In the dark about dark matter

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby BennyFan » Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:21 am

saul wrote:While I agree with your criticisms of dark matter theory, they are just that: criticisms of an existing theory. What is needed is A BETTER THEORY to describe galactic rotation.

There is such a theory called MOND which is better at explaining galaxy rotation curves then a dark matter halo. And there are some disputed modifications of GR that do the same. The flaw is that they currently fail to explain the same range of observations that dark matter does. MOND can never do it. It will be a long time before we know if modified GR can do it.
BennyFan
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 7:14 am

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby willendure » Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:27 am

BennyFan wrote:
saul wrote:While I agree with your criticisms of dark matter theory, they are just that: criticisms of an existing theory. What is needed is A BETTER THEORY to describe galactic rotation.

There is such a theory called MOND which is better at explaining galaxy rotation curves then a dark matter halo. And there are some disputed modifications of GR that do the same. The flaw is that they currently fail to explain the same range of observations that dark matter does. MOND can never do it. It will be a long time before we know if modified GR can do it.


MOND stands for MOdified Newtonian Dynamics. It is a so-called emprical theory, which basically means it is Newtons Laws with some extra variables added. The variables are 'tuned' to fit the observations. It is just mathemtical trick of curve fitting, and as such it has no explanatory power. As such, it is not really a theory.
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby BennyFan » Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:40 am

willendure wrote:As such, it is not really a theory.

Most scientific theories can be labeled as "curve fitting". Take some data and create a hypothesis to explain it. Take that hypothesis and fit it to the data (curve fit) and you have a scientific theory. For example this is how Newton wrote the laws of gravitation and Maxwell wrote his equations. GR partly came from finding out that the curves did not fit (orbit of Mercury). The closest we have for a theory not starting as "curve fitting" would be special relativity but it took a couple of decades of curve fitting before the consensus was that SR was correct.

MOND, etc. are not easily verified theories because the effects are unlikely to be defected here on Earth or even locally. Maybe some curve fitting with Type 1a supernova data?
BennyFan
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 7:14 am

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby willendure » Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:59 am

BennyFan wrote:
willendure wrote:As such, it is not really a theory.

Most scientific theories can be labeled as "curve fitting". Take some data and create a hypothesis to explain it. Take that hypothesis and fit it to the data (curve fit) and you have a scientific theory. For example this is how Newton wrote the laws of gravitation and Maxwell wrote his equations. GR partly came from finding out that the curves did not fit (orbit of Mercury). The closest we have for a theory not starting as "curve fitting" would be special relativity but it took a couple of decades of curve fitting before the consensus was that SR was correct.

MOND, etc. are not easily verified theories because the effects are unlikely to be defected here on Earth or even locally. Maybe some curve fitting with Type 1a supernova data?


Not really. Newtons original theory has only one variable to be 'curve fitted' to it, namely G. The theory is explanative in the sense that it says the force is proportional to the masses involved, and falls off with 1/r^2, or in proportion to the surface of an imagined sphere at a particular radius around a mass - which fits our intuition that the effect of gravity is evenly spread over such a sphere. It doesn't explain how gravity works, that is true, but it does at least provide an explanation in so far as it speaks to Newton's intuitions about how the machanics of gravity operate.

MOND is different in the sense that it has more free variables to fit. You could probably use it to explain todays stock market movements by fitting the variables. Well I am not being too serious about that, but the point is that once you add in too many variables to a theory it can be fit to just about anything.

Fit to just about anything - colliding black holes forming a gravity wave, for example.
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Mond theory is a ruse so they don't have to admit their erro

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:51 pm

IMO the 2006 galaxy cluster collision lensing study does seem to favor the existence of additional "missing mass" over MOND theories related to gravity.

Since 2006 however there have been at least a half dozen published studies that demonstrate that there were serious and systemic problems with the baryonic mass calculations of that 2006 paper, including serious stellar underestimates.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

The obvious solution would be to simply replace any and all 'dark matter' with ordinary plasma, but of course that would screw up all their claims to fame related to "big bang" nucleosynthesis.

The mainstream is therefore stuck between exotic matter and modifications to gravity theory. They can't simply replace 'dark matter' with ordinary matter, and that's their real dilemma. The "debate" between MOND and exotic matter is simply a ruse by the mainstream to simulate "debate", primarily to avoid the obvious, namely that they have no frigging idea what they're talking about with respect to their claims about the existence of exotic forms of matter. :) They want us to believe that their baryonic mass estimates were *not* the problem, even though a half dozen studies have already demonstrated that it *was* a *huge* problem. MOND theory is designed to let the mainstream "pretend" that their galaxy mass estimates were not the real problem. The whole concept is a ruse to avoid dealing with their baryonic mass underestimation problems.

LHC has been a complete and total *disaster* for the mainstream and exotic matter theory. Not a *shred* of evidence suggests that any additional stable and heavy forms of matter exist in nature. They haven't a clue how to deal with that data, so they pretend to "debate' the need for it with MOND theory. The reason MOND can never be accepted is the same reason that ordinary plasma solutions cannot be accepted. The moment that the mainstream tries to remove exotic matter from the equations, their Nucleosynthesis "postdictions" go flying right out the window. The mainstream is therefore stuck in pure denial (of LHC results) and a they have the worst case of confirmation bias in the history of physics. There is no way to falsify their claims about hypothetical forms of matter because there will always be "gaps" for it to hide in. It's completely based on a "dark matter of the gaps" argument to start with.

IMO MOND theory is just an attempt to salvage some semblance of a "big bang" theory, so they don't have to come to grips with their redshift interpretation problem. Instead of embracing lab documented features of light and plasma, they instead inserted 3 forms of metaphysical claims to make up the difference.

The whole cold dark matter concept is a joke at this point. They have literally spent *billions* of dollars looking for stable forms of exotic "non baryonic" matter, and they came up *entirely* empty. Every bit of evidence since 2006 demonstrates conclusively that they *grossly* underestimated the amount of ordinary baryonic mass in that 2006 lensing study. There is absolutely, positively, no need for, nor any evidence for any type of exotic "cold dark matter' to explain various observations in space.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:07 pm

BennyFan wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote:Dark matter itself is a hypothesis.
What is observed is that the visible objects in galaxies have a unexplained constant rotation-velocity.

...
The measured velocity of stars due to the visible matter in a spiral galaxy is a rise to a peak outside of the galaxy bulge and a not decreasing curve (close to flat or even rising).
...


This is not correct.
The line should say:
"The measured velocity of stars (the visible matter) in a spiral galaxy is a rise to a peak outside of the galaxy bulge and a not decreasing curve (close to flat or even rising)."

Dark matter is the "hypothesis" that this curve difference is due to gravity from "dark matter".
The curve-difference could better be named: "dark acceleration", because that is exactly what is observed.

In the first post, I already stated that the curve difference can NOT be explained with dark-matter:
1) a dark-matter-halo (which is the standard model) can not give an inside-pulling force.
2) dark-matter mixed with visible matter makes the shape of the visible-gravity-curve the same.
So this does not fit the flat outside of the curve at all.
3) mixing both ideas, does not solve the problem either. The halo would be pulled in again, etc.
That is because adding matter in whatever way, does not change the gravity-curve.
The current "consensus" is that there is so much dark-matter that the visible gravity-curve is only
a very small part of the complete dark-matter galaxy. That way any curve can be matched if you
throw enough "darkish" matter at it. You won't read that in wikipedia.
4) There are NO observations that support ANY kind of dark matter.
There must be so much that we can see it in our solar system, but there is no evidence at all.
So "dark matter" is similar "magic unicorns"; a failed hypothesis.

There ARE other alternatives:
1) The cause is not gravity. (somehow this slipped the mind of all scientists involved,
probably because they are not educated in EM well enough.)
2) The gravity is wrong (MOND or something else).
3) The measurements are false. Maybe due to red-shift causing plasma.

->1
A relatively small change in the centre of the galaxy can already give a curve that
can EXACTLY fit the rotation-speed of the stars in the galaxy.
These can ALSO explain why certain stars group together.

->2
This would require more accurate measurements.
One big problem is that the constant G varies too much between different tests,
that gives a clear hint that general relativity is NOT a fundamental theory.
Also much of the general relativity evidence is not evidence at all, so there might indeed
be a systematic error in this research.

->3
As we can see from real Quasar research, there are hints that our mainstream ideas of
redshift=speed=distance might be wrong. There is also clear evidence in laboratory
that redshifts might be caused by interstellar plasma.
This might mean that structures are be much closer or farther than we think they are.
Maybe such differences in red-shifts can also cause differences in measured velocities of stars.
Currently all stars in the the milky-way are being mapped, complete with speed.
This may soon give more insight into this alternative.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby allynh » Mon Nov 28, 2016 2:14 pm

The author is fighting a "dogma" without realizing his own "dogma." HA!

Has dogma derailed the scientific search for dark matter?
https://aeon.co/ideas/has-dogma-deraile ... ark-matter
According to mainstream researchers, the vast majority of the matter in the Universe is invisible: it consists of dark-matter particles that do not interact with radiation and cannot be seen through any telescope. The case for dark matter is regarded as so overwhelming that its existence is often reported as fact. Lately, though, cracks of doubt have started to appear. In July, the LUX experiment in South Dakota came up empty in its search for dark particles – the latest failure in a planet-wide, decades-long effort to find them. Some cosmic surveys also suggest that dark particles cannot be there, which is especially confounding since astronomical observations were the original impetus for the dark-matter hypothesis.

The issues at stake are huge. Acceptance of dark matter has influenced scientific thinking about the birth of the Universe, the evolution of galaxies and black holes, and the fundamental laws of physics. Yet even within academic circles, there is a lot of confusion about dark matter, with evidence and interpretation often conflated in misleading and unproductive ways.

The modern argument for dark matter begins with the assumption that the Universe is described by Albert Einstein’s field equation of general relativity, and that Newtonian gravitation (that is, gravity as we measure it on Earth) is valid in all places at all times. It further assumes that all the matter in the Universe was produced at the Big Bang. Simulations based on that scenario make specific predictions about how quickly cosmic structures form, and also about the motions of galaxies and stars within galaxies. When compared with observations, those simulations indicate that gravitational effects in the real world must be stronger than can be accounted for by the matter we know. Dark matter provides the additional gravitational pull to bring model and reality broadly into alignment. Researchers now routinely take this model – Einstein plus dark matter, often called the ‘null hypothesis’ – as their starting point and then perform detailed calculations of galactic systems to test it.

This is how I stumbled into the field in the late 1990s. I was studying the dynamics of small satellite galaxies as they orbit our galaxy, the Milky Way. From observation, we expected that these satellite galaxies must contain a lot of dark matter, from 10 to 1,000 times as much as their visible, normal matter. During my calculations, I made a perplexing discovery. My simulations produced satellite galaxies that look much like the ones actually observed, but they contained no dark matter. It seemed that observers had made wrong assumptions about the way the stars move within the satellite galaxies; dark matter was not required to explain their structures.

I published these results and quickly learned what it meant to not follow the mainstream. Despite the critiques I received, I followed up on these results some years later and uncovered another major inconsistency. The known satellite galaxies of the Milky Way are distributed in a vast polar disk running perpendicular to the orientation of our galaxy. But dark-matter dominated models predict that primordial dwarf galaxies should have fallen into the Milky Way from random directions, so should follow a spheroidal distribution. This finding set off a major debate, with the mainstream researchers arguing that this disk of satellites does not really exist; that it is not significant; or that it cannot be used to test models.

