The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

[Native]

@robheus,

There is no point in having a discussion about physics, if there is no understandig of the basic physics principles.

And there is no point for you having a concrete conventional approach in this Forum where the real point is to be open for alternative explanations in order to get rid of all the anomalies; contradictions and wild speculations which sticks to the conventional gravity assumptions and all its connected dark this and that.

These highly uncertain facts cannot possibly give you the right to jugde what is "real physics" and "understanding".

I don´t know for how long time you have joined this Forum, but I´m sure you will get more replies like mine here.

You are primarly here to learn alternative explanations, not to continue and promote the conventional doctrines.

[Native]

@robheus,

I wonder how EU/PC could solve the dark matter problem, is thery any theory out that is worth considering?

You already have got one above, but you just plainly ignores it.

[quantauniverse]

There is no dark matter problem to solve, when you stop thinking and believing in gravity. Dark matter is the mess and tale made by big infamous trolls of dogmatism with Einstein's relativity. There is not this imaginary center of mass to everything including particles by quantum gravity, made by the Higgs etc instead a superfluid like vacuum center for particles, stars, galaxies with intrinsic spin, electricity, and magnetism. The universal circuit needs a magnetic current with monopole singularity and countervortices producing centripetal forces, pulling everything to the center, which is the opposite spin of the exclusively one-sided centrifugal force of wikipedia based gravity. The superfluid counterflow filaments carry electric currents with associated magnetic fields by the angular momentum in quantized vortices. Halton Arp said the quantization of redshifts are intrinsic, and could be the collective resonance of all electrons in the universe spinning at the same quantized rate. Stars do not form by gravity, but by strong magnetic fields that confine the electric plasmoid undergoing a phase transition of common hydrogen into superfluid molecular hydrogen.

[robheus]

@robheus,

There is no point in having a discussion about physics, if there is no understandig of the basic physics principles.

And there is no point for you having a concrete conventional approach in this Forum where the real point is to be open for alternative explanations in order to get rid of all the anomalies; contradictions and wild speculations which sticks to the conventional gravity assumptions and all its connected dark this and that.

These highly uncertain facts cannot possibly give you the right to jugde what is "real physics" and "understanding".

I don´t know for how long time you have joined this Forum, but I´m sure you will get more replies like mine here.

You are primarly here to learn alternative explanations, not to continue and promote the conventional doctrines.

This is just a discussion forum that has a different view on physics and cosmology, but if it wants to view itself as a science, it does have to backup claims they make and not simply state them, without any scientific research or proof.

That method is rightly called scienific, and it should not be immune to scientific criticism. Else it will be simply a dogma.

Now, I see problems also in current physics and cosmology (they seem to go nowhere, but mathematical abstractions and postulating a lot of stuff without any observational evidence) but I see no alternative in some other paradigm that just uncritically adapts statements at the basis of some "faith" instead of rigorous science.

Pardon me if I am some critical of that.

You can't beat a dogma by replacing it with other dogma's.

The paragigma of EU/PC is something well within the scientific method, so one can discuss it on a scientific basis, examine it, make alternative models for explaining things, and research them. That is just regular science.
Science is critical, and therefore a scientific debate is necessary.

I think EU/PC might provide some complementary explenations to physical cosmology, but I don't think you can replace all of cosmology based on EU/PC, at least, I don't see any backup for such claims as of yet.

[robheus]

There is no dark matter problem to solve, when you stop thinking and believing in gravity. Dark matter is the mess and tale made by big infamous trolls of dogmatism with Einstein's relativity. There is not this imaginary center of mass to everything including particles by quantum gravity, made by the Higgs etc instead a superfluid like vacuum center for particles, stars, galaxies with intrinsic spin, electricity, and magnetism. The universal circuit needs a magnetic current with monopole singularity and countervortices producing centripetal forces, pulling everything to the center, which is the opposite spin of the exclusively one-sided centrifugal force of wikipedia based gravity. The superfluid counterflow filaments carry electric currents with associated magnetic fields by the angular momentum in quantized vortices. Halton Arp said the quantization of redshifts are intrinsic, and could be the collective resonance of all electrons in the universe spinning at the same quantized rate. Stars do not form by gravity, but by strong magnetic fields that confine the electric plasmoid undergoing a phase transition of common hydrogen into superfluid molecular hydrogen.

These are all statements, they can be right or wrong. At what basis should I consider them right? Where is the scientific data that backs up these claims? Where are the models and math? What predictions one can make that can be tested? Etc.

I don't accept those statements on "faith" and if EU/PC is a serious scientific research discipline, they should backup all their claims. Like in every science! But I don't see a lot of science done there. Outside speculation and rigorous claims, without any science to back it up, or only minimal.

[robheus]

@robheus,

I wonder how EU/PC could solve the dark matter problem, is thery any theory out that is worth considering?

You already have got one above, but you just plainly ignores it.

I don't have anything, and you don't provide any substance. All there is are some story (eletric fields/magnetic fields doing all the magic that gravity can't explain...), without any backup. Why should I have to believe that?

It's not wether these "explenations" appeal to the mind, but wether or not they have any scientific truth in them.

I could as well believe some cosmological wizard formed and shaped the galaxies and stuff, that has the same truth value as your stories here.

I am looking for real scientific truth, not just stories....

[Zyxzevn]

I am looking for real scientific truth, not just stories....

Start listening..

[robheus]

I am looking for real scientific truth, not just stories....

Start listening..

I am listening, but there are too many claims that are not backed up properly I think. For such claims you need some hard scientific proof. There is in itself nothing wrong with the scientific paradigma of EU/PC, but something more as that is needed to make claims about all kinds of cosmological processes.

Like for instance the claim that the energy produced in stars is only partly derived from fussion, and a lot of the energy would come from electro-magnetic fields. Where is the scientific report and where are the observations that can backup that claim?

Or is it just a matter of "belief"? That ain't science.

I respect the community that holds on to the paradigma of EU/PC, but to get scientific credibility, observational evidence, theoretical models that make predictions which can be tested, etc. are needed.

[Native]

@quantauniverse,

There is no dark matter problem to solve, when you stop thinking and believing in gravity. Dark matter is the mess and tale made by big infamous trolls of dogmatism with Einstein's relativity. There is not this imaginary center of mass to everything including particles by quantum gravity, made by the Higgs etc instead a superfluid like vacuum center for particles, stars, galaxies with intrinsic spin, electricity, and magnetism. The universal circuit needs a magnetic current with monopole singularity and countervortices producing centripetal forces, pulling everything to the center, which is the opposite spin of the exclusively one-sided centrifugal force of wikipedia based gravity. The superfluid counterflow filaments carry electric currents with associated magnetic fields by the angular momentum in quantized vortices. Halton Arp said the quantization of redshifts are intrinsic, and could be the collective resonance of all electrons in the universe spinning at the same quantized rate. Stars do not form by gravity, but by strong magnetic fields that confine the electric plasmoid undergoing a phase transition of common hydrogen into superfluid molecular hydrogen.

I´ll just second that

[Native]

@robheus

This is just a discussion forum that has a different view on physics and cosmology, but if it wants to view itself as a science, it does have to backup claims they make and not simply state them, without any scientific research or proof.

That method is rightly called scienific, and it should not be immune to scientific criticism. Else it will be simply a dogma.

Now, I see problems also in current physics and cosmology (they seem to go nowhere, but mathematical abstractions and postulating a lot of stuff without any observational evidence) but I see no alternative in some other paradigm that just uncritically adapts statements at the basis of some "faith" instead of rigorous science.

Pardon me if I am some critical of that.

To be critical is the very idea of being in this Forum, so don' t apology for that.

But you HAVE TO get familiar with the very ideas of EU & PC BEFORE criticising anything. You of course cannot criticise anything before you know what to criticise.

As the author of this topic I don´t like to have discussions here about "my father is stronger than yours" kind of arguments.

Read Rules and Guidelines here - http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... &sk=t&sd=a

[Native]

@@robheus

I could as well believe some cosmological wizard formed and shaped the galaxies and stuff, that has the same truth value as your stories here.

I am looking for real scientific truth, not just stories....

OK then

Look for the truth in this:

Cosmologists were forced to assume "dark matter" by the discovery of "the galactic rotation anomaly" where objects in galaxies don´t obey the Newtonian laws of "celestial motions around a gravity center", a law made by the observations of planets orbiting the Sun and moons orbiting their mother planets.

Our Solar System is an orbiting part of the galactic rotation. When assuming "dark matter" in the galaxy, the scientists thought to repair the galactic rotation anomaly and thus "preventing the stars to fly away from the galaxy". The sincere implication of this is:

We now have a single law of celestial motion which has to describe 2 different kinds of celestial motions - and even this with a Solar System which is embedded in the "dark matter assumption" in galaxies. This is outright incoherent and highly contradictionary.

Completely regardless of scientists even finding solid proofs of ”dark matter” this double trouble problem will NEVER be solved. The scientists have to deal with and revise the “laws of celestial motions” and include electro-magneto dynamics as well as cosmic thermodynamics in order to get around this major double trouble.

This is the standing truth and the very basics of all ideas in modern cosmology and astrophysics onto which you can use your excellent critical skills as a door into alternative thinking.

Deal with this incoherant "thinking" and see what kind of "logics" modern cosmology are based on.

I´ll hold you onto this isue - just and alone because this is the very TOPIC here.

[robheus]

@@robheus

I could as well believe some cosmological wizard formed and shaped the galaxies and stuff, that has the same truth value as your stories here.

I am looking for real scientific truth, not just stories....

OK then

Look for the truth in this:

Cosmologists were forced to assume "dark matter" by the discovery of "the galactic rotation anomaly" where objects in galaxies don´t obey the Newtonian laws of "celestial motions around a gravity center", a law made by the observations of planets orbiting the Sun and moons orbiting their mother planets.

Our Solar System is an orbiting part of the galactic rotation. When assuming "dark matter" in the galaxy, the scientists thought to repair the galactic rotation anomaly and thus "preventing the stars to fly away from the galaxy". The sincere implication of this is:

We now have a single law of celestial motion which has to describe 2 different kinds of celestial motions - and even this with a Solar System which is embedded in the "dark matter assumption" in galaxies. This is outright incoherent and highly contradictionary.

Completely regardless of scientists even finding solid proofs of ”dark matter” this double trouble problem will NEVER be solved. The scientists have to deal with and revise the “laws of celestial motions” and include electro-magneto dynamics as well as cosmic thermodynamics in order to get around this major double trouble.

This is the standing truth and the very basics of all ideas in modern cosmology and astrophysics onto which you can use your excellent critical skills as a door into alternative thinking.

Deal with this incoherant "thinking" and see what kind of "logics" modern cosmology are based on.

I´ll hold you onto this isue - just and alone because this is the very TOPIC here.

I don't see the illogic of dark matter hypothese.

Neptune and Pluto were also first hypothized to be "dark matter" that is : they were hypothized to exist because of the disturbances of other planets. So this gravitational thinking got us to look for those planets, and we found them.

Same for many extra-solar planets, we just see the star wobble and say: well there must be some planet there that causes this behaviour of the star.

So the "dark matter" hypothesis is a scientific idea and not something illogic. We just extended it from solar orbits to galactic orbits. GR is a universal law as far as we know, so this thinking is correct.

Not that it could be wrong, but the idea in itself is not illogic.

And please note that the problem with the stars orbiting the galaxy is not that they wouild fly away, but that their orbital velocities don't drop inverse proportionally to the distance from the galactic centre, but merely stay the same.

The "missing mass" has to account for the rotation of stars in galaxies and galaxies rotating in clusters.

Also mass causes gravitational lensing, and that is another indication there might me more mass then we see.

Can EU/PC explain all these phenomena (not only qualitatively but also quantitatively) ?

Is it not enough to say: well there must be some force from electrical currents of magnetic fields.

That is as good as saying there is missing mass. Which might be the case or might not be the case.

We need to observe it and need to be able to calculate it.

If the EU/PC paradigm is true, and makes a case for electric currents and magnetic fields causing this behavious of stars in galaxies, how can it explain that in our solar system, we don't see any anomalies. To explain the orbits of planets, all you need is the law of gravity. Even so, the sun emits giant masses of electrical particles, so why doesn't that have effects on orbits locally, but does have effects on the galactic scale? That seems illogical to me.

Also it could be that there is neither missing mass nor an anomaly of gravity, but something else. Like gravitaional dipoles in the vacuum that look like dark matter effect.

Fact is: we don't know yet, so all options are on the table.

To explain this behaviour of stars in galaxies and galaxies in clusters might be based on:
- missing mass ("dark matter")
- gravity behaving differently at large scales
- some vacuum effect (like gravitational dipoles)
- electric and/or magnetic effects
- something unknown yet

Does EU/PC make a testable theory?

[Native]

@robheus

If the EU/PC paradigm is true, and makes a case for electric currents and magnetic fields causing this behavious of stars in galaxies, how can it explain that in our solar system, we don't see any anomalies. To explain the orbits of planets, all you need is the law of gravity. Even so, the sun emits giant masses of electrical particles, so why doesn't that have effects on orbits locally, but does have effects on the galactic scale? That seems illogical to me.

how can it explain that in our solar system, we don't see any anomalies.

Wrong question.

Your question shall be: Why is it that "celestial motions around gravity centers" shows up 2 different kinds of orbiting patterns?

The real anomaly in this case is that "the universal law of celestial motion around gravity centers" is completely inconsistent.

Read again:

Cosmologists were forced to assume "dark matter" by the discovery of "the galactic rotation anomaly" where objects in galaxies don´t obey the Newtonian laws of "celestial motions around a gravity center", a law made by the observations of planets orbiting the Sun and moons orbiting their mother planets.

Our Solar System is an orbiting part of the galactic rotation. When assuming "dark matter" in the galaxy, the scientists thought to repair the galactic rotation anomaly and thus "preventing the stars to fly away from the galaxy". The sincere implication of this is:

We now have a single law of celestial motion which has to describe 2 different kinds of celestial motions - and even this with a Solar System which is embedded in the "dark matter assumption" in galaxies. This is outright incoherent and highly contradictionary.

Completely regardless of scientists even finding solid proofs of ”dark matter” this double trouble problem will NEVER be solved. The scientists have to deal with and revise the “laws of celestial motions” and include electro-magneto dynamics as well as cosmic thermodynamics in order to get around this major double trouble.

I don't see the illogic of dark matter hypotheses.

What is it that makes this so difficult for you to grasp?

The law of celestial motion was based on the planets motion around the Sun as the gravitational center, OK?

This law is induced into all other kind of motions in cosmos together with the laws of attraction, OK?

1) You have 1 kind of gravitational and celestial motion our Solar System, OK?

2) You use the same laws for a different kind of celestial motions around a gravity center in our galaxy, OK?

The logics are:

1) Either a scientifical an universal law goes everywhere for all motions in cosmos - or it goes nowhere at all.

Inserting an assumed “dark matter” into these 2 different kinds of celestial based on the very same
“celestial law” of motions is just unscientifically nonsense because it possibly cannot hide the obvious contradiction in this.

You can show up with solid bit of dark matter in your hand – the different motions and the embedded contradiction will never disappear, OK?

It makes NO difference finding dark matter or not, so just get rid of the unnecessary idea. Its really that simple and logical

[Native]

THE UNKNOWN FORCE . . .

E=mc2 includes both mass and energy.

In the conventional perception of "gravity = masses only rules everything in the Universe", scientists and astrophysicists completely ignores the energy = light = the electromagnetical part of the cosmological explanation.

By ignoring the energy part of cosmos and in the equations, the conventional scientists cannot describe and explain the motions of the observed masses.

Gravity is the weakest link of all fundamental forces. Totally ignoring the (real) other 3 forces gives a huge deficit on the energy bottom line.

Thus: Lacking and ignoring energy in the perceptions and equations = "lacking mass" = hence the illogical and exclusive conclusion of “more mass has to be found”.

This is the very self-restricted and illogical basics on which modern cosmological science is founded. Even the used mathemathics are involved in this wobbling and one-eyed foundation which completely ignores the real reality.

Conclusion:
Including the (real) electromagnetic forces should relieve all kinds of “dark this and that” with light = electromagnetic energies. Then no masses is missing at all - and all cosmic motions can be naturally explained.

(Also posted here http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... pular.html)

[robheus]

@robheus

If the EU/PC paradigm is true, and makes a case for electric currents and magnetic fields causing this behavious of stars in galaxies, how can it explain that in our solar system, we don't see any anomalies. To explain the orbits of planets, all you need is the law of gravity. Even so, the sun emits giant masses of electrical particles, so why doesn't that have effects on orbits locally, but does have effects on the galactic scale? That seems illogical to me.

how can it explain that in our solar system, we don't see any anomalies.

Wrong question.

Your question shall be: Why is it that "celestial motions around gravity centers" shows up 2 different kinds of orbiting patterns?

The real anomaly in this case is that "the universal law of celestial motion around gravity centers" is completely inconsistent.

Read again:

Cosmologists were forced to assume "dark matter" by the discovery of "the galactic rotation anomaly" where objects in galaxies don´t obey the Newtonian laws of "celestial motions around a gravity center", a law made by the observations of planets orbiting the Sun and moons orbiting their mother planets.

Our Solar System is an orbiting part of the galactic rotation. When assuming "dark matter" in the galaxy, the scientists thought to repair the galactic rotation anomaly and thus "preventing the stars to fly away from the galaxy". The sincere implication of this is:

We now have a single law of celestial motion which has to describe 2 different kinds of celestial motions - and even this with a Solar System which is embedded in the "dark matter assumption" in galaxies. This is outright incoherent and highly contradictionary.

Completely regardless of scientists even finding solid proofs of ”dark matter” this double trouble problem will NEVER be solved. The scientists have to deal with and revise the “laws of celestial motions” and include electro-magneto dynamics as well as cosmic thermodynamics in order to get around this major double trouble.

I don't see the illogic of dark matter hypotheses.

What is it that makes this so difficult for you to grasp?

The law of celestial motion was based on the planets motion around the Sun as the gravitational center, OK?

This law is induced into all other kind of motions in cosmos together with the laws of attraction, OK?

1) You have 1 kind of gravitational and celestial motion our Solar System, OK?

2) You use the same laws for a different kind of celestial motions around a gravity center in our galaxy, OK?

The logics are:

1) Either a scientifical an universal law goes everywhere for all motions in cosmos - or it goes nowhere at all.

Inserting an assumed “dark matter” into these 2 different kinds of celestial based on the very same
“celestial law” of motions is just unscientifically nonsense because it possibly cannot hide the obvious contradiction in this.

You can show up with solid bit of dark matter in your hand – the different motions and the embedded contradiction will never disappear, OK?

It makes NO difference finding dark matter or not, so just get rid of the unnecessary idea. Its really that simple and logical

You make no sense. Even when we were to abandon the law of gravity (everything in the solar system, is then merely a "coincidence"?), with what are you going to replace it?

And not just a paradgima (EU/PC) but an actual theory.