Fermi and dark matter

[Michael Mozina]

FYI RC, your real argument was.....

Stars, discharges (background) *and* DM(excess) did it.

It has three unique sources of gamma rays.

My claim was:

Stars and discharges did it.

Your argument has an additional variable. You don't get to subtract out the background gamma rays without acknowledging that your theory is also dependent upon them. You lose the Occum's razor debate simply by stuffing *any* additional variable in there. The fact your variable is also a purely hypothetical entity with hypothetical properties galore is simply icing on the cake.

 

[Reality Check]

Er, stars and EM fields are "known and demonstrated" entities RC. They are known to be directly involved with Fermi observations as well.

They are known and demonstrated entities.
So
Hypothesis 1: Stars and EM fields (and other known and demonstrated entities) and an previously unknown astrophysical mechanism involving black holes and electromagnetic fields produces the gamma rays excess using (2 additional entities).
Hypothesis 2: Stars and EM fields (and other known and demonstrated entities) and dark matter of a specific type produces the gamma ray excess (one additional entity)

Occam's razor is "Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.".
The hypothesis postulating the fewer entities and more likely to be correct is DM.

So let me get this straight......

No you did not get it straight.
The "binary star population of the core" has nothing to do with the Fermi data.

The unknown sources to explain the Fermi data include:

• The X-ray binary star population of the core is one of the possible unknown sources of the Fermis haze.
• Dark matter emitting gamma rays is one of the possible unknown sources of the Fermis haze (and the bump in gamma ray spectrum).
• The nearby LOOP-1 supernova remnant is one of the possible unknown sources of the Fermis haze.
• Heavy cosmic-ray elements faking gamma-ray photons is one of the possible unknown sources of the Fermi haze.
• Tuned-up galactic models is one of the possible unknown sources of the Fermi haze.

So DM is just one of the possible unknown sources of the Fermi haze.
Are you getting the point?
The Fermi haze is not definitely caused by dark matter emitting gamma rays. That is just one of the possibilities after the known sources are accounted for.

If dark matter is SUZY particles (as the evidence suggests) then what we know about physics tells us that they will have a decay channel to gamma rays (as ben_m has stated). If they do not decay into gamma rays then we have to assume another entity - a mechanism to stop this.

 

[Michael Mozina]

They are known and demonstrated entities.

Got a gram of "dark matter"?

You continue to misrepresent these observations and my statements. In fact, this whole conversation demonstrates the elegance of EU theory and the absurdity of standard theory.

Every EU proponent since Birkeland has attempted to explain these high energy events in terms of "electrical discharges" and physical bodies in space. Birkeland turned the sun into a cathode and thereby created coronal loops, plasma "jets", and high energy photons. Every EU proponent would continue to suggest that gamma rays are the direct result of discharges in the atmospheres of bodies in space. Period. EU theory simplifies the whole thing to two variables, current flow and physical forms.

Let's compare that now with "mainstream" theory that evidently agrees it can observe discharges in the atmosphere of planets, but insists that the atmosphere of the sun does *NOT* generate them via a discharge process, but instead they require "magnetic reconnection" and two distinct types of physical bodies. They also now evidently require "dark matter" to kludge it all together properly. That's 5 distinct processes/entities that are required to make your gamma ray theories work properly. Mainstream theory isn't viable anymore because it's specifically and intentionally kludged together with anything *except for* electrical processes in space. It now therefore requires no less than 5 distinct variables to explain what should only require two variables.

 

[Tubbythin]

You're still intentionally blurring the distinction between a true "experiment" (with real control mechanisms) and an "observation" IMO. That is dangerous IMO.

I'm not intentionally blurring the distinction. I'm saying there is no distinction. The best experiments for testing of a hypothesis are those which can most easily and comprehensibly show whether the hypothesis is a good reflection of reality or not. Sometimes that means stuff we can do in a lab. Sometimes that means stuff we do with a telescope. Horses for courses etc. This, to me, seems really really really obvious.

Well, sometimes the cause can be obvious. If I see a bolt of lightning in the distance and hear the sound of thunder a few seconds later, I might conclude they are related.

Sometime it's not so obvious, like the "cause" of those gamma rays.

Right.

I would/could agree to that concept if you were not also including a series of "hypothetical" arguments in the discussion. The binary star explanation seems "more than adequate" to explain these excess gamma rays. Why would any theory that requires hypothetical entities be "better than" such a simple explanation?

Does the binary star explanation explain the complete spectrum quantitatively to within the size of the error bars?

IMO what the industry is doing

What industry?

is intentionally avoiding including any EU oriented idea into the discussion, and emphasizing any solution based upon "dark" stuff.

Why would anyone pay any attention to EU if it gets things wrong all the time?

There's no empirical link between gamma rays and DM. There is no empirical link between DM and anything.

Galactic and cluster rotation curves require the existence of dark matter. That is the empirical evidence for dark matter.

How then could such a theory be "better than" the one I provided you with earlier? I can see our own sun emits gamma rays that Fermi is able to observe. I can see it traverse the Fermi images in fact. Fermi also observes these gamma rays from Earth. I see absolutely no need to invent additional variables to explain gamma rays in whatever quantities we might need.

Does it explain it quantitatively?

Since there is no link between "invisible Michaels" and gamma rays, no "theory" based upon mythical Michael particles can be "better than" an empirically oriented explanation, even if my math happens to work out better.

We have an empirical explanation for dark matter. The existence of dark matter is supported by galactic and cluster rotation curves (among other things).

 

[Tubbythin]

Got a gram of "dark matter"?

You continue to misrepresent these observations and my statements. In fact, this whole conversation demonstrates the elegance of EU theory and the absurdity of standard theory.

Every EU proponent since Birkeland has attempted to explain these high energy events in terms of "electrical discharges" and physical bodies in space. Birkeland turned the sun into a cathode and thereby created coronal loops, plasma "jets", and high energy photons. Every EU proponent would continue to suggest that gamma rays are the direct result of discharges in the atmospheres of bodies in space. Period. EU theory simplifies the whole thing to two variables, current flow and physical forms.

The fact that its simple is irrelevant. The fact that its completely wrong is the only thing that matters.

 

[Tubbythin]

FYI RC, your real argument was.....

Stars, discharges (background) *and* DM(excess) did it.

It has three unique sources of gamma rays.

My claim was:

Stars and discharges did it.

Your argument has an additional variable. You don't get to subtract out the background gamma rays without acknowledging that your theory is also dependent upon them. You lose the Occum's razor debate simply by stuffing *any* additional variable in there. The fact your variable is also a purely hypothetical entity with hypothetical properties galore is simply icing on the cake.

Occam's razor is completely totally and utterly irrelevant unless more than one theory can quantitatively explain the facts.
Even then its only a rule of thumb.

 

[DazzaD]

You're still intentionally blurring the distinction between a true "experiment" (with real control mechanisms) and an "observation" IMO. That is dangerous IMO.

So, to borrow your term, what is the "control" for our universe?

You're right, I cannot do that. What I can do is verify that fusion actually occurs here on Earth and I can isolate the physical conditions where it can occur. I can verify the fusion process to be an 'energy source" under specific conditions.

But that is my point.

The fusion that happens in the core of the Sun is NOT the same as the fusion that happens here on Earth in our labs.

They are not the same processes.

That is quite different in the case of fusion. I can't verify the conditions in the core or a hydrogen sun are capable of producing the fusion process, but I can verify that the fusion process is a known power source. In the case of fusion, you're simply "scaling" a known process to something larger than can be created here in a lab, and the only unverified claim is that the core produces the conditions necessary to drive this process on an ongoing basis. Things like neutrino measurements can/should be used to validate such a claim.

So by that argument, logically, if I claim that fusion of uranium is what powers the Sun then by virtue of the fact that we have a version of fusion happening here on Earth any type of fusion can possibly happen anyway and it should be given serious credence.

no?



By the way White Dwarfs were brought up.

Can you show me where here on Earth the experiments show the degenerate matter as evidence in White Dwarfs?

Or Neutron Stars?


That is what was at the heart of my statement that "This constant statement about having to be able to repeat the experiment on Earth is a misnomer."

I hope I have put myself across a little more clearly this time.

 

[Reality Check]

The answers to these questions seem to be outstanding, MM:

• Michael Mozina rocks = dark matter idea Question 1:
  Why do astronomers not see that the number of stars increases manyfold as they look back in time?
  Basically where does the "lumpy stuff" (rocks or black holes since it cannot be "dusty plasma" or MACHOs) come from?
• Michael Mozina rocks = dark matter idea Question 2 :
  Why have astronomers not noticed 40 Milky Ways of "lumpy stuff" between us and the Andromeda Galaxy?
• Michael Mozina rocks = dark matter idea Question 3:
  
  Why have astronomers not found your "lumpy stuff"
  • Passing through the Solar System?
  • Floating in interstellar space?
• Michael Mozina rocks = dark matter idea Question 4:
  Why have astronomers not found seen that galaxies become less dense with increasing distance from us?
• Michael Mozina rocks = dark matter idea Question 5:
  Why is the "lumpy stuff" in intracluster space so much of the mass of the cluster when there has been ~13 billion years for the galaxies to vacuum up the "lumpy stuff"?
• What is wrong with the computer simulations of colliding galactic clusters that include dark matter as WIMPs and match the observations?
  The observations include: NASA finds further proof of dark matter(I really dislike that "proof" word - it should be "evidence").

In addition, ben_m pointed out in this post the the collision frequency of "lumpy stuff" as rocks means that sub-MACHO size rocks will turn into dust and plasma.
Your reply was to revert to your "dusty plasma" idea as the majority of dark matter. ben_m pointed out that the collision rate of dust is measured in years so you are back to easily detectable plasma for the dust.
And then there is the problem of why the plasma part of "dusty plasma" is not interacting electromagnetically.

Another observation that may be pertinent:
Evolving Chemicals is a blog entry about a review paper that plots the "metallicity" (the percent of elements heavier than helium) of the Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB) and Quasars (QSO) against redshift. There is a large amount of scatter in the plot but it is clear that the metallicity has increased (possibly logarithmically).
IMO Your "lumpy stuff" idea means that stars will form with a large metallicity because they will include lots of dark matter rocks. Thus the data should not fit a logarithmic decrease to zero. It should be a decrease on top of a "dark matter rocks" background, i.e. not to zero and maybe not even logarithmic.

N.B.
The Wikipedia article about the intracluster meduim has an error wehere it states that the mean free path of the ICM is about a light year.

I found a couple of PDFs that look more trustworthy:
The Intracluster Medium
Gas Dynamics in Clusters of Galaxies
and give an actual equation: Mean free path = 23 kpc (T/10⁸)² (n/10^-3 cm^-3)^-1
Thus a typical ICM particle has a mean free path of 23 kpc. This is 1% of the usual scale of galactic clusters (~2 Mpc) or 2% if we keep with the 1 Mpc scale that I have been using based on the Bullet Cluster observation. That implies to me that the dark matter blobs could include as much as 2% from the ICM plasma. In other words the contribution from the ICM is insignificant.

In fact even if all of the ICM ended up in the dark matter blobs (it does not!), the contribution would still be minor. Someone would still have to find ~33 galaxies worth (for each visible galaxy) of "lumpy stuff" to make up the observed mass in the dark matter blobs.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm not intentionally blurring the distinction. I'm saying there is no distinction.

I think I'm going to tackle this statement separately from the rest of your post. IMO you're dead wrong. There is a clear distinction between a true "experiment" like the kind that Birkeland performed and a pure "observation" without any control mechanisms. This clear difference has significant implications to science in general and astronomy in particular.

It seems to be a common mistake in the industry of astronomy today to ignore, misrepresent, or simply deny the difference between a real experiment with a real control mechanism vs. a pure observation and absolutely no control mechanisms. That is simply wrong IMO.

Birkeland didn't just say "electricity did it" when pointing at aurora. He sat down and created "real experiment" with actual "control mechanism" to study his beliefs in an empirical manner. He didn't rely strictly on a mathematical model, but rather he built actual physical experiments to physically "test" his models and beliefs in the real world. He "learned things" from his actual experiments and wrote about them. That is the nature of real 'experimental science'. Experimental physics is not just "point at the sky and add math", it's "roll up your sleeves and see if it works in the lab". Electrical discharge theory works in the lab. It works empirically in the lab. We don't have to "have faith", we can recreate his physical experiments and see that they work.

Today's brand of 'astronomer' is lazy IMO. They don't want to get their fingernails dirty so they never bother to roll up their sleeves and test their ideas outside of a computer simulation. "Magnetic reconnection" has never been associated with gamma rays, but every high energy physical process on the sun is attributed to magnetic reconnection anyway. Never once has anyone recreated Birkeland's experiments using "magnetic reconnection" to generate aurora around spheres in a lab. The whole thing is one big "made up" computer simulation that is an "epic fail" in the lab.

This gamma ray argument is simply another case in point of the mainstream intentionally and willfully ignoring the obvious "solution", and interjecting complexity where absolutely none is required or warranted.

Birkeland would have taken one look at those discharge process in the solar atmosphere and he would have instantly recognized them as being "discharges". He would never have attempted to claim "magnetic reconnection did it" without trying to make it work in a real "experiment".

Like I said, I think today's brand of astronomer is simply lazy. They've traded a computer simulation for a real "empirical experiment" and now they can't even tell the difference between the two.

 

[Reality Check]

Got a gram of "dark matter"?

Got a gram of quarks?
Got a gram of the Sun's core?
Got a gram of the degenerate matter in a neutron star?
Got a gram of neutrinos?
Got a super massive black hole in your lab?
Got a gram of antimatter? (Fermilab in 20 years of operation has produced about 2.3 billionth of a gram).
Got a gram of W bosons?
Got a gram of quark-gluon plasma?

 

[Tubbythin]

I think I'm going to tackle this statement separately from the rest of your post. IMO you're dead wrong. There is a clear distinction between a true "experiment" like the kind that Birkeland performed and a pure "observation" without any control mechanisms. This clear difference has significant implications to science in general and astronomy in particular.

There are control mechanisms. And there is no difference. The laws of physics do not care how well you think you're doing things.
Suppose you have some hypothesis:
y = f(x).
That is, some quantity y, is related to some other quantity x by some function or other. How do we do a controlled experiment? We measure y for a series of specific values of x and see how well f(x) matches y. We can then compare this with some other hypothesis:
say
y = g(z)
or
y = h(x,z)
by varying z and measuring y and by varying z and keeping x constant for various values of x.
Of course there is always some possibility that when we're varying x we're also varying something else or we're not varying x by as much as we think we are. That's why we do different experiments to measure the same things. When multiple, independent experiments come up with the same results then we start to gain confidence our results are reliable.
At no point have I stated whether y is measured in the lab or with a telescope. Why? Because it doesn't matter because the laws of physics do not care how well I think I measured something.

It seems to be a common mistake in the industry of astronomy today to ignore, misrepresent, or simply deny the difference between a real experiment with a real control mechanism vs. a pure observation and absolutely no control mechanisms. That is simply wrong IMO.

See above.

Birkeland didn't just say "electricity did it" when pointing at aurora. He sat down and created "real experiment" with actual "control mechanism" to study his beliefs in an empirical manner. He didn't rely strictly on a mathematical model, but rather he built actual physical experiments to physically "test" his models and beliefs in the real world. He "learned things" from his actual experiments and wrote about them. That is the nature of real 'experimental science'. Experimental physics is not just "point at the sky and add math", it's "roll up your sleeves and see if it works in the lab". Electrical discharge theory works in the lab. It works empirically in the lab. We don't have to "have faith", we can recreate his physical experiments and see that they work.

Models of the Sun are not the Sun.

Today's brand of 'astronomer' is lazy IMO.

Today's astronomers travel all around the world in order to use the best facilities available to test their theories.

Like I said, I think today's brand of astronomer is simply lazy. They've traded a computer simulation for a real "empirical experiment" and now they can't even tell the difference between the two.

No. They just have an idea of when a lab based experiment is possible and when the situation they want to create in a lab is utterly impossible.

 

[ben m]

Well, for one thing, your industry refuses to acknowledge the role of electricity in space, so you require a host of exotic terms.

Listen: you know that all mainstream astronomers/astrophysicists/physicists think that EC is bunk when it tries to "explain" stars, solar flares, planets, the ISM, and whatever else. Don't imagine that we suddenly give it more credence when you get around to "explaining" dark matter.

Is it really my fault that you call a stream of fast moving charged particles (aka "current flow") a "quasar jet"?

Please note don't use the word "current flow" to describe Niagara Falls, Highway 405, the Boston Marathon, the exhaust plume of the Space Shuttle, nor the SagDEG tidal stream. All of these, of course, are net-neutral beams of + and - charged particles, just like quasar jets.

How would you even know what these processes should "look like"?

By doing astrophysics and physics.

You haven't even included the EM field into the astronomy discussion or classroom so you really don't even have a clue what these things "should" do in the first place IMO.

Yes we do. Any physics/astro undergrad learns enough E&M to understand that stars cannot carry a net electric charge, for example. Any graduate (or advanced undergrad) plasma physicist learns enough E&M to understand magnetic reconnection and how it transfers energy in solar flares.

SUSY theory is just *ONE* of several different *NON STANDARD* particle physics theories that all lack empirical support.

I've been using the word HYPOTHESIS over and over, MM. You have not caught on, have you? Yes, SUSY is a hypothesis.

The first thing I'll ask you is "how long did it last", followed by "did it emit anything"?

Standard SUSY---the SUSY that predicts the dark matter WIMPS to begin with---tells you exactly how the WIMPs will behave at the LHC. WIMPS escape from the interaction vertex without emitting anything and without decaying. You find them by doing the same sort of missing-momentum measurement that Fermi used to discover the neutrino. (SUSY also contains non-WIMP particles---squarks, etc.---which do decay in more-informative ways.)

Finally: you have not once acknowledged in this thread that the evidence for dark matter is the GRAVITATIONAL DATA on clusters, galaxies, large-scale-structure, and CMB acoustics. That data tells us dark matter exists. Fermi cannot tell us "generally" whether dark matter exists---but we don't need it to, we already know (again: gravitationally) that dark matter exists. Fermi will tell us whether or not KNOWN DARK MATTER is of the heavy-particle-that-annihilates-to-photons.

Can you get the following straight?

• dark matter = gravitationally-known missing mass.
• gamma rays = obviously expected if the dark matter is of one of the hypothesized self-annihilating-to-gamma varieties.
• Fermi = measure gamma ray spectrum in various dark-matter-rich parts of the galaxy.

 

[Tubbythin]

You haven't even included the EM field into the astronomy discussion or classroom so you really don't even have a clue what these things "should" do in the first place IMO.

You're the one that doesn't seem to have a clue Michael. The idea that anyone with a degree in astronomy (let alone a PhD) hasn't done any E&M is truly absurd.

 

[ben m]

"mainstream" theory that evidently agrees it can observe discharges in the atmosphere of planets, but insists that the atmosphere of the sun does *NOT* generate them via a discharge process,

Planet atmosphere = rather good insulator
Stellar corona = highly conductive plasma

You like using the word "electricity" but you don't seem to like using E&M. Standard E&M finds that insulators and plasmas have different behaviors. Among these differences are the difficulties of building up static charge and electrostatic voltage (as opposed to Faraday's Law EMFs) in a plasma. Among these differences, additionally, is the fact that magnetic reconnection in a plasma tends to transfer magnetic-field energy into particle kinetic energy. Etc.

 

[Dancing David]

Hi, I have been following this thread and always learn a lot.

Just so you know MM will not give up on the 'experimental' idea of his. It is ingrained and not subject to critical thought.

The fact that he can not demonstrate that his ideas have any credibility does not matter to him at all, havinh watched his technique it is mainly an argument of the gaps, especially when he presents his unsupported ideas.

So while he may pretend that he understands what MACHOs are, he does not understand any of the information for why they do not explain galaxy rotation curves, because he is stuck.

 

[ben m]

MM's repeated invokation of "binary stars" illustrates his unfamiliarity with this science.

There is only one place that a binary star population was found to correlate with a hitherto-interesting-for-dark-matter gamma ray line. That is the 511 keV gamma ray excess, once thought to come from the (dark matter rich) galactic center but now known to come---or rather, 50% of it comes---from a LMXB-rich region a bit to the right. At the time this low-energy gamma line was less well studied, people presented various new, modified SUSY hypotheses which could generate such abnormally low energy gamma rays.

This is utterly immaterial to Fermi, which is looking at gamma rays with energies from 10,000 keV to 100,000,000 keV. The higher energies here are the spectral region where "standard" SUSY WIMPs are often hypothesized to emit.

LMXBs ("binaries") are not a *generic* gamma ray source; they're certainly not an ultra-high-energy gamma rays source. They're a specific source associated with this specific low-energy line which has nothing to do with Fermi.

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM's repeated invokation of "binary stars" illustrates his unfamiliarity with this science.

There is only one place that a binary star population was found to correlate with a hitherto-interesting-for-dark-matter gamma ray line. That is the 511 keV gamma ray excess, once thought to come from the (dark matter rich) galactic center but now known to come---or rather, 50% of it comes---from a LMXB-rich region a bit to the right. At the time this low-energy gamma line was less well studied, people presented various new, modified SUSY hypotheses which could generate such abnormally low energy gamma rays.

Ya, and that is the big problem with your "anything goes" just point at the sky and add math exercises. You folks first claimed the annihilation line was related to "dark matter". Now that this jig is up, you've moved on to what is evidently a supernova "circle in the sky" and claim *those* gamma rays are not evidence of "dark matter". Whenever one of your "blame the dark matter games" gets busted, you just move on to something else. Nobody can check a single thing you folks claim either, because never does this stuff happen here on Earth. We just have to have "faith" in SUSY theories that you get to modify at your leisure and you folks get to change what you point at every other month.

This is utterly immaterial to Fermi, which is looking at gamma rays with energies from 10,000 keV to 100,000,000 keV. The higher energies here are the spectral region where "standard" SUSY WIMPs are often hypothesized to emit.

And yet they never do so in a controlled experiment. Faith, faith and more faith.

LMXBs ("binaries") are not a *generic* gamma ray source; they're certainly not an ultra-high-energy gamma rays source. They're a specific source associated with this specific low-energy line which has nothing to do with Fermi.

The only thing that has to do with Fermi images are "gamma rays". Select any energy state Fermi can see, and that is now what you're going to claim relates to "dark matter". Anything goes and the rules change regularly. Nobody can check any of this work empirically, it's all a faith based mathematical exercise. The math will work out of course because it's "fudged to fit", so we're always left with that statement of "faith" that "WIMPS (or whatever you decide to play with next) did it".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hi, I have been following this thread and always learn a lot.

