Fermi and dark matter

[Tubbythin]

Ya right, talk about political spin doctoring.

Electrical discharges show up in a lab DRD, so unlike your beloved dead inflation deity, your dark evil energy theories and your dark matter invisible stuff, EU theory cannot ever be a form of pseudo-science. How could *ANYTHING* be worse that 96% metaphysics?

The only one bringing in metaphysics is you. Now please stop it or go over to the religion and philosophy forum.

In any given application, EU theory could be right or it could be wrong, but electricity definitely shows up in a lab and in nature. You might whine about quantification, or lack thereof, but you can't even dispute the fact that electrical discharges emit gamma rays in nature, right here on Earth and many places inside this solar system. As it relates to what we observe in Fermi images, electrical discharge theory will always be a "better" scientific theory than "dark matter did it".

Nope. We can quantitatively rule out electrical discharges do it. We cannot quantitatively rule out DM. Therefore EU is unequivocally wrong, independent of the validity (or otherwise) of DM theories.

 

[Tubbythin]

All that demonstrates is that we blew our mass estimates.

Nope. Multiple indpendent experiments show the same results. Therefore we clearly did not blow our mass estimates.

Ditto

Ditto.

Ditto.

Ditto.

Such as? If you're referring to neutrinos, neutrinos already have a proper scientific name.

They're still dark.

That seems to be your one and only rational response IMO. Of course even here you evidently "assume" or "have faith" in the idea that not only will they find such a thing, it will also just happen to have all those specific properties you need it to have. That's quite a leap of faith.

I don't see how its a leap of faith in the slightest. For example, if SUSY turns out to be a good theory then SUSY particles will have to have the properties given to them by the SUSY theory in question. Since most SUSY theories have a lightest stable particle in the TeV range it is quite obviously highly probable that we will find a lightest stable particle in the TeV range. This is not faith in any way shape or form. In fact its bordering on tautolgically obvious.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I mean, Λ is part of a math formula for gravity, I can point to the sky and say 'gravity did it', and show that the mathematical model matches nature's expression of gravity very well.

Now all you have to empirically demonstrate is your claim that gravity does repulsive tricks.

Not at all ... after all, you fully accepted that GR worked just as well, as a description of gravity, simply because it could account for the anomalies in the observed positions of Mercury (on the sky) ... and the "in the lab" tests of GR - fully six+ decades later - did not, in any way shape or form, involve testing advances of perihelia of planets ...

IOW, this is - yet another - example of the subjective, idiosyncratic, internally inconsistent nature of the MM worldview of physics ...

 

[Reality Check]

Sorry, I missed this earlier. Evidently you don't comprehend the difference between a "controlled experiment' with real control mechanisms, and a "simple observation" where no control mechanism are involved.

Apparently you don't comprehend that the difference between a "controlled experiment' with real control mechanisms, and a "simple observation" where no control mechanism are involved are trivial.
An observation is just as empirical as a controlled experiment.
The main difference is that the universe may not allow an observation to be repeated many times, e.g. there are currently only three observations of dark matter separated from normal matter: Bullet Cluster,MACS J0025.4-1222 and Abell 520.

I am not sure how many galactic clusters have has their mass distributions measured (more evidence of dark matter).

All that demonstrates is that we blew our mass estimates.

Wrong.
All that demonstrates is that you want the mass estimates to be blown and are prepared to ignore the actual measurements.

As in my next post:


You know that (Dark Matter Part I: How Much Matter is There?):

1. Gravitational measurements show that 25% to 30% of the universe is mass.
2. The measured mass of stars are only about 0.5% of the mass in the Universe.
3. The measured mass of the intergalactic medium is 3.6% of the mass in the Universe.

Can you understand that 0.4% is about 60 times less than 25%?
Can you understand that even 1% is less than 25%?

Ditto

As above.

Ditto

Your ignorance that this measurement is done using gravitation lensing and measure all of the mass of the cluster is astounding.
You have been told this many times and still cannot understand it.

Ditto

Your ignorance that this measurement is done using X-ray observations is astounding.
You have been told this several times and still cannot understand it.

Such as? If you're referring to neutrinos, neutrinos already have a proper scientific name.

Dark Matter (detection)

That seems to be your one and only rational response IMO. Of course even here you evidently "assume" or "have faith" in the idea that not only will they find such a thing, it will also just happen to have all those specific properties you need it to have. That's quite a leap of faith.

There is no leap of faith needed.
The evidence for the existence of dark matter is overwhelming to any intelligent person. There are possible compositions of dark matter that could be detected here on Earth. So it is a good idea to look for dark matter to see if the composition can be confirmed. That is how science works.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I didn't. You said:


I was giving some indication of why.
Have your factor of 2 for all I care. You've successfully shown that even if we have made such a mistake, DM is still an absolute necessity.

Understood. FYI, I've come to respect you a great deal through our conversations the last few months and I appreciate your candor and fair minded attitude. Please put yourself in my skeptical shoes here for just a second.

First we find that we may be able to double the number of point sources in a galaxy, effectively doubling the amount of ordinary mass in a galaxy. We also have some evidence that we may have also underestimated the number of small stars in a galaxy compared to the number of larger ones. Both of these pieces of relatively new information suggest that we could easily double or triple the amount of normal matter in a galaxy, simply by changing a few of the variables.

"Missing mass" is still a necessity, but then we have evidence that a lot of the newly discovered missing mass is normal matter. For all we know all of the missing mass is contained in ordinary matter. "Missing mass" is a "necessity" for the time being due to limits of our technology, but SUSY theory is still entirely without merit.

There are hundreds of billions of stars and a galaxy and we may need to double or triple that number just to explain what we've seen so far. That type of "solution' to a "missing mass" problem is also congruent with the presence of additional gamma rays coming from additional suns and planets in the solar systems. We now have a very simple way to explain additional gamma rays, and a lot of that "missing mass" we're looking for. Any sort of Occum's razor argument is going to effectively destroy a "dark matter" solution to a surplus gamma ray problem IMO.

I really do not see a logical or sound reason to believe that any of the gamma rays seen in Fermi images have anything at all to do with "dark matter". I see lots of evidence to suggest that we grossly underestimate the number of point sources in a given galaxy and I see lots of evidence that know sources of energy (like discharges) are fully capable of explaining what we observe.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not at all ... after all, you fully accepted that GR worked just as well, as a description of gravity, simply because it could account for the anomalies in the observed positions of Mercury (on the sky) ... and the "in the lab" tests of GR - fully six+ decades later - did not, in any way shape or form, involve testing advances of perihelia of planets ...

IOW, this is - yet another - example of the subjective, idiosyncratic, internally inconsistent nature of the MM worldview of physics ...

Er, no. It's another fine example of you making another ridiculous claim (gravity does repulsive tricks) that you simply cannot and will not even attempt to demonstrate in any empirical manner. Evidently you believe that if you stuff "magic energy" into a "blunder theory", "magic energy" is now part of "gravity". Without empirical support, forget it. Show me empirically that gravity is anything other than attractive in a controlled experiment.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

First we find that we may be able to double the number of point sources in a galaxy, effectively doubling the amount of ordinary mass in a galaxy.

Then you need to re-read the paper (not the PR) ... an environment-dependent IMF may "double the number of point sources" in a minority of galaxies (perhaps 30%? 5%?). It won't change the number significantly in galaxies like the MW ...

We also have some evidence that we may have also underestimated the number of small stars in a galaxy compared to the number of larger ones.

Ditto (though the types of galaxies, and regions in them, where this might be true, are different).

Both of these pieces of relatively new information suggest that we could easily double or triple the amount of normal matter in a galaxy, simply by changing a few of the variables.

Poppycock.

Earlier I suggested that you might like to put fingers to keyboard, and write a paper; I will suggest that you do it again, but with a different objective in mind.

If you genuinely think this, you should have little difficulty crunching the numbers, and writing up at least the draft of a paper showing it ...

"Missing mass" is still a necessity, but then we have evidence that a lot of the newly discovered missing mass is normal matter.

In terms of grams, yes, it is a lot.

As a percentage of the current estimates of total 'normal' (baryonic) mass, I'd be surprised if it is greater than one sigma wrt current estimated total mass (with some possible exceptions, e.g. some dwarf galaxies).

For all we know all of the missing mass is contained in ordinary matter.

If you still - after the hundreds and hundreds of posts spent trying to educate you on this - think so, then it truly is hopeless.

If, in fact, you still think so, then by all means spend the time you'd otherwise spend writing empty posts (here and in other internet fora) working on a paper which shows this. Otherwise, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

"Missing mass" is a "necessity" for the time being due to limits of our technology, but SUSY theory is still entirely without merit.

There are hundreds of billions of stars and a galaxy and we may need to double or triple that number just to explain what we've seen so far. That type of "solution' to a "missing mass" problem is also congruent with the presence of additional gamma rays coming from additional suns and planets in the solar systems.

Ya know MM, repeating the same subjective, idiosyncratic, internally inconsistent nonsense doesn't make it less so, merely by repetition.

Let's see your calculations (and numbers) ...

We now have a very simple way to explain additional gamma rays, and a lot of that "missing mass" we're looking for. Any sort of Occum's razor argument is going to effectively destroy a "dark matter" solution to a surplus gamma ray problem IMO.

And your "O" has been shown - a dozen times or more - to be the very antithesis of science ...

I really do not see a logical or sound reason to believe that any of the gamma rays seen in Fermi images have anything at all to do with "dark matter". I see lots of evidence to suggest that we grossly underestimate the number of point sources in a given galaxy and I see lots of evidence that know sources of energy (like discharges) are fully capable of explaining what we observe.

Blah, blah, blah ... numbers, MM, numbers ... where are the numbers?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Apparently you don't comprehend that the difference between a "controlled experiment' with real control mechanisms, and a "simple observation" where no control mechanism are involved are trivial.

Well, there is your problem in a nutshell for all the world to see. The distinctions are anything but "trivial". The fact you think they are trivial is what lead to your anomalous results IMO.

An observation is just as empirical as a controlled experiment.
The main difference is that the universe may not allow an observation to be repeated many times,

You forgot the whole "cause/effect" benefit of "controlled experiments". Birkeland wanted to demonstrate that the "cause" of the aurora was "electrical current". He built "controlled experiments" where he could change variables and see the results in his empirical tests. In that way he demonstrated an empirical link between "current flow" and aurora. You can't do that with pure observation, you can't necessarily isolate a "cause".

That applies here as it relates to the "cause" of the gamma rays. You "assume" a cause which *NEVER* has occurred here on Earth that you can demonstrate whereas I have assumed a "cause" I have seen demonstrated on Earth thousands of times.

I am not sure how many galactic clusters have has their mass distributions measured (more evidence of dark matter).

It's evidence of "missing mass" or 'unidentified mass'. Just because you can't identify it yet does no automatically require it be a new form of matter, anymore than an "unidentified flying object" in the sky is *necessarily* from another planet. You're going *way* out on a limb by making a new claim about it being in a form of matter you can't support empirically.

There is no leap of faith needed.

Yes there is. The leap of faith is similar to the UFO scenario. You are assuming that because we cannot identify the object, it must *NECESSARILY* be from another planet. In my analogy, yes, it's currently "unidentified", but it could be (and probably is) from *THIS* planet. You're making a huge assumption to claim that the missing mass is anything other than ordinary matter.

The evidence for the existence of dark matter is overwhelming to any intelligent person.

Ah, here's where the ridicule begins? What up with that? If you can't beat me via empirical physics, try a personal attack? You must be getting desperate.

There are possible compositions of dark matter that could be detected here on Earth. So it is a good idea to look for dark matter to see if the composition can be confirmed. That is how science works.

Sure but you refused to consider that fact that the missing mass could be ordinary matter. You refused to actually "confirm" any of the properties of your metaphysical brand of "dark matter". You simply "assumed" all of them on an "as needed" basis to fill the gaps of your otherwise failed mass calculation theory. Even when there is evidence presented to you that we may have underestimated the number of stars in galaxies by a large factor, you still *assume* that new and exotic matter is necessary or required. Why?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Er, no. It's another fine example of you making another ridiculous claim (gravity does repulsive tricks) that you simply cannot and will not even attempt to demonstrate in any empirical manner. Evidently you believe that if you stuff "magic energy" into a "blunder theory", "magic energy" is now part of "gravity". Without empirical support, forget it. Show me empirically that gravity is anything other than attractive in a controlled experiment.

Now we're into repeat mode ...

EITHER you trash GR, because it cannot be demonstrated "in the lab", and insist that astronomers try harder to find Vulcan.

OR you accept that GR is a better theory of gravity (than Newton's) BECAUSE it can do the numbers on the sky, DESPITE the fact that no one can demonstrate it "in the lab"*

If you take the first stance, then Newton goes in the round file, way back when; if you take the second, then Λ is a perfectly acceptable component of a theory of gravity.

To make any other claims is to be purely subjective, idiosyncratic, and internally inconsistent ... i.e. to be advocating non-science.

Which is it to be, MM? Science, or nonsense?

* remember that many of the older physicists, in 1918, were dead by the time of Pound/Rebka

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

Sure but you refused to consider that fact that the missing mass could be ordinary matter.

Dude, your gross ignorance is showing.

There is ~seven decades of effort, strenuous effort, spent on exactly this.

Only after all such avenues had been investigated, and came up empty, did CDM really come into its own. IIRC, one of the first sets of HST observations was aimed at determining if there were sufficient red dwarfs in the halo to account for the known missing mass ... there weren't (and MACHO, OGLE, etc, etc, etc subsequently, and independently, verified this result).

You refused to actually "confirm" any of the properties of your metaphysical brand of "dark matter".

Again, your gross ignorance is showing ... I really have to repeat the details, yet again?

You simply "assumed" all of them on an "as needed" basis to fill the gaps of your otherwise failed mass calculation theory. Even when there is evidence presented to you that we may have underestimated the number of stars in galaxies by a large factor, you still *assume* that new and exotic matter is necessary or required. Why?

Um, er, because the numbers don't lie?

Oh wait, I forgot, you place no store in numbers ... hey MM, did you know that on the fifth Sunday of every month, g, the local acceleration due to gravity, drops to one-tenth of its normal value? You didn't? Well, it's true ... and Birkeland proved it (in one of those math-dense sections you cannot understand) ...

 

[Tubbythin]

Understood. FYI, I've come to respect you a great deal through our conversations the last few months and I appreciate your candor and fair minded attitude. Please put yourself in my skeptical shoes here for just a second.

First we find that we may be able to double the number of point sources in a galaxy, effectively doubling the amount of ordinary mass in a galaxy. We also have some evidence that we may have also underestimated the number of small stars in a galaxy compared to the number of larger ones. Both of these pieces of relatively new information suggest that we could easily double or triple the amount of normal matter in a galaxy, simply by changing a few of the variables.

"Missing mass" is still a necessity, but then we have evidence that a lot of the newly discovered missing mass is normal matter. For all we know all of the missing mass is contained in ordinary matter.

DRD has answered this pretty well already. All I'd add is that its not just the amount but the distribution of the mass that doesn't agree with the visual mass measurements.

"Missing mass" is a "necessity" for the time being due to limits of our technology, but SUSY theory is still entirely without merit.

This is just odd. You seem to be implying that the case for SUSY rests almost entirely on the existence or otherwise of dark matter. This is simply not the case. The fact that the properties of SUSY particles are such that currently one could well explain the origin of DM stengthens the case for investigating it, not weakens it. Even if DM isnt largely made up of a lightest stable SUSY particle, this doesn't falsify the latter. Its still a fairly simple (relatively speaking), elegant (probably, I'm no expert) solution to a number of "problems" in the Standard Model.

There are hundreds of billions of stars and a galaxy and we may need to double or triple that number just to explain what we've seen so far. That type of "solution' to a "missing mass" problem is also congruent with the presence of additional gamma rays coming from additional suns and planets in the solar systems. We now have a very simple way to explain additional gamma rays, and a lot of that "missing mass" we're looking for. Any sort of Occum's razor argument is going to effectively destroy a "dark matter" solution to a surplus gamma ray problem IMO.

You can proclaim that all you want Michael. But physics is a qunatitative science. If you can't show it numerically you don't have anything.

I really do not see a logical or sound reason to believe that any of the gamma rays seen in Fermi images have anything at all to do with "dark matter". I see lots of evidence to suggest that we grossly underestimate the number of point sources in a given galaxy and I see lots of evidence that know sources of energy (like discharges) are fully capable of explaining what we observe.

Well you haven't shown us any quantitative evidence of the latter.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Dude, your gross ignorance is showing.

There is ~seven decades of effort, strenuous effort, spent on exactly this.

Only after all such avenues had been investigated, and came up empty, did CDM really come into its own.

How about those two revelations I mentioned? Ooops?

IIRC, one of the first sets of HST observations was aimed at determining if there were sufficient red dwarfs in the halo to account for the known missing mass ... there weren't (and MACHO, OGLE, etc, etc, etc subsequently, and independently, verified this result).

So ultimately a lot of the missing mass turns out to be related to "dust" and the "assumption' related to how many small stars to small stars we can expect to observe.

I guess you really don't comprehend the difference between "empirical physics' and stuff someone just makes up in their head. I guess you have it in your head that our mass estimates for galaxies is "correct", but I just provided you with two papers to demonstrate that this is a false assumption and our mass estimate numbers could be off by several multiples.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Now we're into repeat mode ...

EITHER you trash GR, because it cannot be demonstrated "in the lab", and insist that astronomers try harder to find Vulcan.

OR you accept that GR is a better theory of gravity (than Newton's) BECAUSE it can do the numbers on the sky, DESPITE the fact that no one can demonstrate it "in the lab"*

Bzzt. False dichotomy fallacy. Minus 5 points for you. Is it true that we use Einstein's theories in GPS systems? I've heard that statement before but I've never actually checked it out.

I accept "GR theory" (the way Einstein taught it) with the constant of gravity set to zero. I'm not into your blunder theory variation that is stuffed with magic because I've never seen gravity do repulsive tricks.

 

[Tubbythin]

I accept "GR theory" (the way Einstein taught it) with the constant of gravity set to zero.

. I assume you mean the cosmological constant.

I'm not into your blunder theory variation that is stuffed with magic because I've never seen gravity do repulsive tricks.

It was only a blunder fine-tuned the constant so to put the universe in an equilibrium that is unstable. There was never any real reason to think the CC was zero, it just looked nicer that way. In fact, when comparing with QM, the big question is more along the lines of "Why is the cosmological constant so small?"

 

[edd]

Bzzt. False dichotomy fallacy. Minus 5 points for you. Is it true that we use Einstein's theories in GPS systems? I've heard that statement before but I've never actually checked it out.

I accept "GR theory" (the way Einstein taught it) with the constant of gravity set to zero. I'm not into your blunder theory variation that is stuffed with magic because I've never seen gravity do repulsive tricks.

You mean the cosmological constant set to zero.

Anyway, you've never seen gravity do general relativistic tricks, let alone repulsive. It's way outside the ability of a laboratory to test, and yet it is well tested.

 

[Tubbythin]

Anyway, you've never seen gravity do general relativistic tricks, let alone repulsive. It's way outside the ability of a laboratory to test, and yet it is well tested.

Hmm. Pound-Rebka?

 

[Michael Mozina]

. I assume you mean the cosmological constant.

Ooops. It's getting late in the day and evidently I need more coffee.

It was only a blunder fine-tuned the constant so to put the universe in an equilibrium that is unstable. There was never any real reason to think the CC was zero, it just looked nicer that way. In fact, when comparing with QM, the big question is more along the lines of "Why is the cosmological constant so small?"

IMO there's still a "cause/effect" issue going on that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "dark energy". Why? Because "dark energy" doesn't do anything to plasma in a lab whereas the EM field does.

 

[edd]

Hmm. Pound-Rebka?

Fair point.

I don't think Michael's seen it though, and arguably a second hand experiment relayed by verbal means is less reliable than one relayed by photons directly from the experiment, which is what an astronomical observation is.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You mean the cosmological constant set to zero.

Anyway, you've never seen gravity do general relativistic tricks, let alone repulsive. It's way outside the ability of a laboratory to test, and yet it is well tested.

No it's not. While I actually prefer an 'expansion' process to a static universe, there's no evidence that "gravity" is involved in this repulsive process. There's one obvious macroscopic force of nature that is 39 OOM more powerful than gravity, but it's not "dark energy".

 

[edd]

No it's not. While I actually prefer an 'expansion' process to a static universe, there's no evidence that "gravity" is involved in this repulsive process. There's one obvious macroscopic force of nature that is 39 OOM more powerful than gravity, but it's not "dark energy".

Expansion is not repulsion.

That EM is not up to the job is another, and rather tired, matter.