Dark matter and Dark energy

[BeAChooser]

As for the Abell clusters, the data on them is from ground-based telescopes and not of sufficiently good quality to say much.

Denial springs eternal.

 

[robinson]

Yeah, but you think the sun runs off of electricity, so you can't be trusted.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23236991/from/id/17399245/ “We know [dark matter] exists by secondary methods,” says Peter Limon, a particle physicist from Fermilab, near Chicago. But “we don't know what it is. It's strange stuff. We know it's not regular matter in the sense of protons and neutrons and things like that.”

Nope. The above rules that out.

No, the above is a broken link.

Still works for me on my computer. Could my computer be better than yours ... perhaps it lacks your computer's viruses?

But here ... try this more direct link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17399245/

And besides ... don't you guys trust me?

And even IF dark matter was a weird, non-baryonic thing,

I'm not the one saying that, Belz. Mainstream astrophysicists are saying that. So why do you doubt them? Don't you trust them?

it's still not only certain that SOMETHING exists that throws off our gravity measurements

Sorry, but they are NOT making gravity measurements. They are only INFERRING what the mass might be based on the current theory of gravity and a whole bunch of somewhat dubious assumptions ... one of them being that redshift equals distance. And as I've pointed out via peer reviewed articles (some even from mainstream scientists) their estimates of mass might be much too large. For example, that peer reviewed paper on the Coma Cluster that I linked concluded that the current estimate of mass is too high by a factor of THREE ... which would eliminate about all of the dark matter that was theorized.

Furthermore, you keep asking that I explain the observations. I keep telling you; and you keep ignoring what I said. Am I wasting my time even trying? No, because you are not the audience I'm actually trying to convince. Because I sense that nothing is going to change your views.

Well, perhaps we should have the same opinion on Cancer research...

Actually, cancer researchers have made considerable progress in understanding cancer (which is likely a whole lot more complicated than the universe) and doing something effective about it (survival rates have climbed significantly since the 70's).

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser ... snip ... You can start by providing us with peer reviewed papers that show the conclusions made in the peer reviewed papers I linked about high redshift objects being associated with low redshift objects are wrong. But then you can't, can you. There don't seem to be any.

More specious appeal to emotion. Pages of links have been provided to you where this is discussed.

Don't make yourself a liar, David. Your side hasn't provided any peer reviewed sources that directly challenge the infinitesimal probabilities calculated for high/low redshift alignments in the various peer reviewed scientific papers I've linked.

 

[BeAChooser]

Incidentally, on the issue of baryonic versus non-baryonic, it is true that all the possibilities for baryonic DM which people have thought of are pretty strongly disfavored. But there may well be something which just hasn't been thought of yet, or it could be that there is more than one kind of DM (most of the constraints assume it's all in one form), etc.

Denial springs eternal ... especially when there's money at stake.

The AIDS vaccine is a good example: no progress in 20 years despite huge amounts of money being thrown at it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/18/EDGKOP3EFP1.DTL "What can we expect from the first AIDS vaccine? ... snip ... May 18, 2007 ... snip ... Significant progress has been made toward the goal of developing a safe and effective HIV vaccine, although many challenges remain. ... snip ... HIV rapidly mutates; and these variants of HIV change continually, and an infected person's immune system invariably cannot keep up with all of them. In addition, within days of infection, HIV begins to destroy critical immune cells that would normally protect against the virus; this attack on the body's defenses is relatively unique. Finally, HIV inserts itself into the DNA of human cells where it can remain undetected by the immune system. Even with extended drug therapy that reduces virus in the blood to undetectable levels, HIV is not eradicated from the body. These challenges have made it extremely difficult to design a vaccine that prevents an infection from establishing itself in the body. ... snip ... In previous clinical trials, several experimental HIV vaccines have induced strong T-cell responses, yet many years of expanded clinical trials will be required to test the potential utility of these non-classical vaccines. Two such large, international trials have already started and a third may be initiated later this year, each requiring thousands of volunteers."

http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=93439 "AIDS Vaccine Nearing Reality ... snip ... 4/17/2007 ... The world could have a new vaccine designed to kill the AIDS virus according to an Atlanta-based group. ... snip ... Work on the vaccine has been going on quietly for the last 15 years, but it now appears to be in the final stretch of development. ... snip ... "We're getting results back that indicate we're getting very strong immune responses in these individuals, these people who received our vaccine," said Don Hildebrand, the president and CEO of GeoVax Inc., the company spearheading the research in collaboration with Emory, the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health. ... snip ... The vaccine's success with the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus, the monkey version of the AIDS virus, has been nothing short of remarkable. Not only did the vaccine prevent the infection, it kept it under control for the monkeys that already had it, putting it in a kind of remission. Researchers believe the same benefits await people affected by the disease in as little as three to four years."

