HUGE blow for alternate theory of gravity MOND

originally posted by: Skinnerbot
For example there may be a lot more mass in the universe outside our observable event horizon that contributes to gravitational lensing.

Even if there is, and I'm not saying there is, that won't invalidate the galaxy rotation measurements, it could shift both sides of the galaxy measurements by about the same amount, but the rotation curves would still be the same more or less, especially on a statistical scale since we measure so many of them.

You didn't give a source but the dark flow I heard about was proposed in 2008 based on lower resolution WMAP data, then in 2014 I saw articles like this one saying the higher resolution Planck data didn't confirm the claims based on the low resolution WMAP data:

Dark flow: Do galaxy clusters all move in the same direction?

In 2008, Alexander Kashlinsky and his collaborators claimed the detection of a “dark flow” after analyzing this kSZ effect in the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the residual radiation throughout the universe due to the Big Bang. Using data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), they measured the temperature of the CMB and the positions of clusters of galaxies; the researchers inferred that large regions of the nearby universe were moving coherently. These large related velocities, dubbed a dark flow, posed a significant challenge to standard cosmology theory that the universe looks the same everywhere on large scales. Many cosmologists doubted these claims and identified concerns in the analysis.

Last year, the team associated with the Planck CMB probe analyzed its data and looked for this bulk flow. With higher spatial resolution and sensitivity than WMAP, the Planck instruments are much more responsive to these dark flows. Using the same cluster sample and more sensitive CMB data, they did not detect the flow and found that if it does exist but is hidden in the data, its velocity is less than 158 miles/second (254 km/s), several times below what Kashlinsky’s team claimed.

Although the dark flow probably isn’t real, cosmologists have used the kSZ effect to detect galaxy motions on large scales.

Speed of light C is only a constant if the second of time used for the measure is constant (like for the most part we find in the lab locally).

Are you some kind of relativity denier? Because this is not what relativity says and relativity has passed lots of tests, like this experiment consistent with relativity showing that your head is older than your feet. If a second was constant, they would be the same age:

NIST Clock Experiment Demonstrates That Your Head is Older Than Your Feet

The NIST experiments test two predictions of Einstein's theories of relativity. First, when two clocks are subjected to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster.

I haven't considered any theories that involve Baryonic mass other than maybe some of the Baryonic mass luminosity measurements arrived distorted.

Earth is not a theory, it's the planet we live on and it's made of baryonic dark matter. I pointed that out to show the idea of non-luminous mass should be intuitive since we live on non-luminous mass. But observations show that baryonic dark matter can only account for a small fraction of the "missing mass" in dark matter observations like galaxy rotations. Anyway I doubt very much the community of cosmologists would pay any attention to either of our ideas on this topic since they are driven by research and not some random posters on the internet.

I really enjoy your threads though, they are always thought provoking!

Thanks, it's supposed to be thought provoking.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

NIST Clock Experiment Demonstrates That Your Head is Older Than Your Feet

They told us the Mercury astronauts were aging at a different rate to.
They didn't correct for that with the first satellite phone calls to see who was paying attention.

The oldest light we receive from our event horizon traveled about 14 billion light years(last article I read).
So the idea that there was light traveling at a different speed further away and will never catch us isn't intuitive for some people. You would need a corroborating observation that implies an older date for the big bang to explain why the light hasn't reached us yet.

originally posted by: Skinnerbot
They told us the Mercury astronauts were aging at a different rate to.
They didn't correct for that with the first satellite phone calls to see who was paying attention.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, does this mean you are a relativity denier? That NIST clock experiment was solid and you didn't actually respond to that specifically, you brought up Mercury astronauts and satellite phone calls where we didn't use atomic clocks to make precision measurements. Is this your defense mechanism, against the reality of seconds not being constant, to change the subject to events where we didn't make precision measurements, so you can avoid talking about the cases where we did make precision measurements that show your claim is false?

The oldest light we receive from our event horizon traveled about 14 billion light years(last article I read).

I doubt you actually read an article saying that, at least not from any decent source.
Distance in cosmology actually needs to be defined as to what distance you're talking about, such as "comoving distance" or "proper distance". You're probably thinking something like this illustration for distance to the edge of the observable universe:



That's a mental picture some people put together when they hear that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and the oldest light has been traveling at the speed of light for 13.7 billion light years, so the distance must be 13.7 billion light years away. It's a common misconception, that's why this video illustrates it, to show a lot of people think that, but it's wrong. If you want to learn why you can watch the video or do some research.

If the universe is only 14 billion years old, how can it be 92 billion light years wide?

So the idea that there was light traveling at a different speed further away and will never catch us isn't intuitive for some people. You would need a corroborating observation that implies an older date for the big bang to explain why the light hasn't reached us yet.

Since your antecedent was a misconception I doubt it makes much sense to try to make sense out of what you're trying to say here, especially since you still haven't said if you're a relativity denier or not. We won't have much common ground for discussion if you're denying relativity and all the evidence which supports it, with your claim about a second being a constant in spite of evidence showing it's not constant.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

92 billion years old and you are talking about the particle Horizon.
I'm talking about superluminal recession velocities.
A researcher named Tamara Davis claims that *all* galaxies above a redshift of three are receding superluminally.
This means that their mass has total gravitational capture of their luminosity and that they will fade out in the near cosmic future.
If that is the dark matter you are talking about, its not mysterious its just moving faster than light away from us.
Of course if there is a big bang center than we are probably the ones that moved superluminally as high energy low mass billions of years earlier. I'm not trying to confuse thing,s I'm just explaining why dark matter won't solve the puzzle with any kind of certainty.

originally posted by: Skinnerbot
92 billion years old and you are talking about the particle Horizon.

Where did you get 92 billion years old? Nobody said that, current estimate of the time since the big bang is about 13.7 billion years ago.

A researcher named Tamara Davis claims that *all* galaxies above a redshift of three are receding superluminally. This means that their mass has total gravitational capture of their luminosity and that they will fade out in the near cosmic future.

The Femilab video specifies which galaxies will fade and explains why from superluminal recession, without saying anything about "total gravitational capture of their luminosity", which sounds like a reference to black holes, not galaxies.

I'm not trying to confuse thing,s I'm just explaining why dark matter won't solve the puzzle with any kind of certainty.

You've made numerous statements that show that you seem pretty confused yourself, for example:" 92 billion years old and you are talking about the particle Horizon." which is complete nonsense, and "Speed of light C is only a constant if the second of time used for the measure is constant (like for the most part we find in the lab locally). " which is an explicit denial of relativity which says the second of time used for measure is not a constant but is different at your head than at your feet, which difference we have measured.

Then I give you the link to NIST proof of the measurements, but you still haven't admitted it and instead keep changing the subject and throwing out even more incorrect nonsense. Even worse, on the topic of the thread, you promote one of the crankiest alternatives to dark matter out there, McCullough's MiHsC model, which appears to be a misapplication of known physics, that's a way worse attempt at solving dark matter observations than dark matter.

Anyway we still don't know what dark matter is, but so far the evidence is suggesting that hypothesizing dark matter can explain a lot more things than hypothesizing modified gravity. There could be something besides dark matter going on and I suspect that dark matter is probably a combination of things, not just one undiscovered particle or something.