Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Wangler]

It cannot explain the rotation curves.

Mighty MOND can, though.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, if you mean we might get movement from a point without them, well, ok. I guess for that you only need a mythical, density defying, now dead entity called inflation.

Nope, don't need that for a big bang either.

It's not the simple really.

General relativity, which is at the heart of this whole thing, is not what I'd call simple. But given general relativity, then no, you really don't need much more in order to conclude that there was a big bang of some sort.

Its only "unstable" if no other factors (like persistent current flow) affect the movements of objects in space.

Uh, no. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Current flows cannot stabilize a static cosmology under general relativity.

If there are other factors involved, a stable physical universe is entirely possible.

Sure. Like a perfectly tuned cosmological constant. Which is equivalent to dark energy. Oh, but that's a no-no for you.

You can't tell from GR alone whether or not there are other influence (like current flow) that have an effect on objects in space.

Yes, actually, I can. GR incorporates electromagnetism rather trivially. EM fields are just another form of energy density. And it's not the effect on objects which is of interest, it's the effect on space itself which determines the cosmology.

The universe could simply be homogeneous because it is naturally that way (for whatever reason), not necessarily because "inflation did it".

This too is irrelevant. Inflation is used to describe the scale on which it is apparently homogenous. But even without inflation, at a large enough scale it would still be homogenous.

What about those "dark flows"?

What about them?

The homogeneity idea itself is *ASSUMED* based on a mythical property that Guth gave to a mythical, density defying inflation field.

Nope. You have your timeline completely screwed up. Homogeneity was assumed far earlier than Guth's work. And it was assumed for two reasons: first, that's what the universe looks like, and second, it's the simplest possibility.

We might not be able to see LOTS of things for lots of reasons, like planets in distant galaxies. It does not mean that these things are "invisible" to photons.

It does mean that they're invisible to us. Which is the only meaningful sense in which one can say that something is invisible, since photons don't see.

So. Do you see photons coming from something as big as Jupiter in distant galaxies?

In distant galaxies? Not singly. But in our own, yes. And we can infer, from the population of such objects in our own galaxy, what their prevalence would be in other galaxies. And they are not common enough to account for dark matter. Could our galaxy be unique in this respect? I suppose so. But I seriously doubt it.

The term "dark" can imply "MACHO" forms of matter.

I never suggested otherwise. Nobody did.

I don't have any problem with "dark" matter, it's only the SUSY "invisible" stuff I'm complaining about.

MACHOs are invisible. And you rejected dark matter categorically.

You'll need to explain why you're sure we *SHOULD* see photons from "dark" or "small" objects like planets, even relatively large planets, or iron shells of stars.

Why do I need to do that when nobody is claiming anything of the sort?

While we can observe the effect of mass on distant objects we have no idea why we observe no photons from that mass. It could simply be (and probably is) related to current limitations in technology.

Uh, no. If we can't see it, that means it's not radiating, reflecting, or absorbing much light. Now it might be that future advances will allow us to see what we cannot currently see, but the fact remains that we cannot see it now because, once again, it's not radiating, reflecting, or absorbing much light.

GR as Einstein taught it does not include dark matter or dark energy, so your point related to GR is moot.

Dark matter is no different than ordinary matter in regards to GR, and dark energy was indeed included, in the form of his cosmological constant.

You never demonstrated that "inflation" exists or existed

I'm not trying to. That's a lost cause - your refusal to ever define pressure shows how futile that endeavor is. But you objected to big bang theories categorically. And you have not been able to defend that rejection with even a modicum of competence or even the slightest familiarity with the actual reasoning behind the big bang. Inflation is not necessary for the big bang. Dark energy is not necessary for the big bang. Dark matter is not necessary for the big bang. The only thing we need is GR, observations, and homogeneity. That's it. And yes, it really is that simple.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

There is "current flow" to consider of course, but then that should at least be partially (mostly) visible in the "dust" we observe. The electrons might not show up as directly, but the rest of the ions should show up just fine and they would have the most mass.

I don't know what you mean here.

[...]

IIRC, on one of the multi-page long threads on another forum, to which Gee Mack provided a link, there is a claim by MM that the 'missing mass' is largely, or at least significantly, electrons ... the electrons that flow in the giant currents he read about in some EU material or other ...

Of course, MM will, no doubt, set the record straight about this, and provide the math/numbers/etc to back up his idea ...

 

[Michael Mozina]

Depends how you categorise it. If you say the ratio of a star's mass to that of some big star you can think of (say Betelgeuse) then yes its pretty small. However, if you were to order all the stars up by ascending mass the Sun would be something like 9/10ths of the way to the end (IIRC).

Still, I can't be sure that every star, larger or smaller than our own sun is necessarily unaffected by solar composition. In fact, I couldn't necessarily even be sure that all stars of our own sun's size necessarily have the same total mass. A lot would depend on how the elements arrange themselves internally as well as externally. We can't even see planets yet directly, so anything small in size is going to be "dark matter".

Dead stars still radiate. The time for a white dwarf to become a black dwarf is billions upon billions of years.

For all I know the universe is eternal and we all agree it's already been here for billions upon billions of years. I don't see how that really helps your argument.

The lensing observations certainly do.

IMO all the lensing data demonstrates is that it's likely that the answer lies in some form of "missing mass", rather than perhaps MOND theory.

Interstellar dust isn't invisible.

It's thicker than we realize evidently. I suppose that is why the galaxies are now thought to be twice as bright as before.

MACHOS are ruled out by weak lensing observations.

Please elaborate for me a bit.

I don't know what you mean here.

I just meant that unless electrons somehow makeup a huge percentage of the universe in terms of mass, I would expect current techniques could otherwise identify other types of charged ions already. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit. If however electrons make up a significant portion of the ISM, it might be a lot trickier to locate that mass.

Your above suggestions are ruled out by observations.

I guess I'll wait till I hear you explain the weak lensing thing.

I don't see how. You've failed to provide any other viable options and even if we have the brightness completely wrong it cannot explain the rotation curves.

Well, the concept of 'viable' here seems to be rather subjective. I really don't see how it's "viable" to "make up" a new form of matter in an ad hoc manner and start assigning it 'properties' based on what we "need" it to do to fix our otherwise dead theory. I'd be thrilled to entertain the idea of you could demonstrate it actually exists in nature, and has the "properties" you suggest. If not, it seems like you're fudging the numbers and making up magic properties to fit the math formulas.

Its called dark matter because its matter that's dark. Calling it "unidentified matter" would also be fine but its longer to write. Missing matter would be somewhat misleading since its not missing at all. In a sense its the exact opposite of missing; we can detect that its there so its not missing.

Unidentified mass or matter is find by me, but the term "dark" is too vague and it now has "mythical" qualities being assigned to it. For instance, MACHO forms of 'dark matter' have no special "properties" required. The properties assigned to such forms of DM come straight from physics and controlled experiment. Nobody just "made it up" as they went. That puts "real" limits on it's usefulness of course, but that is life. SUSY oriented forms of "DM" however are purely hypothetical. The "properties" being assigned to them are not something we have learned via experimentation, but are "assumed" based more on "need" than upon direct examination. The term is now far to vague and far too mystical.

"We're" not assuming anything.

You're assuming a lot of things. starting with the idea that your mass estimates were or should be accurate.

And we can find it.

You can only "find" where lensing occurs.

In fact galactic rotation curves tell us pretty accurately where it is.

Unless MOND theory applies?

And like I said, it doesn't exhibit the properties of ordinary matter

The only "property" it exhibits is "missingness". You might "imagine" it has other properties but you cannot demonstrate a single one of them in a controlled experiment.

therefore it cannot be ordinary matter (unless you want to reject the last 100 years of lab study of ordinary matter).

No, the study of matter is something I have a great deal of respect for. I'll therefore let you use any known form of matter, and use any "property" you can think of that has been lab tested. It's when you try to go outside the lab, and try to claim you found proof of some kind of exotic material that
I will complain.

It cannot explain the rotation curves.

Sure, but MOND theory can. You can't use that as final argument. Sure, maybe I'll let you claim you know where to find it by these rotation curves, but you still haven't found it, and you still can't say for sure what "form" it takes. It's still just "unidentified flying mass".

"Entirely "made up"" as in based on repeated observations in multiple independent experiments. Sounds like a pretty weird definition of "made up" to me.

There are not "multiple independent experiments" or any controlled experiments to verify properties like invisibility or the ability to pass right through ordinary matter, or the ability to have no effect at all on photons, the ability to "decay" into something leaving gamma rays or x-rays or whatever the claim of the day might be. All of these things are written about and discussed and published in "dark matter" papers. That's pretty "weird" and "made up" if you ask me. Even if you do eventually find a SUSY related form of matter (a long shot at this point), it may decay into ordinary matter in milliseconds for all you know.

Incorrect. I think the popular theory used to be MACHOS (though I could be wrong).

MACHO theory was more popular in my youth. As my gray hairs have multiplied, that has given way to SUSY oriented forms of DM.

But this has been conclusively ruled out by lensing observations. It cannot be ordinary matter therefore it must be, by definition, exotic matter. No assumption involved whatsoever.

I respect you enough to wait till you explain how anything is ruled out by lensing observations. I see no way for you to decide what form of matter is involved based on distant lensing observation. All that could possibly do is tell you roughly where the matter is located. It could still be in any "form" like a MACHO variety form of DM.

Well it would be pretty stupid to assign properties to it that don't match observation wouldn't it?

Doesn't it make you the least bit uncomfortable making up the properties just to make it fit some math formulas? Shouldn't we look to particle physics here and wait and see if we even find SUSY particles and see what properties they may actually posses *before* we simply "assign" them based entirely on "need"?

WIMPS are falsifiable,

How exactly can we do that? We don't seem to find evidence of them being destroyed or created inside of our planet as expected by some WIMP papers, and I don't see any evidence of them in solar emissions either. How exactly do we falsify them since we've never seen them in a controlled experiment and we find no evidence of them in the ways we expected to?

axions are falsifiable,

How?

heavy neutrinos are falsifiable...

I have no personal problem with you using any form of neutrino that you have identified in nature via controlled experimentation. I'll give you plenty of latitude on that one to be sure because I know that some types of neutrino detection are possible.

I'm assuming the former. The paper Edd linked to yesterday describes some of these things though.

The paper that edd linked to yesterday also *PRESUMES* that the galactic mass measurements are correct just like every other DM theory on the planet. Until or unless you can rule out dust, dead stars etc, I don't really see how any of the exotic forms of matter even warrant serious consideration.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope, don't need that for a big bang either.

Er, Ok, I'll bite. What made your "near singularity"' thingy not "implode" instantly?

General relativity, which is at the heart of this whole thing, is not what I'd call simple.

It's certainly not "simple" even the way Einstein taught it. When you start stuffing it with metaphysical entities galore, it's no longer "GR".

But given general relativity, then no, you really don't need much more in order to conclude that there was a big bang of some sort.

Even if we assume it has to expand or contract from GR (not a given, just an assumption), Alfven offered a "bang of some sort" for consideration. What's wrong with his notion of a bang, and how do you know all matter was once condensed to something smaller than a breadbox?

Uh, no. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Current flows cannot stabilize a static cosmology under general relativity.

Current flows and electromagnetic fields can certainly stabilize objects. I used to have a toy on my desk that was help up (suspended mid air) by simple magnets. You can't claim EM fields could not under any circumstance affect a plasma universe. That would be utterly absurd. The EM field is orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity. That solar wind coming off the sun is flying off the sun at over a million miles per hour.

Sure. Like a perfectly tuned cosmological constant. Which is equivalent to dark energy. Oh, but that's a no-no for you.

I know for a fact that EM fields can accelerate the movement of a plasma body. Show me how you ever demonstrated where "dark energy" did anything to even a single atom in a real experiment.

Yes, actually, I can. GR incorporates electromagnetism rather trivially. EM fields are just another form of energy density. And it's not the effect on objects which is of interest, it's the effect on space itself which determines the cosmology.

Physically (some physically tangible way) define "space" for us and tell us what you think think is physically "expanding"? How is this different from any aether theory?

This too is irrelevant. Inflation is used to describe the scale on which it is apparently homogenous. But even without inflation, at a large enough scale it would still be homogenous.

So why is inflation even necessary and how does homogeneous layout of matter support inflation? You seem to want to keep your cake and eat it too. If you don't need inflation to achieve a homogeneous layout of matter than it can't also be true that a homogeneous layout of matter is evidence of inflation. Which is it?

I need to grab something to eat so I'll stop here for the time being.

 

[sol invictus]

Er, Ok, I'll bite. What made your "near singularity"' thingy not "implode" instantly?

I personally can remember at least three times in the recent past you asked that question and got an answer. What's the point of anyone responding to you anymore?

It's certainly not "simple" even the way Einstein taught it.

It's extremely simple. If one assumes the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, then as Zig has been trying to explain to you, Einstein's equations for general relativity reduce to a single equation for the expansion rate of the universe: H^2 = rho (plus one extra term if there's spatial curvature which doesn't change the conclusion). In that equation H is proportional to the rate of expansion, and rho is the energy density in matter, radiation, etc.

Now, I know math isn't your strong suit (i.e. you're too dumb to balance a checkbook), but even a child can see from that equation that if H=0 - i.e., if the universe is static - then rho=0. But rho is the energy density, and if the energy density isn't zero at one time, it can't be zero at any other time either (because energy can't just vanish). And it isn't zero now.

That's it - that's all you need. GR requires an expanding (or contracting) universe; therefore there was a big bang (or a big crunch). And not only that, it also follows that the universe was once arbitrarily small - smaller than a bread box - if you just go back far enough in time.

 

[Ziggurat]

Er, Ok, I'll bite. What made your "near singularity"' thingy not "implode" instantly?

Why would it?

Even if we assume it has to expand or contract from GR (not a given, just an assumption)

It is a given. The only alternative is if GR is wrong.

Alfven offered a "bang of some sort" for consideration.

Which was full of holes, didn't match observations, and was inconsistent with GR.

Current flows and electromagnetic fields can certainly stabilize objects.

But we're not talking about objects. We're talking about space itself. Big difference.

The EM field is orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity.

Not true, in general.

Physically (some physically tangible way) define "space" for us and tell us what you think think is physically "expanding"?

The space-time metric. If you don't understand GR, just say so. But there are plenty of sources you can learn this stuff from. It's not my job to educate you about the topic.

How is this different from any aether theory?

To start with, there's that whole Lorentz invariance bit.

So why is inflation even necessary

Necessary for what? To conclude that there was a big bang? It's not necessary for that. It has other uses, which have been explained to you before. But let's settle the issue of the big bang before we move on to the question of inflation.

 

[Wangler]

If one assumes the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, then as Zig has been trying to explain to you, Einstein's equations for general relativity reduce to a single equation for the expansion rate of the universe: H^2 = rho (plus one extra term if there's spatial curvature which doesn't change the conclusion). In that equation H is proportional to the rate of expansion, and rho is the energy density in matter, radiation, etc.

Sol, besides the density and curvature, aren't you neglecting the cosmological constant term on the right hand side of the Friedmann equation?

Then if you think about the solution to the equation being child's play, you can set H = 0 and still have lot's of interesting wiggle room on the right hand side.

 

[Reality Check]

Still, I can't be sure that every star, larger or smaller than our own sun is necessarily unaffected by solar composition. In fact, I couldn't necessarily even be sure that all stars of our own sun's size necessarily have the same total mass. A lot would depend on how the elements arrange themselves internally as well as externally. We can't even see planets yet directly, so anything small in size is going to be "dark matter".

You cannot be sure.
Astronomers can be sure because they measure the mass of stars. They also have stellar models that actually work and predict the masses of stars.
No one is saying that the masses that they measure are 100% accurate. But they are definitely not > 400% inaccurate.

For all I know the universe is eternal and we all agree it's already been here for billions upon billions of years. I don't see how that really helps your argument.

"For all you know" - do you have some other theory that explains Olbers' paradox, Hubbles law, the CMB, the Lyman-alpha forest, etc.?
The universe is 13.7 billion years old. This is not long enough for black dwarf stars to form. Thus they are not MACHOs

IMO all the lensing data demonstrates is that it's likely that the answer lies in some form of "missing mass", rather than perhaps MOND theory.

The lensing data does demonstrate that there is "missing matter" - by measuring it! We call the matter that the lensing data reveals dark matter.

It's thicker than we realize evidently. I suppose that is why the galaxies are now thought to be twice as bright as before.

Please cite the paper that states that interstellar dust is thicker than "we realize".
Your supposition is wrong. The brightness of galaxies was originally calculated using Cepheid standard candles. The discovery that there were 2 types of Cepheid variable stars doubled the distance to the galaxies (and made then 4 times less bright)..

Please elaborate for me a bit.

Massive compact halo object has the following citations

1. C. Alcock et al., The MACHO Project: Microlensing Results from 5.7 Years of LMC Observations. Astrophys.J. 542 (2000) 281-307
2. P. Tisserand et al., Limits on the Macho Content of the Galactic Halo from the EROS-2 Survey of the Magellanic Clouds. Submitted to Astron.Astrophys.
3. David Graff and Katherine Freese, Analysis of a hubble space telescope search for red dwarfs: limits on baryonic matter in the galactic halo, Astrophys.J.456:L49,1996.

The paper that edd linked to yesterday also *PRESUMES* that the galactic mass measurements are correct just like every other DM theory on the planet. Until or unless you can rule out dust, dead stars etc, I don't really see how any of the exotic forms of matter even warrant serious consideration.

We have ruled out dust, dead stars etc.

But we do not actually need to because the universe has demonstrated that there is matter that acts differently from normal matter

• NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (Bullet Cluster)
• another observation (MACS J0025.4-1222)

These show there is matter that is somehow ignoring the forces of electromagnetism, i.e. clouds of it are colliding but not heating up. This is kind of exotic but let us be boring and call this stuff dark matter.

 

[Singularitarian]

You cannot be sure.
Astronomers can be sure because they measure the mass of stars. They also have stellar models that actually work and predict the masses of stars.
No one is saying that the masses that they measure are 100% accurate. But they are definitely not > 400% inaccurate.


"For all you know" - do you have some other theory that explains Olbers' paradox, Hubbles law, the CMB, the Lyman-alpha forest, etc.?
The universe is 13.7 billion years old. This is not long enough for black dwarf stars to form. Thus they are not MACHOs


The lensing data does demonstrate that there is "missing matter". We call the matter that the lensing data reveals dark matter.


Please cite the paper that states that interstellar dust is thicker than "we realize".
Your supposition is wrong. The brightness of galaxies was originally calculated using Cepheid standard candles. The discovery that there were 2 types of Cepheid variable stars doubled the distance to the galaxies (and made then 4 times less bright)..




Massive compact halo object has the following citations

1. C. Alcock et al., The MACHO Project: Microlensing Results from 5.7 Years of LMC Observations. Astrophys.J. 542 (2000) 281-307
2. P. Tisserand et al., Limits on the Macho Content of the Galactic Halo from the EROS-2 Survey of the Magellanic Clouds. Submitted to Astron.Astrophys.
3. David Graff and Katherine Freese, Analysis of a hubble space telescope search for red dwarfs: limits on baryonic matter in the galactic halo, Astrophys.J.456:L49,1996.

We have ruled out dust, dead stars etc.



But we do not actually need to because the universe has demonstrated that there is matter that acts differently from normal matter

• NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (Bullet Cluster)
• another observation (MACS J0025.4-1222)

These show there is matter that is somehow ignoring the forces of electromagnetism, i.e. clouds of it are colliding but not heating up. This is kind of exotic but let us be boring and call this stuff dark matter.

Direct proof?

Wouldn't the better word be evidence, since we cannot rule out the possibility that General Relativity might not work on large distances.

 

[Reality Check]

Direct proof?

Wouldn't the better word be evidence, since we cannot rule out the possibility that General Relativity might not work on large distances.

I agree - "overwhelming evidence" would be a better term than NASA's "direct proof".

 

[sol invictus]

Sol, besides the density and curvature, aren't you neglecting the cosmological constant term on the right hand side of the Friedmann equation?

That's part of rho (although it's sometimes written separately).

Then if you think about the solution to the equation being child's play, you can set H = 0 and still have lot's of interesting wiggle room on the right hand side.

No you don't. Even in the fully general case you have no wiggle room at all.

It's true that if you add curvature and/or a cosmological constant, you can find solutions in which H vanishes at one instant (as the universe reaches either a minimum or a maximum of its expansion). It's also true that you can find ONE - one out of an infinite continuum - solution in which H=0 for all time. You need both positive cosmological constant, which MM regards as nonsense, and positive spatial curvature, and rho that's perfectly, infinitely tuned to the right value. That solution is as sensible as the one that would tell you an exactly symmetrical, infinitely sharp pencil can balance on its tip. It is unstable among other things to spatial perturbations - a slight overdensity in one spot will destroy it.

But anyway, we don't live in that universe (no spatial curvature, or at least nowhere near enough), so it's not very relevant.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I personally can remember at least three times in the recent past you asked that question and got an answer. What's the point of anyone responding to you anymore?

Most folks attribute the original expansion to inflation. He seemed to believe he was going to accomplish expansion without it. I was curious how he intended to do that.

It's extremely simple. If one assumes the universe is homogeneous and isotropic,

But it's not. I has "dark flows" running though it, but ok, for the time being we'll *ASSUME* that with you.

then as Zig has been trying to explain to you, Einstein's equations for general relativity reduce to a single equation for the expansion rate of the universe: H^2 = rho (plus one extra term if there's spatial curvature which doesn't change the conclusion).

What *CAUSED* that expansion?

Now, I know math isn't your strong suit (i.e. you're too dumb to balance a checkbook),

I've been CEO of my own company now for 17 years selling a full accounting program for a vertical market. I've taken several years of calculus in college. Prior to starting this company I was the CFO for a security firm in San Diego. Your personal attacks are sad, childish and pathetic IMO. They only demonstrate the irrational nature of your beliefs. The moment you feel even the least bit threatened, you go below the belt.

That's it - that's all you need. GR requires an expanding (or contracting) universe;

GR by itself (no mythical additions)? Maybe. If other factors are involved? Maybe not. You keep insisting this is true, but it is not true. Gravity is not the only thing in nature that can have an effect on objects in space.

therefore there was a big bang (or a big crunch). And not only that, it also follows that the universe was once arbitrarily small - smaller than a bread box - if you just go back far enough in time.

Nope. Alfven's "bang" didn't get to a size that was "smaller than a breadbox" before it started to expand again. You *ARBITRARILY* assume this part. Nobody is making you pack it down to a "near singularity", you're *ASSUMING* that and you have zero evidence to support that assertion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The statement in that DM paper about finding "direct proof" of DM is pure baloney. They found "indirect evidence" of "missing mass". Period. The fact that "proof" statement even passed peer review demonstrates the severe gullibility of your industry.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You cannot be sure.
Astronomers can be sure because they measure the mass of stars. They also have stellar models that actually work and predict the masses of stars.
No one is saying that the masses that they measure are 100% accurate. But they are definitely not > 400% inaccurate.

Sorry, but you *ASSUME* that is the case. You've certainly measured *A FEW* stars in terms of mass. You then *ASSUME* all your beliefs about star formation are true and accurate and then you create a mythical entity to fill the gaps of the theory. You could easily be off by 400% and in fact it is guaranteed that you are off by 400% or you wouldn't need "magic matter". with all sorts of special properties you can't demonstrate to make it work right.

"For all you know" - do you have some other theory that explains Olbers' paradox, Hubbles law, the CMB, the Lyman-alpha forest, etc.?

Not to your liking I'm sure.

The universe is 13.7 billion years old.

That number is completely contrived and *assumed*. In the end, you have no way to justify that number. The best you could do is attempt to suggest that the universe has been contracting for awhile based on redshift data. You could come up with a number of how long that *could have been* *IF* everything condensed to a point. Alfven's bang theory however doesn't require that last assumption. Why should I believe your "bang" theory is "better" in any way?

This is not long enough for black dwarf stars to form. Thus they are not MACHOs

Again, you *assumed* an age that you can't ultimately justify. You assume a solar theory you can't justify based on satellite images too. When you *assume* this statement is true, I can't help but groan.

The lensing data does demonstrate that there is "missing matter" - by measuring it! We call the matter that the lensing data reveals dark matter.

I don't have any trouble accepting that you grossly underestimated the mass of a galaxy. I'm sure there is "missing matter". That is not the same as SUSY theory, nor does it give you the excuse to stuff SUSY theories into that gap.

Please cite the paper that states that interstellar dust is thicker than "we realize".

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080515-galactic-dust.html

Your supposition is wrong. The brightness of galaxies was originally calculated using Cepheid standard candles. The discovery that there were 2 types of Cepheid variable stars doubled the distance to the galaxies (and made then 4 times less bright)..

So why is that number off?

We have ruled out dust, dead stars etc.

You've "ruled out" the only logical choices based on known forms of matter and energy. More importantly, you ruled them out based on tenuous method at best.

But we do not actually need to because the universe has demonstrated that there is matter that acts differently from normal matter

That is pure baloney. You've only found evidence that your mass estimation techniques are nearly if not completely useless. That paper that claims to have found "direct proof" never should have been published with that word "proof" in the title. At best it is "evidence" that you underestimate the mass in a galaxy. Period. In no way does that demonstrate any of that missing mass exists in some exotic unseen (on Earth) form of matter.

These show there is matter that is somehow ignoring the forces of electromagnetism,

Hell, you guys don't even *UNDERSTAND* the forces of electromagnetism becuase you can't even pick out a "Birkeland current" when you see one.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060112_space_slinky.html

i.e. clouds of it are colliding but not heating up. This is kind of exotic but let us be boring and call this stuff dark matter.

Let's not. Let's *ASSUME* there are currents in space that direct plasma into filaments and moves them in an "organized" manner. Does your dark matter theory still hold water?

 

[Molinaro]

The statement in that DM paper about finding "direct proof" of DM is pure baloney. They found "indirect evidence" of "missing mass". Period. The fact that "proof" statement even passed peer review demonstrates the severe gullibility of your industry.

Please do explain how "missing mass" differs from DM.

I can't imagine how, since DM is defined as mass that can't be seen (does not emit or reflect EM that we can detect directly), but who's gravitational influence can be observed.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why would it?

When exactly did mass come into existence? Why wouldn't gravity make the whole thing implode if all matter and energy are collected to an area that is smaller than a breadbox. How the heck would anything escape the event horizon around such an object?

It is a given. The only alternative is if GR is wrong.

No, you stuffing DE and DM into GR is "wrong". They don't exist in nature. GR is not an island unto itself nor is it the only force in nature. Any other force of nature might help to create a "stable" universe. You keep *ASSUMING* that GR in the only influence on objects in space, and you keep resurrecting "blunder theory" stuffed with invisible friends. That isn't GR, that BLUNDER-"make-believe"-GR-theory, not GR theory.

