• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

The initial reason that dark matter was needed is because galaxies rotate slower than they should according to the visible matter that we see. This means that galaxies have more mass at their edges and that this mass is not visible (thus "dark matter"). See the Wikipedia article for other observations that dark matter is needed.
I believe that the reason that dark matter is not considered to be conventional black holes is that black holes are actually quite detectable, e.g. through their interaction with interstellar gas. It is also hard to think of a mechanism to create many black holes on the galatic edges that did not also create them in the body of the galaxy.

Or our understanding of gravity is subtly flawed, and the quantum problems do occur on the macro level, or there's a mechanism that we just plain missed.

See, I'll buy that there's matter that phases through other matter. I mean assuming it doesn't have a magnetic field, the chances of actually impacting another atomic nucleus are actually reasonably low, so it could reasonably pass through most semi-dense objects.

The problem is this matter is going to tend to collect in very dense objects - stars, planets, etc. The fact that the stars we observe seem to have roughly the correct mass if they're completely composed of conventional matter, and that the dark matter we're looking for outmasses the conventional matter significantly argues to me that the entire thing is missing something. I mean we ought to be taking mass readings of our sun and going "that's way, way, way denser than we'd expect" in that case.

I've never seen a good reason why that would happen that way. If the matter exists, its going to be sitting inside stars, and the stars just don't appear to be gaining ghost matter that way.
 
I've never seen a good reason why that would happen that way. If the matter exists, its going to be sitting inside stars, and the stars just don't appear to be gaining ghost matter that way.

Then you've never read anything on the topic or asked anyone knowledgeable.

One thing we know about DM is that it it's distributed in a roughly spherical halo, in contrast to visible matter (in spiral galaxies) which is distributed in a disk. The visible matter got to be a disk because it interacts and reduces its energy by ejecting energetic particles, while preserving its angular momentum. That flattens it out into a disk, and only then does the gas become dense enough to start to form stars. DM does not interact strongly enough to flatten, and for the same reason it will not collect in stars. If a DM particle passes near or even through a star, it just flies right on through. Remember that three massive dark particles we already know about - neutrinos - can pass through a lightyear of solid lead without interacting.

As for black holes, several searches were done using gravitational lensing, looking for massive compact halo objects (MACHOs) in our halo. There was some disagreement among the different groups, but the conclusion was that DM cannot be stellar mass holes or any mass range near that. And as RC mentioned, it's hard to think of mechanisms that would form so many.
 
Last edited:
E=mc2 . . .

Einstein - E = Energy, M = Mass and C = speed of light

Theist - E = Existence, M = Miracle, and C = Creation

Relativity Sceptic - E = Einstein, M = Mathematical and C = Conjurer

Ancient Romans - E = 10,000,000, M= 1,000 and C = 100 (hope that’s correct)

You mean by this what?
First "expanded" is perfectly defined ,is meaningfull and does describe reality.

Rest is flawed,just playing with letters and words and nothing meaningfull comes from that...

Only last has again meaning,but it is no longer in use since arabic numerals were imported and their flaw is,they had to use tables with adding ,multiplication and such,so they can do arithmetic.When have you last used roman numerals?

(Hopefully no spelling,wording mistakes... :( )
 
The initial reason that dark matter was needed is because galaxies rotate slower than they should according to the visible matter that we see. This means that galaxies have more mass at their edges and that this mass is not visible (thus "dark matter"). See the Wikipedia article for other observations that dark matter is needed.

WTF?

galaxies rotate slower than they should according to the visible matter that we see

You know, while I enjoy making fun of people when they say dumb stuff, lobbing a soft pitch like that over the plate kind of takes the challenge out of it.

It is also sad that nobody pointed out the glaring error in that statement, which is so wrong it makes me wonder. Is it that everybody else is dumb, or do people just not read your postings?

Maybe it was dark post, and nobody saw it.
 
Then you've never read anything on the topic or asked anyone knowledgeable.

One thing we know about DM is that it it's distributed in a roughly spherical halo, in contrast to visible matter (in spiral galaxies) which is distributed in a disk. The visible matter got to be a disk because it interacts and reduces its energy by ejecting energetic particles, while preserving its angular momentum. That flattens it out into a disk, and only then does the gas become dense enough to start to form stars. DM does not interact strongly enough to flatten, and for the same reason it will not collect in stars. If a DM particle passes near or even through a star, it just flies right on through. Remember that three massive dark particles we already know about - neutrinos - can pass through a lightyear of solid lead without interacting.

Our measurements of neutrino speed as similar to c suggest strongly that they're massless particles. So I'll buy them for dark energy, but I'm still not seeing where this dark matter is coming from. I mean there's obviously no way in heck dark matter is moving at c. Or near it. So I'm not going to say its possible to conflate neutrinos with dark matter. I'm just going to say its very useful that dark matter chooses to behave nothing like regular matter, and stubbornly refuses to hang out near suns.


