Dark matter and Dark energy

[edd]

Don't misquote me Ziggurat.

I have not stated I believe in an infinitely old universe ... just that the observations appear to suggest it must be much older than what the mainstream, Big Bang supporting community claims.

BeAChooser has been supporting the Quasi-Steady State Cosmology here. And ignoring the fact it doesn't fit data (like the great ACBAR data ben m mentioned) and that it requires dark energy and has to invoke a totally unobserved scalar field. In BeAChooser's terminology, the theories he supports require gnomes.

 

[BeAChooser]

Will there never be an astrophysics thread at JREF which isn't hijacked by this same cut-and-paste posting from the same fringe theory?

I've not hijacked this thread. The topic was dark matter and dark energy. The conversation flowed to statements that I've legitimately questioned using peer reviewed articles by scientists with good credentials published in well regarded, mainstream scientific and engineering journals. And my posts on this thread can hardly be described as cut and paste. You're side, on the other hand, seems to be having great difficulty finding any peer reviewed work to challenge the work my sources did a decade ago. Perhaps your sources are just gnomes?

plasmas can't account for rotation curves, no matter how strong you make the fields and how dense you make the plasmas. Why not? Because there are a zillion objects of different types orbiting galaxies in different directions.

You have any peer reviewed work to support that claim? Any at all? Any actual calculations using PIC codes where electromagnetic effects are included? No? Any that happen to cite the peer reviewed and published work of Alfven or Peratt (experts in this subject) in direct challenge? No?

Like I said, your side of this issue is just IGNORING the work of Alfven and Peratt, perhaps because your side doesn't have anything but gnomes to support your theories. Now everything that electric universe and plasma cosmologists propose may not be right (afterall, they've only spent a miniscule fraction of the resources investigating their theory in comparison to what your side has spent the last 30 years), but they clearly have legitimate reasons to doubt that your side is correct in its model.

the Coma Cluster

You sure mainstream scientists have been doing their calculations of cluster mass right? Because it looks like these researchers doubt that for the Coma Cluster: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/381481 "The Astronomical Journal, 127 ... snip ... 2004 ... snip ... Improved Models for the Evolution of the Coma Cluster of Galaxies, Seppo Laine, Jia-Qing Zheng and Mauri J. Valtonen ... snip ... At the end of the N-body simulation of 250 galaxies, we extract the projected galaxy surface density and radial velocity dispersion profiles as a function of the distance from the center of the mass of the cluster. With certain initial parameters, excellent agreement with observations is obtained. In such models, the use of the virial theorem in the standard way gives an overestimate of the cluster mass by a factor of about 3. Therefore, the true mass of the Coma Cluster should be smaller than the usually quoted value by the same factor."

Ben, a factor of 3 reduction would eliminate almost all of the dark matter that you folks believed was needed. And since the time when Zwicky's calculation for the Coma Cluster first suggested a need for dark matter to explain the motions, we've learned that the space between galaxies in clusters is filled with huge amounts of plasma. In fact, in the biggest clusters, the mass associated with this intracluster plasma is said to be ten times that associated with the galaxies in the cluster. And it's well established that this plasma is magnetized. And where they are magnetized, electric currents are flowing. And we know these phenomena will bind those plasmas together and even cause rotations. And that there is research going on relating cluster rotations to the presence of magnetic fields. So maybe things are not quite as clear cut as you want our readers to believe, Ben.

Please go away.

I'm not going to go away. I'm going to keep asking the same question every time your side makes the same unsupportable claim that rotation curves prove the existence of dark matter. Where is the SCIENCE to challenge the peer-reviewed work of people like Alfven and Peratt, or Battaner and Florido? All I see are mainstream scientists relying on gnomes that even after 30 years and billions of dollars, they still can't really define.

Look, we were talking about dark matter---say, did anyone see the new ACBAR microwave-background results?

Where are the cluster shadows, ben? Did they find them in the ACBAR data? Because they didn't find them in the WMAP data. http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html "September 01, 2006, ... snip ... scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from "nearby" clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background. ... snip ... "These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years," said Lieu. ... snip ... If the standard Big Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, then massive X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way galaxy should all cast shadows on the microwave background. ... snip ... Taken together, the data shows a shadow effect about one-fourth of what was predicted - an amount roughly equal in strength to natural variations previously seen in the microwave background across the entire sky. Either it (the microwave background) isn't coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or ... there is something else going on," said Lieu."

And why do some galaxies appear to have no dark matter? Can you clue us in? Why are there immense voids that again appear to have no dark matter? Is there something that dark matter doesn't like about certain neighborhoods? And the questions just keep coming and coming ... even from mainstream sources:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0107filament.html "2004, GIANT GALAXY STRING DEFIES MODELS OF HOW UNIVERSE EVOLVED, Wide-field telescope observations of the remote and therefore early Universe, looking back to a time when it was a fifth of its present age (redshift = 2.38), have revealed an enormous string of galaxies about 300 million light-years long. This new structure defies current models of how the Universe evolved, which can't explain how a string this big could have formed so early. ... snip ... The team compared their observations to supercomputer simulations of the early Universe, which could not reproduce strings this large. "The simulations tell us that you cannot take the matter in the early Universe and line it up in strings this large," said Francis. "There simply hasn't been enough time since the Big Bang for it to form structures this colossal". ... snip ... "To explain our results," said Francis, "the dark matter clouds that lie in strings must have formed galaxies, while the dark matter clouds elsewhere have not done so. We've no idea why this happened - it's not what the models predict."

What folks reading this thread need to understand is that your dark matter gnome is now fundamental to the mainstream's whole model of the universe's structure. Because without dark matter (and black holes), they can't even explain the formation of galaxies right after the Big Bang (see http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_history_030128-1.html ). So if dark matter isn't what explains rotation curves, there is good reason to doubt it is associated with galaxies. In which case, the Big Bang model of the universe can't explain how galaxies even formed. Perhaps that is why the mainstream seems so desperate to ignore the work of researchers like Peratt?

 

[ben m]

I don't need a PIC code to understand the numbers in Post #54 in this thread---which rules out the presence of large plasma-ish forces generally, and which breaks (dramatically) Battaner and Florido's explicit assumption of "a perfect coupling between field and fluid". You can run all of the simulations you want, but if they all contain the assumption that stars are kinematically indistinguishable from the ISM, then they're not relevant to the real world.

That's why I'm ignoring them. They appear to be very nice simulations of an entirely fictional universe with no low-charge-to-mass-ratio objects in it.

 

[BeAChooser]

It's ironic that the woos here are complaining about the cost of dark matter searches. DM detection experiments (at least the ones I know of) are extremely cheap

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2007/05/07/news/top/news00a.txt " The ultra-cold spot - the size of a breadbox - is actually 2,341 feet underground, in the University of Minnesota's Soudan Underground Laboratory. Cryogenically super-cooled crystals in this experiment could make the first observation of a mysterious substance called "dark matter." ... snip ... The Soudan Underground Laboratory is one of four sites proposed for a larger, deeper national underground laboratory. ... snip ... Even a lab like Soudan, with a small local footprint, is expensive - more than $100 million so far. A DUSEL likely would cost $300 million or more to construct, not counting experiments that would be added over the years."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=80d5b7ea5fcc10d0201d55e630d16ca9 "The case for a kilometer-scale high energy neutrino detector ... snip ... 2001 ... snip ... With several thousand optical modules and a price tag unlikely to exceed 100 million dollars, the scope of a kilometer-scale instrument is similar to that of experiments presently being commissioned such as the SNO neutrino observatory in Canada and the Superkamiokande experiment in Japan."

And there are many other projects scattered all over the world costing millions or even tens of millions that are trying to find evidence of dark matter in one form or another. And that activity has been going on for decades. You can do a web search and quickly confirm this. Add it all up and it's not "cheap".

And don't forget the amount of time put in by astronomers and astrophysicists, with their very expensive billion dollar telescopes and spacecraft, looking for evidence of dark matter. And what portion of particle accelerator costs, such as the Large Hadron Collider, should we apportion to the search for dark matter? At a cost of many billion dollars, it doesn't have be a very large percentage to add up to something that's not exactly cheap. Especially when the search for dark matter is now being used to sell the construction of these mammoth machines in the first place.

 

[BeAChooser]

BeAChooser, why do you think these theories don't have more mainstream support?

I think I've made that perfectly clear. It's called vested interests.

In any case, the reason doesn't appear to be because the mainstream proved Alfven and Peratt wrong about the rotation of galaxies. If you think that is the reason, then prove it. Show me something (preferably peer-reviewed in a mainstream journal by named mainstream scientists) that says we don't agree with Alfven and Peratt for these specific reasons. Something that says we've done PIC calculations modeling gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM and we don't get the result you got. I don't want to listen to any of you telling me this. I want to hear it directly from a real source. But that sort of source doesn't appear to exist. Like I said, the mainstream appears to be simply ignoring the work of Alfven and Peratt (and others). And that's not good science. That's protecting your own reputations, jobs, big science projects and future livelihood. IMO.

 

[robinson]

I've poked around based on this constant irrational harping, and there is a lot of interesting stuff. Recent evidence has shown electromagnetism based theories to be correct on two major issues.

Not that you would know it fro the mainstream press and science clubs.

 

[BeAChooser]

I've asked you before how old you think the universe is, and you didn't answer.

I've stated numerous times on this forum exactly what I just told you Ziggurat. Here's a statement I made to TV's Frank not long ago: "Plasma cosmologists don't make a claim as to the age of the universe other than that its old, at least old enough to have formed the very large structures (like strings of galaxies) that are observed at the very limits of the observable universe." And as I point out to him, "one reason Big Bang cosmology invented this still very mysterious *dark energy* is that without it, the age of the Big Bang universe would appear to be less than some stars appear to be (if you believe the standard nuclear model for the ages of those stars)." And I also pointed out to him that the 2004 American Astronomical Society meeting found that the universe looks very similar at high redshifts to its appearance today. Galaxies from 10 billion years ago appear to have a similar distribution of stellar ages and a similar spectrum of chemical elements produced by stars to that of our present-day galaxy. This has recently forced the Big Bang community to move the major stellar and galaxy formation epoch back in time billions of years from where it formerly was in their theory ... and forced them to make black holes and dark matter essential to the actual creation of galaxies. And even so, they still have no real explanation how these strings of galaxies and giant voids formed in the time they claim from when the Big Bang occurred to when we can see them in massively organized structure.

Quote:
I've even cited mainstream astrophysicists admitting that there just isn't enough time for some of the observed structures to have been formed and it's "back to the drawing board." And your side's response has been been to ignore the problem.

You're contradicting yourself. Again. If they're saying "back to the drawing board" then they aren't ignoring the problems.

Wrong. In going back to the drawing board, they haven't taken a second look at their basic assumptions ... like ignoring electromagnetic effects ... they've simply started adding still more gnomes onto the existing pile of unproven gnomes.

I've already demonstrated why it's impossible.

Yes, just like you and others have demonstrated it's "impossible" for electromagnetic effects to explain the rotation curves of galaxies.

MHD models aren't gravity-only.

The ones that astrophysicists use don't include major electromagnetic phenomena in them (like Birkeland currents, double layers, exploding double layers and z-pinches) ... and do include phenomena that the scientist who won the Nobel Prize for inventing MHD in the first place said have no place in them when it comes to astrophysical phenomena. Alfvén wrote, "Since the time of Langmuir, we know that a double layer is a plasma formation by which a plasma—in the physical meaning of this word—protects itself from the environment. It is analogous to a cell wall by which a plasma—in the biological meaning of this word—protects itself from the environment." He wrote (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986stpr.rept..409A) "As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory." So don't try and throw MHD models at me, Ziggurat.

you don't know what you're talking about.

I remember a time not long ago when the mainstream claimed there were NO electric currents in space. I've decided not to offer a calculation for your problem, Ziggurat, because I don't know what the relevant numbers are ... and no one really does because no measurements have even been attempted (perhaps because such measurements are a little difficult to do) so far. But they are starting to discover that there are very large currents moving in space ... even in our solar system. And they are finding all the phenomena (birkeland currents, double layers and perhaps even z-pinches) that the plasma cosmologists said they would find decades ago. Despite the fact that they are trying their best not even to look for them. So pardon me if I don't dismiss the notions of these folks with regards to electric stars out of hand based on "your" word. After all, I remember a time not long ago when someone on this thread even claimed that most of the observable matter in space is not plasma.

As has already been pointed out, the fact that the rotation rates are the same for all manner of objects suggests that gravity is indeed the driving force.

Now I think you're the one again demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about. Do you know that some portions of certain galaxies are actually rotating in reverse to the rest of the galaxy? And mainstream astronomers say that some galaxies don't appear to have dark matter halos ... so obviously they can't be rotating the same as all the others. And did you know that even the inner and outer halos of the Milky Way galaxy appear to be rotating in different directions? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071212-milky-way-halo.html I wonder if there isn't an electromagnetic explanation. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071009ngc4550.htm

Come up with better numbers if you want to be taken seriously. But physics is a quantitative science, and you seem to be allergic to actual numbers.

I'm trying ... at least where rotation curves and dark matter is concerned (the topic of this thread). But there YOU seem to be the one who is actually allergic to numbers. After all those billions spent *proving* your sides theory of the universe.

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase trying to find buried information which might not even be there.

Is that the excuse the other mainstream proponents had for not even responding to Peratt's work? Or were they desperate to ignore the work ... just like you?

 

[sol invictus]

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2007/05/07/news/top/news00a.txt " The ultra-cold spot - the size of a breadbox - is actually 2,341 feet underground, in the University of Minnesota's Soudan Underground Laboratory. Cryogenically super-cooled crystals in this experiment could make the first observation of a mysterious substance called "dark matter." ... snip ... The Soudan Underground Laboratory is one of four sites proposed for a larger, deeper national underground laboratory. ... snip ... Even a lab like Soudan, with a small local footprint, is expensive - more than $100 million so far. A DUSEL likely would cost $300 million or more to construct, not counting experiments that would be added over the years."

Yeah, only Soudan was not a dark matter detector. It was looking for proton decay, and later the data was used for neutrino oscillations. More recently the same facility housed CDMS (which is a DM detector).

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=80d5b7ea5fcc10d0201d55e630d16ca9 "The case for a kilometer-scale high energy neutrino detector ... snip ... 2001 ... snip ... With several thousand optical modules and a price tag unlikely to exceed 100 million dollars, the scope of a kilometer-scale instrument is similar to that of experiments presently being commissioned such as the SNO neutrino observatory in Canada and the Superkamiokande experiment in Japan."

THOSE ARE NOT DARK MATTER DETECTORS.

The problem with you woos is you don't know any physics at all. It's unbelievable you have the gall to make pronouncements on a field you're so totally and utterly ignorant about. You make yourself look like a ridiculous fool - which you are.

And don't forget the amount of time put in by astronomers and astrophysicists, with their very expensive billion dollar telescopes and spacecraft, looking for evidence of dark matter.

They aren't looking for "evidence of DM" - they're looking at the stars. Unlike you, they don't already know what the correct theory is. That's how science works, see?

You're an ignorant troll and not worth anyone's time. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[BeAChooser]

BeAChooser has been supporting the Quasi-Steady State Cosmology here.

Don't you misquote me either, edd. I've only offered QSSC as one of several alternatives that might (in some combination) explain the many observations that so far mainstream theories either can't explain or which rely on a variety of gnomes (like dark matter, black holes and inflation) to explain.

If you go and read what I've posted on this forum so far, you will find that I have pointed out numerous apparent discrepancies between the mainstream model and observations. Most of those observations have simply been ignored by the other side in this debate with the declaration that the mainstream model is still the best we have.

I've offered a variety of possible alternatives that do seem to explain many of the problematic observations without the need for gnomes (at least as many). I have not identified any one as "the one". More research in those areas would be needed to do that ... but that research isn't happening perhaps because the research dollars are being soaked up by pursuit of mainstream's numerous gnomes and their completely hostile attitude toward any alternatives.

You will find that I maintain that a variety of electromagnetic phenomena that we know exist and that are ubiquitous (we can apparently see them everywhere we look) are being essentially ignored by the mainstream ... because it is so focused on gnomes. You will find that I've described (albeit inadequately) some alternative electric and plasma *models* that seem to explain a number of phenomena that occur in the solar system, galaxy and beyond. And that I contend the mainstream has simply ignored these explanations rather than directly respond to them. The current discussion regarding galaxy rotation curves and possible electromagnetic causes for their characteristics is a case in point.

And you will find that I have also presented links and information on other possible explanations that for the most part are being ignored. QSSC and SCC are two examples. And regardless of what you claim, the verdict is still out on them. In fact, the developers of those models have levied much the same complaint I have ... that their work is simply being ignored rather than directly challenged in any formal manner. I guess the mainstream is leaving it up to you internet *gurus* to fight that battle.

And ignoring the fact it doesn't fit data (like the great ACBAR data ben m mentioned)

So you claim.

and that it requires dark energy

Hey, what can I say ... it's proponents haven't totally thrown out the bath water. However, from what I gather they also don't propose the same dependence on dark energy because for one thing, they don't believe the redshift/distance relationship assumed by Big Bang theorists holds true. And because their dark energy is the result of the continuous creation that comes out of their model. Burbidge even states "Dark energy is nothing more than creation. Now people are getting prizes for discovering dark energy and the acceleration of the universe. It is all part and parcel of not really understanding the details of the creation process." And their details are quite different from the Big Bang's.

and has to invoke a totally unobserved scalar field.

I believe that scalar field comes directly from their solution to the equation of General Relatively. And perhaps it is observed in the guise of quasars.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm trying ... at least where rotation curves and dark matter is concerned (the topic of this thread).

You have yet to provide any explanation as to why everything would have the same charge-to-mass ration, whether it's interstellar clouds or radically different stars (weren't different colored stars supposed to be an indicator of different charges?). You have yet to give a magnetic field for the galaxy or a charge on the sun which can accomplish what you say the electric model is doing. You aren't trying at all.

Actually, I take that back. You are trying, quite hard: you're trying to hide the obvious flaws in the theory, hoping that nobody will notice that you can't come up with actual numbers which make any sense. You never could.

But there YOU seem to be the one who is actually allergic to numbers.

After I've gone through multiple calculations to prove my points? After the only calculations you bothered to go through were when you thought somebody else screwed up, but each time it was actually your own arithmetic error? Talk about the pot calling the salt black.

Give me a magnetic field for the galaxy and a charge for the sun, and I'll even do the calculations for you. You're not fooling anyone.

 

[edd]

Don't you misquote me either, edd. I've only offered QSSC as one of several alternatives that might (in some combination) explain the many observations that so far mainstream theories either can't explain or which rely on a variety of gnomes (like dark matter, black holes and inflation) to explain.

Well I didn't actually quote you. I apologise however if you don't actually support the QSSC, which would be a very good idea on your part given that as I've posted in another thread you were involved in it doesn't fit CMB data at high multipoles, and that it undermines any criticism of 'gnomes' if you put forward as an alternative a theory that relies on similar constructions as an explanation.
My criticism of it only relies on its failure to fit data. I only criticise its dark energy component when it seems to be hypocritical of someone to put it forward in opposition to the standard cosmology when dark energy is the basis of the criticism of the latter. But if you agree that it's faulty then that's fine.

If you go and read what I've posted on this forum so far, you will find that I have pointed out numerous apparent discrepancies between the mainstream model and observations. Most of those observations have simply been ignored by the other side in this debate with the declaration that the mainstream model is still the best we have.

It's quite untrue that all of the criticisms you post are ignored. They're generally considered by professionals to be minor and explainable in ways without throwing away the otherwise very successful standard cosmology.

I've offered a variety of possible alternatives that do seem to explain many of the problematic observations without the need for gnomes (at least as many). I have not identified any one as "the one". More research in those areas would be needed to do that ... but that research isn't happening perhaps because the research dollars are being soaked up by pursuit of mainstream's numerous gnomes and their completely hostile attitude toward any alternatives.

You have my personal assurance that this is not true. Alternative gravity models are still very much a research topic for explaining what is conventionally explained by both dark energy and dark matter. What isn't taken seriously are certain other cosmological ideas that simply don't fit the observations any more.

And you will find that I have also presented links and information on other possible explanations that for the most part are being ignored. QSSC and SCC are two examples. And regardless of what you claim, the verdict is still out on them.

There's a pretty sizeable consensus in the professional community. And as I said before my own examination of it leads me to draw the conclusion that QSSC at least is not competitive.

I guess the mainstream is leaving it up to you internet *gurus* to fight that battle.

I'm not just some an internet guru. I have relevant qualifications.

So you claim.

Yes, it's my professional opinion.

 

[BeAChooser]

only Soudan was not a dark matter detector. It was looking for proton decay, and later the data was used for neutrino oscillations. More recently the same facility housed CDMS (which is a DM detector).

http://www.physics.umn.edu/outreach/soudan/tour/ "The Lab currently hosts two large projects: MINOS, which investigates elusive and poorly understood particles called neutrinos (BAC - which dark matter theorists are relying on to provide at least some of the missing mass and Big Bang theorists are relying on to help prove nuclear reactions are taking place in the sun); and CDMS II, a "dark-matter" experiment which may help explain how galaxies are formed. ... snip ... The overall cost of MINOS over a period of several years is about $174 million, most spent on neutrino production facilities at Fermilab. The MINOS Far Detector cost is about $32 million. The cavern was approximately $7 million to excavate plus a similar amount for steel supports and other outfitting. CDMS II will cost about $16 million. ... snip ... Are there other labs like this? During the past fifty years more than a dozen underground mines and tunnels have been used for physics experiments. Major active underground laboratories include Homestake (Lead, SD) Creighton (Sudbury, Canada), Boulby (northeastern England), Gran Sasso (Italy), Frejus (between Italy and France), Baksan (Russia), Kamioka (Japan), and Soudan."

\ Quote:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...1d55e630d16ca9 "The case for a kilometer-scale high energy neutrino detector ... snip ... 2001 ... snip ... With several thousand optical modules and a price tag unlikely to exceed 100 million dollars, the scope of a kilometer-scale instrument is similar to that of experiments presently being commissioned such as the SNO neutrino observatory in Canada and the Superkamiokande experiment in Japan."

THOSE ARE NOT DARK MATTER DETECTORS.

Are you trying to claim that neutrinos (they are looking for those, right?) aren't dark matter and that mainstream researchers haven't been building these labs at least in part to deduct the neutrino contribution to the total mass from all that is claimed but of still unknown type? I suspect even real mainstream theorists would raise an eyebrow at that claim, sol. And are you claiming that proton decay isn't a gnome of the Big Bang community ... one they really would like to find?

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-54/iss-1/p23.html "The biggest experiment on people's lips is UNO (Ultra Underground Nucleon Decay and Neutrino Observatory), a water Ùerenkov detector scaled up an order of magnitude from the 50-kiloton Super-Kamiokande in Japan. UNO's main aim would be to look for proton decay. It would also detect neutrinos from supernovas, the atmosphere, and the Sun ... snip ... Jung puts UNO's price tag at roughly $500 million".

And from the same source "Among the dark-matter searches in sight is a German initiative called GENIUS. It would look for recoil signals from WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) in a ton of germanium sheathed by a tank of liquid nitrogen." Surely the use of neutrinos is at least partially used to seel the UNO. And do you know how much a tone of germanium costs (never mind keeping it in a tank of liquid nitrogen and the staff to service the device)? $500 / lb? That would make that detector cost at least a million, probably several. It adds up pretty quick.

And then there is XENON, ZEPLIN-II, PICASSO, CRESST-I, ROSEBUD, NaIAD, CRESST- II, CUORICINO, EDELWEISS-I, EDELWEISS-II, CDMS-I, ZEPLIN-I, LIBRA, DAMA, IGEX, HDMS, EURECA ... all probing among other things the nature of dark matter. It adds up pretty quick.

Not to mention all that time, cost and effort related to using telescopes, gigantic computer simulations and particle accelerators to study dark matter and it's affects. Don't kid yourself, sol ... the search for dark matter has been anything but "cheap".

Quote:
And don't forget the amount of time put in by astronomers and astrophysicists, with their very expensive billion dollar telescopes and spacecraft, looking for evidence of dark matter.

They aren't looking for "evidence of DM" - they're looking at the stars.

Sure they are, sol.

http://www.dmtelescope.org/dark_home.shtml "The Dark Matter Telescope, also referred to as the LSST (Large Synoptic Survey Telescope), is a proposed ground-based 8.4-meter, 10 square-degree-field telescope" http://www.dmtelescope.org/News/NSF_Press_Release_2005.shtml "Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) receives $14.2 million National Science Foundation Design and Development Award ... snip ... Using the light-bending gravity of dark matter, the LSST will chart the history of the expansion of the universe and probe the mysterious nature of dark energy." https://www.llnl.gov/str/November05/Brase.html "The estimated cost of LSST is about $300 million: $30 million for design and $270 million for construction."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061214135537.htm "Giant Radio Telescope Imaging Could Make Dark Matter Visible, ScienceDaily (Dec. 14, 2006) ... snip ... Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics have discovered, however, that a sufficiently big radio telescope could make a picture of everything that gravitates, rivalling the images made by optical telescopes of everything that shines"

And, by the way, the cost of running large telescopes like Hubble or Chandar isn't just the cost of initial construction. The cost of actually maintaining and running the telescope is very high ... plus there is an opportunity cost if you devote the precious resource to one observation versus another. Chandra, for example, was so busy searching for dark matter that they couldn't be bothered to take a look at a quasar observation that might challenge the mainstream claim that redshift ALWAYS equates to distance.

ou're an ignorant troll and not worth anyone's time. Welcome to my ignore list.

Could that be the reason why mainstream astrophysicists have completely ignored Dr. Peratt's many peer-reviewed scientific articles? They consider him a "ignorant troll" and put him on their "ignore list" ... much like I've been suggesting all along? Is that the way *SCIENCE* is supposed to work, sol?

 

[BeAChooser]

You're not fooling anyone.

Neither are you ... oh yee who can't seem to find a single peer-reviewed scientific article that directly challenges the ones that I supplied by Peratt and others.

 

[robinson]

When it comes to providing sources, papers, documents, that kind of stuff, Be a chooser is kicking everyone's butt.

I'm an evidence based sort of person, so I tend to go with hard science rather than opinion.

 

[Ziggurat]

Neither are you ... oh yee who can't seem to find a single peer-reviewed scientific article that directly challenges the ones that I supplied by Peratt and others.

In other words, you can't do any calculations at all.

 

[Olowkow]

First off, I have no dog in this fight. But....

There is a lot of "fringe science" out there. I happen to know a fair number of big guns in several fields of science, and it would be laughable for them to spend their valuable time attempting to debunk every far out theory that came along. They would be risking their reputations just by doing so.

I also happen to know this gentleman:
http://www.allbookstores.com/book/9780973291148/Thomas_E_Phipps/Old_Physics_For_New.html

He gives me a copy of every book he has written. I have read and re-read them several times.

Tom is a terrific guy, an enjoyable individual, and very bright. Frankly, I don't get his science though, and he knows that. I used to think I just was not smart enough, but I have researched what others have had to say, and I believe one would be hard pressed to find a "peer reviewed" refutation of his work.

 

[BeAChooser]

as I've posted in another thread you were involved in it doesn't fit CMB data at high multipoles

You want to talk about agreement with CMB data, edd? Sure ...

Glenn Starkman of Case Western Reserve University has discovered some characteristics in the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data that have serious consequences for the Standard Model. http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/dept/Talks/starkman.shtml Far from having the smooth, Gaussian distribution predicted by Big Bang, the microwave picture has distinct anisotropies, and what’s more says Starkman, they are clearly aligned with local astrophysical structures, particularly the ecliptic of the Solar System. Once the dipole harmonic is stripped to remove the effect of the motion of the Solar System, the other harmonics, quadrupole, octopole, and so on reveal a distinct alignment with local objects. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. Either the Big Bang assumption is wrong or there is something seriously wrong with the WMAP data. Care to take bets?

And there is more bad news ...

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/C...e_Of_Radiation_In_Interstellar_Space_999.html "Cosmological Data Affected By An Unexpected Source Of Radiation In Interstellar Space ... Nov 13, 2007, The widely lauded discovery of small-scale structure in the cosmic microwave background may be seriously affected by a previously unidentified source of radio emission in our own Milky Way Galaxy. This is the conclusion arrived at by Dr. Gerrit Verschuur, Adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of Memphis. His work will be published in the December 10 issue of the Astrophysical Journal. Verschuur was studying data from the first ever all-sky survey of interstellar neutral hydrogen (HI) when he noticed intriguing similarities to the structure observed by the Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) spacecraft. WMAP was designed to detect faint variations in the cosmic microwave background, a pervasive signal left over from the Big Bang itself. This anisotropy may represent the first step in the structural evolution of the universe, a middle ground between the ultra-smooth cosmic microwave background and the clusters of galaxies that exist today. The anisotropy detected with WMAP confirms a discovery made a decade earlier by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) spacecraft. As a result, the COBE scientists won the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics. However, if even a small fraction of the anisotropy can be associated with structure in the Milky Way, the cosmological interpretations of the data could be called into question. Verschuur, a pioneer in the science of radio astronomy, has been studying the properties of the Milky Way using interstellar HI for almost 50 years. According to his recent work, it appears that many of the small-scale structures observed by WMAP are correlated with HI. ... snip ... The new discovery, if confirmed, means that the structure superimposed on the cosmic microwave background is produced in the Milky Way and does not have a cosmic origin. Thus the cosmic microwave background signal from the early universe may be smoother than anyone expected, which raises new questions as to how structure ever emerged in the universe to create galaxies."

http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2007/11/big_bang# "Big Bang or Big Goof? Astronomer Challenges 'Seeds' Proof, By Keay Davidson 11.15.07 Most astronomers say that world-famous images from the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite show structures of the early universe. But a lone radio astronomer is claiming that the pictures depict nearby hydrogen gas clouds in our own galaxy, calling a key theory into question. Astronomers are abuzz because if Gerrit Verschuur of the University of Memphis is right, one of the most important theories developed in the past 15 years -- one that won a Nobel Prize -- would be toppled. The world’s top astronomical publication, Astrophysical Journal, will publish Verschuur's research December 10. ... snip ... He said he’s found at least 200 instances where the so-called cosmic seeds lie suspiciously close to known hydrogen clouds inside our galaxy. There's a long history of astronomical debates over whether celestial objects are close or distant. For example, the former Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson astronomer Halton Arp has argued that super-bright objects in the heavens, quasars, are located much closer to Earth than is generally believed, and that they’re ejected from galaxies like pinballs from pinball machines. But virtually all astronomers reject Arp’s claims on the grounds that they’re based on an unconvincing statistical analysis of the comparative locations of quasars and galaxies. This week, a similar critique is being lobbed against Verschuur."

Who could have guessed that Big Bang community would respond in the same way they responded to Arp's claims? That the alignments are all just chance and coincidence.

And Big Bang's problems with the CMB don't end there ...

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19425994.000-axis-of-evil-a-cause-for-cosmic-concern.html: "'Axis of evil' a cause for cosmic concern, 13 April 2007, New Scientist, Zeeya Merali, *... snip ... According to the standard model, the universe is isotropic, or much the same everywhere. However, in 2005, Kate Land and João Magueijo of Imperial College London noticed a curious pattern in the map of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) created by NASA's WMAP satellite. It seemed to show that some hot and cold spots in the CMB are not distributed randomly, as expected, but are aligned along what Magueijo dubbed the axis of evil. Some astronomers have suggested straightforward explanations for the axis, such as problems with WMAP's instruments or distortions caused by a nearby supercluster (New Scientist, 22 October 2005, p 19). Others doubt the pattern's very existence. "There's still a fair bit of controversy about whether there's even something there that needs to be explained," says WMAP scientist Gary Hinshaw of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. Now, two independent studies seem to confirm that it does exist. Damien Hutsemékers of the University of Liège in Belgium analysed the polarisation of light from 355 quasars and found that as the quasars get near the axis, the polarisation becomes more ordered than expected. Taken together, the polarisation angles from the quasars seem to corkscrew around the axis. ... snip ... The quasar finding has support from another study, however. Michael Longo of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor analysed 1660 spiral galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and found that the axes of rotation of most galaxies appear to line up with the axis of evil (www.arxiv.org/astro-ph/0703325). According to Longo, the probability of this happening by chance is less than 0.4 per cent. "This suggests the axis is real, and not simply an error in the WMAP data," he says."

Ah, but as you say, the ACBAR data is a perfect fit. (sarcasm)

It's quite untrue that all of the criticisms you post are ignored.

Well most certainly the ones related to peer-reviewed calculations showing that galactic rotation curves are the product of electromagnetic effects and not dark matter have been ignored. Else you'd be able to supply at least one peer-reviewed article from the mainstream directly challenging them.

And likewise the peer-reviewed criticisms that mainstream astrophysics models that do not incorporate Birkeland currents, double layers, exploding double layers and z-pinch phenomena have been ignored too. Since again, you can't find any peer-review articles written by mainstream theory supporting researchers that directly challenge them.

And then there's the issue of observations related to quasars ... so many quasars clustered around a particular galaxy rather than more uniformly distributed. Alignments with other quasars, with plumes, with optical jets, with x-ray filaments, with the minor axis, and with the major axis. Quasars that appear to be in front of low redshift galaxies. The chance of this just happening by accident has to be very, very small ... yet mainstream astrophysicists and their supporters on this forum ignore this by dismissing it all as "mere coincidence". And never mind the alignments associated with high redshift galaxies. Again, ignoring the problem has been the general response of the mainstream community.

No, I think my statement is a fair characterization of what has been going on in the mainstream community and even here on this forum amongst Big Bang supporters.

You have my personal assurance that this is not true.

Wow, that makes me feel so much better. Your "personal assurance".

There's a pretty sizeable consensus in the professional community.

Just like there is with regards to the cause of galactic rotation curves?

I'm not just some an internet guru. I have relevant qualifications.

Why that's *wonderful*. But I rather see a link to a peer reviewed article that directly challenges the above than your "personal assurances".

Yes, it's my professional opinion.

Is that another way of saying you have a vested interest? Out of curiousity, what would happen to your job, funding, reputation and future prospects if it was concluded that dark matter isn't needed to explain galactic rotation curves and thus dark matter might not be available to help explain the formation of galaxies at all? Hmmmm?

 

[edd]

You want to talk about agreement with CMB data, edd? Sure ...

Glenn Starkman of Case Western Reserve University has discovered some characteristics in the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data that have serious consequences for the Standard Model. http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/dept/Talks/starkman.shtml Far from having the smooth, Gaussian distribution predicted by Big Bang, the microwave picture has distinct anisotropies, and what’s more says Starkman, they are clearly aligned with local astrophysical structures, particularly the ecliptic of the Solar System. Once the dipole harmonic is stripped to remove the effect of the motion of the Solar System, the other harmonics, quadrupole, octopole, and so on reveal a distinct alignment with local objects. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. Either the Big Bang assumption is wrong or there is something seriously wrong with the WMAP data. Care to take bets?

Axis of Evil. You mention it later by that name further down. Hot topic, we're not sure what it is yet. But the quadrupole and octopole are only part of the CMB data and the other ways in which it matches up are a strong indicator that the Big Bang is right (and strong is an understatement here). It does not completely contradict 'the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster' - it means there's very possibly some effect that's not been accounted for, and it's frequently discussed. And yes, I'd take a bet. And I'd furthermore be very happy to lose that bet. There's other interesting anomalies, but none are overwhelmingly bizarre, and none are enough to undermine the general principles of the standard model of cosmology. But all are taken seriously, but in a way appropriate to the magnitude of the peculiarity in question.

The quasar finding has support from another study, however. Michael Longo of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor analysed 1660 spiral galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and found that the axes of rotation of most galaxies appear to line up with the axis of evil (www.arxiv.org/astro-ph/0703325). According to Longo, the probability of this happening by chance is less than 0.4 per cent. "This suggests the axis is real, and not simply an error in the WMAP data," he says."

Actually there's more than a few open questions on this front, and one shouldn't be too quick to assume that it's a problem with the Big Bang. I happen to have looked into that work in some detail, and it absolutely did raise a few eyebrows, and provoke a lot of us into some still ongoing work into what's going on. We're cautious however, and we also know that it's very easy to allow some other effect to appear as something else.

Ah, but as you say, the ACBAR data is a perfect fit. (sarcasm)

Actually I don't. I say it fits the standard cosmological model better than the QSSC.

Wow, that makes me feel so much better. Your "personal assurance".

I know a lot of physicists who are
a) a lot smarter than me
b) extremely critical of their own work and that of their colleagues
That's what I'm assuring you of. Not my own point of view, but that seriously competitive alternative points of view are taken seriously and critically and handled appropriately. Even if you announce a result that agrees with what they already think they'll try to poke holes in it. This is what I'm trying to get across more than anything. They do not latch on to dark energy and dark matter or the Big Bang or anything else on a whim. Cosmologists and astrophysicists are a dramatically more critical bunch than you give them credit for, and this is why you get my goat when you go on about gnomes. They're more critical than you, they have a better understanding of the physics than you (despite what you may think) and I think you do them a severe disservice by suggesting what you do.

Is that another way of saying you have a vested interest? Out of curiousity, what would happen to your job, funding, reputation and future prospects if it was concluded that dark matter isn't needed to explain galactic rotation curves and thus dark matter might not be available to help explain the formation of galaxies at all? Hmmmm?

My funding opportunities and future prospects would increase I'd bet. There'd be something new and exciting to investigate, after all. My job and reputation would similarly be safe provided I acted like any good scientist and recognised that new observations should prompt me to change my perspective and pursue currently relevant research interests.

 

[BeAChooser]

In other words, you can't do any calculations at all.

I've never claimed to be an expert or particularly good at doing calculations. For one, because in many ways these problems are too difficult to be resolved on the back of a piece of paper. That's why they use PIC codes and super computers. I've always said I am relying on the expertise of others who do appear to have real credentials ... such Alfven and Peratt. On scientists and engineers who wrote the peer reviewed articles published in mainstream technical journals that I've cited in this thread and that the mainstream has simply ignored ... perhaps because the mainstream has no option if they want to maintain at least the aura in the public's eye that they actually know what they are doing. Otherwise, the billions flowing into their pockets might come to an abrupt end ... or at least be diverted to a different set of experts.

Lee Smolins made an interesting observation in his book, "The Trouble With Physics". That in the last 30 years or so, physics has not produced any fundamental theory that has actually had any real world consequence. For the first time in the history of science. All the wonderful technology we see daily improving our lives comes from physics laid down before the time that Big Bang cosmology, modern particle physics and string theory got such a grip on what research is funded and who gets the toys. Perhaps a reason for that is that we are now on a wrong path, one that is leading us away from actual reality. Perhaps that's a symptom of a serious problem?