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicin...sented-at-AIDS-Vaccine-2007-Conference-255-1/ "GeoVax Successful HIV/AIDS Vaccine Trial Data Presented at AIDS Vaccine 2007 Conference, 9/12/2007 ... snip ... GeoVax Labs, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: GOVX), an Atlanta based biotechnology company, announced the presentation of successful human trial results for its HIV/AIDS vaccines at the aids vaccine 2007 Conference held August 20-23, 2007 in Seattle, Washington."

You call that "no progress", sol? Yet you think we've made progress in understanding Dark Matter, Dark Energy and the Universe? Go figure ...

 

[BeAChooser]

If a particle doesn't interact throug EM, what will make it not pass another particle and stick.

Perhaps the strong nuclear force?

By the way, what keeps a neutron from exploding?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070917151054.htm

Maybe its a model we should apply to the sun?

 

[BeAChooser]

Maybe it is not a thinking problem, could be you just run your mouth without thinking.

Why does a nuetron not pass through another nuetron?

Stop and think, then answer.

First, write a 500 page essay on how to spell neutron.

 

[The Man]

And besides ... don't you guys trust me?

I certainly trust you to continue making ludicrous statements as exemplified in the end of this post.

I'm not the one saying that, Belz. Mainstream astrophysicists are saying that. So why do you doubt them? Don't you trust them? ).

No more then we trust anyone including you.

Sorry, but they are NOT making gravity measurements. They are only INFERRING what the mass might be based on the current theory of gravity and a whole bunch of somewhat dubious assumptions ... one of them being that redshift equals distance. And as I've pointed out via peer reviewed articles (some even from mainstream scientists) their estimates of mass might be much too large. For example, that peer reviewed paper on the Coma Cluster that I linked concluded that the current estimate of mass is too high by a factor of THREE ... which would eliminate about all of the dark matter that was theorized.

Just as you are inferring what charges there must be based on your dubious assumptions in order to support an electrical based universe. Oh, I forgot you are not inferring any specific charges but simply confer that there must be some charges, sufficient to make your theories work but not blow apart that charged body. Oh, wait again I forgot that these are not your theories but those of peer reviewed authors which you are only relating and opposing the multitude of other peer reviewed authors. To bad you do not apply the same limited consideration to your favorite peer reviewed authors as you do to your opposed “mainstream” authors.

Furthermore, you keep asking that I explain the observations. I keep telling you; and you keep ignoring what I said. Am I wasting my time even trying? No, because you are not the audience I'm actually trying to convince. Because I sense that nothing is going to change your views.

How can you explain anything when you refuse to make your own assertions and continue to hide behind your favorite peer reviewed authors and noble prize winning physicist, while failing to apply the same consideration to other peer reviewed authors and noble prize winning physicists extolling points of view that you do not agree with?

Actually, cancer researchers have made considerable progress in understanding cancer (which is likely a whole lot more complicated than the universe) and doing something effective about it (survival rates have climbed significantly since the 70's).

“Which is likely a whole lot more complicated than the universe”? This has to be the most ludicrous statement I have ever read from you. As part of the universe how can cancer or any biological consideration be more complicated then the universe? This is even more ludicrous then your contention that magnetic reconnection is based on the “frozen in” field condition while citing numerous quotes specifically stating that it is a breakdown in the “frozen in” field condition that results in reconnection. You continue to surpass yourself, but no one else.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
"In Abell 520, it appears that the galaxies were unimpeded by the collision, as expected, while a significant amount of dark matter has remained in the middle of the cluster along with the hot gas." [snip] A more controversial hypothesis holds that the dark matter is colliding with itself in some non-gravitational way that has never been seen before. "

So get back to me if the most unlikely suggestions of that article turn out to be true.

That's the same sort of response that peer reviewed articles challenging the redshift/distance relationship and the dark matter/galaxy rotation linkage got ... no response.

 

[The Man]

Perhaps the strong nuclear force?

By the way, what keeps a neutron from exploding?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070917151054.htm

Maybe its a model we should apply to the sun?

Or to a neutron star, which it is, but you do not believe in those do you? Are you now postulating that the strong nuclear force keeps your charged sun from exploding?

 

[Belz...]

Still works for me on my computer. Could my computer be better than yours ... perhaps it lacks your computer's viruses?

Or maybe you have no idea how networks work.

I'm not the one saying that, Belz. Mainstream astrophysicists are saying that. So why do you doubt them? Don't you trust them?

Your link was broken, remember ? Just because you answer a part of my post, and then answer another part, doesn't mean the second part of the quote comes chronologically after your first answer.

Sorry, but they are NOT making gravity measurements. They are only INFERRING what the mass might be based on the current theory of gravity and a whole bunch of somewhat dubious assumptions

Pray tell, Chooser, WHAT isn't an assumption, then ? Where does our assumptions start ? Because it sounds as though everything is dubious except your pet theories.

Furthermore, you keep asking that I explain the observations. I keep telling you; and you keep ignoring what I said. Am I wasting my time even trying? No, because you are not the audience I'm actually trying to convince. Because I sense that nothing is going to change your views.

It's funny that I don't remember you answering that question. Maybe that's because you've never answered when _I_ asked.

Actually, cancer researchers have made considerable progress in understanding cancer

Over decades, and we're still not through, are we ?

 

[BeAChooser]

single particles are not elastic or inelastic.

Perhaps you should tell that to these folks:

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0284114 "MEASUREMENT OF THE CROSS SECTIONS OF INELASTIC NEUTRON COLLISIONS WITH THE NUCLEI OF CHROMIUM, IRON, NICKEL, NIOBIUM, AND MOLYBDENUM AT ENERGIES TO 2.6 MEV"

Processes are.

I pointed out that we were talking about collections of dark matter particles for that very reason. And you can't prove at this point in time that dark matter (should it exist ) is elastic or inelastic because you will get out of your dark models only answers that are consistent with the ASSUMPTIONS about dark matter that you put into them.

Quote:
Fire a neutron at a neutron and they interact. I don't believe they pass through one another.

Actually, most of the time they would. Neutrons are deeply penetrating.

These folks didn't mention any "passing through one another": http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v85/i1/p73_1 "High Energy Neutron Collisions with Helium ... snip ... A cloud-chamber investigation has been made of high energy neutron collisions with helium. 377 elastic recoils and 126 disintegrations have been observed."

They don't "pass through" one another if they hit. They either bounce off or the alter each other (disintegrate).

But they actually do interact via electromagnetism ... snip ... they also interact via the weak nuclear force.

I guess neither you or David have heard of the strong nuclear force.

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

Occam's razor: until such time as we find evidence that momentum isn't conserved for dark matter, it's simpler to assume it is, just like for everything else.

Why don't we also assume it interacts with EM ... it's simpler to assume it does, just like everything else?

 

[Ziggurat]

By the way, what keeps a neutron from exploding?

Oh, but it does. Just not because of electrostatic repulsion, but because of the weak nuclear force.

Maybe its a model we should apply to the sun?

This makes no sense. Electromagnetic interactions cannot drive a neutron to decay, because the decay products have higher electromagnetic potential energy than the neutron does. It is other forces which drive neutron decay. And while the neutron has some charge inhomogeneity, it is still charge neutral in total. But the electric sun theory depends not only on having charge inhomogeneity, and not only having some net charge (which the neutron does not), but having an enormous net charge. So obviously they are not the same situation by any stretch of the imagination.

Once again, your cluelessness shines through.

 

[BeAChooser]

Conservation of momentum is equivalent to the statement that the laws of physics are translation invariant - that is, that they are the same other there as they are here.

You assume they are. But seeing as you can't tell us what dark matter or dark energy really is, you really can't tell us much about the "dark universe". You only get out of your models the assumptions that you put into them.

And we've tested that supposition to incredible accuracy.

On regular matter, yes. But not on dark matter and we already know ... or at least you folks claim ... that dark matter is different from regular matter in some very important ways.

And by the way, they've tested electromagnetism to incredible accuracy, too ... and found no reason why it's laws don't apply everywhere our telescopes look in the Universe ... but curiously enough, astrophysicists want to ignore some of its laws and important known phenomena.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Actually, cancer researchers have made considerable progress in understanding cancer (which is likely a whole lot more complicated than the universe) ... snip ...

“Which is likely a whole lot more complicated than the universe”? This has to be the most ludicrous statement I have ever read from you.

Come on, Man. We just got told by one of you Big Bang / Dark Matter proponents that you need only a single parameter to explain virtually everything about the Universe's behavior. Do you honestly think the human body and cancer can be explained by a single parameter? (sarcasm)

This is even more ludicrous then your contention that magnetic reconnection is based on the “frozen in” field condition while citing numerous quotes specifically stating that it is a breakdown in the “frozen in” field condition that results in reconnection.

How can you get a chicken without an egg, Man?