As for black holes, several searches were done using gravitational lensing, looking for massive compact halo objects (MACHOs) in our halo. There was some disagreement among the different groups, but the conclusion was that DM cannot be stellar mass holes or any mass range near that. And as RC mentioned, it's hard to think of mechanisms that would form so many.
I'll buy that. I'm just not seeing 'some numbers don't add up on theories that frankly we're not 100% on' and 'we're not measuring the spin speed on a galaxy that we think we should' as being sufficient evidence to declare that a whole different category of matter exists.
 
It is also sad that nobody pointed out the glaring error in that statement, which is so wrong it makes me wonder. Is it that everybody else is dumb, or do people just not read your postings?

Calm down! It was just a typo. Notice that (s)he linked to a page that contains the correct information.

Our measurements of neutrino speed as similar to c suggest strongly that they're massless particles.

That neutrinos have mass was confirmed by several large experiments over the last 10 years. The mass is small, which is why they are almost always relativistic.

So I'll buy them for dark energy, but I'm still not seeing where this dark matter is coming from.

Dark energy cannot be massless particles. In fact massless particles are even less like DE than massive ones - they redshift faster than massive particles as the universe expands, whereas DE redshifts slowly or not at all.

I mean there's obviously no way in heck dark matter is moving at c. Or near it.

Really? I'm curious - how do you know?

I'll buy that. I'm just not seeing 'some numbers don't add up on theories that frankly we're not 100% on' and 'we're not measuring the spin speed on a galaxy that we think we should' as being sufficient evidence to declare that a whole different category of matter exists.

When it was only a question of galactic rotation curves, most people agreed with that.

Now, however, it's the cosmic microwave background, weak lensing surveys, structure formation, and the direct observation of DM in several different systems by its (strong) lensing effects. None of those observations make any sense at all without DM, and all agree at least roughly on how much of it there is.
 
Last edited:
On the Proof of Dark Matter, the Law of Gravity and the Mass of Neutrinos
Authors: Garry W. Angus (1), HuanYuan Shan (2,1), HongSheng Zhao (1,2), Benoit Famaey (3) ((1) University of St. Andrews, (2) NAOC, Beijing, (3) Universite Libre de Bruxelles)
(Submitted on 6 Sep 2006 (v1), last revised 5 Nov 2006 (this version, v3))

Abstract: We develop a new method to predict the density associated with weak lensing maps of (un)relaxed clusters in a range of theories interpolating between GR and MOND (General Relativity and Modified Newtonian Dynamics). We apply it to fit the lensing map of the bullet merging cluster 1E0657-56, in order to constrain more robustly the nature and amount of collisionless matter in clusters {\it beyond} the usual assumption of spherical equilibrium (Pointecouteau & Silk 2005) and the validity of GR on cluster scales (Clowe et al. 2006). Strengthening the proposal of previous authors we show that the bullet cluster is dominated by a collisionless -- most probably non-baryonic -- component in GR as well as in MOND, a result consistent with the dynamics of many X-ray clusters. Our findings add to the number of known pathologies for a purely baryonic MOND, including its inability to fit the latest data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. A plausible resolution of all these issues and standard issues of Cold Dark Matter with galaxy rotation curves is the "marriage" of MOND with ordinary hot neutrinos of 2eV. This prediction is just within the GR-independent maximum of neutrino mass from current $\beta$-decay experiments, and is falsifiable by the Karlsruhe Tritium Neutrino (KATRIN) experiment by 2009. Issues of consistency with strong lensing arcs and the large relative velocity of the two clusters comprising the bullet cluster are also addressed.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609125

This KATRIN looks interesting.
 

One teeny tiny little problem with that: the SUM of the three neutrino masses is constrained to be less than 1.1 eV at 3 sigma. Combined with what we know about delta m squared from oscillations, 2 eV neutrinos are ruled out at about 15 sigma, or p<.0000001.

Now you could try to argue that MOND changes that limit, but then you've got a lot of work to do.... not the least of which is finding a relativistic version of it so you can discuss lensing and WMAP.
 
Why would skeptical inquiry give such a claim a free pass? Discussing this with "skeptics" who claim to be scientific in their views, is like running across true believers online.
Because as you've been typing that long winded rational we've been bombarded with trillions and trillions and even more trillions of particles that we can't see and are a pain the butt to detect.
 
Nope. A rational skeptic would realize that your extraordinary claim isn't extraordinary. Though also reading through your post shows me you didn't even bother to read the article. There is a difference between undetectable and pain in the *(# to detect.
 
Though also reading through your post shows me you didn't even bother to read the article.

What article?

Are you, like every other "smart" person here, just going to ignore the huge error I pointed out? It isn't like it was a small error, considering the topic, it was as big of an error as anyone could make about "dark matter".

Do you even know why DM was postulated in the first place? What led to the idea there was invisible matter out there?
 
That neutrinos have mass was confirmed by several large experiments over the last 10 years. The mass is small, which is why they are almost always relativistic.
Really? Wow. Must have missed something.



Really? I'm curious - how do you know?
Because if it was, then it would have been near c since its creation (unless it somehow gained energy, which implies that it could lose energy, which implies that it interacts with normal matter). If that's the case, its certainly not chilling in galaxies slowing down their rotation any more than the light generated by the big bang (or more correctly the moment it became rarified enough to allow light) is hanging out in galaxies, dawdling around. Galaxies don't have the gravitational pull to pull in near-c objects (if they did, they certainly wouldn't emit as much light as they do).

Now, however, it's the cosmic microwave background, weak lensing surveys, structure formation, and the direct observation of DM in several different systems by its (strong) lensing effects. None of those observations make any sense at all without DM, and all agree at least roughly on how much of it there is.
I am still curious why it isn't clustering near other large objects, like stars.
 
Last edited:
You mean by this what?
First "expanded" is perfectly defined ,is meaningfull and does describe reality.

Rest is flawed,just playing with letters and words and nothing meaningfull comes from that...

Only last has again meaning,but it is no longer in use since arabic numerals were imported and their flaw is,they had to use tables with adding ,multiplication and such,so they can do arithmetic.When have you last used roman numerals?

(Hopefully no spelling,wording mistakes... :( )
What are you referring to and what do you mean by “expanded”?

Don't wory about spalin mustakes ;)

ETA - Hope my sub-discussion isn't derailing your thread robinson. I can go away if it's annoying.
 
Last edited:
From the OP, and I quote:

The rest, they said, is the even more mysterious dark energy, which fills empty space with a force that appears to negate gravity and push the universe to expand ever faster.

It isn't just DM, it is DE, which is even more woo woo.

ETA - Hope my sub-discussion isn't derailing your thread robinson. I can go away if it's annoying.

What sub-discussion? :D
 
E=mc2 . . .

Einstein - E = Energy, M = Mass and C = speed of light

Theist - E = Existence, M = Miracle, and C = Creation

Relativity Sceptic - E = Einstein, M = Mathematical and C = Conjurer

Ancient Romans - E = 10,000,000, M= 1,000 and C = 100 (hope that’s correct)
Actually
E = Elephants
m = mice
c = carrots :D
But seriously - if your question is really about the reality of abstract concepts then a topic on science is not the best place to ask it. Scientists need a mathematical model of the world in order to implement the scientific method (i.e. make testable predictions). This means that the abstract concepts that they use do reflect reality.
You need a philosopher to answer so you should ask in the Religion and Philosophy topic. Be prepared for lots of confillcting answers!
 
Actually
E = Elephants​

m = mice​

c = carrots :D
But seriously - if your question is really about the reality of abstract concepts then a topic on science is not the best place to ask it. Scientists need a mathematical model of the world in order to implement the scientific method (i.e. make testable predictions). This means that the abstract concepts that they use do reflect reality.
You need a philosopher to answer so you should ask in the Religion and Philosophy topic. Be prepared for lots of confillcting answers!
Some of you guys have an elephant fetish.:D

How does the abstract 2D outer surface of an inflating balloon reflect the reality of the never less than 3D reality of an expanding universe? An expanding rasin bread does this far better, but then there‘s the crust. The balloon analogy is more to do with attempting to create a representation of a curved space/time, infinitely finite universe than a universally expanding one.
 
Some of you guys have an elephant fetish.:D

How does the abstract 2D outer surface of an inflating balloon reflect the reality of the never less than 3D reality of an expanding universe? An expanding rasin bread does this far better, but then there‘s the crust. The balloon analogy is more to do with attempting to create a representation of a curved space/time, infinitely finite universe than a universally expanding one.
That is right - it is an analogy. If you want to, try visualising a 4D space-time instead! That is much harder. It is easier to forget about a space dimension and think about a 2D balloon that changes with time.
There is no "crust". The balloon has a volume (the area that it encloses) and a surface but the surface has no "depth".
 
Last edited:
Because if it was, then it would have been near c since its creation (unless it somehow gained energy, which implies that it could lose energy, which implies that it interacts with normal matter). If that's the case, its certainly not chilling in galaxies slowing down their rotation any more than the light generated by the big bang (or more correctly the moment it became rarified enough to allow light) is hanging out in galaxies, dawdling around. Galaxies don't have the gravitational pull to pull in near-c objects (if they did, they certainly wouldn't emit as much light as they do).

But the cosmic background of neutrinos - which would be what the dark matter is made from, not the ones emitted from stars - is not necessarily relativistic today. Neutrinos decouple from other matter very early in the universe (at about 1 second after the big bang), and so they've been out of thermal equilibrium for a long time. As the universe expands they cool, and today they actually have a very low temperature. With even a small mass, they will be quite non-relativistic by now. So if they had turned out to be a bit more massive than they are, they could have been DM. As it turns out they are not, but it shows how non-exotic and rather unsurprising the existence of DM is.

I am still curious why it isn't clustering near other large objects, like stars.

We know that it interacts only quite weakly (like neutrinos). There is no way for such stuff to cluster, because it cannot reduce its energy. Think about a massive neutrino, even a non-relativistic one, coming close to the sun. It can just pass right through the center and shoot out the other side, because its mean free path is much longer than the sun is big. So there is no way for it to get stuck or cluster - and that's for an incredibly unusual one which passes right through the middle of the sun. Almost all the rest never come anywhere near a dense region.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom