a number of effects. The particle could spin upsidedown or a different direction. Or the particle can almost cease to Exist, and Reappear. It's like the surrounding particles frequencies effect the matters ability to sustain itself. In my oppinion makes it all seem weird but it is to me just the way that matter works.

You could in theory levitate rocks with resonate frequencies, You could also start an Earthquake or shake large objects with resonate frequencies. But that's just tangible from an enlarged perspective. We can also alter physical matter itself with resonate frequencies. It Is possible to liquify matter tho i wouldn't want to be standing in the way of such technology lol. And it wouldn't even require a blast of Heat to do Either. Atom Scramblers can be created, i'm not sure if one is in existance right now but its just a concept of Physics and i imagine one will come into existance at some point in the future, Which will make mining efforts seem like we are cutting into rocks like a hot knife to butter.

Spooky action magnitism

So what's the speed of magnitism?

a reply to: ErosA433

If you want to make Dark Matter it's going to take pressure, intense pressure. Pressures enough to collapse a star. I guess colliding particles can sort of do the same but a black hole is like an Hour glass. With North and south on Either side sucking in matter in matter and spitting it back outside through a tiny pin hole. You can see the Hourglass shape when looking for the outgoing Gamma-ray Jets. That's where matter is being shot out and supercharging incoming matter Adding the Gamma-ray effect. Since the Dark matter or Rather *Dark Energy now* is boming through incoming particles like mini-nuclear reactions carry away by the jetstreams of dark energy.

To make dark matter it's basically just increasing the volume density of dark energy. To the point where it's nearly 100%.
Right now there is already alot of Dark energy around us, so i guess a strong megnetic feild under intense pressures would simulate dark matter.

Which should in theory create an even more powerful magnetic feild than what is needed to produce it. But it would require an immense ammount of energy to do and an exotic form of mass to sustain itself as *Fuel* because the hole itself feeds off matter by converting matter into Dark energy. If that makes sense?

The flow of matter keeps the *hole* Open, it is like a black fire, turning everything into invisible *Charcoal* Just an anology.

Of course you are the self proclaimed scientist so i'm just trying to pass on some ideas here.

All matter is made of shards that bond together based on their magnetic partners. It's the power of this magnetism, the energy leeking out if you will through a process known as Entropy that is resonating from previous containment.

The reason why matter exists for so long because when mass is compressed by black holes the magnetic slivers are arranged in such a way there is no motorized action which would provide a flow to allow entropy to continue. However the Energy does not stop building up, its because of of these magnetic slivers being pressed together and prevented from vibrating individually that builds up mountain pressure. Like the Earths techtonic plates, Slivers want to move in certain directions but are prevented because it's so cramed. The friction generates more energy as no movement can occure. Overtime the energy builds up and the slivers move ever so slightly generating more friction.

And just like how Earthquakes happen here on Earth that mounting fiction over billions of years or however long it takes is what gives mass it's explosive energy. There would technically be more mass in a regenerating state than mass that is active.

So more mass would be replenishing it's spent energy, Than mass that is in physical existance which would be full of energy.
Which accounts for why there is so much space .

I'm not sure how the CERN is not going to figure that all out with the collider. But i'm sure colliding particles, Spending their energy (Since it costs energy to fuse into another particle) No new energy is created by doing this (Zero point energy) So the particle would just blip out of existance because either A) Its magnet frequency depends upon an alignment that is not present in the Enviroment Since its energy is depleted it would require an enviroment that can contain and not absorb the particles or by squishing it until it is not viewable if you will since it's magnetic feild would be to Weak in terms of sustainability

B) Even if you managed to create Dark Matter you would have to contain it and feed it selective sources of matter
A black hole can only sustain itself with a lot of incoming matter if you will, its all based on funnel mechanics if you will. Whirlpool mechanics. All Galaxies are giant vortexs with a center. If the object was Solid in the center, Nothing would be coming out either side Gamma rays x rays ect.


Just my understand of what a black hole is, Is a black hole is a pressure point in space created by an abundance of matter Since in such a theory as the one i propose all the Dark energy is just compressed mass waiting to re-expand.

There is no need for a big bang because this process is in equilibrium with physical matter, as the this process will always be releasing super charged particles into space Replenishing spent energy from Entropy and maintaining balance within a universe that is infinitely large and Eternally long lasting.

Are we in a, open or closed universe.

Is the great void some sort of vacuum, in the nothing forever pulling on, the something, always wanting.

Could part of the "nothing", been caught up, in the turmoil, of the great expanse, of the faster than speed of light, big bang.

Could the Dark matter be just swatches of nothing caught up in the something. and dark energy just the pull of the forever wanting, of the great void.

I'm sure some One knows.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: ErosA433


There is no need for a big bang because this process is in equilibrium with physical matter, as the this process will always be releasing super charged particles into space Replenishing spent energy from Entropy and maintaining balance within a universe that is infinitely large and Eternally long lasting.

No Big Bang, but don't you need a starting point and a ending point.

How does physical matter come into the picture, they have discovered that once they are past the sub-atom, into quantum levels, there is nothing there.

Really the universe is kind of small if you think about it, under a googol of atoms, something around 10 to the 83rd , I think. What you call infinity, is some what definable in this universe, eternal, it's only 14 billion years old a mere baby, in the cosmic time frame. I would think it could not last over another 23 trillion years.

When you refer to these shard things, in the black holes do you mean like quarks. What do you think the stacking order is.

a reply to: OOOOOO

In order for galaxies to even form there has to be an invisible *atmosphere* if you will otherwise the fragments of the explosion will just shoot off in every direction. Without anything truely in the way there would be no slowing down. However entropy exists so the energy would just deplete into nothing.

It's kinda impossible to have an infinite point if the opposite is also not possible like an infitely large object.

The Universe therefore is not really an object but rather the medium objects manfest in. Galaxies very much age and die. But they are reborn again from the process of reserving energy in Dark Energy.

Neither an infitely large nore small object can exist. We man pan our and see clusters of galaxies, but it will still continue on like that within set distance between galaxies. Galaxies move independantly tho so sometimes the jetstreams launch them into other galaxies magnetic pull.

But basically, to my understanding. it takes more time to recharge spent energy than it does for energy to exist in the physical. Dark Energy is constantly discharging, so even tho black holes are sucking in matter. That matter is being replaced by Dark energy expanding. Since the ratio of Dark energy is so high, it does not matter if it takes a long time for the energy to replenish because matter is being replaced at a constant. It also explains why there is so little physical matter in comparison to space. Matter kind of warps around space. So dark energy provides a type a wall against sub-atomic excelleration. Where in the theory that there is truely nothing there. Instead of providing a wall for a particle to roll along as it is caught by magnetic feilds it would just excellerate and shoot off.

Which is why the big bang had to account for being faster than the speed of light, Tho in the case of my theory. Such an Event need not occure and if it did. We would have absolutely no way of know.

Galaxies are constantly forming and dying, So to base the life of the universe around the estimated lifespans of the surrounding galaxies and the eminating incoming trace matter be it radio waves or waves in the elctromagnetic or violet spectrums or infrared it's just not possible with the existance of black holes.

Since mass IS magnetically charged and motorized by magnetism. that means an Neutron is neutrally charged. It attracts from particles that act like protons or electrons. These forces create a motorized mechanic that generates a 3D hologram of the surface area of the particles orbiting. It's not always a sphere tho, It is completely magnetically dependant and so follows a geometic pattern. In The case of dark energy and dark matter. That does not happen.
Because the thing does not spin, spinning is caused by motorization.

it's a mechanism of following along a path of force attraction and resistance in this case magnetism repulsion and attraction. WHen you jumble it all together and fuse it. it cannot generate a 3D hologram because there is no straight path of sub-atomic particle ossilation, which is spinning or orbiting.. Sub atomic particles are already incredibly small. So dark energy will also be incredibly small. And since it takes up so much space. You can see how pressure and compression play a part in how so much mass is contain in our universe it allows such functions as galaxies to even form in the first place.

In the place of the big bang, the Universe would have to have the same mechanism but on a bigger scale.

Instead the entire universe would fold out, and then rebound and fold in. Otherwise entropy will forever leave the dudded mass energyless and empty. Never to form into physical matter again.

So either way, This process happens reguardless. if in a big bang, Or in micro bangs called Galaxies. Either or i guess is plausible tho i don't really see anyway the universe could just laso the rest of itself that is suposedly continuing to expand.

Personally i dont think the Universe is expanding at all, I just think out technology is allowing our knowledge of our surrounding enviroment in space to expand. We still cant see beyond the faintest galaxy we can view quite yet.

And i have a theory anyways.

Light decays over a set period of time anyways, So even if we wanted to see more galaxies beyond the farthest point we can see possible. Light bending and also light decaying over time will prevent us from seeing the end of the universe lol cuz there isn't an end.

Light can only travel so far before it does out. So we won't know what's beyond that certain point because it will be trillion- quatrillions lol a huge unfathomable number away from us. Im not sure how long light takes to decay but it surely does not last forever.