 

[~enigma~]

BAC by not answering my question admitted his EU crock is nothing but faith based bs that can't be falsified. Why are you guys debating with him as if he has a valid argument?

 

[BeAChooser]

Or maybe you have no idea how networks work.

Oh you poor thing. Do they block www.msnbc.msn.com on your network? Does whoever owns the network not trust you? Looks like there's a complete lack of trust here.

Quote:
Pray tell, Chooser, WHAT isn't an assumption, then ?

That electromagnetic forces exist and affect plasma. That most of the universe (that we can actually see) appears to be made of plasma. That we have detected electromagnetic forces in space and see phenomena that certainly seem similar to those Birkeland Currents, plasmoids, double layers and z-pinches produced in plasmas here on earth by electromagnetism. That mainstream astrophysicists have been ignoring these phenomena for far too long. That Big Bang sure needs a lot of gnomes to prop it up.

Quote:
Actually, cancer researchers have made considerable progress in understanding cancer

Over decades, and we're still not through, are we ?

Yes, you've had about the same amount of time. But whereas cancer researchers have succeeded in effectively treating and preventing a number of different cancers, mainstream astrophysics still can't even define what dark matter and dark energy are, much less how they work ... or came to be. And seems to me, you just replaced the origin of the visible universe problem with an origin of a dark universe problem.

 

[Ziggurat]

Perhaps you should tell that to these folks:

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0284114 "MEASUREMENT OF THE CROSS SECTIONS OF INELASTIC NEUTRON COLLISIONS WITH THE NUCLEI OF CHROMIUM, IRON, NICKEL, NIOBIUM, AND MOLYBDENUM AT ENERGIES TO 2.6 MEV"

Why? They already know it full well. Neutron scattering happens to be something I know about (more than astronomy, actually). And evidently you need a grammar lesson as well as a science lesson. "Inelastic" modifies "collisions", not "neutron". Since "neutron" is itself being used as an adjective to modify "collisions", you would need a hyphen between "inelasitc" and "neutron" if you want to indicate that "inelastic" modifies "neutron" instead of "collision". As I said, "inelastic" applies to processes, not particles.

And you can't prove at this point in time that dark matter (should it exist ) is elastic or inelastic

That formulation is, once again, nonsensical. But I don't need to prove that dark matter has no inelastic collision processes. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. The point is, it might not. If it does not, then it's not going to clump up. So the lack of finer structure to dark matter cannot itself be used as an argument against its possible existence.

These folks didn't mention any "passing through one another": http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v85/i1/p73_1 "High Energy Neutron Collisions with Helium ... snip ... A cloud-chamber investigation has been made of high energy neutron collisions with helium. 377 elastic recoils and 126 disintegrations have been observed."

First off, those neutrons are colliding with helium nuclei, not simply other neutrons. But more importantly, I didn't say they'd always pass through each other, I said they would most of the time. Which is also what they do with Helium atoms most of the time. But get enough helium atoms together (so that each neutron has many more than one chance at a collision) and throw enough neutrons at them, and you'll see scattering.

Why don't we also assume it interacts with EM

Perhaps it does. Brown dwarfs were once a candidate, and those would interaction with EM, but they've been essentially ruled out as being more than a small fraction of dark matter. The remainder must do so very weakly if at all, or it wouldn't be dark matter. Duh.

 

[Ziggurat]

You assume they are.

No, actually, he doesn't. It's a rigorous theorem by Emmy Noether. It's conceivable (in principle) that there are some laws of physics which only apply to dark matter and which are not translationally invariant, which would allow dark matter to violate conservation of momentum. But the requirement that those laws be non-translationally-invariant in order to break momentum conservation is absolute. It's a mathematical equivalency, and no self-consistent theory can ever get around it. No ifs, ands, or buts.

So how likely do you think it is that the laws of physics are not translationally invariant? How much consideration and time do you honestly think we need to spend dwelling on that possibility?

And by the way, they've tested electromagnetism to incredible accuracy, too ... and found no reason why it's laws don't apply everywhere our telescopes look in the Universe ... but curiously enough, astrophysicists want to ignore some of its laws and important known phenomena.

Said the main without a clue about Gauss's law and why a plasma couldn't shield a net charge on the sun from creating an electric field at its surface. Oh, the irony.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
By the way, what keeps a neutron from exploding?

Oh, but it does. Just not because of electrostatic repulsion ... snip ...

But wait ... turns out the inside of it is all negative. And the outside too. How can it possibly not explode?

But the electric sun theory depends not only on having charge inhomogeneity, and not only having some net charge (which the neutron does not), but having an enormous net charge.

Does it? Are you absolutely sure?