Meanwhile, astronomers kept identifying new dwarf satellite galaxies that made the disk structure even more pronounced. Rodrigo Ibata at Strasbourg Observatory showed that our neighbouring galaxy, Andromeda, has an even more pronounced disk of satellite galaxies. My team at the University of Bonn then found that the disks of satellites around Andromeda and the Milky Way appear to be aligned, and that the whole structure of our Local Group of galaxies is highly symmetrical. Ibata and his team subsequently confirmed that the observed distribution of matter does not match dark-matter predictions out to distances of 24 million light years.

More problems: when a dwarf galaxy with a dark-matter halo passes through the dark-matter halo of a large galaxy, the dark-matter halos should absorb the energy of motion such that the dwarf galaxy would fall to the centre of the large galaxy, somewhat like a marble dropped in honey. This is a well-studied process known as dynamical friction but it is not evident in the astronomical data, suggesting that the expected dark-matter haloes do not exist. Most recently, Stacy McGaugh at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio and his team documented that the pattern of rotation in spiral galaxies seems to precisely follow the pattern of the visible matter alone, posing yet another challenge to the null hypothesis.

In light of these findings, I argue that the null hypothesis must be discarded. What can it be replaced with? The first step is that we need to revisit the validity of Newton’s universal law of gravitation. Starting in the 1980s, Mordehai Milgrom at the Weizmann Institute in Israel showed that a small generalisation of Newton’s laws can yield the observed dynamics of matter in galaxies and in galaxy clusters without dark matter. This approach is broadly known as MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics). Milgrom’s correction allows gravitational attraction to fall off with distance more slowly than expected (rather than falling off with the square of distance as per Newton) when the local gravitational acceleration falls below an extremely low threshold. This threshold could be linked to other cosmological properties such as the ‘dark energy’ that accounts for the accelerating expansion of the Universe.

These links suggest a deeper fundamental theory of space, time and matter, which has not yet been formulated. Few researchers have pursued such an alternative hypothesis, partly because it seems to question the validity of general relativity. However, this need not be the case; additional physical effects related to the quantum physics of empty space and to the nature of mass might be playing a role. MOND also faces its own challenges, both observational and theoretical. Its biggest drawback is that MOND is not yet well-anchored to general relativity. Because of the prevailing dark-matter dogma, few scientists dare to build on Milgrom’s ideas. Young researchers risk not getting a job; senior researchers face losing out on grants.

Together with Benoit Famaey in Strasbourg, my small group in Bonn is moving ahead anyway. Yes, we are being punished by not being granted some research money, but in our computers we are discovering a universe full of galaxies that look just like the real things – and this is awfully exciting. MOND could be the next great advance in gravitational research, building on the work of Newton and Einstein. This year’s detection of gravitational waves allows exciting new possibilities. Those waves have travelled cosmological distances, and so have passed through regions where Milgrom’s low-threshold effect should be significant. Gravitational wave studies will provide the kind of data needed to refine our ideas about MOND, and to explore cosmological thinking outside the constraints of dogma.
allynh
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:18 pm

allynh wrote:The author is fighting a "dogma" without realizing his own "dogma." HA!

Has dogma derailed the scientific search for dark matter?
https://aeon.co/ideas/has-dogma-deraile ... ark-matter


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

The "dogma" that is shared by both exotic dark matter proponents, and MOND proponents, is that mainstream galaxy mass estimates are "trustworthy". Every observational revelation that we've had over the past decade would suggest that their galaxy mass estimates are horrifically flawed, and they are the real problem. Since the mainstream refuses to acknowledge any of their *numerous* galaxy mass estimation problems, their "dogma" may splinter just a bit, but the original "dogma" that their galaxy mass estimate have been legitimate to start with is never, never, never questioned.

In 2006,the mainstream botched their stellar mass estimates by a *whopping* factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the type of galaxy and the size of the star. Never once however did any of them attempt to fix those flawed galaxy baryonic mass estimates and attempt to minimize their need for exotic forms of matter. One group went into pure denial mode of their galaxy mass estimate problems and continues to try to "fix" the problem with exotic mass. The other group went into pure denail of the galaxy mass estimation problems, and continues to try to "fix' their problem by modifying the formulas of gravity.

The most interesting observation from this year was the revelation that galaxy spin patterns are indeed related to ordinary baryonic mass layout, which is another excellent "sign" that their galaxy mass estimates have been the problem all along.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... stronomers

Make no mistake about it, both groups remain in *pure denial* of their galaxy mass estimation problems, and galaxy mass estimation dogma is never once questioned by either group.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby willendure » Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:12 am

Michael Mozina wrote:The most interesting observation from this year was the revelation that galaxy spin patterns are indeed related to ordinary baryonic mass layout, which is another excellent "sign" that their galaxy mass estimates have been the problem all along.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... stronomers


Good link, thanks.

Do you think the "systematic deviation from Newtonian predictions" that this article discusses are electrical in nature? That is, galactic scale magnetic fields cause by the current flowing around the galaxies?
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:40 am

willendure wrote:Good link, thanks.

Do you think the "systematic deviation from Newtonian predictions" that this article discusses are electrical in nature? That is, galactic scale magnetic fields cause by the current flowing around the galaxies?


If you read Peratt's paper on galaxy formation theory, his work does suggest that EM factors should be included which are not currently being included. There is likely to be some influence, but in terms of their baryonic mass calculations, the mainstream's methods have been shown to be flawed in numerous ways.

That 2006 lensing paper on "dark matter" does seem to suggest that the mainstream grossly underestimated the baryonic mass in 2006, and not all of that movement can be caused by EM factors. That isn't to say that EM factors don't have a significant influence, but they cannot make up for the various and numerous flaws in the mainstream's baryonic mass "guestimations". They underestimated entire stars in various galaxies in 2006 by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy in those colliding clusters.

Whatever missing mass that might be required to explain lensing patterns, or galaxy rotation patterns is likely to be ordinary plasma. Furthermore, any deviation from galaxy rotation patterns that are not due to the layout of ordinary mass are almost certainly related to EM field influences, not because of MOND modifications to gravity theory.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby Norman » Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:06 am

Zyxzevn wrote:I tried to discuss with some mainstream scientists about dark matter, playing the role of a "student".

Dark matter itself is a hypothesis.
What is observed is that the visible objects in galaxies have a unexplained constant rotation-velocity. Let me be clear: the speed of the objects in the galaxy is constant, independent of the radius.
Only near the centre it behaves like the solar system: the inner objects move faster.
Outside the centre, the objects move equally fast.

This observed motion can IMO only be explained as in a two arm rotating garden sprinkler. The initial velocity from the water pressure creates a faster motion of the water droplets which slows down as they move away from the sprinkler center.

In general, there are two types of overall motion in galaxies: (Even it is a electromagnetic circuit of motion in both types)
1) Galaxies with tight spundled arms and a high luminous center, suggesting an overall contraction and assembling of gas and particles. (A young galaxy)
2) Galaxies with more open spundled arms, barred structures and a lesser luninous center, suggesting an outgoing motion and dispersion of assembled gas and matter in large spheres i.e. stars, planets and everything else. (A mature galaxy)

The Milky Way is a barred structure and if my perceptions are correct, our Solar System once was formatted in the Milky Way center, initially as one huge sphere which divided into planets on its way out through the barred structure and subsequently into moons out of the planets as the system moved away towards its actual position.

The "dark matter" issue is unsolvable. As our solar System is an integrated part of the galactic rotation, the system follows the laws of this rotation, which has nothing to do with "gravitational motions" since it is governed by electromagnetic forces with a circuital motion of both attraction and repulsion.

Inserting "dark matter" in our galaxy contradicts the gravitational laws in our Solar System where the motion is different from the galactic rotation. So the hypothesis of "dark matter" is unsolvable in all accounts.

As the galactic motion is governed by the much stronger electromagnetic force, scientists needs more matter in order to explain the motion in galaxies. But as long as they confuse (electric) energy as "particle matter which attracts", they never can solve the correct calculations.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Norman
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:18 am

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby Justatruthseeker » Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:45 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:I tried to discuss with some mainstream scientists about dark matter, playing the role of a "student".

Dark matter itself is a hypothesis.
What is observed is that the visible objects in galaxies have a unexplained constant rotation-velocity. Let me be clear: the speed of the objects in the galaxy is constant, independent of the radius.
Only near the centre it behaves like the solar system: the inner objects move faster.
Outside the centre, the objects move equally fast.

I found out that the mainstream scientists simply assume that adding more invisible mass in the equations,
automatically solves the problem.
That is because they assume more mass= more gravity = more acceleration.

Adding mass doesn't create a constant speed.
So to solve that problem, they put more mass in the outside of the galaxies.
They follow the path of: More mass= more gravity = more acceleration = more speed.
They imagine a "halo of dark matter" around the galaxy.

They seem to think that the objects can attract each other in rings.
Objects near the centre attract the ones just next to it, and those attract the ones a step further away.
All the way until the end.
They should form some kind of chain that hold the fast moving outer ring within the galaxy.

But that does not work, because the chain creates a slingshot effect.
It is not a stable system.

And is not what we observe in galaxies.
What we see in galaxies are spirals, not stable chains or stable rings.

In any configuration that I can think of, that extra mass will just fly away from the galaxy.
More speed needs more acceleration.
And more acceleration needs more mass on the inside, not on the outside.
If you put more mass on the inside, there is no "halo', and the rotation velocity is not constant.

Stability and constant rotation speed can not be solved at the same time with any
distribution of dark matter.
So the dark matter hypothesis is simply wrong.

Are mainstream scientists not able to think of two problems at the same time?

Maybe I have missed some important point, please tell me. Is there some strange
relativity related effect?

But if you agree with my idea, how can we convince the mainstream that their idea is not working?


There is no way to convince them for one simple reason. There is no way in this lifetime that they are going to give up the idea that it is gravitationally driven and instead accept it is an electromagnetic phenomenon. 99.9% of the universe is plasma. In every laboratory that exists we use particle physics and electromagnetic theory to describe the behavior of plasma.

Gravitational theory applies only to .1% of the universe - planetary systems - non ionized matter. This is why as soon as you go beyond the solar system what was just tested to a 98% accuracy needs correction after correction after correction to a tune of 96% or greater.

They continually demand there are halos of dark matter, while at the same time ignoring those halos of plasma that exist around every galaxy with up to twice the mass of the galaxy itself. But more importantly they call those plasma halos "gas" and so think of them as gravitationally driven like non ionized matter instead of electromagnetically driven like plasma. By calling it gas instead of plasma they show their mindset and can not even fathom that the electromagnetic forces overpower gravity in the vast reaches of space.

Instead they continue to sledgehammer the wrong theory to the wrong state of matter. This requires them to add those epicycles to fudge the math back to a semblance of reality.

There is nothing wrong with Newtons laws or GR except they are applying them to states of matter in which gravity is not the dominating force. Once they are confined to the .1% of the universe they are applicable they need no corrections nor modifications. Just as if I tried to apply particle physics and electromagnetic theory to the behavior of planetary systems - non ionized matter - I would require those same epicycles to fudge the math to a semblance of reality. The proper physics for the proper states of matter must be used.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kanYuBptuZ0

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi ... 005703.pdf
Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untennable Scientific Theory - Fairie Dust

If one closes one's eyes they can imagine a universe of infinite possibilities, but until one opens one's eyes they will never see the light - me
Justatruthseeker
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:51 pm

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:23 pm

The dark matter myth is not the only myth regarding galaxies.