So all these things together. It's more likely that it is only micro explosions. As that is what we are seeing in space. Gas clouds forming into galaxies and then into inter planetary bodies.

check out radiant aether. the best way to explain it is that it is in constant vibration and it is a particle that is life. it gives off light but no light and sparkles all color and none. it is unending and infinite and holds the possibility of creation. it is an aspect of god. and our ability to mold it and create is exactly why humans are so fascinating and inventive.

the energy. the dark matter. the aether. magic whatever you call it. this is the real collective consiousness. it is impossible to fully comprehend. it is spiritual energy, if that helps make it make sense. and it makes up everything. because all is one and one is all. and yet free will exists and molds the environment. it is crazy cool stuff.
s&f
I love this topic

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: Mastronaut
A non-scientist claiming to know what is wrong with science and how to do it better. LMAO.

They really should spend a lot more time in school going over not just what the scientific method but how and why it is used. I think a lot of these comments from non-experts about scientists "doing it wrong" stem from a misunderstanding of how science works, i.e. the evidence drives the conclusions. Scientific theories don't gain traction because they sound cool or because some sort of vote from The Evil Cabal of Scientists but because they consistently make accurate predictions about the world around us. I think laypeople have a tendency to think of scientific ideas in terms of political parties, latching on to them because they somehow resonate with them personally, regardless of whether or not they reflect reality. You see this a lot, with people fighting thoroughly debunked ideas such as luminiferous aether, electric universe and other kooky ideas, cheering the on like they're sports teams or something.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Mastronaut

Well then you clearly have no understanding of statistics or entropy. One major outcome of proving that Bell's inequality can be violated is to show that there is no possible classical hidden variable theory which can explain the type of randomness you get from QM, with the exception of a superdeterministic system.

"there is no possible classical LOCAL hidden variable theory" and it is in the context of SR, and the whole thing is tied to the postulates, am I wrong? If there was no need to postulate that signals cannot travel faster than light, would there be any reason for Bell's inequalities to exist? I'ts a sincere question, I can't find a proper source that can answer this question in a straightforward way.

Also you still auto-imply the big-bang while I am really not sure there has been one.
I have not "auto-implied" anything about the big bang theory because I don't think it's correct, I tend to lean toward the idea of a quantum vacuum collapse which occurred throughout infinite flat space.

I am not finding your quote that made me say you auto-imply the BB, I might have confused it so my apologies.

Oh trust me when you browse ATS for half a dozen years you'll have read countless alternative theories, there is no lack of fringe theories around here. In my experience 90% of them are totally wrong and the rest are at least partially wrong. Don't get me wrong I understand the point you are trying to make very well.

Ye, but ATS wasn't here 30 years ago when I started looking deeper, and I didn't know it was more than a conspiracy site until few years ago. I think 100% of the theories are wrong, that's why I see the need of having a more civil discussion about how to develop alternatives. Anyway I am sure you can understand my point, but you still seem to rely on some accepted theory to disprove my opinion which is exactly the problem I was implying when I say I am not able to express what I really think.

Your problem is clearly that you only want to believe things which personally appeal to you. You say you're just skeptical but you're clearly highly selective about the theories you choose to believe. Regardless of how much evidence anyone presents to you, there are just some ideas you can't accept. You're not basing your opinion on where the evidence is pointing and you just ignore any evidence which doesn't point where you want it to point.

Well, this is the description of "believe", maybe it's not "want to believe", but "feel to believe". I cannot choose what I "want", it comes out spontaneously from my doubts on the foundations of science.

You don't need matter but you do need to explain why there "seems" to be hidden mass.

There seems to be hidden mass because we have a theory about mass that say something that implies that there is more mass than we can see. I would say there is an incongruence between our theories and observations.

In fact that's exactly what my theory of negative mass does, it says that the empty space between all galaxies is filled with negative mass but our galaxy is surrounded by a cavity of negative mass because it's repelled from the positive mass in our galaxy. That roughly spherical cavity of negative matter causes a gravitational illusion that makes the galaxy appear to be engulfed in a huge halo of invisible matter.

I vastly prefer you theory to some esoteric more-mainstream tentative even tho it necessarily need BB for what I read (pardon me if it was a misinterpretation). However it boils down to what IS mass. Is it an emergent property of matter? Is it a separate field? Do you have a schematic view of your theory (I'll take the time to read well your posts, but it could take some time to get the points across).

I'll try to give you a general context for what I feel I believe: The universe is made of something (space) in which things happen (energy density changes). I am of the opinion that it's all down to 2 very simple things at scales we can't really reach with current technologies.
In this context there are no "particles", the quanta are just resonance phenomenons or density gradients of "space" and I intend space to be something and not "emptyness containing virtual particles".

What I don't belive (and that's the main reason why I am not satisfied about QM) is that statistics can be used to build a theory. That's something we should use to evaluate experiments, calculate errors and derive formulas. Entropy (at the universe scale) implies an initial state, I'm not sure there can be entropy at the highest scale, it may be something that's limited spatially or temporally.

I also can't understand how you relate the random process with free will nor its philosophical consequences, but I don't know if you want to discuss this in this thread.

If you think I'm derailing your thread, feel free to reply by PM. I'm curious and I have no problems arguing, I don't need to convert you and I don't need to be converted by you, I like that you provide references and evidence, but the "evidence" is more or less interpretation of observations in the context of some accepted theory.

a reply to: OOOOOO

Not necessarily, and that's what they now are suggesting, the universe is in a loop (expanding-collapsing,...). So where is the beginning and the end?
Well it's a start in the good direction i believe but far from the truth.
There are a lot of alternative theories circulating, without a big bang, expansion, beginning nor end.
The main reason behind the BB theory was the discovery of the red shift which holds a lot of flaws as they found out soon after the discovery of quasars.
I don't believe the red shift to be an accurate method for calculating distances or speed.

So yes it might be the universe is smaller than we think and expansion doesn't exist.
It could last a lot longer than 23 trillion years, what do you think about forever, it was and always will be here?
Everything is created out of the aether. Space is only created by discharge where on the other hand charge is the "destruction" of space. What i want to say is empty space do not exist.
Compare it with a permanent magnet, creating and eliminating space at the same time, we better know it as attraction and repulsion.

So what is the aether, if we know that we are a big step closer into understanding.
All great minds were convinced it has to be there.

I believe it to be a lost battle for the coming years, they will always find a way with their math just to fit in their ideas.
That's the beauty of GR, can invent as much as you want and still be correct

a reply to: AnuTyr

Well Im not in the business of 'making' dark matter, only attempting its detection, something i posted a thread about a long time ago here,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Interesting point to make in general is that not many of the people who post here appear to understand how most of the technology used by science actually works, and yet still claim we are ignorant of reality.

Anyway, from what you posted there you seem to be both confused by what the observations of dark energy are, and also that of compact objects. The production of high energy events around highly compact objects is a vibrant field of research with lots of models that are able to predict energy spectrum based on established physics. HOW the jets form is not fully understood, though often thought analogous to magnetic funnelling of high energy particles into the poles of the Earth, only semi in reverse and at extremely high field strengths.

ImaFungi gravitational waves I don't think can account for it at least not how it is postulated, since what we experience is a slight expansion and contraction of spacetime rather than a jolt of gravitation.

For the record I was not pointing at anyone in particular Mastronaut, you are not alone in your selective 'open-mindedness' from my own personal observations. Which is fine, though before arguing the fringes of science it might be good to have a firm understanding of who you oppose and what their theories already solve. To claim in a white wash of theoretical ineptitude of the main stream, the claims things are wrong because you don't 'believe' or not 'convinced' is not really very solid and in terms of scientific method is meaningless.

originally posted by: Mastronaut
Except the alternatives are always based on the same concepts of exotic particles, GR and multidimensional concepts despite we found no exotic particles and no dimensions, and the black holes solutions of GR are for a single mass in an empty universe.

Well, what you should know is about the history of particle physics is that all discovered particles where predicted theoretically on the merits of early particle theory, what we have today is the Standard Model of particle physics, which gives its own predictions. There are plenty of holes and problems it in, thats why most particle physicists today are searching for 'Physics beyond the standard model' We are not in the business of proving the standard model right, but trying to prove it wrong. Trying to pry open the cracks.

There are theories that are very very tentative, that evidence for is not super strong, and yet they/we are still trying to do the leg work, stamp the ground and get the answers. To suggest that we are in some way ignorant of the situation is a very strong comment, and one based not on knowledge.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

ooh... what a lovely debate the two of you are having!...
... but wait!

... there is no lack of fringe theories around here. In my experience 90% of them are totally wrong and the rest are at least partially wrong.

what a. shame. over your long post history you have never failed come across as inappropriately smug. I wanna be on your team but ultimately I believe that you fall in the exact category that mastronaut is describing: so consumed by what you (think you) know that you cannot offer even "silly" ideas the respect they deserve.

I grant you, the majority are crap. but one should never say so as a means to forward their own argument. it's just rude and pompous.

but otherwise really great thread. I really mean that.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: AnuTyr
For the record I was not pointing at anyone in particular Mastronaut, you are not alone in your selective 'open-mindedness' from my own personal observations. Which is fine, though before arguing the fringes of science it might be good to have a firm understanding of who you oppose and what their theories already solve. To claim in a white wash of theoretical ineptitude of the main stream, the claims things are wrong because you don't 'believe' or not 'convinced' is not really very solid and in terms of scientific method is meaningless.

Sorry, but I don't know a therm to describe "somehow-wrong" like a theory that has been surpassed. Current theories are wrong in that sense, not like arbitrarily made up to have "right" results. If you believe models ARE reality then you are doing a leap of faith as much as you attribute to me. I prefer to believe we don't have the right answers and there CAN be other models that will explain nature in a less tricky way.
What is selective open-mindedness? I don't believe fringe nor mainstream to the point I am convinced. We have had proof that our theories about the very local environment of the sun is not what we modelled when Pioneer data started challenging the limits of our system, so how can we be so sure that data arriving from supposedly billions of years far away galaxies are correct?

Also I'm not really saying anything else is much better than current theories, just that I'd like to see better development of completely alternative theories (theories that rely on different foundations than relativity and qm), just for the sake of being able to say "yes we tried much more and we didn't find a better answer". If you can tell me that this parallel development has been done with a comparable effort to QM in the last 50 years then I'd be interested to see this work.
Otherwise I'll be more convinced about current theories the day we have a probe in intergalactic space that can do some more accurate measurement.

Statistics may not lie, but stasticians do (wheter willingly or not).

You are overexxagerating my points, I said multiple times I don't disrespect researchers at all and I never said I have the truth so please don't treat me like I'm a kind of intelligent-plan proponent.
You are free to think I am ignorant (and technically speaking I am) thus not able to understand, but you can't prove me wrong cause I'm not asserting anything strange: current (cosmological) theories have many flaws, there are legitimate scientist (people trained exactly like mainstream ones) that have doubts and don't have a religious agenda. You decide to not consider them legitimate just because they question the foundations of our knowledge? Then it's intellectualy dishonest to consider legitimate only those who adhere to a pardigm.

originally posted by: ErosA433

originally posted by: Mastronaut
Except the alternatives are always based on the same concepts of exotic particles, GR and multidimensional concepts despite we found no exotic particles and no dimensions, and the black holes solutions of GR are for a single mass in an empty universe.

Well, what you should know is about the history of particle physics is that all discovered particles where predicted theoretically on the merits of early particle theory, what we have today is the Standard Model of particle physics, which gives its own predictions. There are plenty of holes and problems it in, thats why most particle physicists today are searching for 'Physics beyond the standard model' We are not in the business of proving the standard model right, but trying to prove it wrong. Trying to pry open the cracks.

I will try an analogy tho it's limited, but may tell you something about how a model can succesfully predict things without being necessarily the only one right.

You live in a boat in the middle of a lake where you can't see the shores and decide that the waves you observe have different names based on their height, wavelenght and maybe their color based on reflections/refractions. Given enough time and observations you can predict how many times per day you will observe a certain wave and if you grasped part of the reality of your environment you may be able to predict that there are certain chances that a wave you never saw may be appearing with consistence and this because examining observations you see relations between waves properties when you throw stones in the water. You can't get out of the boat and you can't watch the sky so the floor of the lake and the reflections of the surface are intrisic properties.

It's just an analogy, given the subject I can't imagine a deeper analogy, but in this analogy you are satisfied with being able to predict when to move on a certain side of your boat because a rogue wave is going to throw you out if not predicted.

QM is not a theory developed from scratch. It is based on some assumptions from previous theories and in fact assumes previous theories to be correct and be special cases in the macroscopic world.
However it sticks too many properties to these particles without even being able to say what these properties are. There are too many intrinsic properties, they don't emerge. So probably we will find a theory that will explain those property as emerging and QM becomes the special case.
Standard model does not predict mass, which is really a big issue, can't explain the multiple generations of particles, can't explain confinement which is a rather unique phenomenon and many more (Is there any analytic proof that QCD predicts confinement?).

There are theories that are very very tentative, that evidence for is not super strong, and yet they/we are still trying to do the leg work, stamp the ground and get the answers. To suggest that we are in some way ignorant of the situation is a very strong comment, and one based not on knowledge.

I never suggested we are ignorant of the stuation, I'm suggesting there are reasons to develop totally different models without being considered pseudoscience a priori. We are surely ignorant about what we don't know yet, and in fact knowledge is not just "data", is making sense of them. Models are a way to make sense of data, no model is perfect so no model is the reality.

Beliving for me is very hard. I prefer to just question everything and never take the side of someone. Not being a scientist I have no reason to, I am not trying to impose my way of thinking to anyone, especially not to somebody who wants a career in academics.