Known Physics That Could Make Cold Fusion Possible?

[ben m]

That is the observation that really counts.

What was tested and ruled out, your statement is ambiguous?

MOND is a specific theory which has been ruled out in several ways; look it up. It can be tuned to match galaxy rotation curves, but can't match anything else---clusters, cosmology, lensing---at the same time.

More generally, we have ruled out any possible theory in which gravity has normal visible galactic matter as the source (but some weird force law other than F = 1/r^2). The key data is the lensing and x-ray observations of the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222. Again, look it up. This is extremely well-publicized stuff which you ought to have known before you started ranting against dark matter.

 

[Reality Check]

Thank you, a real question.

The creation of Dark Matter was a consequence of the anomalous velocities in galactic velocity curves.

Wrong. Firstly human beings did not create dark matter . The universe did and we observed it.
Secondly that is only one of the observatiions that are evidence for dark matter:

• Not enough matter in galaxy clusters to explain the motion of galaxies in them (Fritz Zwicky's observation in 1933!).
• Galactic rotation curves
• Velocity dispersions of galaxies
• Galaxy clusters and gravitational lensing
• Cosmic microwave background
• Structure formation

The properties of dark matter are?

It is dark.
It is matter.
It is not baryonic (see my signature).

The MOND people were closer. They thought the problem was with gravity. Gravity is a strong as conventional theory says it is at that distance, the assumption was about another variable.

Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) is able to explain your single observation even better than dark matter since you can tweak its parameters better. But that is the only observation that a MOND theory with those parameters can explain.
The problem is that you have to have multiple MOND theories (or the same one with vastly different parameters depending on the observation being explained!) to explain the different observations above. In addition MOND kind of breaks General Relativity.

If you want a good explanation as to what a theory of dark matter has to match in order to be a good candidate then read the Starts With a Bang! blog entry: What Dark Matter's Alternatives Must Do

 

[DeathDart]

MOND is a specific theory which has been ruled out in several ways; look it up. It can be tuned to match galaxy rotation curves, but can't match anything else---clusters, cosmology, lensing---at the same time.

More generally, we have ruled out any possible theory in which gravity has normal visible galactic matter as the source (but some weird force law other than F = 1/r^2). The key data is the lensing and x-ray observations of the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222. Again, look it up. This is extremely well-publicized stuff which you ought to have known before you started ranting against dark matter.

No the force laws are correct, next guess?

 

[DeathDart]

MOND is a specific theory which has been ruled out in several ways; look it up. It can be tuned to match galaxy rotation curves, but can't match anything else---clusters, cosmology, lensing---at the same time.

More generally, we have ruled out any possible theory in which gravity has normal visible galactic matter as the source (but some weird force law other than F = 1/r^2). The key data is the lensing and x-ray observations of the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222. Again, look it up. This is extremely well-publicized stuff which you ought to have known before you started ranting against dark matter.

I am not ranting.

Well publicized, Yes

I have been cut to pieces for errors in units, blah , blah

You have all labored under a massive assumption, you cannot even see.

I admit it was very slippery and difficult to corner, but I do believe I found it.

This thread ends. Thanks to the people who weren't saying uh, uuuuhhh.

There was useful information in some of the links that were provided.

 

[dafydd]

I am not ranting.

Well publicized, Yes

I have been cut to pieces for errors in units, blah , blah

You have all labored under a massive assumption, you cannot even see.

I admit it was very slippery and difficult to corner, but I do believe I found it.

This thread ends. Thanks to the people who weren't saying uh, uuuuhhh.

There was useful information in some of the links that were provided.

It is not up to you to say when the thread ends.

 

[dafydd]

Not by a long chalk.

 

[dafydd]

When you get real questions you give imaginary answers.

 

[ben m]

No the force laws are correct, next guess?

I have a guess! I hypothesize that there is additional gravitating matter in some form other than atoms; one such form might be WIMPs. I, among many others, have written and published articles about this hypothesis. You are welcome to read them if you want to know more.

I presume you have an alternative in mind? Good for you. Write an article about it, get it through peer review at Phys. Rev., and post a link to the preprint. I would be happy to read it.

 

[dafydd]

I have a guess! I hypothesize that there is additional gravitating matter in some form other than atoms; one such form might be WIMPs. I, among many others, have written and published articles about this hypothesis. You are welcome to read them if you want to know more.

I presume you have an alternative in mind? Good for you. Write an article about it, get it through peer review at Phys. Rev., and post a link to the preprint. I would be happy to read it.

Naughty boy. DD has deemed that the thread is done.

 

[dafydd]

But it's not.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

I am afraid that C kind of rules out B !
If you used science you would know that dark matter is a set of observations, not assumptions.
The evidence that dark matter exists is overwhelming. The properties of dark matter are well established.
Exactly what dark matter is is still to be determined.

C doesn't completely rule out B. Astrophysicist is a member of the set Scientist, but not all scientists are astrophysicists. He could make a living using science, and be a nutritionist, a veterinarian, a lab tech or any of the myriad other professions that depend on science to work but are just far enough away from actual research to let someone keep their cherished belief that science isn't quite real.

 

[Reality Check]

I am not ranting.

Well publicized, Yes

I have been cut to pieces for errors in units, blah , blah

You have all labored under a massive assumption, you cannot even see.

I admit it was very slippery and difficult to corner, but I do believe I found it.

This thread ends. Thanks to the people who weren't saying uh, uuuuhhh.

There was useful information in some of the links that were provided.

No one has said that you are ranting. The most that anyone can say is that you were ignorant of the evidence for dark matter and the fact that they rule out MOND theories. It looks like that ignorance has been fixed.

Well publicized, yes - which it is why it is puzzling that you were ignorant about it. Luckily that seems no longer to be the case.

But then you go back to your stance of ignorance : Dark matter is not an assumption. It is a set of observations.

You seem to be still in your "very slippery and difficult" corner .

Oddly enough the universe has not obeyed your command and this thread has not ended.

 

[dafydd]

Oddly enough the universe has not obeyed your command and this thread has not ended.

The Cnut syndrome.

 

[kowalskil]

Some of the following is just putting words together.

Creating a dynamic condensed matter environment that could capture ubiquitous neutrinos and convert them into fusion enablers or gluons.

Micro-scale particle accelerators, operating at high structural efficiencies, within micro-fractured condensed matter?

Pseudo particle creation, leading to nucleosynthesis pathways that do not generate hard radiation?

Surface phonon acceleration of particles or pseudo particles, along the surfaces of fractures.

Smearing the paths of multiple real accelerated particles, to temporarily produce the wave image of a particle.

What does the term "putting words together" mean?
.