Which was full of holes, didn't match observations, and was inconsistent with GR.

Name even one hole and one inconsistency with GR.

But we're not talking about objects. We're talking about space itself. Big difference.

You can't get "space" to expand here on Earth. We have to take your word for this idea and that it only occurs "somewhere out there" where humans can never hope to go. How utterly inconvenient. Show me an experiment where "space" expanded. What is "space"? How does it "expand" in any physical way?

Not true, in general.

It is absolutely true in general, hence that solar wind whipping by at a million miles per hour. A simply refrigerator magnet can overcome the *ENTIRE* gravity of the Earth. It's certainly "true" in general.

The space-time metric.

The space-time metric can expand as the objects that make up space-time move away from each other. "Space" (not space-time) does not ever "expand" here on Earth as you claim. The universe also appears to be "flat". Why should I believe a simple distance metric changes somewhere out there in space someplace?

If you don't understand GR, just say so. But there are plenty of sources you can learn this stuff from. It's not my job to educate you about the topic.

I have no problem with GR as Einstein taught it. It's your metaphysical blunder theory that I'm not happy with because you stuffed invisible buddies into an otherwise perfectly good physics theory.

Necessary for what?

Homogeneous layouts of matter. If inflation isn't necessary to achieve homogeneous layouts of matter, then the layout of matter cannot be used to support inflation. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's one or the other. If there is NO NEED for inflation to achieve homogeneity, then inflation is not supported by that observation. You can't have it both ways!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Please do explain how "missing mass" differs from DM.

In terms of how it differs from MACHO theory, there is no difference. It's only when folks *ASSUME* that the "missing mass" is composed of exotic (and unseen) forms of matter than it becomes 'different". There are no special pleadings and no unusual proofs required to stuff MACHO forms of DM into these equations. If however someone intends to claim that any of the "missing mass" is contained in a special form of matter, then I will require that they demonstrate such matter exists in nature.

I can't imagine how, since DM is defined as mass that can't be seen (does not emit or reflect EM that we can detect directly), but who's gravitational influence can be observed.

My point is that we can't even spot large planets directly yet. It's silly to simply "assume" that any "missing mass" is found in exotic matter because no forms of exotic matter even exist or have been identified in controlled experiments. More importantly, none of the "properties" of any hypothetical form of matter can yet be "identified" based upon real experimentation. All of the "properties" being assigned to "dark matter' are purely "ad hoc" creations so that these things will fit into their theory. In other words they are "made to order" fudge factors.

 

[Molinaro]

In terms of how it differs from MACHO theory, there is no difference. It's only when folks *ASSUME* that the "missing mass" is composed of exotic (and unseen) forms of matter than it becomes 'different". There are no special pleadings and no unusual proofs required to stuff MACHO forms of DM into these equations. If however someone intends to claim that any of the "missing mass" is contained in a special form of matter, then I will require that they demonstrate such matter exists in nature.



My point is that we can't even spot large planets directly yet. It's silly to simply "assume" that any "missing mass" is found in exotic matter because no forms of exotic matter even exist or have been identified in controlled experiments. More importantly, none of the "properties" of any hypothetical form of matter can yet be "identified" based upon real experimentation. All of the "properties" being assigned to "dark matter' are purely "ad hoc" creations so that these things will fit into their theory. In other words they are "made to order" fudge factors.

If you have no evidence to contradict an assumption, and you have multiple assumptions that all fit the situation, it would be silly to throw any away over an issue of personal preferance.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You need both positive cosmological constant, which MM regards as nonsense,

Actually that is false. I just don't believe that "space" (physically undefined) can "expand". Space-time can clearly expand as the objects that makeup space time expand away from one another, but "space" (by itself) cannot expand. What is 'space'? How are you *PHYSICALLY* defining space? How can it physically "expand" in a flat universe separately from space-time expansion as I described it?