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 querious » Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:19 pm

Good to see the predictions from Big Bang modeling are being borne out....

From http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/astronomers-say-they-ve-found-many-universe-s-missing-atoms . . .

Cosmologists know roughly how much hydrogen and helium was created during the first 20 minutes after the big bang. These numbers are corroborated by studies of the afterglow of the big bang—the so-called cosmic microwave background (CMB)—which suggests that our universe is made of roughly 70% dark energy, 23% dark matter, and only 4.6% of ordinary, or baryonic, matter. However, stars and galaxies account for only about 10% of the inferred ordinary matter, and all told researchers cannot account for up to half of atoms they think should exist.

“This is embarrassing, as you can imagine,” says astronomer Renyue Cen of Princeton University, who was not involved in the new work. “Not only do we have most of matter which is dark, and most of energy which is still darker; but of the 5% which is normal atoms, most are missing.”

Researchers think they know where the baryons are. According to the standard cosmological model, which predicts how the universe has grown and changed since its earliest days, the universe is filled with enormous strands of dark matter, and the galaxies are embedded in this so-called cosmic web. Scientists hypothesize that the missing atoms lie in diffuse clouds of highly ionized gas stretching between the galaxies. Known as warm-hot intergalactic matter (WHIM), that million-degree gas glows in x-rays, but is so thin it’s very hard to see. Using observatories that can see ultraviolet radiation, like the Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers have spotted enough WHIM to account for about 50% to 70% of the missing baryons—still leaving a significant fraction unaccounted for.

. . . .

The results suggest that matter in the cosmic web is about six times more dense than the universal average, enough to comprise about 30% of the missing mass. An independent study posted to arXiv on 15 September using the SZ technique on 260,000 galaxy pairs reached a similar conclusion.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby neilwilkes » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:16 am

Zyxzevn wrote:......how can we convince the mainstream that their idea is not working?


Maybe by pointing them at http://www.suspicious0bservers.org and also this excellent summary of why Dark Matter if not yet actually dead & buried is at least dead & on the way to the cemetery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuwkbGA ... e=youtu.be

Lots of reports to wade through but everywhere they have looked for DM they have spectacularly failed to find it - and falsified a few other ideas along the way too.
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:49 pm

neilwilkes wrote:Lots of reports to wade through but everywhere they have looked for DM they have spectacularly failed to find it - and falsified a few other ideas along the way too.


Spectacular failure ndeed. They've blown many billions of dollars now on LHC experiments, LUX experiments, Xenon-100/1T experiments, PandaX experiments, etc, etc, etc and they have found absolutely nothing that supports their exotic matter claims.

Meanwhile the standard particle physics model has passed very test, and correctly predicted every observation at LHC, including many specific decay predictions.

Even the astronomical basis of the dark matter claim has been falsified a half dozen ways now. They grossly underestimated the number of whole stars in that now infamous Bullet Clusterf*ck study by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times, and that's just *one* of the errors they made in that study. They've also found two plasma and gas halos around our own galaxy that contain more mass than all the stars combined, and that ordinary mass is located *exactly* where their 'dark matter" models predicted.

Dark matter has been the most spectacular physics failure of the 21st century. The dollars wasted on the concept have been astronomical, and the results have consistently failed to match their "predictions". The money wasted on dark matter claims is simply unbelievable, yet the mainsteam clings to their claims regardless of all the failures and all the negative results. Dark matter theory is literally the ultimate physics money pit.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby BeAChooser » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:16 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:Dark matter has been the most spectacular physics failure of the 21st century. The dollars wasted on the concept have been astronomical, and the results have consistently failed to match their "predictions". The money wasted on dark matter claims is simply unbelievable, yet the mainsteam clings to their claims regardless of all the failures and all the negative results. Dark matter theory is literally the ultimate physics money pit.


Indeed!
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby silvanelf » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:52 am

willendure wrote: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 wrote: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.

Sorry, that's baloney. MOND has only one arbitrary constant -- usually called a_0 with the dimension of acceleration -- and an interpolating function which determines the transition between Newtonian gravity and the "deep MOND" zone. But the exact form of the interpolation plays only a minor role, according to several studies of the problem of determining an "optimal" interpolating function.

This kind of gross misrepresentation of competing explanations sheds a bad light on EU proponents in general. Just saying.
silvanelf
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 12:52 pm

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

Unread postby silvanelf » Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:17 pm

Michael Mozina wrote: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.

That's a nice conspiracy theory -- but it seems detached from reality.

Michael Mozina wrote: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.

I don't see any reason to claim that MOND tries to salvage the Big Bang theory -- it is generally acknowledged by the leading researchers of MOND that MOND is not well-suited to answer cosmological questions. Furthermore MOND has nothing to do with the redshift problem, so it cannot be used to solve that problem.

You are attacking a straw man.
silvanelf
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby silvanelf » Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:53 pm

Zyxzevn wrote: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.

But there is a simple solution
It is really simple:
Electromagnetism can explain them all.
All at once.

If there is a simple solution -- where is the elaborate mathematical model? I can't find any detailed models with regard to galactic rotation curves published by EU/PC proponents. I found the article linked below, but the author is pretty cautious and he does not claim that he has a working model which explains it all.
Borrowing from the Electric/Plasma Universe theories, which assert that the much greater strength of the electromagnetism vs. gravity may explain much of the observed behavior of the universe, I attempt to show mathematically that magnetic forces could account for at least some of the supposedly anomalous ‘flattening’ observed in rotational speed of a galaxy as one proceeds radially outward. It is by no means a rigorous treatment of the subject, but hopefully at least demonstrates that such an explanation merits further investigation.

source: https://principia-scientific.org/who-needs-dark-matter-an-alternative-explanation-for-the-galactic-rotation-anomaly/
silvanelf
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:00 pm

Image
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: In the dark about dark matter

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:45 pm

silvanelf wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote:But there is a simple solution
It is really simple:
Electromagnetism can explain them all.
All at once.

If there is a simple solution -- where is the elaborate mathematical model?


I am sorry not to explain the model, because I find it so simple from an EU point of view.

But let's assume that there is a electrical polarity difference between the stars and other objects in a galaxy.
Which is essentially the basis of the Electric Universe.
I assume that the centre of a galaxy has an opposite charge compared to the stars
on the outside.

The electrical polarity differences can cause 3 things:
1) currents between the stars. These are birkeland currents.
2) electric forces between the planets
3) magnetic forces between the planets.

That is why I find it so simple. Now we suddenly have 3 extra forces.
1) causes a plasma link between 2 stars. These can cause the stars to attract each other,
with strength 1/D, where D is the distance.
2) causes a mutual attraction between 2 different charged stars. This will cause the stars to
spread out. But also be attracted to the centre. Strength= 1/R^2 to 1/R^3
3) causes the stars to align in movement and be attracted with a force that grows stronger
with speed. Strength= V/R^2

I already assumed these forces with the EU, so that is why I find it so simple and did not explain it
much further.

Different types of galaxies have different configurations, which can explain why some galaxies
can rotate very fast and some have "no dark matter".

The EU also assumes there is much more plasma between the stars.
This also gives additional forces.

So this all together gives us 4 possible forces that can be calculated exactly, IF we know the
actual distribution of the electric charge and the plasma.

The simplest distribution is a linear one, which seems to be workable, but it will give us a slightly
wrong idea. It is wrong, because the galaxy has spiral paths that have a much more complex rotation scheme.
Here I must say that I completely disagree with the mainstream stupid idea of big ellipses causing the spiral.
This stupid idea can be a cause for "dark matter" too if this model is actually used, as it does not match reality.

In reality we see stars rotating around stars rotating around stars. These do not simply form spiral paths.
Instead, from the EU perspective the spiral paths are caused by birkeland currents, which might still be active.
And from this model, we can assume that the centre is charged (let's say positively charged), and the
outside is negatively charged. And the spiral paths connects the 2 charges together via plasma.

So the electrical forces contribute to the shape of the galaxy and can influence its rotational speed.

Even without any electrical charge
we already found 2 possible causes for "unexplained attraction":
(1) interstellar plasma and (2) wrong model for spiral rotation.

If we add the electrical forces we can see that we have a very dynamic
system which can have all kinds of other behaviours.

Now let's look at actual observations of electromagnetism in galaxies:
http://scholarpedia.org/article/Galacti ... tic_fields

"Magnetic fields are a major agent in the interstellar medium (ISM) of spiral, barred, irregular and dwarf galaxies."

Assuming they used the Zeeman effect, and similar effects, we can see that these
fields can also be electric. That is because the Stark effect and other effects are very similar.
It is very hard to distinguish between both.

The big difference is that magnetic fields needs currents to exist, which is why they fade out quickly
on earth and in laboratories.
Electric fields do not and charges can stay for a long time.
That is why you can get a spark when you get out of your car.

The article also states: "The origin of the first magnetic fields in the Universe is still a mystery".
And that is because they ignore the possibility of them being electric, which gives us a very stable
situation.

So logically assuming that these are electrical fields, I have effectively proven
that electric forces are indeed active within a galaxy.
And this means that we have electromagnetic forces active.

So now we can fill in the lacking variables into our supercomputers and
use Maxwell and Newton to calculate the charge distribution of the stars in the galaxy.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Previous

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests