So why is there always a dominance of dark matter? What stops the milky way from increasing the ratio of ordinary mater. They stop for no reason. If they don't stop they need to continue to attract the same ratio to maintain the same profile. Does a planet stop attracting mass when it gets to an upper limit and then reject any more matter? Why are there no 50:50 galaxies where there isn't enough dark matter to produce a flat rotation curve? We always see the small dark matter halos with small baryonic galaxies and the large halos with large baryonic galaxies, and it's a trick repeated billions of time over.Higgsy wrote:What makes you think that a particularly tightly constrained stellar to DM ratio is needed to yield a flat rotation curve? In almost all spiral galaxies the DM halo dominates the total mass, and whether the ratio is 0.05 or 0.15, a roughly spherical halo will result in flat rotation curves. All you need is substantial mass away from the galactic centre. To the first order the ratio is given by the universal DM to baryonic matter ratio, recognising that stars and dust form only about 1% of the total mass and intergalactic hot gas forms about 10%. And since many star forming regions are found at the edge of galaxies, it seems that they don't stop growing.Aardwolf wrote:So you’ve described the status of a galaxy, but you haven’t even attempted to explain why a given particular mass of dark matter attracts exactly the right amount of ordinary matter so that the density and ratio (of ordinary matter to dark matter) equates so that the vast outer region of the galaxy rotates uniformly to create the observed flattened curves. Then it stops attracting any more matter and maintains the density and ratio for billions of years. Explain why?
Bit touchy for someone who's supposed to know what they are talking about. You stated that using a fairly harmless simile like "thick as soup" is sensational even though clearly the article was talking relative to dispersed matter, and according to the masters of the sciencey stuff dark matter out masses ordinary matter 10:1 so "soup" seems fair to me. However the term "direct empirical proof" isn't sensational? It isn't direct nor is it proof of anything. Why would anyone read a paper when the title is clearly set up to mislead in the first place. It's a hack job for the gullibles and you fell for it.Higgsy wrote:Aardwolf wrote:Is that more or less sensational rubbish than;
A DIRECT EMPIRICAL PROOF of the existence of dark matter - Honestly guv, this is the bestest most proofiest paper even written by humans or gods. Go home now, you can all quit looking. We won the science.
Shut up about the title and read and try to understand the sodding paper. Which contains neither rhetoric nor exaggration. I know, I know, it has some big words in it and you'd rather stick to the popular press.
I couldn't care less but you rely on appealing to authority so I would have thought you would want MIT playing the right tune.Higgsy wrote:Not my problem bro, if you don't know how to distinguish between science ad sensationalism.Aardwolf wrote:PS. You may want to contact MIT and inform them the magazine they are running is garbage.
Aardwolf wrote:Bit touchy for someone who's supposed to know what they are talking about. You stated that using a fairly harmless simile like "thick as soup" is sensational even though clearly the article was talking relative to dispersed matter, and according to the masters of the sciencey stuff dark matter out masses ordinary matter 10:1 so "soup" seems fair to me. However the term "direct empirical proof" isn't sensational? It isn't direct nor is it proof of anything. Why would anyone read a paper when the title is clearly set up to mislead in the first place. It's a hack job for the gullibles and you fell for it.Higgsy wrote:Aardwolf wrote:Is that more or less sensational rubbish than;
A DIRECT EMPIRICAL PROOF of the existence of dark matter - Honestly guv, this is the bestest most proofiest paper even written by humans or gods. Go home now, you can all quit looking. We won the science.
Shut up about the title and read and try to understand the sodding paper. Which contains neither rhetoric nor exaggration. I know, I know, it has some big words in it and you'd rather stick to the popular press.
Higgsy wrote:you're just eyeballing random pictures provided by the astronomical community and making up stories.
Higgsy wrote:You showed me images that you interpreted as helically wound filaments.
Higgsy wrote: I realised you have nothing. So I come here for a laugh. But I get bored.
Higgsy wrote:You are eyeballing pretty pictures and making up stories. How big are they? What is the plasma density? The charge separation, the magnetic field strenth, the electrical field strength, the current, the charge velocity, the temperature?
Higgsy wrote:What do these pretty pictures each signify?
Higgsy wrote: I don't do popular articles.
Higgsy wrote: Simulations of turbulence often employ a spectrum of plane waves that are random in direction and phase. As is well known, the crossing of two planar shock wave fronts is a line - the filament (e.g.,Pudritz and Kevlahan,
2013)...Li et al. (2010) have shown that filaments are formed preferentially perpendicular to the
magnetic field lines in strongly magnetized turbulent clouds”
Higgsy wrote:There have been no problems identified with the mass distribution methods of the 2006 paper, so there is nothing to correct in 2016.
You will whine about it, but that is because you haven't read or understood the papers that you are criticising, like most pseuds.
No. I don't have a front runner because I am not a theoretical physicist nor a particle physicist, and I don't have the knowledge to make an informed choice. Unlike you, I will not spout about things I don't understand.
BeAChooser wrote: … so they just ignore that characteristic of the filaments we see in the real world...
Zyxzevn wrote:astronomy neglects certain observations to create oversimplified models of reality.
Then, to match observations that they can not ignore, they have to
add magical invisible stuff to the oversimplified models.
And they create models that are not even in line with normal physics.
Something that would not happen if they tested them in the laboratory in the first place.
But reality is far to complex for astronomers I guess.
BeAChooser wrote:Mainstream astrophysicists have trapped themselves with their gnomes. Their jobs and reputations now depend on the gnomes being true. If they were to now say "whoops, we were wrong", they'd lose both jobs and reputations (meaning no more jobs). And they know it. So they continue the charade, hoping that they at least will be able to milk the cow long enough to make it to retirement, when it will no longer matter to them.
Higgsy wrote:Unfortunately I am tied up with some actual science over the next couple of weeks as a deadline looms and there are two papers to review, but I’ll be back as soon as poss. Until then, have fun, mes enfants.
The Higgs was the last good prediction that particle physicists had. This prediction dates back to the 1960s and it was based on sound mathematics. In contrast to this, the current predictions for new particles at a larger collider – eg supersymmetric partner particles or dark matter particles – are not based on sound mathematics. These predictions are based on what is called an “argument from naturalness” and those arguments are little more than wishful thinking dressed in equations.
Michael Mozina wrote:Astronomers spent untold billions of dollars on so called "tests" over the past decade...
You don't have any "knowledge" at all, just placeholder terms for human ignorance...
One doesn't even need to be an "expert" in particle physics...
JHL wrote:Not to be pedantic, but surely you don't mean any of the three words in quotes - or virtually any word in quotes in your remarks in general - ironically or figuratively but literally, right?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests