Is MOND theory another denial mechanism for the mainstream?

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chan ... 2-331.html
http://scitechdaily.com/astronomers-rev ... milky-way/
https://www.insidescience.org/news/new- ... ark-matter
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =3&t=15850

If you read those links, you'll note the following:

Since the now infamous "proof" of dark matter paper in 2006, there have been *numerous* published studies, all of which demonstrate that the mainsteam completely and totally botched the baryonic mass estimates of those galaxy clusters in 2006, and they screwed up royally in nearly every conceivable way possible.

They underestimated the number of stars in those galaxies by a *whopping* factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. They underestimated the brightness of those clusters by a factor of two to start with, and all of their baryonic mass calculations came from that flawed *brightness* calculation. They underestimated the number of stars *between* the galaxies in those clusters too. They couldn't have messed up more badly if they tried, and that's just the problems with their *stellar* mass estimation techniques.

Even more damning, they didn't even know until 2012 that superheated plasma is rotating around every galaxy just where their "dark matter' models predicted that more mass must exist. They didn't even know about it prior to 2012, and they didn't even know that it rotated with the galaxy until *JUST LAST YEAR*! They haven't even figured yet that the same hot plasma cloud extends into the core of the galaxy, it doesn't just rotate around the outside edges!

All of these observations are entirely consistent with EU/PC theory, and they're all consistent with our present understanding of gravity too. All of these later studies demonstrate that gravity probably works *exactly* as we believe it works, and the mainstream's baryonic mass estimates of all galaxies have been completely and totally FUBAR until just *last year*.

IMO, MOND theory is nothing more than another quaint method of denial for the mainstream. With MOND theory the mainstream can pretend to sweep all of those baryonic mass estimation problems they have right under the rug and "pretend" that it doesn't matter. They can *pretend* that no EM influences have to be considered, and the universe is controlled strictly by "gravity" to the exclusion of any EM influences. MOND theory is the *perfect* denial mechanism to hand to the press. It allows them to pretend to the press that gravity alone controls everything in space. It's just another con game, and it's another form of pure denial.

All of the observations over the past decade suggest that massive amounts of electrical current flow through our galaxy and that current heats up that hot plasma halo around the galaxy. If there's another influence *other than* gravity to be considered, it's electromagnetic influences, not some lame postdicted kludge of a gravity theory to keep them from embracing electricity in space!

It's all a con game for the press anyhow. Keep in mind that MOND theory is based upon *Newton's* formulas and concepts about gravity, not GR theory. How can the mainstream even *think* about using GR theory to stuff in "space expansion" and "dark energy" and to describe lensing patterns, while using Newton and MOND at the galaxy level? Talk about cherry picking gravity theories to suit yourself and to fix whatever ails you. Note also that the microwave background and their BAO calculations won't work out right without exotic matter, nor will their nucleosynthesis numbers work correctly either.

MOND theory isn't a "real" option, it's a denial mechanism, and public relations con game to avoid dealing with electricity in space. They want to keep everyone in the press believing that gravity and gravity alone dictates the movement of the stars. That's pure nonsense.

If the mainstream starts getting warm and fuzzy toward MOND and Newton again, then they damn well better get rid of "dark energy", and GR lensing techniques while they're at it. They can't have their GR cosmology cake and eat it too with MOND. What a bunch of hooey.

I think they're just desperate to avoid dealing with Birkeland's work in the lab, and Alfven's work on the application of circuit theory to events in space. They're running scared. LHC and LUX ate most of the dark matter lunch money and they've found exactly nothing. Lux-LZ is probably their last chance to find exotic matter.

From the second link:

“This flies in the face of expectations,” says Edmund Hodges-Kluck, assistant research scientist. “People just assumed that the disk of the Milky Way spins while this enormous reservoir of hot gas is stationary – but that is wrong. This hot gas reservoir is rotating as well, just not quite as fast as the disk.”

There's your sign. They "assumed" one thing, and "discovered" something else altogether. Will they be men and women enough to admit their numerous mass estimation mistakes and come clean with respect to their need to upgrade their galaxy mass estimation techniques, or will they continue to push MOND at the press? Will they try to have their GR cake with dark energy and eat it too with Newton and MOND?

[willendure]

MOND isn't a theory, if it is being called a theory then something is badly wrong. It is a fudging of Newtons laws to fit the data and it was conceived as such. I think its originators were honest about that, but perhaps it has gradually been twisted into something else. It works by adding some constants into Newton's laws, then choosing values for them to fit the data. I say it isn't a theory because there is no attempt to ascribe it some explanatory powers or map it onto some physical phenomenon.

So we can fit a curve to the data? but not perfectly. Perhaps we should just fit a Bezier curve, or a Taylor expansion, or a quartic function...

[willendure]

It's all a con game for the press anyhow. Keep in mind that MOND theory is based upon *Newton's* formulas and concepts about gravity, not GR theory. How can the mainstream even *think* about using GR theory to stuff in "space expansion" and "dark energy" and to describe lensing patterns, while using Newton and MOND at the galaxy level?

GR does not over-rule Newton. GR is the same as Newton's laws over a wide range, its just that Newton's laws break down in more extreme situations where the gravitational acceleration is high. GR extends Newton's work to cover that region too.

With galaxy rotation the situation is different, because the accelerations are very low there. Consequently, GR has nothing to add over Newtons laws to explain the rotation.

Perhaps at the low end Newtons laws are also failing? And that is where quantum gravity theories come in - they extend Newtons laws down into the very small acceleration region.

Newton and GR are very accurate theories - a lot of people on here claim GR is bunk. I don't think GR will be replaced by something completely different. Just as GR builds on Newton, so a new theory of gravity will build on GR to make it more complete and accurate and to provide a deeper explanation of how it works. GR will remain inside that new theory though, as an approximation of it.

[JouniJokela]

Mond is developed by "Moti", Mordehai Milgrom.

And as I have had some e-mail exchange with him about the issue, while I have reviewed also this theory, I feel I can even answer to the question presented in the title of this thread.

First a link on "what we are actually talking about here";
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_ ... n_dynamics

My conclusion is that MOND is definetly not any Denial. It's much rather an attempt to accept the fact that there is no hint of any Dark Matter, and some new better theory must thus be developed.

So it's actually pretty annoying to just throw such a claim to Milgrom (the title), as it rather seems that he has abandoned the Mainstream already at 1983 and started to seek some new theory, and do some true science.

This true science aspect is clearly shown by the Observational evidence;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_ ... e_for_MOND

Thus, I would rather say, that Thanks to Milgrom we have already a wide stream which can accept that there is no Dark Matter, so though his Theory is definetly not complete
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_ ... s_for_MOND

after this work is done, any theory of yours, mine or anyone, which explains the Gravity without a Dark Matter has become more ease to the Mainstream to accept.

So thanks to you, Moti!
You sure had the key to science;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
And the courage to seek new rules.

[Michael Mozina]

Mond is developed by "Moti", Mordehai Milgrom.

And as I have had some e-mail exchange with him about the issue, while I have reviewed also this theory, I feel I can even answer to the question presented in the title of this thread.

First a link on "what we are actually talking about here";
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_ ... n_dynamics

My conclusion is that MOND is definetly not any Denial. It's much rather an attempt to accept the fact that there is no hint of any Dark Matter, and some new better theory must thus be developed.

So it's actually pretty annoying to just throw such a claim to Milgrom (the title), as it rather seems that he has abandoned the Mainstream already at 1983 and started to seek some new theory, and do some true science.

This true science aspect is clearly shown by the Observational evidence;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_ ... e_for_MOND

Thus, I would rather say, that Thanks to Milgrom we have already a wide stream which can accept that there is no Dark Matter, so though his Theory is definetly not complete
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_ ... s_for_MOND

after this work is done, any theory of yours, mine or anyone, which explains the Gravity without a Dark Matter has become more ease to the Mainstream to accept.

So thanks to you, Moti!
You sure had the key to science;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
And the courage to seek new rules.

I can see your point of view. I can appreciate the fact that Mordehai Milgrom is a fellow skeptic as it relates to the existence of dark matter, and I applaud his personal efforts work to wean us away from supernatural constructs. That part is all good from my perspective. Unfortunately, his theory doesn't wean us away from the core "assumption" that gravity is the only important influence in a mostly plasma universe. That part is unfortunate IMO.

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =3&t=15850

There is *ample* evidence that the mainstream completely messed up with respect to the amount of ordinary baryonic mass that was present in those colliding galaxy clusters, which does tend to suggest that there was/is more mass present than they accounted for in 2006. Those revelations of stellar underestimates do not necessarily favor a MOND theory or an exotic matter theory. That high-temperature plasma halo around our galaxy that was discovered in 2012 however absolutely favors electric universe theory, and it also pokes holes in a MOND interpretation of galaxy rotation patterns.

[Higgsy]

Unfortunately, his theory doesn't wean us away from the core "assumption" that gravity is the only important influence in a mostly plasma universe. That part is unfortunate IMO.

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =3&t=15850

There is *ample* evidence that the mainstream completely messed up with respect to the amount of ordinary baryonic mass that was present in those colliding galaxy clusters, which does tend to suggest that there was/is more mass present than they accounted for in 2006. Those revelations of stellar underestimates do not necessarily favor a MOND theory or an exotic matter theory. That high-temperature plasma halo around our galaxy that was discovered in 2012 however absolutely favors electric universe theory, and it also pokes holes in a MOND interpretation of galaxy rotation patterns.

Hi Michael, to continue with my quest to understand EU/plasma universe theories and why mainstream is mistaken, I am interested in how EU explains the observed collision of the galaxy clusters (Bullet cluster?) better than the mainstream. So I have some questions, if you'd be kind enough to help me:

With regard to the Bullet cluster, what is the basis for claims that it is evidence for Dark Matter?
How are the masses in the Bullet cluster estimated?
If the baryonic mass estimates are wrong, how does that invalidate the above?
Do the mainstream ignore electromagnetic influences altogether in their model of the Bullet Cluster? ("the core "assumption" that gravity is the only important influence in a mostly plasma universe.")
Can you expand on how the plasma halo round our galaxy favours EU theory? What particular part of EU theory is supported (and, of course, in what way is it evidence against mainstream astrophysics?)
How does it poke holes in MOND?

[willendure]

How does it poke holes in MOND?

Even if MOND were found to be true, or some of the other alternative gravity theories (MiHSc is on this graph too), there is still a discrepancy between what the 'theory' predicts. You can see it on this graph:



MOND is arbitrary in that it has tune-able parameters that get tweaked to fit the data. It also fails to completely fit the data, suggesting that its 'form' is wrong and it cannot be accepted as an explanation for why things differ from Newton's gravity as they do.

So I would say its at least as likely that electrical effects play a role, as any of the alternative hypotheses turning out to be correct.

[Michael Mozina]

Unfortunately, his theory doesn't wean us away from the core "assumption" that gravity is the only important influence in a mostly plasma universe. That part is unfortunate IMO.

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =3&t=15850

There is *ample* evidence that the mainstream completely messed up with respect to the amount of ordinary baryonic mass that was present in those colliding galaxy clusters, which does tend to suggest that there was/is more mass present than they accounted for in 2006. Those revelations of stellar underestimates do not necessarily favor a MOND theory or an exotic matter theory. That high-temperature plasma halo around our galaxy that was discovered in 2012 however absolutely favors electric universe theory, and it also pokes holes in a MOND interpretation of galaxy rotation patterns.

Hi Michael, to continue with my quest to understand EU/plasma universe theories and why mainstream is mistaken, I am interested in how EU explains the observed collision of the galaxy clusters (Bullet cluster?) better than the mainstream. So I have some questions, if you'd be kind enough to help me:

With regard to the Bullet cluster, what is the basis for claims that it is evidence for Dark Matter?
How are the masses in the Bullet cluster estimated?

You're already asking the right questions, and you're well on your way to freeing yourself from any need of supernatural claims.

In that 2006 landmark paper on dark matter, they estimated the mass based on two radically different techniques.

In the first mass estimate technique, they measured the mass that was present in the clusters based on gravitational lensing data and GR theory. This technique measures the deflection of light as light is bent around the galaxy as it passes by the galaxy. That figure is probably accurate IMO because it's based upon the *least* number of "assumptions". As long as GR theory is correct (and I believe that it is), this particular mass estimation technique is going to provide us with a pretty good estimate of the mass that is present in the clusters. If the bending of light is not related to gravitational lensing, but it's related to the scattering and bending of light through plasma, this technique could produce inaccurate estimates. I personally think that this mass estimation technique is accurate.

They also observed the 'brightness" of the various galaxies in the cluster, and they used that brightness figure to estimate the mass of the galaxies using a different technique. This particular mass estimate technique is based upon a very large number of different assumptions. It requires us to know how much scattering is taking place between the galaxies in the cluster and the Earth. It requires a stellar "estimate' based on how many bright stars we can see light from, vs. the number of smaller stars that we cannot see light from. It requires us to estimate the number of stars between galaxies too, and it assumes that all mass would necessarily be 'visible' to us. This mass estimation technique was later blown completely out of the water by the way. The labeled this mass calculation from their brightness estimate technique the "baryonic mass estimate' of the clusters.

They then compared the two mass estimates. The lensing technique suggested that there was much more mass present than their brightness calculations would suggest.

If the baryonic mass estimates are wrong, how does that invalidate the above?

Both of their mass estimation techniques were "assumed" to be true, and they labeled the difference between the two estimates as "dark matter". Since the one estimate was based upon 'brightness', the extra mass was assumed to be 'invisible" (aka dark). They started endowing their 'dark matter' with all sorts of special properties.

Do the mainstream ignore electromagnetic influences altogether in their model of the Bullet Cluster? ("the core "assumption" that gravity is the only important influence in a mostly plasma universe.")
Can you expand on how the plasma halo round our galaxy favours EU theory? What particular part of EU theory is supported (and, of course, in what way is it evidence against mainstream astrophysics?)
How does it poke holes in MOND?

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =3&t=15850

A couple of years ago I started rounding up the various studies since 2006 that demonstrate very conclusively that the mainstream *grossly underestimated* the mass that was present based on the "brightness" technique. In 2008 they "discovered' that galaxies are actually at least twice as bright we estimated because half of the light is absorbed and scattered before it reaches Earth. In short, they underestimated the amount of scattering taking place in space, so already their "brightness" mass estimates could easily be off by a factor of two.

They also used a 'stellar estimation technique" as it relates to 'guestimating' the number of smaller stars in those galaxies which are too dim to be observed from Earth, compared to the number of giant stars that emit enough light to be seen from Earth. In 2009 they found out that they'd been underestimating the number of smaller stars like our own sun by a factor of 4.

In 2010, they discovered that they'd be underestimating the number of smaller stars (dwarf stars) by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the type of galaxy.

In 2012 they "discovered" that galaxies are embedded inside of a gigantic halo of hot plasma which contains more mass than all the stars in the galaxies combined.

In 2014 they discovered that they'd been underestimating the number of stars *between* galaxies too.

Every single discovery they made about galaxies since 2006 verify that the mass estimates which were based on brightness were worthless. They demonstrate that the mainstream *grossly* underestimated the amount of what they called "baryonic" matter based on the brightness technique. There never was any need for the mainstream to introduce *supernatural* forms of matter to explain the difference between their two mass estimation technques. The real problem wasn't the existence of invisible matter,. The real problem was related to the *flaws* in their brightness techninue. Period.

With 20/20 hindsight, it's pretty clear now that their bayonic mass estimaes based on brightness were worthless numbers and that much more ordinary matter is present than they "guestimated" in 2006.

EU/PC theory can *easily* accept that there is more ordinary matter present in those galaxies, but LCMD theory cannot. Why not? If they simply replaced supernatural agents with ordinary plasma, their nucleosynthesis claims no longer work correctly, and their background CMB claims start to crublle. They can't even adjust their figures by say 20 percent or their entire theory falls apart.

The halo of hot plasma is most damaging to their dark matter claims because it's located exatly where we'd expect to find 'dark matter' based upon their own models. Their own models predicted that dark matter forms a halo in which the stars are embedded. That halo of hot plasma sits right where their models require it to exist in terms of their galaxy rotation models. In short, there's no need for any forms of exotic matter to explain either the lensing data, or the galaxy rotation patterns that we observe. Ordinary *plasma* works well to explain it.

[Higgsy]

How does it poke holes in MOND?

Even if MOND were found to be true, or some of the other alternative gravity theories (MiHSc is on this graph too), there is still a discrepancy between what the 'theory' predicts. You can see it on this graph:

SNIP

MOND is arbitrary in that it has tune-able parameters that get tweaked to fit the data. It also fails to completely fit the data, suggesting that its 'form' is wrong and it cannot be accepted as an explanation for why things differ from Newton's gravity as they do.

So I would say its at least as likely that electrical effects play a role, as any of the alternative hypotheses turning out to be correct.

OK, I understand what you're saying about MOND, and I do understand the criticisms of it. But Michael said the discovery of the galactic plasma halo pokes holes in MOND, and my question was how does it do so?

That high-temperature plasma halo around our galaxy that was discovered in 2012 however absolutely favors electric universe theory, and it also pokes holes in a MOND interpretation of galaxy rotation patterns.

In other words, why is MOND a less likely model now than it was before the discovery of the plasma halo (actually, I think the plasma halo itself was known - the new discovery is that it is rotating more or less with the galactic disc)?

Also, when you say that electrical effects play a role, what are you referring to? Are you saying that electrical effects explain the flat rotation curves of galaxies and clusters? If so, is there a quantitative model that I can see, which shows how electrical effects modify gravitational effects to give the observed flat rotation curves?

[Michael Mozina]

In other words, why is MOND a less likely model now than it was before the discovery of the plasma halo (actually, I think the plasma halo itself was known - the new discovery is that it is rotating more or less with the galactic disc)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter_halo

That plasma halo they found in *2012* was shown to rotate like their dark matter halo models predicted. Not only did they find more mass in 2012 than they even knew existed prior to 2012, they just discovered that it's located in halo around the galaxy just like their dark matter models, it extends way beyond the galaxy just like their models, and it rotates just like their dark matter models.

Also, when you say that electrical effects play a role, what are you referring to? Are you saying that electrical effects explain the flat rotation curves of galaxies and clusters? If so, is there a quantitative model that I can see, which shows how electrical effects modify gravitational effects to give the observed flat rotation curves?

Peratt did a number of computer simulations to show how plasma and EM fields create the common galaxy shapes we observe:

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation

Not only can EU/PC theory help to explain those rotation patterns, it helps to explain the high temperature of that hot plasma halo.

MOND theory doesn't benefit from anything we've learned about galaxies since 2006.

[Higgsy]

Hi Michael,

In other words, why is MOND a less likely model now than it was before the discovery of the plasma halo (actually, I think the plasma halo itself was known - the new discovery is that it is rotating more or less with the galactic disc)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter_halo

That plasma halo they found in *2012* was shown to rotate like their dark matter halo models predicted.

I'd like to read about the 2012 discovery. Do you have a reference for that?

Not only did they find more mass in 2012 than they even knew existed prior to 2012, they just discovered that it's located in halo around the galaxy just like their dark matter models, it extends way beyond the galaxy just like their models, and it rotates just like their dark matter models.

I was under the impression that the presence of a hot gas or plasma halo around galaxies and clusters that has the same or more mass than the stars in the cluster was well accepted before 2012? Isn't that right? Isn't the dispalcement of that gas halo not a key part of the findings of the Bullet Cluster work?

But in any case, my original question was about how the plasma halo pokes holes in MOND - are you saying MOND (and Dark Matter) are not needed because the plasma halo has enough additional mass to explain the situation without need ing Dark Matter or MOND?

Also, when you say that electrical effects play a role, what are you referring to? Are you saying that electrical effects explain the flat rotation curves of galaxies and clusters? If so, is there a quantitative model that I can see, which shows how electrical effects modify gravitational effects to give the observed flat rotation curves?

Peratt did a number of computer simulations to show how plasma and EM fields create the common galaxy shapes we observe:

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation

Thanks. So this might explain the evolution of spiral galaxies but does not explain completely the observed galaxy rotation curves or cluster dynamics? Am I reading that right?

[Michael Mozina]

I'd like to read about the 2012 discovery. Do you have a reference for that?

Sure Higgsy, you can find it here:
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2012/halo/

All the dark matter and dark energy references can be found in this thread by the way:

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =3&t=15850

I was under the impression that the presence of a hot gas or plasma halo around galaxies and clusters that has the same or more mass than the stars in the cluster was well accepted before 2012? Isn't that right?

Other studies have shown that the Milky Way and other galaxies are embedded in warm gas, with temperatures between 100,000 and one million degrees, and there have been indications that a hotter component with a temperature greater than a million degrees is also present. This new research provides evidence that the mass in the hot gas halo enveloping the Milky Way is much greater than that of the warm gas.

Well, sort of, but not exactly. They did know that they had a "missing baryon" problem prior to 2012 only because their mass estimation problems were so bad, that they couldn't even locate half of the baryons that they knew *must* be there according to their own model. I'm sure that some of them assumed that the missing baryons might have to do with a "warm gas" halo around the galaxy, but none of them predicted the fact it's in the form of a hot plasma, it's temperature, or it's rotation characteristics, all of which simply *fall out* of EU/PC theory by definition. Peratt's work pretty much requires that halo to exist.

Isn't the dispalcement of that gas halo not a key part of the findings of the Bullet Cluster work?

It's not actually a *gas*. It's a hot, current carrying plasma that is *rooted to the stellar structure* by the current patterns and circuits. It doesn't all just collide and stay put into those pink regions they observed, if that's what you're trying to suggest. Keep in mind that in EU/PC theory, the center of the galaxy is the center point and concentration point of all the *current* the binds all the plasma into current carrying circuits. It's not going to 'collide' and stay put in the pink regions of their study. The plasmas may switch from one galaxy to another, but they'll track to the galaxies, not region of the "collision". You *must* consider the current and the affect it has in a "collision" of clusters.

But in any case, my original question was about how the plasma halo pokes holes in MOND - are you saying MOND (and Dark Matter) are not needed because the plasma halo has enough additional mass to explain the situation without need ing Dark Matter or MOND?

I'm suggesting that between the mass of all that plasma, it's motion around the galaxy, and the *current* that flows through our galaxy, changing 'gravity' isn't necessary. We simply *must* include EM field influences in the motion, not just change gravity and assume that gravity alone dictates the movement patterns of galaxies. Peratt's work on this issue is *awesome*.

Thanks. So this might explain the evolution of spiral galaxies but does not explain completely the observed galaxy rotation curves or cluster dynamics? Am I reading that right?

Not really. His models wouldn't explain the evolution of galaxies if it didn't also explain their motion patterns too. Peratt's model includes EM field influences that also affect the rotation patterns, and therefore his models show how the galaxies evolve and how they move without changing gravity theory.

[Michael Mozina]

http://chandra.harvard.edu/blog/node/399

However, we didn't explain *how* the gas got to be so hot and we obtained a number of questions from people about this.

I'll bet. Nothing like a million+ degree enigma on your hands thanks to your 'discovery'.

Smita Mathur, one of the co-authors, explained to me that there could be several different energy sources for heating the gas. One leading candidate is a galactic wind driven by supernova explosions. Another is that material from well outside the galaxy fell inwards and was heated by shock waves in the process.

What a bunch of pure nonsense. Here on Earth we heat and sustain plasma at high temperatures with *electricity*! The single most logical explanation for a high temp halo is not a spherically identical bunch of supernova events, or from an external galaxy colliding with our galaxy, and hitting everything at once. That's just pure nonsense on a stick! Who even wrote this crap?

It's important to appreciate that there does not need to be a continuous heating source for the gas.

Bull! A shock wave isn't going to heat everything evenly or maintain it at high temperatures. Space is *cold* in their model, particularly away from all the stars. Any excess heat would be dissipated rapidly in the form of photons like they one's they're observing in the first place.

Because the gas is extremely diffuse it loses energy by radiation very slowly,

Pure horse pucky. A high temperature ion is going to release it's energy *faster* in a diffuse and cold environment because nothing close by is radiating heat back into the ion and heating it back up again! That's a completely absurd statement. They have physics standing on it's head. They live inside of a universe of "alternative facts" apparently.

implying that it also cools down very slowly, over a timescale of ten billion years or more.

More horse manure. There's no sunlight way out there to keep anything heated up. If we tossed *anything* at millions of degrees into deep space, it's going to cool off in short order (days), even if it's a *dense* and massive object. Tiny ions and individual particles will emit heat and cool off *instantly* (seconds/hours) by emitting photons. Do they actually think that the ion can emit photons for millions of years and not lose energy? Really?

That claim is utterly irrational and it's complete and utter nonsense.

There *must* be a continuous source of energy that maintains the plasma at such hot temperatures, and the only logical choice is *electricity*, but that's the "forbidden term" in astronomy.

So, once the gas is heated it stays hot for a very long time.

The only thing that stays heated continuously is the hot air coming out of their mouths.

This has to be the single *lamest* and most pitiful "explanation" for anything that I've ever seen. Their "explanation" defies the laws of physics. There's nothing true or even logical about their so called "explanation", it's a complete pile of horse manure.

Another popular question was whether this hot gas could be an explanation for the mysterious dark matter thought to be the dominant form of matter in the universe. The short answer is no and this is something we tried to address in the press release. The hot gas is made of baryons, particles such as protons and neutrons that make up more than 99.9% of the mass of atoms found in the universe, including our bodies, the Earth and the stars. The mass in baryons, otherwise known as normal matter, is a small fraction of the total mass in the universe, and the rest is dark matter. As Smita explained in answering a question by email, the fraction of mass contained in baryons is a universal number. In our Galaxy the observed fraction of baryons was smaller than the universal fraction, meaning that some baryons are missing. The new result implies that the fraction of baryons is larger than previously thought, making it closer to this universal number. In other words, fewer baryons are missing. It is possible that all of the missing baryons are contained in this hot gas, but further observations are needed to test this idea.

In other words, Smita cites *dogma* as the reason this previously "missing mass" doesn't destroy dogma because they knew that some mass was missing. Of course none of that accounts for all the stellar mass estimation problems with that 2006 study, or the fact that there's *current* sustaining that plasma at high temperature and it's rotating exactly the way their dark matter models predicted and required.

They keep finding more satellite galaxies all the time around our own galaxy, and they really have no idea how far this plasma feature extends, so it could in fact contain *all* of the 'missing mass' they haven't accounted for yet. They only reason they won't accept that fact is because it *would* destroy their dogma if they did.

He's "acting" as though the fact they knew that some baryons were missing saves him in some way. What a bunch of nonsense. They *didn't* know that the missing baryons would be located *exactly* where their dark matter models required and predicted, and the fact it matches that model *does* have a dramatic effect on the rotational patterns of their model. The only limitation is the amount of mass present, and they don't even know that number yet!

[comingfrom]

MM.

Aren't the calculations for the amount of DM to ordinary matter a ratio?
so that, if there is more ordinary matter than estimated, then there is also more Dark Matter than estimated.

Of course, I don't believe there is such a thing as non interactive Dark Matter interacting with ordinary matter.
They simply haven't fixed the hundreds of years old equations that underpin all the math they are using.

Not much was known about electricity in Sir Isaac Newton's day, and yet his equations are still the foundation of gravity theory, relativity, and all the Dark theories. If they are going to modify Newtonian dynamics, they really need to figure out how Newton was wrong in the first place. Instead, they are forever tacking on fixes. Adding a new theory and math for each new scenario that the old equations can't solve.

~Paul

[Higgsy]

I'd like to read about the 2012 discovery. Do you have a reference for that?

Sure Higgsy, you can find it here:
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2012/halo/

Thanks. I followed that link to the actual published paper, which is what I was interested in reviewing. For reference, it's here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.5037.pdf

All the dark matter and dark energy references can be found in this thread by the way:

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =3&t=15850

Thanks.

I was under the impression that the presence of a hot gas or plasma halo around galaxies and clusters that has the same or more mass than the stars in the cluster was well accepted before 2012? Isn't that right?

Other studies have shown that the Milky Way and other galaxies are embedded in warm gas, with temperatures between 100,000 and one million degrees, and there have been indications that a hotter component with a temperature greater than a million degrees is also present. This new research provides evidence that the mass in the hot gas halo enveloping the Milky Way is much greater than that of the warm gas.

Well, sort of, but not exactly. They did know that they had a "missing baryon" problem prior to 2012 only because their mass estimation problems were so bad, that they couldn't even locate half of the baryons that they knew *must* be there according to their own model.

Yes, the paper referenced above is quite clear about that: "We have known for a while that the baryonic mass of galaxies, including that of our own Milky way, falls short of what is expected for their total mass...Here we use both absorption and emission observations to derive the physical properties of the warm-hot plasma. We show that the X-ray observations probe million degree gas, with low density, extending over 100 kpc and having mass over ten billion solar masses."

I'm sure that some of them assumed that the missing baryons might have to do with a "warm gas" halo around the galaxy, but none of them predicted the fact it's in the form of a hot plasma, it's temperature, or it's rotation characteristics, all of which simply *fall out* of EU/PC theory by definition. Peratt's work pretty much requires that halo to exist.

OK - a couple of questions:
If they didn't think that there might be missing mass in million to ten million degree gas, then why probe the IGM specifically to detect it?
Isn't the very fact that the gas is at > million degrees enough to mean that it will be at least partly ionised and so a plasma?
I thought that you were indicating that the hot plasma could be regarded as the mass the mainstream thinks is in Dark Matter, but it appears from the paper, and from what you say above, that it is more likely to be baryonic matter that the mainstream models predicted to be there but hadn't been detected as yet. Is that a correct interpretation?
If that's the case, how does this discovery poke holes in MOND? (My original question)
You say that the existence of this halo falls out of EU/PC theory by definition. This is precisely the sort of thing I am hoping to learn about. Could you explain how this discovery falls out of EU/PC theory by definition?
You also say that it was found to be rotating with the galaxy, but that's not in this press release or paper (unless I'm missing it). Could you give me a reference to the discovery of the rotation?

Isn't the dispalcement of that gas halo not a key part of the findings of the Bullet Cluster work?

It's not actually a *gas*. It's a hot, current carrying plasma that is *rooted to the stellar structure* by the current patterns and circuits. It doesn't all just collide and stay put into those pink regions they observed, if that's what you're trying to suggest. Keep in mind that in EU/PC theory, the center of the galaxy is the center point and concentration point of all the *current* the binds all the plasma into current carrying circuits. It's not going to 'collide' and stay put in the pink regions of their study. The plasmas may switch from one galaxy to another, but they'll track to the galaxies, not region of the "collision". You *must* consider the current and the affect it has in a "collision" of clusters.

I'm sorry, you've lost me there. My question was about the displacement of the hot gas/plasma halo from the stars in both galaxy clusters involved in the Bullet cluster collision. Isn't this displacement (the fact that the hot plasma halo is at a different location from the stars) a key finding of the Bullet cluster investigation?

But in any case, my original question was about how the plasma halo pokes holes in MOND - are you saying MOND (and Dark Matter) are not needed because the plasma halo has enough additional mass to explain the situation without need ing Dark Matter or MOND?

I'm suggesting that between the mass of all that plasma, it's motion around the galaxy, and the *current* that flows through our galaxy, changing 'gravity' isn't necessary. We simply *must* include EM field influences in the motion, not just change gravity and assume that gravity alone dictates the movement patterns of galaxies. Peratt's work on this issue is *awesome*.

Great. I agree absolutely that EM field influences should be included in any model that involves plasmas, and strong galactic or cluster scale magnetic fields. So, what magnitude of magnetic field should the models include? What magnitude of current should be included? When it comes to dense neutral (or near-neutral) objects like stars, to what extent can their dynamics be influenced elctromagnetically? So, just so I understand the EU position unambiguously, you are saying that the mass of the hot plasma halo, its rotation and the current that flows through the galaxy together are sufficient to explain all the obdservations without calling on any additional non-interacting mass? That would be a wonderful solution, and we could immediately dispense with all the searches for Dark Matter.