Reinterpreting dark matter...

originally posted by: Dolour

originally posted by: Nochzwei

DM (which is always time coupled) + Other Visible matter = cause for gravity
I'll write to the nobel prize commitee

right, because that totally explains how the presence of matter(dark or not) causes gravity. -.-
that describes the EFFEKT not the underlying MECHANISM.
you wont get any price for figuring the apple falls towards the earth anymore...

Mechanism? Time + DM compression around Visible matter = Gravity

originally posted by: Dolour

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
[Maybe I was too quick to accuse you of having problems with reading comprehension. Here you posted a link for me to read from wiki about blackbody radiation, which I read, and which contradicted what you were saying:

quoted from wiki: "Black-body radiation is the type of electromagnetic radiation within or surrounding a body in thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment,"
that is pretty much what i sayd. matter emits light, ALLWAYS, regardless of its temperature.

Well, to be exact, matter which is made of electromagnetically charged particles, which is everything we deal with, except neutrinos. And maybe hidden dark-matter sector particles?

At the particle physics level, 'dark matter candidates' are those which are expected to interact negligibly with electromagnetism.

At galactic + supergalactic cosmology, dark matter is an empirical effect which may be accounted for with

a) regular matter but cold and dim enough to be below electromagnetic detection thresholds
b) non-electromagnetically interacting particles [and neutrinos can't be it, alone]

There is no known fundamental mechanistic coupling to gravity beyond 'mass' (Ok streess-energy tensor)---but that's a problem with understanding gravitation of regular matter too. There's no obvious additional mechanism to ensure the equivalence principle (inertial = gravitational mass), or even determination of masses themselves which could be a collective effect (mach's principle???).

Why does mass/stress-energy work when you can sum up completely different mechanisms of stuff, rest mass (electromagnetic, strong force, weak), and energies? It's the random grab bag of physics which is otherwise unnatural: charges interact with EM fields, every thing has its own specific linkage to other things with integer/rational numbers, but gravitation doesn't, it's the bin of mixed rubbish of physics: throw it all in with a magic coefficient.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Mechanism? Time + DM compression around Visible matter = Gravity

for starters: what is time? and why should it influence space? and what is space in the first place if it can be bent?
lemme reformulate time + dark matter = gravity
noideawhatitis + esotericforcethatmaynotexists = magical attraction *tard*
again: THAT will not get you any nobel prize money...

originally posted by: mbkennel
Well, to be exact, matter which is made of electromagnetically charged particles, which is everything we deal with, except neutrinos. And maybe hidden dark-matter sector particles?

thats what i sayd, isnt it? :p

At the particle physics level, 'dark matter candidates' are those which are expected to interact negligibly with electromagnetism.

wich are all just hypothesis, there is no known example of matter being selective in terms of EM-interaction.
the idea is "hey if metals can react selectively to magnetic fields, why shouldnt all matter do the same in regards of em-fields?", that on the other hand requires alot of presumtions, wich themselfes are mostly pure hyphotesis.
we totally ignore that "metals"(in the astronomish meaning) have much more complex nuclei than for ex. hydrogen atoms, wich conclusively form geometric patterns, wich themselfes are known to influence radiation in general.

At galactic + supergalactic cosmology, dark matter is an empirical effect which may be accounted for with

ummm nope, we DO observe celestial movements and grav. lenses, there is NO empiric data whatsoever about the cause. its all just theory, and not even a good one looking at other aproaches.

a) regular matter but cold and dim enough to be below electromagnetic detection thresholds

in other words absolute zero, so nope.
that would like require some sort of totally immobile galyxy whose atomic-motion have come to a complete halt.

b) non-electromagnetically interacting particles [and neutrinos can't be it, alone]

even neutrinos technically do, or we couldnt produce any flashes of light in watertanks to detect them if they werent reacting at all.

There is no known fundamental mechanistic coupling to gravity beyond 'mass' (Ok streess-energy tensor)---but that's a problem with understanding gravitation of regular matter too. There's no obvious additional mechanism to ensure the equivalence principle (inertial = gravitational mass), or even determination of masses themselves which could be a collective effect (mach's principle???).

...even still science takes our perception of gravity as definite fact, and even builds a whole model on this fundament.
allso, since the days of tesla the idea of gravity being caused by fields and energy-flow is lingering around.
its just not even considered looking into it.

Why does mass/stress-energy work when you can sum up completely different mechanisms of stuff, rest mass (electromagnetic, strong force, weak), and energies?

because energy is a convertible, and ultimately everything can be broken down into "energy".
repulsing or attracting forces are allso the cause of either power, and thus energy, being emitted by fields, or a flow in the spacetime-foam, wich is movement and therefore allso energy.
its appears logical to me that the accumulated total ammount of energy within a system is the influencing factor, if energy is the cause of mass/matter and gravity at all.

It's the random grab bag of physics which is otherwise unnatural: charges interact with EM fields, every thing has its own specific linkage to other things with integer/rational numbers, but gravitation doesn't, it's the bin of mixed rubbish of physics: throw it all in with a magic coefficient.

agreed, we "need a revolution" as quite some giants of phisics say...
we have a conceptional flaw in our fundamental understanding of how our makroscopic world assembles.
therefore it is to assume, that any attempt to derive a working solution, utulizing our flawed or incomplete model, will turn out to be futile.

originally posted by: Dolour

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Mechanism? Time + DM compression around Visible matter = Gravity

for starters: what is time? and why should it influence space? and what is space in the first place if it can be bent?
lemme reformulate time + dark matter = gravity
noideawhatitis + esotericforcethatmaynotexists = magical attraction *tard*
again: THAT will not get you any nobel prize money...

posting on ats does not fetch you a np *tard*
you will have to look into my posts elsewhere.
briefly universe's own time is physical in nature as it is coupled to dm. gravity is essentially a compressive force acting thru the time domain which is perpendicular to our spatial 3d.
besides space cannot be bent

originally posted by: Nochzwei
posting on ats does not fetch you a np *tard*

scientific curiousity *tard*
allso, scoll up, you were the one screaming for "your np".

briefly universe's own time is physical in nature as it is coupled to dm. gravity is essentially a compressive force acting thru the time domain which is perpendicular to our spatial 3d.
besides space cannot be bent

what part about "explain the origin of forces you assume" is at any rate hard to understand?
so time and space are "just there", and thats your glorious explanation?
allso, what indicators do we have time would be a seperate "domain"(whatever that means)?
spewing out theories without anything to back them up is not convincing by any means...

originally posted by: Dolour

originally posted by: Nochzwei
posting on ats does not fetch you a np *tard*

scientific curiousity *tard*
allso, scoll up, you were the one screaming for "your np".

briefly universe's own time is physical in nature as it is coupled to dm. gravity is essentially a compressive force acting thru the time domain which is perpendicular to our spatial 3d.
besides space cannot be bent

what part about "explain the origin of forces you assume" is at any rate hard to understand?
so time and space are "just there", and thats your glorious explanation?
allso, what indicators do we have time would be a seperate "domain"(whatever that means)?
spewing out theories without anything to back them up is not convincing by any means...

Lol *tard* you brought up np, not me
You'll have to wait till I can publish my theory/hypothesis for any detailed analysis. for the moment, look up my posts / videos elsewhere and try to extrapolate and you will get an idea of what I am on about.
briefly time existed b4 space was born after the big bang/implosion.
don't you know that the time dimension is perpendicular to our 3d? why can't you understand a compressive force?
as an analogy, hold a spherical object in your palm, close your fist and apply pressure on the object. your fist is the time+dm and the pr you apply is gravity.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol *tard* you brought up np, not me

i sayd the one that figures out how spacetime works would sure get it, and you replied that you wanted it to be handed over, for your yet unpublished work.

