It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Dark Matter - The Search Continues

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 03:07 PM
just read this and you may understand what I mean by what I have said.

Is dark matter fact or fantasy? – clues from the data

thanks... I'm out !

posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 09:58 AM
I doubt you really understand what was written in the paper as it doesn't really match what you are saying at all in the thread.

This discusses specific adaptation of MOND in order to fit galaxies as an alternative to WIMP dark matter.

The issue with this is that it claims to be a cleaner parameterization because it uses less parameters, but really its not much better on the grand scheme of things.

It also doesn't give any prediction of our observation of galaxy clusters and especially doesn't work with the bullet cluster. When a MOND theory can explain the bullet cluster, then it will be worth entertaining. Its an interesting paper none the less, but you appear to have read the title and the abstract and little else.

posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 10:04 AM
a reply to: KrzYma
I already posted a similar paper here which focused on galaxy rotation curves but ignored other lines of evidence, like gravitational lensing and nucleosynthesis.

Unless the paper also solves the gravitational lensing and nucleosynthesis issues too (like dark matter does), I don't see how it really solves anything.

The failure of that "tunnel vision" approach which looks at only one line of evidence while ignoring other lines of evidence is discussed in this article about the shortcomings of MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics):

Only Dark Matter (And Not Modified Gravity) Can Explain The Universe

There have been a lot of public advocates from the “no dark matter” camp, getting lots of popular attention. But the Universe still needs dark matter. Here’s why...

Modified gravity cannot successfully predict the large-scale structure of the Universe the way that a Universe full of dark matter can. Period. And until it can, it’s not worth paying any mind to as a serious competitor. You cannot ignore physical cosmology in your attempts to decipher the cosmos, and the predictions of large-scale structure, the microwave background, the light elements, and the bending of starlight are some of the most basic and important predictions that come out of physical cosmology. MOND does have a big victory over dark matter: it explains the rotation curves of galaxies better than dark matter ever has, including all the way up to the present day. But it is not yet a physical theory, and it is not consistent with the full suite of observations we have at our disposal. Until that day comes, dark matter will deservedly be the leading theory of what makes up the mass in our Universe.

So if you ignore predictions of large-scale structure, the microwave background, the light elements, and the bending of starlight, maybe MOND or the papers you and I posted saying galaxy rotation curves can be explained without dark matter could make us scratch our heads and wonder if they might be on to something.

But why would anybody want to ignore all those other lines of evidence? As I said before, it's like someone is proposing the "answer" but it looks to me like they don't even understand the question.

Physicists would consider these alternate proposals without dark matter more seriously if they addressed all these other lines of evidence too, but they typically don't, and the paper you posted certainly doesn't address the other lines of evidence.

edit on 2019329 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 04:44 AM
a reply to: ErosA433

Nice thread ErosA433.

I didn't post any comments earlier because. I had nothing to add.

As long as there is real evidence for the effects. The search is worth it.

I have a proposal

I would like you to look at it as in the diagrams drawn and described. There are four diagrams which i'm thinking look like the forces.

There is a cube shape. Two flower patterns. But. The one i think will be of interest to you is the last one.

I had to draw it in three stages as it is difficult to draw as one diagram.

These connections do not contain the (0) as in the other diagrams.

They are non interactive with matter.

My proposal might end up being falsified.

I thought this observation might be of interest to you.

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in