The problems with galaxies are:
- constant rotation velocity.
- spirals.
- how galaxies are formed.
These are all major problems.

Spirals

The cause of the spirals in galaxies is really a big myth..
image from wikipedia:
Image

It states that rotated ellipses are cause of spirals.
One just wonders how a galaxy can have 3 spirals.

It also states: The arms appear brighter because there are more young stars (hence more massive, bright stars).
This is in direct conflict with the ellipse explanation, but no-one wonders.

Young stars /old stars

Stars in the centre of galaxies are younger than those on the outside.
And stars are formed in the arms of galaxies.
This again is in direct conflict with the accretion-disk explanation for galaxies..

Dark matter or dark energy can not explain any of the observed problems of galaxies.
dark matter can not even explain the rotation speed correctly. (see my first post).
Even if it would exist. But from recent observations we are pretty certain that it does not exist at all.
Nor can these explanations be used for all observed problems together in a non-conflicting way.

But there is a simple solution

It is really simple:
Electromagnetism can explain them all.
All at once.

From the observations of galaxies it is clear that there is a strong electric and magnetic connection.
So it is clear that there really is an electric and magnetic influence on stars in galaxies.

It is just not clear how much, because most Astronomy scientists are totally uneducated in electromagnetism.
And they would rather invent unicorns and other invisible stuff than actually work with electrically active plasma.

I do not mind to work with bending of time and space and other ideas. But all of these theories should have
a basis in reality. Not something that is theoretical possible (like a religion). With the actual observations
we can improve such theories, and that is the only way science can improve.

Science improves with new observations, not with fantasies.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby sketch1946 » Mon Feb 13, 2017 7:17 pm

@zyxzevn
that seems a pretty good summary of some very important points... :-)

If we don't know 'yet' how stars are formed, or what are the true physical processes occurring in our own star, ie is it primarily thermonuclear fusion or electromagnetic plasma physics or some combination, how can we understand galaxies?

Surely we need to start with the sun first, and then move on to galaxies?

When you need a passing supernova to start the process of star formation, this is a bit chicken-and-egg? Like life on earth being pan-spermed from space....

"...The past decade has seen a greatly improved understanding of how the key processes of turbulence, magnetic fields and self-gravity interact to form molecular clouds and stars."

"Nevertheless, there remain numerous unsolved problems in star formation theory. These problems propagate into galaxy formation theory if we wish to understand the rate at which stars form in a galaxy and any consequences that may have for further galactic evolution."

"This problem is somewhat mitigated by the fact that, for galaxy formation theory, we do not necessarily care about the details of how stars form."

This statement sums it up beautifully, "We have seen a great improvement.... but there are numerous unsolved problems"...

ie we still don't know how stars form (and we still don't know what stars are...)

Still groping in the dark, this excellent link more than says it all... :-)
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sep ... nson6.html
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:35 am

Astronomers say they’ve found many of the universe’s missing atoms

Dark matter is now suddenly normal matter: Sparse plasma.
Something we already know, because plasma forms filamentary networks,
birkeland currents, and groups matter together.

Yet, they use all kinds of false concepts in their papers:
1) blue-shifting plasma (Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect)
2) the non-existing cosmic background
3) a chosen mixture between different cosmic background sensor data (plank)
4) "inflation" as cause of redshift
5) "gas" instead of plasma
6) mixing "big back dark matter" and "galaxy rotation dark matter".



J. Michael Shull : “They’ve assumed all the gas in the filaments is right along the line of sight between the two galaxies; and that’s probably not right.”


That is actually right. Plasma currents are indeed in line with the galaxies.
Your assumptions were wrong to begin with.

What I think that they actually proof is that the filaments are producing the cosmic background.
And that these filaments are connecting galaxies together.
And that space is filled with sparse plasma that causes redshift.
But it may take a few generations before they will get it.

“This is embarrassing, as you can imagine,” says astronomer Renyue Cen of Princeton University,

It is a lot worse than you imagine, Renyue.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests