EU fascinating but nearly impossible to understand

[Michael Mozina]

But the mainstream is still in utter denial, and wants to use invisible and unproven dark matter instead.
That is because it is easier to follow the same methodology and thinking, instead of accepting
a small mistake due to the oversimplification in the model of plasma.

Nowhere was this demonstrated more directly than their 'discovery' of a million degree oxygen plasma halo around our galaxy in 2012 which was predated by this comment about "dark matter' prior to that discovery:

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... ark-energy

We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is. First, it is dark, meaning that it is not in the form of stars and planets that we see. Observations show that there is far too little visible matter in the universe to make up the 27% required by the observations. Second, it is not in the form of dark clouds of normal matter, matter made up of particles called baryons. We know this because we would be able to detect baryonic clouds by their absorption of radiation passing through them.

I "think" someone changed the 27% figure recently, but their erroneous claim is exactly the same as it's always been. They claim to know that "dark matter" is not made of normal baryonic material because they'd be able to 'detect' it, as though at any point in human history we had 100 percent perfect technology, and a perfect and completely accurate cosmology model.

They did *finally* detect a hot plasma halo in 2012 and they detected a second, cooler hydrogen gas halo again *just this year*.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chan ... 2-331.html
https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/galaxy ... ssing-mass

Combined, these two different halos of ordinary baryonic matter that they'd never "detected" until five years ago contain *far more mass than all the stars combined*! In fact they detected *too* much baryonic mass in those two halos to just solve their missing baryon problem. They went *way over budget* with both halos. Instead of admitting that they don't know *squat* about what dark matter might be made of, they continue to claim the same bogus things that they've always claimed and simply ignore the fact that they *have* been finding more and more ordinary mass over time.

They didn't even find the hot plasma halo until recently (last five years) because they didn't add EM fields to their equations, so those oxygen atoms should not be that hot and they didn't expect to find them in that million degree plasma state.

[Higgsy]

Nowhere was this demonstrated more directly than their 'discovery' of a million degree oxygen plasma halo around our galaxy in 2012

Oxygen plasma? Really? I think you might want to check your facts there. Chandra probed oxygen transitions in the X-ray, but that doesn't mean the bulk of the ions are oxygen. What do you think it might be? Chandra, though detecting oxygen transitions, wasn't detecting oxygen plasma. Why do you think that would be?

They did *finally* detect a hot plasma halo in 2012 and they detected a second, cooler hydrogen gas halo again *just this year*.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chan ... 2-331.html
https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/galaxy ... ssing-mass

Combined, these two different halos of ordinary baryonic matter that they'd never "detected" until five years ago contain *far more mass than all the stars combined*! In fact they detected *too* much baryonic mass in those two halos to just solve their missing baryon problem. They went *way over budget* with both halos.

Could you give us a reference to that over budget please?

I have a couple of questions for you:

1) Do you agree that one of the major motivations for postulating dark matter is the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies?
2) Do you agree that in your view the discovery of the haloes goes at least some way to explaining the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies?
3) Do you therefore agree that the existence of these haloes is a counterargument to dark matter so far as gaaxy rotation curves go?

If you agree with these, I have one more question for you.

[Higgsy]

The mainstream models plasma as simple as possible. This leads to many oversimplifications,
like: "there is not electric field in plasma, because plasma is a good conductor".
The electric universe sees that plasma reacts to electric fields by generating currents.
These currents again generate magnetic fields, which change again generates electric fields.
This causes the plasma electric currents to act layered and in possible even in waves.
And unlike normal matter, the plasma shapes and moves according to the electromagnetic fields.

You have obviously never opened a standard textbook on plasma physics. Or if you have, you haven't been able to make sense of it.

[Open Mind]

So quick initial question here which google didn't answer simply. I recall that there was originally a theory of aether to explain a medium through which light could propagate. I think I recall thinking that this aether theory was a construct to allow us to continue to see all things, light included as a particle, which did seem like a cop out similar to dark matter in my mind intuitively. And it was then discarded as light was acknowledged as non particle or wave.

But now in an attempt to catch up on Electric Universe Theory, I thought a good starting point would be to understand what Plasma is. And it seems its considered the new Aether? Are we back to Aether now as plasma? Because if I'm correct in assuming it was a construct to allow for all things being particles, that doesn't seem to be a necessary assumption if we consider electricity. Electricity isn't particles is it? Or is it. Doh !!

[comingfrom]

what Plasma is. And it seems its considered the new Aether?

The way I see it, mainstream replaced the aether with "the fabric of space/time".

Plasma is not the aether, because plasma is only where the plasma is, whereas the aether, or "the fabric of space/time" is theorized to be omnipresent.
Plasma is simply another state of baryonic matter, where atomic and subatomic particles are in more free state than gas.

Electricity isn't particles is it?

I still don't know the EU definition of electricity.
Mainstream doesn't seem to have one (unless you consider "a form of energy" a good enough definition).

Some say electrons have to be moving, or ions.
I ask, what's pushing the electrons and ions?

Paul

[Michael Mozina]

Nowhere was this demonstrated more directly than their 'discovery' of a million degree oxygen plasma halo around our galaxy in 2012

Oxygen plasma? Really? I think you might want to check your facts there. Chandra probed oxygen transitions in the X-ray, but that doesn't mean the bulk of the ions are oxygen. What do you think it might be? Chandra, though detecting oxygen transitions, wasn't detecting oxygen plasma. Why do you think that would be?

They did *finally* detect a hot plasma halo in 2012 and they detected a second, cooler hydrogen gas halo again *just this year*.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chan ... 2-331.html
https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/galaxy ... ssing-mass

Combined, these two different halos of ordinary baryonic matter that they'd never "detected" until five years ago contain *far more mass than all the stars combined*! In fact they detected *too* much baryonic mass in those two halos to just solve their missing baryon problem. They went *way over budget* with both halos.

Could you give us a reference to that over budget please?

Ok, I'll admit that it was sloppy of me to call it an oxygen plasma, because yes we all know that hydrogen is the most common element in space because it has the highest charge/mass ratio and more easily escapes the gravity of suns.

I'd be the first to admit that you can choose to either *minimize* the potential mass in those halos, or *maximize* it, depending on whether you're trying to make your case or mine in terms of the total mass in those halos, but either way you've got serious problems with your mass estimates of galaxies that's getting worse every year.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15850

I have a couple of questions for you:

1) Do you agree that one of the major motivations for postulating dark matter is the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies?

Sure, but when I took astronomy in college the term didn't "assume" that "dark matter" was non-baryonic or exotic. We seemed to have a clear understanding of our own ignorance back then, whereas today you folks seem to think that your baryonic mass estimates are "perfect" down to a few percentage points, so any missing mass must be exotic in nature. Meanwhile we keep finding out that your baryonic mass estimation models have been all screwed up.

2) Do you agree that in your view the discovery of the haloes goes at least some way to explaining the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies?

Assuming that the density layout of those halos are similar to your 'dark matter' models, yes. In other words I'd expect the density to increase near the core of the galaxy. All that mass has only been "dark" however because we haven't identified it until recently. It's not exotic matter, just ordinary matter. Your cosmology model won't work correctly (BAO/Nucleosynthesis) if we try to replace all your exotic matter with ordinary matter, even if your galaxy rotation models would work with ordinary matter. You're therefore reduced to burying your head in the sand with respect to all of the flaws in your baryonic mass estimation techniques and forced to keep up the pretense that your models are still "perfect' to within a few percentage points.

3) Do you therefore agree that the existence of these haloes is a counterargument to dark matter so far as gaaxy rotation curves go?

Counterargument? You'll have to elaborate. The fact we keep finding flaws in your baryonic mass estimates demonstrates that you didn't actually find any 'proof' of dark matter in 2006 as you folks erroneous claimed, you found "proof' that your baryonic mass estimates based on photon counts were horrifically flawed as numerous studies have since demonstrated. Finding the plasma and gas halos did nothing to help you demonstrate your claim about the existence of exotic matter.

[Higgsy]

Nowhere was this demonstrated more directly than their 'discovery' of a million degree oxygen plasma halo around our galaxy in 2012

Oxygen plasma? Really? I think you might want to check your facts there. Chandra probed oxygen transitions in the X-ray, but that doesn't mean the bulk of the ions are oxygen. What do you think it might be? Chandra, though detecting oxygen transitions, wasn't detecting oxygen plasma. Why do you think that would be?

They did *finally* detect a hot plasma halo in 2012 and they detected a second, cooler hydrogen gas halo again *just this year*.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chan ... 2-331.html
https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/galaxy ... ssing-mass

Combined, these two different halos of ordinary baryonic matter that they'd never "detected" until five years ago contain *far more mass than all the stars combined*! In fact they detected *too* much baryonic mass in those two halos to just solve their missing baryon problem. They went *way over budget* with both halos.

Could you give us a reference to that over budget please?

Ok, I'll admit that it was sloppy of me to call it an oxygen plasma, because yes we all know that hydrogen is the most common element in space because it has the highest charge/mass ratio and more easily escapes the gravity of suns.

Fine. I'm still hoping that you can give us a reference to the claim that the haloes together are "way over budget" for solving the missing baryon problem

Let's move on. I could nit-pick various things (like the reason you give for hydrogen being the most common element), but I really want to focus on the questions below.

I have a couple of questions for you:

1) Do you agree that one of the major motivations for postulating dark matter is the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies?

Sure, but when I took astronomy in college the term didn't "assume" that "dark matter" was non-baryonic or exotic. We seemed to have a clear understanding of our own ignorance back then, whereas today you folks seem to think that your baryonic mass estimates are "perfect" down to a few percentage points, so any missing mass must be exotic in nature. Meanwhile we keep finding out that your baryonic mass estimation models have been all screwed up.

So you agree that the major motivation for postulating dark matter is the flat rotation curve? I am not asking whether that's right or wrong. I'm just asking if it is a major motivation.

2) Do you agree that in your view the discovery of the haloes goes at least some way to explaining the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies?

Assuming that the density layout of those halos are similar to your 'dark matter' models, yes. In other words I'd expect the density to increase near the core of the galaxy...

OK - I'm not going to argue at the moment about all the details of BAO and nucleosythesis. I just want to know if you agree with the proposition that the spherical haloes outside the galactic stars can explain the flat rotation curves. There is no evidence that I know of that the hot halo extends into the star forming regions of the galaxy (the ISM), which is well characterised in terms of density and composition.

I have deleted question 3 as it is superfluous to the first two and confusing.

[Michael Mozina]

Fine. I'm still hoping that you can give us a reference to the claim that the haloes together are "way over budget" for solving the missing baryon problem

Let's start with a current estimate of the total mass of our galaxy:

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronom ... milky-way/

The result: the Milky Way contains between 600 billion and 750 billion Suns’ worth of mass within 600,000 light-years.

If exotic dark matter is supposedly five times more abundant than ordinary matter then the galaxy should contain somewhere between 100, and 125 billion solar masses of baryonic material.

How much of that baryonic mass had we found prior to 2012?

https://link.springer.com/referencework ... 1274-4_996

The Milky Way (MW) is a spiral galaxy with an approximate mass of 1012 M⊙, where roughly 6 × 1010 M⊙ is baryonic matter, distributed in three main components: disk, stellar halo, and bulge; all of them centered at the center of the MW.

That leaves us with somewhere between 40 and 65 billion solar masses of "missing" baryonic matter that hadn't been found prior to 2012.

So, how much mass did we find?

From the first study/article on hot plasma:

They concluded that the mass of the gas is equivalent to the mass in more than 10 billion suns, perhaps as large as 60 billion suns.

If the lower range of the mass the galaxy is correct, and the high range of the plasma content is correct, you're *already* over budget before we even discuss the hydrogen gas halo component. If galaxy mass is at the high end, and the plasma halo is at the high end, we're only 5 billion solar mass short before we get to the gas components of the halo. Of course, as I noted, we can 'interpret' the numbers and skew them almost anyway we subjectively choose to do it.

So you agree that the major motivation for postulating dark matter is the flat rotation curve? I am not asking whether that's right or wrong. I'm just asking if it is a major motivation.

The flat rotation curves of galaxies is certainly "a" reason, though I don't believe it's the original reason that Zwicky used when he coined the term "dark matter". I'd grant you flat rotation curves of galaxies has been front and center in the debate between MOND theory and dark matter theory, so I'd assume it's an 'important' aspect of your argument, though not the only one. IMO the more 'compelling" evidence for 'missing mass' comes from lensing studies rather than galaxy rotation patterns.

OK - I'm not going to argue at the moment about all the details of BAO and nucleosythesis.

We all know why you're not going to argue it too, specifically because your entire cosmology model falls apart without exotic matter.

I just want to know if you agree with the proposition that the spherical haloes outside the galactic stars can explain the flat rotation curves. There is no evidence that I know of that the hot halo extends into the star forming regions of the galaxy (the ISM),....

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

In order to work properly, the halo would have to surround the *entire* galaxy and it would have to begin at the core and extend outward from the center. There's no evidence that I'm aware of that the plasma or gas halos *only* exists around the outside of the arms of the galaxy. That's not even a logical proposition since stars are shedding solar wind particles *everywhere*, and there's no reason to believe those solar wind particles hop on a bus when they reach the heliosphere and move themselves immediately out to nether the regions of the galaxy.

For all intents and purposes, the plasma and has halo must agree with dark matter models in order to replace them. That "bright" spot in the center might be a 'black hole' and the halo would have to begin there and extend far beyond the arms of the galaxy.

....which is well characterised in terms of density and composition.

Well "characterized" isn't the same as well measured.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/gall ... as-bright/

Was this "characterization" done before or after 2008? Before or after 2012? Early this year or was it characterized after that revelation of a hydrogen gas halo?

[Higgsy]

If the lower range of the mass the galaxy is correct, and the high range of the plasma content is correct, you're *already* over budget before we even discuss the hydrogen gas halo component. If galaxy mass is at the high end, and the plasma halo is at the high end, we're only 5 billion solar mass short before we get to the gas components of the halo. Of course, as I noted, we can 'interpret' the numbers and skew them almost anyway we subjectively choose to do it.

OK, cool, you don't have a reference for your claim that the haloes are "way over budget". Why didn't you just say so?

So you agree that the major motivation for postulating dark matter is the flat rotation curve? I am not asking whether that's right or wrong. I'm just asking if it is a major motivation.

The flat rotation curves of galaxies is certainly "a" reason, though I don't believe it's the original reason that Zwicky used when he coined the term "dark matter". I'd grant you flat rotation curves of galaxies has been front and center in the debate between MOND theory and dark matter theory, so I'd assume it's an 'important' aspect of your argument...

I'll take that as a yes.

I just want to know if you agree with the proposition that the spherical haloes outside the galactic stars can explain the flat rotation curves. There is no evidence that I know of that the hot halo extends into the star forming regions of the galaxy (the ISM),....

For all intents and purposes, the plasma and has halo must agree with dark matter models in order to replace them. That "bright" spot in the center might be a 'black hole' and the halo would have to begin there and extend far beyond the arms of the galaxy.

Yes, if the hot plasma halo had exactly the same mass distribution and mass as the dark matter halo then it would explain the flat rotation curves of the galaxy. As it is, the detected halo is outside the starry region of the galaxy and only has at maximum approximately enough mass to resolve the missing baryon problem. So you are projecting what you'd like to see on what has been detected. There is still five times as much mass that can't be seen in the Milky Way as has been seen, even after the detection of the hot halo. My question is whether you think the detected hot halo of 10 to 60 billion solar masses outside the starry region helps to explain the flat rotation curves. It's a simple question - yes or no?

[Michael Mozina]

OK, cool, you don't have a reference for your claim that the haloes are "way over budget". Why didn't you just say so?

I just cited you two references that suggest they could be missing up to almost twice as much baryonic mass in those two different halos as they had found prior to 2012. A "conservative" (in favor of empirical physics) interpretation of that data puts them over budget. Of course you can fudge the numbers in favor of magic matter if you like, but why? I prefer *natural* and logical solutions to problems over *supernatural/metaphysical* nonsense. Your mileage may vary of course. Why have a physics degree if you're going to insist on inserting metaphysics when none is required or warranted?

Yes, if the hot plasma halo had exactly the same mass distribution and mass as the dark matter halo then it would explain the flat rotation curves of the galaxy.

Finally! Why then do I need any magical forms of matter? The answer: I don't!

As it is, the detected halo is outside the starry region of the galaxy and only has at maximum approximately enough mass to resolve the missing baryon problem.

How about *inside* the starry region? What makes you think that the particles flowing off every sun magically and instantly beam themselves outside of the starry region of the galaxy the moment they hit the heliosphere? That's quite a magical fantasy universe you have going on there.

So you are projecting what you'd like to see on what has been detected.

No, I'm making logical assumptions based on the particle flows from our own sun, and presumably everu sun in the universe. The halo isn't going to be restricted to only areas *outside* of the starry region, the starry region is *embedded in the halo*, just like your precious dark matter models predicted!

There is still five times as much mass that can't be seen in the Milky Way as has been seen, even after the detection of the hot halo.

Not if both halos each contain 60 billion solar masses. It frankly wouldn't surprise me if your statement is actually true, but since you still don't include EM influences in galaxy rotation patterns, I highly doubt the "five times" figure is entirely true. I'd bet there is still quite a bit of plasma and dust out there which we haven't identified yet however. You guys aren't even including the mass of the electron current yet, so I know you're still missing ordinary mass.

My question is whether you think the detected hot halo of 10 to 60 billion solar masses outside the starry region helps to explain the flat rotation curves. It's a simple question - yes or no?

You keep trying to ignore my answer and you keep trying to stuff words down my throat. I clearly explained to you already that the mass layout of the halo has to *match your models*, and the halo extends into the core of the galaxy, not just "outside the starry region" as you keep trying to claim. Do you have a comprehension problem or what? Are you trying to be clever and spring some strawman trap? It's not going to work. I lack belief in your bogus claim that the halo suddenly stops at some magic point outside the starry region, and all the ions and electrons flowing from every sun hit the heliosphere and magically and instantly beam themselves in the magic halo region. Give me a break!

[BeAChooser]

If the lower range of the mass the galaxy is correct, and the high range of the plasma content is correct, you're *already* over budget before we even discuss the hydrogen gas halo component. If galaxy mass is at the high end, and the plasma halo is at the high end, we're only 5 billion solar mass short before we get to the gas components of the halo.

And don't forget the plasma that the quasar twinkling study authors are just now suggesting lies around most stars. They say that could be as much mass as is in the stars themselves. Start adding all this up and I begin to wonder if there is any missing mass at all, any longer.

[Higgsy]

OK, cool, you don't have a reference for your claim that the haloes are "way over budget". Why didn't you just say so?

I just cited you two references that suggest they could be missing up to almost twice as much baryonic mass in those two different halos as they had found prior to 2012. A "conservative" (in favor of empirical physics) interpretation of that data puts them over budget.

I understand. You have no evidence for your inflated claim that the haloes are "way over budget". No need to squirm any more. We understand you've been exaggerating.

Yes, if the hot plasma halo had exactly the same mass distribution and mass as the dark matter halo then it would explain the flat rotation curves of the galaxy.

Finally! Why then do I need any magical forms of matter? The answer: I don't!

The key word in my statement above is "if". That is yet to be demonstrated.

As it is, the detected halo is outside the starry region of the galaxy and only has at maximum approximately enough mass to resolve the missing baryon problem.

How about *inside* the starry region?

Inside the starry region of our galaxy the ISM is well characterised and there is no suggestion in the halo detection that additional matter has been detected inside the galaxy. It's your speculation that it is so, but that is not supported by empirical physics.

So you are projecting what you'd like to see on what has been detected.

No, I'm making logical assumptions based on the particle flows from our own sun, and presumably everu sun in the universe. The halo isn't going to be restricted to only areas *outside* of the starry region, the starry region is *embedded in the halo*, just like your precious dark matter models predicted!

Ah yes, you're assuming that what you want to be, is. It doesn't work like that.

There is still five times as much mass that can't be seen in the Milky Way as has been seen, even after the detection of the hot halo.

Not if both halos each contain 60 billion solar masses. It frankly wouldn't surprise me if your statement is actually true,

Make your mind up. Your latter statement more closely comports with the evidence.

but since you still don't include EM influences in galaxy rotation patterns, I highly doubt the "five times" figure is entirely true.

What EM influences in particular would they be?

I'd bet there is still quite a bit of plasma and dust out there which we haven't identified yet however. You guys aren't even including the mass of the electron current yet, so I know you're still missing ordinary mass.

"The mass of the electron current?" What are you bleating about? What electron current and where has it been detected, and how could it possibly be separate from ions (or have significant mass)?

My question is whether you think the detected hot halo of 10 to 60 billion solar masses outside the starry region helps to explain the flat rotation curves. It's a simple question - yes or no?

You keep trying to ignore my answer and you keep trying to stuff words down my throat.

I'm just looking for an answer to a simple question. If you don't want to answer it fine. Well, let me teach you that all the matter discovered in these haloes around the galaxy (what has been detected, not your fantasy or assumption or fairytale about what you think ought to have been detected) has zero effect on the rotation curves of the galaxy. Zero.

[BeAChooser]

Well, let me teach you that all the matter discovered in these haloes around the galaxy (what has been detected, not your fantasy or assumption or fairytale about what you think ought to have been detected) has zero effect on the rotation curves of the galaxy. Zero.

Seriously, Higgsy? You want to go with that claim after mainstream studies like this (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.8215.pdf ) say the mass in halos affects rotation curves?

And what do you mean by suggesting the numbers Michael gave for halo mass estimates are fairytale?

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chan ... 2-331.html

NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

September 24, 2012

Astronomers have used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to find evidence our Milky Way Galaxy is embedded in an enormous halo of hot gas that extends for hundreds of thousands of light years. The estimated mass of the halo is comparable to the mass of all the stars in the galaxy.

If the size and mass of this gas halo is confirmed, it also could be an explanation for what is known as the "missing baryon" problem for the galaxy.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... lly-found/

The Milky Way's Missing Mass: Partially Found

September 16, 2015

… snip … Now, however, by watching a galaxy plow through the Milky Way's outskirts, astronomers have estimated the amount of gas surrounding our galaxy's bright disk, finding that this material outweighs all of the interstellar gas and dust in our part of the Milky Way. ... snip ... Besla says the true quantity of the halo gas is probably greater because its density may decline less with distance than standard models assume.

And don’t forget the mass that astrophysicists just discovered is in the halos around stars … they say as much mass as is in the stars themselves.

And it’s not just our galaxy that has a massive plasma halo. Other galaxies seem to have comparable halos …

https://phys.org/news/2015-05-hubble-gi ... alaxy.html

Scientists using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have discovered that the immense halo of gas enveloping the Andromeda galaxy, our nearest massive galactic neighbor, is about six times larger and 1,000 times more massive than previously measured. The dark, nearly invisible halo stretches about a million light-years from its host galaxy, halfway to our own Milky Way galaxy. This finding promises to tell astronomers more about the evolution and structure of majestic giant spirals, one of the most common types of galaxies in the universe. … snip … The gargantuan halo is estimated to contain half the mass of the stars in the Andromeda galaxy itself, in the form of a hot, diffuse gas.

By the way, Higgsy, did you *degreed* physicists ever explain those galaxies whose rotation curves suggest there’s no dark matter … you know, like NGC 4736 (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... tronomers/ )? Nope … doesn’t look like it … https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03 ... -galaxies/ . Looks like that’s still a big puzzle to you ... *degreed* priests.

[Michael Mozina]

I understand. You have no evidence for your inflated claim that the haloes are "way over budget". No need to squirm any more. We understand you've been exaggerating.

That's amusing. As I mentioned originally, the evidence can be subjectively interpreted of course, but if one is trying to be at all "conservative" as it relates to empirical physics, you're already way over budget. The missing baryon problem was about half of the matter back in 2006, and there *easily* could be more matter found than half in just those two halos, and that's not even counting all the stellar miscounting that went on in that infamous 2006 lensing study, or all the satellite galaxies we've found around our own galaxy since 2006.

The key word in my statement above is "if". That is yet to be demonstrated.

Actually it has been demonstrated unless you think there's some magical (and unexplained) delineation at some unique point in the galaxy. Since every star emits solar wind particles, it's pretty darn obvious that the whole galaxy of stars are simply embedded inside of a full halo, without a big doughnut hole in the middle.

Inside the starry region of our galaxy the ISM is well characterised

It may be "well characterized', but you really don't know because we haven't actually been there to directly measure it. Since all stars shed plasma, your assumptions don't make much sense.

and there is no suggestion in the halo detection that additional matter has been detected inside the galaxy.

Not only does the solar wind argument blow you away, we keep finding satellite galaxies galore. You're definitely over budget.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite ... _Milky_Way

Take a gander down the "discovered" column and notice how many satellite galaxies we've found around our own galaxy since 2006. Look how many we've found in just the last few years? Give me a break. That's all *on top* of the halos.

It's your speculation that it is so, but that is not supported by empirical physics.

Horse-pucky. Every star emits tons of material that heads out toward the ISM every single day. How does all that plasma instantly transport itself outside of the stellar region when it hits the heliosphere? It not only makes sense that the halo extends all the way to the core, it's almost certain the halo extends into the core based on pure empirical physics.

You can't even explain how the solar wind particles don't form a "halo' inside the stellar regions.

So you are projecting what you'd like to see on what has been detected.

LOL! I'm not 'projecting what I'd like to see' I'm using your own mathematical models, as well as the laws of physics. Unless you can explain how solar wind particles don't make up a halo inside the stellar regions, I'm going to assume that it's you doing the "projecting" of what you want (exotic matter) and ignoring the real evidence.

Ah yes, you're assuming that what you want to be, is. It doesn't work like that.

No, I'm using your mathematical models and logic. It could work like that and it mathematically *must* work like that. Lets hear you explain how solar wind doesn't make up a halo inside the stellar regions? I don't see huge mass flows pouring *into* our sun, but I do see huge mass flows moving away from our sun. Where does all that mass go once it hits the heliosphere? Your beliefs don't even make sense logically, or mathematically.

Make your mind up. Your latter statement more closely comports with the evidence.

I simply haven't seen any evidence of it yet, but I have a hard time believing we've actually found all the mass inside our own galaxy yet. New satellite galaxies are found on a regular basis in fact.

"The mass of the electron current?" What are you bleating about? What electron current and where has it been detected, and how could it possibly be separate from ions (or have significant mass)?

That would be the current that heats and that sustains that "hot" plasma halo at those "hot" temperatures. I'm not sure the electron mass is really all that significant in terms of the total mass, but it's another example of where your models are "missing mass" by virtue of their lack of any inclusion of electric fields into your theories.

I'm just looking for an answer to a simple question.

I gave you my answer several times, but you just didn't like it. You expected/wanted me to "assume' that the halo begins somewhere *outside* of the stellar region, but I don't make that assumption.

If you don't want to answer it fine.

If you don't want to listen to my answer, that's fine too, but stop asking me the same question over and over and over again if you aren't going to listen to or respond to my actual answer.

Well, let me teach you

You can't "teach" me anything without even citing published papers to support your claims or explaining where you think solar wind goes when it hits the heliosphere. You sound like a parrot that only knows how to regurgitate mainstream dogma, and who can't think for themselves.

that all the matter discovered in these haloes around the galaxy (what has been detected, not your fantasy or assumption or fairytale about what you think ought to have been detected) has zero effect on the rotation curves of the galaxy. Zero.

You're the one peddling fairytales about mythical forms of invisible matter and energy, and dead inflation genies, not me. I'm sticking with pure empirical physics. I'm simply using your models and common sense. You're probably going to run from my question yet again, but where do you think all that solar wind goes when it hits the heliosphere? Does it get magically beamed out into distant parts of the halo the moment it reaches the heliosphere, or does it end up between the stars?