You'll have to wait till I can publish my theory/hypothesis for any detailed analysis. for the moment, look up my posts / videos elsewhere and try to extrapolate and you will get an idea of what I am on about.

ill translate: "you have to take my word for this. detailed info isnt available."

briefly time existed b4 space was born after the big bang/implosion.
don't you know that the time dimension is perpendicular to our 3d? why can't you understand a compressive force?

because it would just sit there.
where does the force come from thats causing the actual "downward push"?
so you have 2 planes perpendicular to each other. and?
why would 2 circles interact at all, regardless of the angle?
what is the cause of this force? "its just there" doesent work for me.

as an analogy, hold a spherical object in your palm, close your fist and apply pressure on the object. your fist is the time+dm and the pr you apply is gravity.

to stick with that analogy: why does the muscle contract in the first place?
how and why does the hand move at all? where does THIS force come from?
you describe the OUTCOME not the cause.

this is pretty similar to the whole DM thesis, its "JUST THERE" and does weired stuff for unknown reasons noone gives a crap about, bc its way easier to say "look this obscure esoteric force, of wich we dont know what it even is, totally does all the stuff we cant explain! we dont have like ANY clue how, but it totally does it!".

...and what kind of moronic explanation is this anyways?
(im generalizing, this question applies to quite alot of stuff. see here for example )
it allmost raises more questions than it answers, and really does not satisfy my scientific curiousity.

/edit:

originally posted by: ErosA433
The total power of an object (per meter square) at 300K is about 14 W/m^2 in a Boltzmann distribution, this is also peaked in the infrared region.
The total power per unit area of the sun is around 6x10^9 W/m^2

This is... just a little bit bigger than 14W/m^2

earth =/ ball of flaming plasma, with tons of excess energy from fusion.
that is one blatantly misleading comparrison, a PURPOSELY misleading argument.
how can you compare the output of a billion-trillion ton fusion reactor, with the em-emmisions of solid objects slightly above roomtemperature, and POSSIBLY consider this an halfway valid argument?
your actually defending the categorization of EARTH as dark matter, bc it doesent shine like a billion-trillion ton fusion reactor. -.-
either you didnt have your cup o coffee yet, or this has esowatch written on it in big neon letters, thats really sad...

thus the statement that the blackbody radiation from planets is very small in comparison to the reflected light...

the claim was that ordinary matter does not emit ANY light, and therefore would be dark matter.
neither do i care for how large the ratio of reflected to emitted light is, not if fusion or fission processes generate visible and/or invisible light.
the statement was that ALL matter that we have ever sucessfully proven to exist is EMITTING LIGHT.
constantly, allways, no matter what you do outside a mathematical construct.
in reality movement never seises, therefore emission never stops, and "dark matter" as in proper terms(not some weiredass stuff, saying matter that doesent fuse is dark matter BS) has yet to be prooven.

Lol how moronic can you get. You didn't look up at all did you. Force of gravity is time+dm compression. that is the nature of our reality im afraid
anyways look at these 2 videos that I found, which I have posted on my thread about bending or unbending of space and you'll get some idea about gravity, time, space


a reply to: Dolour

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol how moronic can you get.

watch your tongue mister.

You didn't look up at all did you. Force of gravity is time+dm compression. that is the nature of our reality im afraid

again "its just there and does undescribable things".
you again fail to see the difference between the cause of a force(gasoline combustion ina motor) and the result(moving car), yet you have the nerve to call me a moron.
thats sort of cute... *rofl*

so we have a "moving car". how is it powered?
whats the gasoline, and whats the motor part of the equation?

anyways look at these 2 videos that I found, which I have posted on my thread about bending or unbending of space and you'll get some idea about gravity, time, space

i dont see how another "free-energy-video" and some metaphysical mind-games would get you anywhere closer to the truth.
wheres the actual math behind it that prooves it is consistent, or even does account any mechanism as the cause in the first place(wich doesent sound like it)?

a reply to: Dolour

the comparison is valid if you understand the context of what i was saying. General understanding of what is considered dark matter is as about detection as it is about how dim it appears in the night sky.

Its the same way as we have the periodic table of elements and yet for all important purposes astronomers see anything bigger than helium as a 'metal' when we know the periodic table contains lots of different things.

I was giving motivation to the reason while dark matter physicists refer to low luminosity items as dark matter. You really do not understand the data presented, nor the motivation for dark matter. I (we maybe) already explained the motivation, and the reason why observations of galaxies and luminosity/mass ratios only give you the mass of the stars and not planets requires you to say that some of the gravitation is from planets. which dont emit enough light to be observed (again that is what my whole post was about) once more you simply throw a pedantic statement 'You said this, i said that" without actually understanding the context or motivation of the post. Please go back to the start and understand that the post was WHY scientists consider non luminous/low luminosity matter as dark matter. Dark matter is split into two forms.... Baryonic, and non-baryonic... the non-baryonic stuff is what we have no idea what it is... well we have some ideas but no solid rock proof yet.

Lol go back to your post and see the word moronic, that you used mister. Anyway seems to me you are AI and whatever floats your boat about space gravity time.
a reply to: Dolour

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol go back to your post and see the word moronic, that you used mister.

sad days when you have to be teached by a german what pronouns are...
you were talking directly to me as a person, whereas i refered to the theories provided.
i even added a sentence to clarify this in order prevent the exact same BS you just "contributed".
you either have an iq below roomtemperature or purposely perverted the original meaning.
pick one, lol.

but heh, please go on and make yourself look even more like a "very intelligent person that can at least comprehend a single sentence." please.

Anyway seems to me you are AI and whatever floats your boat about space gravity time.

im into the topic for many years now, wich gladly makes it impossible for "some" ppl to sell me an x for an u.

originally posted by: ErosA433
the comparison is valid if you understand the context of what i was saying.

oh i did perfectly understand the ludicrous comparrison between the light emission of earth vs sun, arguing that'd be an indicator for DM.
there is no "context" that could be seen, its just the attempt to back up theese ludicrous claims with more scientific sounding stuff that lacks ANY substance on closer view.

I was giving motivation to the reason while dark matter physicists refer to low luminosity items as dark matter. You really do not understand the data presented, nor the motivation for dark matter.

i suggest you go back to the beginning of the topic and reread whats been written.
if you then still insist on those rediculous claims being correct, id claim that this is just an attempt of one esowatch guy to restore the "credibility" of another self proclaimed esowatch "scientist". period.
theres been utter nonsense stated, and the attempt to defend them just clarifies what were really up to, in terms of how much we should give about the talk of our "scientists" here on the board. ~~

all the ingredients you requested are there in the 2 videos posted, maybe not in so much detail as you would have liked. ive analysed them and suggest you do the same or discuss if you so wish
a reply to: Dolour

a reply to: Dolour
Here is a page from NASA explaining that even brown dwarfs, which do give off radiation, don't give off enough radiation to be reliably detected:

map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Candidates for the Dark Matter

What is the nature of the "dark matter", this mysterious material that exerts a gravitational pull, but does not emit nor absorb light? Astronomers do not know.

There are a number of plausible speculations on the nature of the dark matter:

Brown Dwarfs: if a star's mass is less than one twentieth of our Sun, its core is not hot enough to burn either hydrogen or deuterium, so it shines only by virtue of its gravitational contraction. These dim objects, intermediate between stars and planets, are not luminous enough to be directly detectable by our telescopes. Brown Dwarfs and similar objects have been nicknamed MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo Objects) by astronomers. These MACHOs are potentially detectable by gravitational lensing experiments. If the dark matter is made mostly of MACHOs, then it is likely that baryonic matter does make up most of the mass of the universe.

However this must be an old site because we now know from telescope searches looking for gravitational microlensing in our own galaxy and other lines of evidence that dark matter is most likely not made mostly of MACHOs, though we expect some of it is, but maybe not more than 30%.

Here is a paper from 2007 discussing this topic by Mark Zimmerland at the University of Maryland:
Search for MACHOS

Galactic rotation curves suggest dark matter halos in galaxies, constituting the vast majority of their mass. Some of this matter must be baryonic, and perhaps MACHOs make up a some or all of this part. To this end, the method of gravitational microlensing is put to use to detect massive compact objects in the halo of the galaxy, but observing microlensing events with the nearest extragalactic source, the Large Magellanic Cloud. Several large collaborations have invested large amounts of time and resources to this end, and though results are still controversial, it seems clear that MACHOs cannot account for more than ~30% of the dark mass in the halo.

So why do you suppose they go to all the trouble to use gravitational microlensing observations to look for MACHOs, which are much more complicated and take a longer time than direct observation of the emitted radiation? Could it be because the emitted radiation is below detection thresholds of the telescopes available?

He goes on to explain the detection issue:

Galactic rotation speeds, as well as the effects of dark matter on the motions of gas, stars,galaxies, and clusters of galaxies also suggest that ~90% of the matter in the universe does not emit sufficient electromagnetic radiation to be detected on Earth (dark matter)....

The need for baryonic dark matter in the galaxy suggests that the halos of spiral galaxies such as our own may be partly or wholly due to MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects) and that these objects may consist of aborted stars like brown dwarfs, dim stars, and planets; or of star remnants like neutron stars, white dwarfs, and black holes.

Dark matter can take many forms, including WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) and supersymmetric particles, but the amount of baryonic matter needed to satisfy the nucleosynthesis theory, leading to a critical density of the universe, is nearly matched by the additional mass needed by galaxies to explain their rotation curves. Thus, it seems rational to search for baryonic dark matter, and specifically MACHOs, in the halos of galaxies.

Detecting MACHOs

Without the aid of electromagnetic radiation emission, the detection of MACHOs becomes very difficult. Standard astronomical methods like radio, optical, and X-ray telescopes cannot be used, at least not in a standard way. A method for observing MACHOs that utilizes a consequence of general relativity was first proposed by Paczynski 3 – gravitational microlensing.

So yes most baryonic matter gives off radiation, but detecting this radiation isn't always easy when it's in small amounts. Emphasis mine on the "Standard astronomical methods like radio, optical, and X-ray telescopes cannot be used, at least not in a standard way." statement.

Here is an interesting lecture describing how gravitational microlensing studies are done, which is a lot more complicated and a lot more trouble than just detecting their radiation directly, in fact observations to look for variation in the brightness of lensed stars can take months depending on the distances to the lensing object and to the lensed star behind it:

Gravitational Microlensing: Searches and Results

I'm sure they'd just look for the radiation directly if they could, but please understand current technology doesn't allow us to directly observe the radiation from all baryonic matter in the universe. As technology improves, more MACHOs like brown dwarfs may be detected directly by their radiation, but colder planets which emit less radiation may still pose challenges for direct detection of their radiation for a long time to come. By the way, many objects in the hypothesized Oort cloud surrounding our own solar system are too dim for direct detection, but we suspect the Oort cloud exists because comets look like they came from the Oort cloud. If we can't even directly detect baryonic matter in the Oort cloud which in cosmological terms as part of our own solar system is relatively close, how much harder is it to directly detect the radiation of more distant non-luminous objects?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
all the ingredients you requested are there in the 2 videos posted, maybe not in so much detail as you would have liked. ive analysed them and suggest you do the same or discuss if you so wish

theres nothing to analyze really. its a video like thousand others that could allso be rigged, and a "hobby scientist" telling us about his belief(!)system.
science is not about believes, they belong to the church, wich is something science seem to have forgotten.
without any MATH to back it up(i give a crap about fancy theories if they arent backed up by NUMBERS), im like curious what kind of "analasys" you suggest to do?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Dolour
Here is a page from NASA explaining that even brown dwarfs, which do give off radiation, don't give off enough radiation to be reliably detected:

first of all, you were talking explicitly about EARTH and the SUN, not some hypothetical celestials.
i know exactly what happened: you were googling "dark matter" to back up a smartass comment, when you stumbled across en.wikipedia.org... and totally misinterpreted it.
...since you obviously lack the ability and courage to admit any mistakes(of wich there are numerous examples), you now twist and bend your initial statement until it appears "less nonsenseic"(at least you did read into the topic this time, lol).
do i need to quote the stuff you wrote again, or do you find the "previous page button" yourself this time?

second: EVERY attempt to verify the existance of DM since the 70's has FAILED.
baryonic matter(and you brought that stuff up i might add), is a very good example since it doesent even work ona sheet of paper, leave alone observations.
after FOURTY years its time to dismiss DM into the realm of belief and esoteric

Could it be because the emitted radiation is below detection thresholds of the telescopes available?

prolly 20 years ago, but not in the age of 13-42megapixel cameras being built into smartphones.

o yes most baryonic matter gives off radiation, but detecting this radiation isn't always easy when it's in small amounts. Emphasis mine on the "Standard astronomical methods like radio, optical, and X-ray telescopes cannot be used, at least not in a standard way." statement.

note to self: reading into a topic =/ comprehending the text
read the last part wich you even underlined again, then you might figure what youve got wrong.
NONE of the matter observed by means other than grav. lensing isnt obeying the laws of constant radiation.
postulated object that yet have not been proven(despite theyve been trying for longer than im old) are as good of a proove as stating "the moon wouldnt be there and has to be an observational error".
wasnt it you who linked finemans talk about experimental verification?

mircolensing can not only be caused by gravity, yet science refuses to look into any other cause, claiming thered be "dark matter" even if the ONLY thing we got are gravlenses.
we even use magnetic fields on EARTH to direct particles, but in space this totally doesent work?

same as the oorth cloud: presumptive evidence is a no-go in justice, but its ok for science?
maybe you wanna consider becoming a preacher? you certainly seem to posess the attributes required if you buy that crap w/o questioning.

originally posted by: Dolour
mircolensing can not only be caused by gravity, yet science refuses to look into any other cause, claiming thered be "dark matter" even if the ONLY thing we got are gravlenses.

What else besides gravity can cause gravitational microlensing, and is there evidence for this mechanism? And why are they searching for these gravitational microlenses if they can observe MACHOs radiation directly as you suggest?

we even use magnetic fields on EARTH to direct particles, but in space this totally doesent work?

I don't understand exactly what you are proposing here, is it some method of dark matter detection or what?

same as the oorth cloud: presumptive evidence is a no-go in justice, but its ok for science?
maybe you wanna consider becoming a preacher? you certainly seem to posess the attributes required if you buy that crap w/o questioning.

I did say the cloud of unseen objects was "hypothetical", but the comets are real enough, I can't deny that. The comets didn't come from nowhere, so the inference that they came from a region which may contain similar objects isn't a huge leap in logic, is it?

Firstly Dolour, iv done the calculations personally, taking raw data from spectrometers, mapped rotational velocities, made corrections for apparent eccentricity, and found rotation curves of two galaxies to be flat, (2 is not high stats yes i know)

Also performed both analytical models and Monte Carlo simulations using the observed mass(luminosity) distributions to figure out what a standard gravimetic rotation curve should look like. They come out in agreement with each other (analytical and MC) and in big disagreement with the observed data. We did it as an Astronomy project in our 3rd year of Uni.

Furthermore, the smart phone comment doesn't mean anything. do you honestly think that the number of megapixels really matters? The types of cameras that are used on telescopes are built for extremely low noise and high efficiency, they are only related to the cameras we use in name only. firstly they are monochrome, they do not see colour without the use of a filter wheel. Furthermore often observations are made over long long periods of time, With a patch of sky tracked and exposed for hours at a time.

Despite that, brown dwarfs are still extremely hard to detect, the faintness of objects in the night sky is far beyond the intrinsic noise level of a consumer camera, and at the threshold of astrometric cameras.

What you are suggesting is the opposite of what science does. Science always changes its views, What you are suggesting is that "Oh we have been trying to figure it out, searching for solutions for nearly 100 years, and because we have not solved it yet, we should ignore it."

I disagree, research into dark matter is worth pursuing, it isn't soaking up funds like no tomorrow, governments around the world squander money on less useful things, science gets an absolute pittance. The average tax bill that large companies 'DON"T pay because they own the governments are larger than average research budgets.

originally posted by: Dolour

originally posted by: Nochzwei
all the ingredients you requested are there in the 2 videos posted, maybe not in so much detail as you would have liked. ive analysed them and suggest you do the same or discuss if you so wish

theres nothing to analyze really. its a video like thousand others that could allso be rigged, and a "hobby scientist" telling us about his belief(!)system.
science is not about believes, they belong to the church, wich is something science seem to have forgotten.
without any MATH to back it up(i give a crap about fancy theories if they arent backed up by NUMBERS), im like curious what kind of "analasys" you suggest to do?

Oh my. That does speak volumes about your scientific curiosity mate.
Aber mach nichts

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
What else besides gravity can cause gravitational microlensing, and is there evidence for this mechanism? And why are they searching for these gravitational microlenses if they can observe MACHOs radiation directly as you suggest?

brilliant example of you understanding squad.

first: its microlenseing, adding "gravitational" is pure assumption(i left it for a reason). theres no proove its caused by gravity.
magnetic fields, wich surround every planet, every solar system, every galaxy, could equally be the cause for it.

second: MACHOS observable? how many times do i have to say ORDINARY MATTER, read it again ORDINARY MATTER, ORDINARY MATTER!
you finally got that? "baryonic dark matter" was NEVER prooven, and a freakin trained monkey reading my post would acknowledge that statement.
it is E-V-I-D-E-N-T that you AGAIN quote me wrong, twisting my words, ON PURPOSE.
is it time for me to file that promised complaint for you violating the TOS by perverting what i say?
or do you indeed just desperatly need some reading comprehention lessons?

"we even use magnetic fields on EARTH to direct particles, but in space this totally doesent work?"
I don't understand exactly what you are proposing here, is it some method of dark matter detection or what?

no, an example that not only gravity can divert paricles and radiation.

I did say the cloud of unseen objects was "hypothetical", but the comets are real enough, I can't deny that. The comets didn't come from nowhere, so the inference that they came from a region which may contain similar objects isn't a huge leap in logic, is it?

those may allso be remains from the early days of the solar system, have an alien origin, etc. its purely hypothetical with very little arguments to assume it as fact, leave alone declare it a nessity.

originally posted by: ErosA433
Firstly Dolour, iv done the calculations personally, taking raw data from spectrometers, mapped rotational velocities, made corrections for apparent eccentricity, and found rotation curves of two galaxies to be flat, (2 is not high stats yes i know)

how much did it need to be rigged to get the galaxies flat?
looki looki www.youtube.com...
i can see(assuming that unlike this Arbitrageur you didnt BS when claiming you do science for a living) how one would subconciously defend the stuff he dedicated large portion of his life to, but. BUT(and ive been in a pretty similar situation of blind obedience to MSC) theres a point of where too many overwhealmingly paradoxies should make you halt and quation what you think you know.
...then youll eventually figure that you basically know nothing, and we just made one tiny step on the long road, instead of beiing halfway through it allready(wich was allways sorta my POV).

Also performed both analytical models and Monte Carlo simulations using the observed mass(luminosity) distributions to figure out what a standard gravimetic rotation curve should look like. They come out in agreement with each other (analytical and MC) and in big disagreement with the observed data. We did it as an Astronomy project in our 3rd year of Uni.

ok, to put this traight: you use a "hand tuned rigged" simulation(they include every little arbitrary crap science added right?) and point out that it delivers correct results?
you are aware that they had to add an arbitrary ammount of missing drag in order achieve those results?
now what kind of scientific method is this, considering that despite huge efforts DM is still unprooven?

Furthermore, the smart phone comment doesn't mean anything. do you honestly think that the number of megapixels really matters?

while sensitivity is a factor too, actually yes mostly comes down to resulution, and you even deliver the reason why in your own writing:
"firstly they are monochrome, they do not see colour without the use of a filter wheel. Furthermore often observations are made over long long periods of time, With a patch of sky tracked and exposed for hours at a time."
after tracking that one piece of sky for hours you look for a change of what the pixels recorded during that timespan.
and the more pixels you got, the more accurate you can observe any changes, respecively higher resolutions enable you to observe changes at all.

allso, while they do not generate colored images in the term we use it, most are far from monochrome, since they need to be able to distinguish between several wavelenghts(there are exceptions, but thats not the norm).
i could go on how nowadays sensorchips were delveloped from nightvison-googles, wich are "monochrome" too in terms of the image provided, and that no matter what state of the art picture capturing technique you use, it all comes down to photo-electric plates who recognise "colours" by energy of photons striking the sensor, delivering different ammounts of transformed electricity depending on sayd photons energy...

Despite that, brown dwarfs are still extremely hard to detect, the faintness of objects in the night sky is far beyond the intrinsic noise level of a consumer camera, and at the threshold of astrometric cameras.

comparing consumer cameras with modern telescope arrays, utilizing amany sensors?
wow, theres really no argument too absurd to be abused...
comparing the energy-output of the sun vs earth and now this. you want to be taken serious, do you?

What you are suggesting is the opposite of what science does. Science always changes its views,

rotfl, may i steal that for quotes?
seriously, what planet have you been living for the last 30-40 years?

I disagree, research into dark matter is worth pursuing, it isn't soaking up funds like no tomorrow, governments around the world squander money on less useful things, science gets an absolute pittance. The average tax bill that large companies 'DON"T pay because they own the governments are larger than average research budgets.

i agree in researching phenomena that we cant explain being a good thing.
now YOU explain me, why this isnt true in general, but only for stuff that keeps the rigged equations where they are?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Oh my. That does speak volumes about your scientific curiosity mate.

why? because that guy doesent really say anything that CAN be analysed by other means then philosophering about it?

originally posted by: Dolour
first: its microlenseing, adding "gravitational" is pure assumption(i left it for a reason). theres no proove its caused by gravity.
magnetic fields, wich surround every planet, every solar system, every galaxy, could equally be the cause for it.

Except we've never experimentally confirmed that magnetic fields can bend photons. We've put an upper limit on the amount of charge that a photon might have and while we suspect photons have no charge at all, if they do it's at least 41 orders of magnitude smaller than the charge of an electron, meaning if there's any bending of light due to magnetic fields, it's not going to be of the magnitude of lensing we observe due to gravitation.

second: MACHOS observable? how many times do i have to say ORDINARY MATTER, read it again ORDINARY MATTER, ORDINARY MATTER!
you finally got that?

I read that three times but sorry I don't get your point, except that it has something to do with ordinary matter. What about ordinary matter? Maybe using a verb would help in communication? My point was ordinary matter like the Earth exists, and in other galaxies objects like planets and brown dwarfs are too hard to observe when they are that far away. We have observed a 350 degree C brown dwarf 40 light years away (Which is a MACHO made of ordinary matter), but it's unlikely that with current technology we would be able to observe this same class of object in another galaxy. As I said, maybe as technology improves, so will detection capabilities.

Have we observed any ~350 degree C brown dwarfs in other galaxies, like this one 40 light years away?

Astronomers discovered the coldest brown dwarf star ever observed

"baryonic dark matter" was NEVER prooven, and a freakin trained monkey reading my post would acknowledge that statement.

Once we observed the brown dwarf 40 light years away, then we can say it's above our detection threshold due to the close distance. But we can also say that we expect other galaxies have similar objects which would not be detectable due to the greater distance, so those would be considered dark matter. I suppose you could say maybe that the only brown dwarfs in the universe are those close enough to us to actually observe directly, but would that be a logical point of view?

it is E-V-I-D-E-N-T that you AGAIN quote me wrong, twisting my words, ON PURPOSE.
is it time for me to file that promised complaint for you violating the TOS by perverting what i say?
or do you indeed just desperatly need some reading comprehention lessons?

I don't see how I'm twisting your words but please stick to discussing the facts and stop trying to make this personal. Our discussion should be about dark matter, the topic of this thread, and not each other.