Just so you know MM will not give up on the 'experimental' idea of his. It is ingrained and not subject to critical thought.

My belief system and your belief system are both subject to critical thought. From my perspective the problem is that you folks refuse to skeptically review your belief systems. They are based upon 4% empirical physics and 96% faith.

Empirical physics isn't going to "let me down". At worst it's going to be modified over time to incorporate new things we've learned. The mainsteram belief system however seems be "beyond scrutiny" at this point in time because it is 96% beyond the scope of empirical physics. I can't verify for instance that SUSY particles exist, that they emit anything, or that they emit gamma rays at any energy state. It's all something I have to "accept on faith". I don't have faith in such things. Now what? Shall I simply give your faith a "free pass" every time that you folks point at the sky and claim "dark something did it"?

Sure, anything is "possible", but how "probable" is it that LHC will find something new that exactly fits your specifications and needs? Sorry, but I think that the odds are very low frankly. Even if some other particles do exist, they could be related to *ANY* non standard theory of particle physics and SUSY theory is simply one of those "fringe" particle physics theories.

Such a particle might only last a millisecond. It might not decay into any sort of gamma ray. I have no idea what such a hypothetical particle might do, but I have no evidence at all that any such particle would emit gamma rays.

What are the odds in your opinion that this is going to occur in our lifetimes? I'd guess it's rather unlikely. In the mean time I intend to pursue "empirical' solutions to problems, things that "work in the lab" and therefore work in nature. I have no idea if DM or DE exist at all, and without them your theories are DOA. Sorry, but I just can't see abandoning empirical physics only because you insists I am obligated to do so.

The fact that he can not demonstrate that his ideas have any credibility does not matter to him at all, havinh watched his technique it is mainly an argument of the gaps, especially when he presents his unsupported ideas.

That is pure nonsense IMO. Birkeland already empirically (with real "experiments' with real "control mechanisms") demonstrated all of my core ideas and beliefs. You personally are capable of replicating his experiments and seeing them work anytime you like. I've seen that Birkeland's core ideas work perfectly in the lab, and this is an electric universe. There is no need for me to resort to mythical particles to explain gamma rays. "Discharges" do this all the time. Supernova events are capable of creating even higher energy gamma rays. I have no need for any "dark matter" to explain gamma rays.

So while he may pretend that he understands what MACHOs are, he does not understand any of the information for why they do not explain galaxy rotation curves, because he is stuck.

I am in fact "stuck" by playing "by the rules" of empirical physics. I realize that larger sized objects would be detected by our current technologies but I also recognize that smaller particles will not be seen by such techniques. I can't simply "make up" what I can't see. I don't do things that way. Yes, I am "stuck", but then so are you. Just because neither of us can explain what we observe yet does not mean that you get to simply "make up the properties of the stuff that you want and need" to fit the observation in question. Evidently you think that if you and I can't "explain" what we observe, I am somehow obligated to join your faith based organization or be ridiculed. Sorry, but you folks will have to do better than ridicule. You'll need some real "physical empirical evidence" to go with your math. At that point in time you get to call it "empirical physics". Right now all you get to call it is "faith in hypothetical entities" aka "religion".

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're the one that doesn't seem to have a clue Michael. The idea that anyone with a degree in astronomy (let alone a PhD) hasn't done any E&M is truly absurd.

If you folks weren't promoting what Alfven called "pseudoscience", and you (collectively) weren't doing everything possible to smear Alfven's PC/EU theories, I might actually believe you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

There are control mechanisms.

Birkeland's "control mechanism" was an on/off switch and dial. What are you using to "control" dark matter?

And there is no difference. The laws of physics do not care how well you think you're doing things.

Er, ditto?

No. They just have an idea of when a lab based experiment is possible and when the situation they want to create in a lab is utterly impossible.

It's entirely "possible" to create gamma rays from discharges. Why did I need hypothetical entities to explain gamma rays?