Sorry - No Dark Matter!

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 5 2013 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Because that is the implication when you say "As an opponent to Dark Matter theory".

Many physicists are opponets to DM theory and proposed alternatives to DM without modifiying its basic laws. For instance, Dragan Hajdukovic's (I may have mispelled his last name) theory of a DM-less model doesn't need to re-write any laws of physics - it just proposes that, just like magnetic fields, gravitational fields may be dipoles and antimatter would be the other pole, and large quantities of virtual matter/antimatter pairs in empty space would act as a gravitational polarized field, which would push baryonic matter, forcing it to augment velocity when it is inside a galaxy.

When faced with a mystery (here the rotational curve), I don't think it's a good idea for me to stick to only one theory (here DM), and follow it as dogma when other alternatives are possible.


There is something out there we don't understand, and it is a gravitational effect. We call it dark matter because we are kind of clueless.

As far as we know, this ''Something'' may happen only to spiral galaxies. We know some galaxies have definitively no anomalous rotational curve, and it's possible bilions of other galaxies aren't anomalous neither. I think it may be safe to assume this ''something'' may be related to the galaxy's age... And we know black holes expands as they eat up matter. There must be an obvious link between the two. The only problem is that star speed in the galaxy's edge don't drop as it should. My 2 cents is, maybe we shouldn't expect them to drop to orbital speed... if they are spiralling down. Then it would be kinda obvious why they don't drop to orbital speed... As I keep saying, the very recently created Crab nebula may give us a valuable clue if that's right or not.

I know, spiralling down motion challenges Immanuel Kant's assumption that our stars are in perfect orbits, ''like our planets''. But with this other alternative, I come with good intentions, PLB! You check the DM alternative, and I'll consider other alternatives. One of us is bound to get it right some day! It's a bit like cow-boys in the dark, with lassos. If they all shoot in different directions, they are more likely to catch the horse than if they all shoot in the same direction while ignoring the rest.
Another analogy would be fishing.
Or diggin' for gold.
Or diggin' for diamonds. Ooh, I like that last one even better. Too bad there no place we can dig for Lamborghinis, that would be my favorite...


It seems that you are acknowledging the existance of dark matter here, as you acknowledge a difference between the galaxies in you OP without certain anomalies and other galaxies with these anomalies.

I ackowledge there are these ''differences'' - that at least is pretty damn obvious. I mean, the rotational curve is all weird and at some places hundredfolds of what it should be - I even did the math myself (as, I trust, anyone would in that case) just to be sure it wasn't a typo. It's on my top ten questions to ask God if I die (and if he exists at all, let alone in a chat-able form, and If I can squeeze my notepad in that marvelous Tunnel of Light... ). But I think DM is just one of many alternatives... One should try many other alternatives, and maybe one of them will actually be favoured by Occam's Razor, or, even more importantly, by direct observation itself.


Maybe your thread title should have said "Sorry, dark matter not always observed" or along those lines.

Ugh. I guess so.

Although, in my defence, one has technically never directly observed Dark Matter in the first place - only its assumed effect on gravity.

But then we never directly obeserved gluons... or quarks, for that matters...

Why sci-fi? Our universe is a bigger wonder than any fiction writers could ever imagine.




posted on May, 5 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by swan001
"Science" means "knowledge" (sciencia). If you "believe" in Dark Matter, it's not "knowledge", thus it is not "science". Only assumption.


Dark matter scientists won't stop trying to prove that dark matter exists until their funding dries up or they acknowledge that their understanding of physics may be flawed.

In the meantime, they are determined to make the universe fit their theory.



I can agree with this, but I am not threatened by it. At least science (sooner or later) admits when it is wrong. I wouldn't want scientists to stop trying to fit laws into their experiments. Once their experiments finally collapse under these laws, they can scratch that experiment off and move onto the next one. In science, failure is very very good. It's all good.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Dark Matter as proposed is diffuse, it is not dense like a star is dense, the effect of it goes with the cube (volume effect) so at the core of a galaxy, there is a balance that you point out goes with the square, thus if you have a singularity at the core, that will dominate the rotation of the stars around it, far greater than the effect of dark matter, which you (and many others) seem to forget or ignore that the stars are almost swimming in. So the gravitational effect pulling a star inwards becomes larger than you expect for a normal r^2 relationship.

That is actually my point. Remember that normal mass is, too, a volume effect. Which means if DM exists, it would behave, in a g field, just like ordinary mass would. Which means, pack up at the Galactic Bulge, and its quantity would diminish accordingly with the distance of the gravitational source (more DM for the bulge-ward stars, and less DM for the edge-ward stars). And that accumulation at the bulge would make the system there alot more massive than observed.


So if you have a small elliptical galaxy, in my opinion it is not a surprise at all that the rotations are probably matching well to what you expect from baryonic matter.

Yes, elliptical galaxies look quite like our Bulge. And I just found out something interesting:


Elliptical galaxies are characterized by several properties that make them distinct from other classes of galaxy. The motion of stars in elliptical galaxies is predominantly radial, unlike the disks of spiral galaxies, which are dominated by rotation.


Now this is interesting. You remember of course your point,


ooooh yes an elliptical orbit, so yes the sun does not have to have a orbit that is 90degrees to the core, 30 degrees towards? so what? that doesn't mean conclusively that it has to be spiralling in towards the sun anymore than other stars in the local group.

Well... if E galaxies are seemingly older than S galaxies (another thing I just found out), and if E galaxies have radial star trajectories instead of rotational, aren't the evidences in favour that as our galaxy ages, its stars will follow less and less rotational courses, and more and more radial (Core-ward) courses? That goes directly in the favor of a gradually spiralling down model. That casts doubt on the sun's next move as it rushes at an inward angle of 30 degrees. Will it truly maintain an elliptical orbit, or is it simply on its way to a more radial orbit?


You also accuse Astronomers of great ignorance which is quite frankly a little bit rich.

Then I will allow myself to be just as frank: I think Astronomy is far from complete. But it has many clues. It's a bit like detective work. But I'm not naive. I know that some Astronomer's salary depend on not doing too much detective work and on sticking with mainstream.


If you read astronomy, you will know that the proper motion of stars near to us have been studied and watched over the last two decades in greater and greater detail.

Two decades. A bilion-years model based on a 20 years observation. Observations wich are called ''proper'' but are based on relative to us, throught CMB to us.


how little time scientists get to update the school text books, and how much of the reality has to be 'economized' to fit into the pitiful school curriculum.

That I certainly agree with.



They do after all perform galactic simulations and attempt to simulate the future of galaxy clusters...

Many have tried to simulate the future of our supposedly warming climate. Even today they still can't get it right. ''Oops, we made a small error when trying to compute the warming curve.. it doesn't warm as much as it should... ''


Your point about the lensing effect of a singularity is also a moot one... look at this page

link

(...)is that dark matter? No, that is the singularity... Does it fall off with R^2... no, most fall off at R^2 up until the edges of the bulge

And it seems here the paper refers to baryonic Dark Matter, which is by definition ordinary matter which is too faint to be observed from here. And I hope that this author took into account the fact that blackholes carry charges and will repel each other following Gauss's laws? At first glance I see no reference to these in the paper... I'll check again just to be sure.



what you are saying for example that the Earth is effected by the gravitational field of Jupiter... yes, yes it is, but when you stand near to someone, you are pulled towards each other by your own gravitational fields more than you are pulled towards Jupiter.

Naturally. Here I wasn't really refering to events in our Milky Way, just the gravitational lensing of those far away galaxies. I was just saying that even angles as small as one milionth of a degree would still show up with bilions of light-years of distance.


Gravitational lensing is a small effect, but it is also an effect like any lens

Exactly. The further you watch a lens, the further the image is deformed through that lens, and any tiny defects will show up. Please notice here I say ''deformed'' (the shape and angular areas of the lens) and not ''magnified'' (the distance to the focal point of the lens). Just to avoid confusion.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   
The issue taken is that much of what you say Swan001 is that you seem to suggest that scientists don't pursue all the possibilities. Others follow with the classic approach of accusing people of pursuing a lie for the purpose of lining their on pockets when they know little about the reality.

Scientists in the field of particle astrophysics are the last people you will see lining their pockets, salaries are not in the 100s of K, there are no bonus' and most scientists work all hours god sends to get things done. You said in your post that you know what their salaries depend on... right so Swan001? what field are you in? what do you do? how do you possibly know all this 'information' on what the people do, when from my stand point it looks like you know very little regarding it.

Scientists are searching the areas that are the most reachable with current technology, and developing technology to push further, WIMP dark matter is not the only route, it could be something else, so when you accuse scientists of only searching for one thing while blinding themselves to all else, the reality is quite different if you are read on the subject, you should see this.

The issue I have Swan001 is that you appear to be entirely against mainstream science for the sake of some kind of conquest. It is good to question, science is all about questioning, but your rhetoric is rather aggressively dismissive of current theory without in my opinion truly understanding that theory. This has been shown several times during many many of your threads. If you are to criticize a theory, simply stating that you think it is wrong... is not enough, it is close to the others where it is said "I think this theory is wrong... you prove my statement incorrect"

Science doesn't work this way, and you should be now know this.

Elliptical galaxies are older, it is theorized that all galaxies form as ellipticals, and that spiral formation is caused by near passes or pass throughs of galaxies with one another. This makes sense from observations, even of our own galaxy. Once more, since you are making all these statements on what galaxies are and what dark matter is, to have only just found out this information it really appears to me that you do not really see the big picture or have the learned background more than you have just read online just now.... my point is, scientists study many things on their own back, this idea of 'the mainstream' is completely (and i am being frank) crap, it simply doesn't exist...

You seem to forget that most of these scientists study because they love the field, love the science, they want to know things more than they want their salary... people really should stop accusing everyone of some kind of dishonesty...

Why not try this Swan001, see where your nearest university department of physics/astronomy, and compose an e-mail, talk to a lecturer/post-doc on the subjects, do not demand, just ask a few questions. You should find, if you approach the issue correctly, many of them willing and happy to reply to you.

Now, I am coming at this as a post-doc myself in the field of particle physics and who has studied physics and astronomy.

Yes there are many incomplete parts of theory, but to say something is incomplete and thus wrong and the scientists are being dumb and you are the keeper of the truth... is really ludicrous, if you really want to change things and do research, you should go to uni, do physics, do a masters and a post-doc and then with all that knowledge and experience of the 'mainstream' as you call it... use the knowledge to make your own ideas and theories irrefutable and your arguments solid... because this is becoming frustratingly similar to most other posts on ATS, where people are more interested in proposing theories that do not even stand up to basic high school level knowledge and yet their authors accuse 'mainstream' of lying, profiteering and being dumb...



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Two decades. A bilion-years model based on a 20 years observation. Observations wich are called ''proper'' but are based on relative to us, throught CMB to us.


These motions are corrected for our sun and Earth's motion, and looking through the CMB? Sooo what is the significance of the CMB really have on this? When you speak of relative motions, we are at a very long distance away, the centre of the galaxy doesn't move by very much, but since you are so knowledgable you would have good control over star maps, how to point telescopes, how to correct for relative motion of the stars and the sun and the Earth?

No? well Astronomers use these all the time... you know when the field of view of a telescope is less than a degree... you kind of need to know all the motions and corrections otherwise you will be looking at the wrong thing.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Swan001 you are trying to prove a negative.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


These are very impassionate words.


The issue taken is that much of what you say Swan001 is that you seem to suggest that scientists don't pursue all the possibilities.

Many scientists pursue different possibilities. What I critic is the System's tendency to overlook these possibilities. Kinda, yeah, just dump 'em in ArXiv and that's all. For example: take Dragan Hajdukovic's theory that gravitational fields are dipoles, like magnetic fields, and that antimatter is the other pole. I never heard of him until my good friend CLPrime found an article about him. I critic the fact that every other theories except DM are left in the dark, and DM is the only one enjoying the spotlight while those scientists who come up with alternatives are barely heard.


what field are you in? what do you do?

To answer your question more directly: No, I have no PhD. No diploma, no certificate, and my work is almost unrelated to this physics. I'm just some random guy from Quebec.


how do you possibly know all this 'information' on what the people do

Many scientists expressed their concerns about the system. Robert O. Becker, even Stephen Hawking when he said that more transparency should be placed so the public may have more ability to voice opinions about the system's theories. If you wish to oppose their critics about the System, be my guest.


It is good to question, science is all about questioning, but your rhetoric is rather aggressively dismissive of current theory without in my opinion truly understanding that theory.

You are entitled to have an opinion. But there are many theories I do support. Those I don't support I discuss in my threads. Those I support I feel no need to talk about. ''Hey, Hello ATS, This is Swanne. Just wanted to pop in and tell you, Standard Model rocks. Okay gotta go now. '' You understand?


simply stating that you think it is wrong... is not enough, it is close to the others where it is said "I think this theory is wrong... you prove my statement incorrect"

That's funny. That's basicially how Dark Matter theory works! ''As nobody can't observe WIMPS, We decide that WIMPS are everywhere, prove us wrong''. And no one can, because no one has the tech to see WIMPS. Only their positron, antiprotons and gamma by-product, caused by supposed annihilation, and which we didn't observed in the right quantities anyway. I share your frustration, only in the opposite direction: When People use "science" to push new-age of aquarius nonesense, that's frustrating, and I'll always oppose that. New Age is slowly corrupting the way people view science, and something should be done about that!


Once more, since you are making all these statements on what galaxies are and what dark matter is, to have only just found out this information it really appears to me that you do not really see the big picture or have the learned background more than you have just read online just now....

I am honest to tell you the things I just found out. I don't know about you, but I beleive morality is more important than lying just to avoid looking stupid. Lying won't make science progress, you know. I thought you would know that.

I am afraid that I found disturbing weakness in your post too: the fact that you didn't know elliptical galaxies's stars have radial trajectories tells me you are still learning the background too.

We aren't walking encyclopedias, we are humans. Instead of attacking one another, why not actually help each other out to actually try and see the Real bigger picture?

My statement that stars may be spiralling down is actually verificable, just like DM. Just calculate the 3-D shape of M1.


this idea of 'the mainstream' is completely (and i am being frank) crap, it simply doesn't exist...

You mean, like, these guys who criticized the System were all wrong.


these scientists study because they love the field, love the science, they want to know things more than they want their salary...
people really should stop accusing everyone of some kind of dishonesty...

My critics are not towards the scientists. They are toward the system which block those hard working scientists.


You should find, if you approach the issue correctly, many of them willing and happy to reply to you.

I fear that no one will even consider listening to a low-class dude with no certifications and from some remote village. I'm nobody, remember.


Yes there are many incomplete parts of theory, but to say something is incomplete and thus wrong and the scientists are being dumb and you are the keeper of the truth... is really ludicrous

You are jumping to conclusions here. I never said people were dumb, neither that I was the keeper of the truth. I proposed what you would call, wait for it, this is grand, a Hypothesis. Sorry, I thought we still had freedom of speech - at least here on ATS.


These motions are corrected for our sun and Earth's motion, and looking through the CMB? Sooo what is the significance of the CMB really have on this? When you speak of relative motions, we are at a very long distance away, the centre of the galaxy doesn't move by very much, but since you are so knowledgable you would have good control over star maps, how to point telescopes, how to correct for relative motion of the stars and the sun and the Earth?

The sun's motion was based upon observation of CMB redshift. But the proper motion of other stars were based upon their relative motion relative to us. Thus the proper motion of stars is only INDIRECTLY connected to CMB. Because proper is based on relative, the motion of stars are only an estimate, and may be subject to second-order motion which wouldn't show in our observations if ALL stars (including the reference point - us) move more or less in the same said second-order motion.

The Crab nebula is at roughly 180 degrees from the Core of the Milky Way, galactic coordinates. Its perseus-ward area would start spiralling down now, and its orion-ward section shortly follow behind. Unfortunately there is uncertainty about its distance from Earth in the first place. Due to this uncertainty we are unable to map, execept only a tiny fraction, our entire galaxy with precision. Hopefully in the near future one would find a way to resolve this uncertainty and have more resolution on M1's three-dimensional shape to see if it spirals down or not.

I feel you are taking my posts in a very personnal matter. Please note that I do not intend my posts as personnal attacks, and should NEVER be interpreted as such unless when specified. In my OP I simply showed a hint that DM may not be the ultimate theory.
edit on 6-5-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Perhaps no dark matter in that particle galaxy, but that does not mean there is no dark matter else where.

But still, good find. I find that galaxy rather interesting, might do some research on it. S&F.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
Perhaps no dark matter in that particle galaxy, but that does not mean there is no dark matter else where.

But still, good find. I find that galaxy rather interesting, might do some research on it. S&F.

Thanks.

Well actually it would seem Elliptical galaxies in general may not have dark matter. The logic would be, if DM doesn't exist there, there is a high probability it doesn't exist here neither. But then, why do spiral galaxies have anomalistic rotational curve? That means we might have missed something and DM was just a temporary patch.

WIMPs are a kind of dark matter which was expected to exist in our milky way. WIMPs are invisible, but when they annihilate, it was assume they would light up the milky way with antiprotons, antielectrons and gamma rays. But when they sent sensors out there to check for these, the results were not as grand than expected.

Plus a group of scientist ruled out the possibility that Dark Matter exists in the form of Halo around the galaxy (a possibility Dark Matter Theorists tended to push) adsabs.harvard.edu...
edit on 6-5-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   
In the end.... Electrical theory will win out.

It's more practical, more testable, more sensical, and winning more and more physicists over to it every day.

The reasons being it is generating results and predictions that current models can not predict. I regularly follow the information that Wince and Susskind post up on their web pages so I am not deaf to the other side of things.


Enjoy relearning everything you thought you knew over the next 30 years


For those of you unfamiliar with Gavin Wince Exsitics 101
edit on 8-5-2013 by vind21 because: Added Link



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433
So while now we haven't been there to take a look, or to every single galaxy... but the evidence for it is stark and pushes it from 'assumption' to 'almost certainly'


I think assumption was maybe the wrong word to choose, more like most likely conclusion I guess would be more appropriate. I do understand we have evidence of stars close to galactic center orbiting very fast around a very small/dense object.


This is not the case, the Earth is not being sucked into the sun.


So are we slowly moving away from the sun then? Because without any kind of thrust to keep us in a stable orbit, we're either getting closer or moving farther away correct? We do have angular momentum or what you call tangential motion but because of entropy that must be decreasing right? Like a clock slowly winding down.


The moon is not being sucked into the Earth.


That is correct, I misspoke there. If i remember correctly the moon is very slowly moving away from us, I want to say like 1 inch per year or something very tiny compared to the sizes and distances involved.


Not all stars and galaxies are moving away. Galaxies in our local group have all kinds of motions, same for the stars in the milky way. Andromeda is infact on a collision course with the milky way... thus that statement you and others keep making is invalid and incorrect.


I know I remember watching some TV show that was talking about Andromeda going to collide with the Milky Way in a couple billion years or something like that so again I misspoke. I hate repeating all these misconceptions because I do know better and I thank you for your corrections. I guess I just got caught up trying to get the ideas out that I didn't word my response correctly.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Sorry for the off topic post, back on the topic of DM. I understand that all these astrophysicists and cosmologists are seeing a phenomenon in their observations/calculations. They gave it a name, Dark Matter/Dark Energy, to explain what they're seeing, although my personal opinion is they are witnessing something they don't truly understand. It's like observing a chunk of wood and then some time later observing a piece of charred wood. You can come up with all kinds of theories describing what happened, but fire, being the most obvious conclusion, may not be observed or even obvious in the calculations given the small amount of time we've been watching.

These scientists have dedicated their careers and lives to the pursuit of what this phenomenon actually is and how it works, and I know with more time and better equipment eventually humanity will get to the bottom of this massive experience we call life. I just don't think we're close to the whole truth yet.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join