Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Zeuzzz]

I think that MM and Geemack have shown they dislike each other now to have a successful marriage.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You must remember that the more objects there are out there, the more space there is for all the dark matter to hide in.

Ya, ya, the old "dark matter of the gaps" argument.

 

[D'rok]

I think that MM and Geemack have shown they dislike each other now to have a successful marriage.

 

[Tubbythin]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/science/space/17univ.html
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2287

It's extremely hard for me as a skeptic to believe that you already know with any *PRECISION* how much ordinary matter is "out there" when I read these sorts of articles.

The first page is an article telling us that even though we have doubled the luminosity of galaxies, that only gives a 20% increase in the mass of stars. I have no idea how you think this supports your claims. The second link goes to an empty page.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The second link goes to an empty page.

Not for me.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2287

For decades, astronomers have gone about their business of studying the cosmos with the assumption that stars of certain sizes form in certain quantities. Like grocery stores selling melons alone, and blueberries in bags of dozens or more, the universe was thought to create stars in specific bundles. In other words, the proportion of small to big stars was thought to be fixed. For every star 20 or more times as massive as the sun, for example, there should be 500 stars with the sun's mass or less.

This belief, based on years of research, has been tipped on its side with new data from NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer. The ultraviolet telescope has found proof that small stars come in even bigger bundles than previously believed; for example, in some places in the cosmos, about 2,000 low-mass stars may form for each massive star. The little stars were there all along but masked by massive, brighter stars.

"What this paper is showing is that some of the standard assumptions that we've had - that the brightest stars tell you about the whole population of stars - this doesn't seem to work, at least not in a constant way," said Gerhardt R. Meurer, principal investigator on the study and a research scientist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.

 

[Tubbythin]

The *math* isn't the problem! *Physics* is the problem, specifically your inability to physically and empirically link "acceleration" and "dark energy". A universe full of math's won't fix that problem.

You don't seem to know what empirical means.

Why? I simply see PC theory as the mixture of plasma physics and GR. Why is GR a problem for PC theory?

Well the Friedmann equations only give one static solution. And that is unstable.

What makes you think it's "ok" to stuff "dark" anything into a GR formula?

The cosmological constant isn't stuffing anything into GR. Its already there.

 

[Tubbythin]

Not for me.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2287

How odd. Both yours and Michael's link give me a blank page on firefox but if I copy and paste in to Opera it works.

 

[Tubbythin]

From said article:

"Especially in these galaxies that seem small and piddling, there can be a lot more mass in lower mass stars than we had previously expected from what we could see from the brightest, youngest stars,"

And yet we observe missing mass in the large galaxies like our own and Andromeda. This should tell you something.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The thing is, even if predications were off by a factor of 10 or more, it still would produce nearly enough mass.

Well, that depends. If the star count is off, so is the plasma flow FROM each star. It's not just the star count that is *WAY* off, it's the mass in the form of plasma *AROUND* each star is is also off by a factor of ten, the neutrino flows, the high energy particles, etc. If the star count is off by a whole OOM, then the entire mass estimate could be off by similar amounts.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How odd. Both yours and Michael's link give me a blank page on firefox but if I copy and paste in to Opera it works.

That is odd. I personally use Firefox, and I have no trouble accessing the page.

You may have to enable Javascript at NASA.

 

[Tubbythin]

Well, that depends. If the star count is off, so is the plasma flow FROM each star. It's not just the star count that is *WAY* off, it's the mass in the form of plasma *AROUND* each star is is also off by a factor of ten, the neutrino flows, the high energy particles, etc. If the star count is off by a whole OOM, then the entire mass estimate could be off by similar amounts.

Well no. The distribution of stars doesn't match the distribution of mass required to produce the observed rotation curves.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You don't seem to know what empirical means.

It's stuff that shows up in controlled experimentation, like "current flow". Note that "current flows" have a known, tangible and physically demonstrated effect on plasmas, gasses, etc. Compare and contrast that to the dark energy thingy that *NEVER* shows up in controlled experimentation, and nobody can even tell us where to go to get some.

Well the Friedmann equations only give one static solution. And that is unstable.

This whole 'let's stuff metaphysics into GR" game is a bunch of baloney. You need to *physically, empirically* demonstrate that "dark energy" has any physical, empirical effect on objects with mass in a controlled experiment. Then and only then will I let you point at the sky and claim your dark energy god did it.

The cosmological constant isn't stuffing anything into GR. Its already there.

Sure it's there. That doesn't mean you can stuff "magic" or "God" into it. Show me *empirically* that "dark energy" has an effect on mass and *THEN* I'll be happy to let you stuff it into a GR formula and maybe even into an MHD formula if you like. Until you show me it's not a figment of your collective imagination, I "lack belief" it should be stuffed into *ANY* mathematical formula.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well no. The distribution of stars doesn't match the distribution of mass required to produce the observed rotation curves.

That depends. If the "small' stars (the ones you can't see directly) are more dense along the outside perimeter of the galaxy, *THAT* might account for some of what we observe in terms of the rotation patterns.

 

[Drachasor]

Not at all. I explained which parts I specifically reject on empirical grounds which does not include any of the lensing data by the way.

Yes, ignore data that most explicitly shows you are wrong. Great job! Not that the other data supports you either, mind you, it's just more complicated to explain.

You are essentially acting like a conspiracy theorist here by assuming all of physics is secretly trying to NOT describe how the Universe works on cosmological scales and every physicist that even remotely studies it is in on the conspiracy. Further, you are arguing this conspiracy began spontaneously without any need for them to communicate with each other about it and they all just dropped all efforts to try to describe the universe. No offense, but it is a rather insane proposition.

You see how "neutral gasses/plasma" might react because that is all they are really looking for. That study would suggest that the bulk of the "missing mass" is found in the galaxy infrastructure (stars, arms, etc) of the galaxy, not in the plasmas around them.

What we see is that the bulk of the matter is not affected by electromagnetism, otherwise the collision would heat up the gasses inside, around, etc. In fact, we see that the bulk of the mass doesn't correlate to the behavior of gas OR stars.

That's congruent with those two articles I posted earlier by the way that suggests that the mainstream *SERIOUSLY* underestimates the star count in distant galaxies.

It doesn't state they "seriously" underestimate it.

How so? We can only 'see' light from one large start in every 2000 or so small stars in a galaxy. We can "assume" that due to the distance between stars in a galaxy (light years), the likelihood of a "direct hit" is pretty small. We might then "assume" most of the stellar infrastructure should "pass on through' the "collisions' processes, and only interstellar plasmas are likely to 'collide'.

In the bullet cluster, if the little stars didn't stick with the big stars, then the big stars couldn't cover them up anymore and we'd see them.

How about dealing with those two articles I just posted for Ben.

Those show that the inaccuracy that exists isn't remotely close enough to account for the gravitational effects we observe.

 

[Drachasor]

Well, that depends. If the star count is off, so is the plasma flow FROM each star. It's not just the star count that is *WAY* off, it's the mass in the form of plasma *AROUND* each star is is also off by a factor of ten, the neutrino flows, the high energy particles, etc. If the star count is off by a whole OOM, then the entire mass estimate could be off by similar amounts.

The plasma amount is not nearly as significant as you pretend it to be. It's far smaller than the mass of the stars. And no, the whole mass estimate can't be off by a factor of ten if the small bits we have trouble detecting are off by AT MOST a factor of 4 (and then only in certain regions).

Again, none of this can take into account Bullet Cluster, which is the easiest demonstration of Dark Matter.

 

[nvidiot]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin
You don't seem to know what empirical means.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
It's stuff that shows up in controlled experimentation, like "current flow". Note that "current flows" have a known, tangible and physically demonstrated effect on plasmas, gasses, etc. Compare and contrast that to the dark energy thingy that *NEVER* shows up in controlled experimentation, and nobody can even tell us where to go to get some.

So careful, controlled, consistent and checkable observation isn't empirical science?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, ignore data that most explicitly shows you are wrong.

No. If I were were trying to simply handwave at/ignore that lensing date, then I'd be ignoring it. I accept it. I accept that there is 'missing matter' that needs to be accounted for. There is no denying that fact. I simply don't believe you have adequately ruled out more mundane options before *leaping* to the conclusion that 'exotic (never been seen in the lab) matter did it".

You are essentially acting like a conspiracy theorist here by assuming all of physics is secretly trying to NOT describe how the Universe works on cosmological scales and every physicist that even remotely studies it is in on the conspiracy.

Not at all. I appreciate that lensing paper as much as anyone. I'm not rejecting the information, I'm grateful for it. Who's hiding any information from me? Who could even do that in the information age we live in today? I certainly don't believe there is a conspiracy, just an 'ignorance' on the part of the mainstream in terms of Alfven's work, Peratt's work, Bruce's work, Birkeland's work, etc. Most of it seems to be "self imposed ignorance" since all of *their* works are "out there" for anyone to read anytime they are interested in reading the materials for themselves. Unfortunately the most vocal critics of PC theory seem to have never even read a single of those three books on the topic.

Further, you are arguing this conspiracy began spontaneously without any need for them to communicate with each other about it and they all just dropped all efforts to try to describe the universe. No offense, but it is a rather insane proposition.

Until you *know* what "dark energy" actually is, for all you know you could end up being a closet PC theorist for an EU oriented theory that has yet to be written. I can say with absolute certainty that EM fields accelerate plasma.

What we see is that the bulk of the matter is not affected by electromagnetism, otherwise the collision would heat up the gasses inside, around, etc. In fact, we see that the bulk of the mass doesn't correlate to the behavior of gas OR stars.

If the bulk of the mass is sitting in and around the stars, not at the midpoints between stars, your notion about it not interacting with the EM field is false. It's interacting alight, we just can't "see" it due to the "dust" and because of our poor/crude "estimation" techniques.

Those show that the inaccuracy that exists isn't remotely close enough to account for the gravitational effects we observe.

Well, it's certainly could account for "some" of it, but I don't even see the mainstream making a serious effort to attempt to do so. It's like they simply don't care that they grossly underestimate the number of stars in a galaxy, the dust, the effect of the dust etc. They stick with the same figures, even several years after confirming that their "normal" mass estimation techniques were flawed. What's up with that?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So careful, controlled, consistent and checkable observation isn't empirical science?

That depends. We carefully observe lensing patterns consistent with additional mass, in and around extremely distant galaxies. We both seem to agree that is a useful "observation". If you however *leap to the conclusion* that "exotic new invisible matter did it", that isn't "empirical science' anymore. That's a "leap of faith in the unseen" (in the lab).

 

[Dinwar]

So you're saying we can make observations, but cannot theorize on results of anything observed outside the lab.

 

[Tubbythin]

It's stuff that shows up in controlled experimentation, like "current flow". Note that "current flows" have a known, tangible and physically demonstrated effect on plasmas, gasses, etc.

It is precisely because we understand the properties of plasmas so well that we can rule plasma effects out. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Compare and contrast that to the dark energy thingy that *NEVER* shows up in controlled experimentation, and nobody can even tell us where to go to get some.

Empirical data from controlled experiments has been analysed that shows that the Universe is expanding at an increasing rate. A subset of solutions to this controlled set of observations are referred to as "dark energy". These solutions are consistent with GR.

This whole 'let's stuff metaphysics into GR" game is a bunch of baloney.

Nobody except you is stuffing metaphysics in to GR.

You need to *physically, empirically* demonstrate that "dark energy" has any physical, empirical effect on objects with mass in a controlled experiment.

No I don't. Dark energy is the simplest solution that matches empirical observations. So until someone comes up with a better solution or falsifies it, it will be treated by most as the leading explanation.

Then and only then will I let you point at the sky and claim your dark energy god did it.

Like I said, nobody is talking metaphysics except you.

Sure it's there. That doesn't mean you can stuff "magic" or "God" into it.

I'm not. That was your straw man.

Show me *empirically* that "dark energy" has an effect on mass and *THEN* I'll be happy to let you stuff it into a GR formula and maybe even into an MHD formula if you like.

See above. You're just repeating yourself. I've got better things to do with my life.

Until you show me it's not a figment of your collective imagination, I "lack belief" it should be stuffed into *ANY* mathematical formula.

To be honest, I couldn't actually care what you lack belief in.