Dwarf Galaxies Call Standard Model Into Question

Map of universe questioned: Dwarf galaxies don't fit standard model

Phys.org reports:

Satellite dwarf galaxies at the edges of the Milky Way and neighboring Andromeda defy the accepted model of galaxy formation, and recent attempts to pigeon-hole them into the model are flawed, an international team of scientists reports.

The mismatch raises questions about the accuracy of the standard model of cosmology, which is the widely accepted paradigm for the origin and evolution of the universe, the astrophysicists say.

A preprint of the research paper, accepted for publication by the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, is online at arxiv.org...

The standard model, also called the "lambda cold dark matter model," says that satellite dwarf galaxies in the Milky Way and Andromeda are expected to behave a certain way: The galaxies would form in halos of dark matter, be widely distributed and would have to move in random directions, said Marcel Pawlowski, a postdoctoral researcher in the astronomy department at Case Western Reserve University and lead author of the new study.

"But what astronomers see is different," Pawlowski said. "We see the satellite galaxies are in a huge disk and moving in the same direction within this disk, like the planets in our solar system moving in a thin plane in one direction around the sun. That's unexpected and could be a real problem."

Pawlowski goes on to say, "The chance to have two galaxies with such huge disks of satellite galaxies is less than one in 100,000."

The article goes on to quote Pavel Kroupa, a co-author of the study and a professor at the University of Bonn in Germany, who says, "There's a very serious conflict, and the repercussion is we do not seem to have the correct theory of gravity."

Indeed.

Of course, I'm confident this evidence will be thoroughly ignored by everyone. 100,000 to 1 odds? pffffffft. We've already had papers showing 3,000,000,000 to 1 odds of the standard model being incorrect. The high priests of science will go on spewing their fake gravitational religion, conjuring up infinite densities and invisible matter, like misguided Mid-Evil alchemists.

For those who want a real explanation for what we observe in space, watch this:

So the question then begs.

What is gravity really?

Is this thread another excuse to crowbar in some more moronic "Electric Universe" BS?

originally posted by: grey580
So the question then begs.

What is gravity really?

Given that gravity obeys an inverse square law, it's most likely an electrical property of matter. That also means there is probably some way to manipulate the field.

Wal Thornhill suggests gravity might be due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons.

originally posted by: grey580
So the question then begs.

What is gravity really?

We kinda talk a lot for a species that still only have theories about the center and composition of our own planet (yes thats still a theory)... let alone things like gravity, galaxies and stuff that goes on millions of light-years away...

Still its the best we got, and its funny to watch them change as years, or more recently, months go by.

Sometimes I think we're wrong... at pretty much everything. If we're right, it was a pure lucky guess.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Well there is definitely a way to manipulate it.



However I don't think we fully understand it yet.

Highly interesting, and I too believe some of our most fundamental scientific ideas in physics are flawed. I also believe that often the answer lies in some earlier, discarded theory in some instances. Think about the limitations imposed upon our species if our theories are incorrect. We could be thinking anti-gravity is a myth when in reality there could be a rather simple and elegant solution, but we would not know about it if we did not understand gravity correctly to begin with. There are things that are likely considered science fiction that may actually be possible, and perhaps one day, if flawed theories are corrected or replaced, the solutions will be relatively obvious.

So in theory scientists who cling to obviously outdated models are holding back progress. Who knows what the future could hold? If we have come this far with theories that may not even be correct, who knows how far we could go with correct ideas? The thing is though that the more we advance in physically performing feats and experiments the more glaring inconsistencies will come to light. When everything is theoretical and unprovable, then ideas will fly that should not. Take String Theory for instance. This could be totally bogus, but considering it is difficult to physically experiment with such ideas, how would we know? I can think of many alternate theories that attempt to replace gravity, the entire standard model or even relativity in general. They might not be correct, but if it can be proven that an accepted theory is incorrect, they suddenly look like better options.

Another thing is that theories advance because scientists work on them. If one idea is suddenly accepted then you will have few scientists working on alternative ideas. This means progress often comes slowly with these other ideas. And even fundamental assumptions could be wrong. For instance, Larson proposed a universe with 3 spatial dimensions and 3 dimensions of time. He was not a physicist and his ideas are likely wrong, but since we know there are 3 spatial dimensions it is not entirely unthinkable that there could also be 3 temporal dimensions. Few people are working on those ideas, but the interesting thing is that one can get the same results to explain what we see around us, mathematically speaking. Fundamental equations may be modified in some instances, and reading through some of the few papers that have been published on that theory, I believe that certain things can actually be explained in a better way.

I am not saying this idea is right, because it likely is not, but my point is that there are multiple ways to get the same result, and that other theories should at least be explored by mainstream scientists. Especially considering most ideas hit a roadblock at some point. It takes people actually doing the work to find breakthroughs, and this is much more difficult when only a handful of physicists are actually toying with the idea to begin with.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
The high priests of science will go on spewing their fake gravitational religion

You're basically posting some of the best evidence possible that it's NOT a religion, and then call it a religion.

Science isn't married to the ΛCDM model if a better model can be found. Gravitational models seem to work exceedingly well in our solar system, so they are obviously very good models in that respect. The ΛCDM model has an even bigger problem than dwarf galaxies, which is the CDM standing for cold dark matter is only inferred by observation and has never been experimentally confirmed. An ATS member is on a team of scientists looking for this CDM and who knows if they will find it?

There are other models, like MOND, which is basically a different gravity model that doesn't include the undiscovered CDM, but the problem is that the MOND model has even more problems than the ΛCDM model. To say the electric universe model has more problems than either one would be an understatement, since it's not even a consistent model from website to website, and it matches far fewer observations than ΛCDM or MOND.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
You're basically posting some of the best evidence possible that it's NOT a religion, and then call it a religion.

How so?

If I said an invisible man in the sky holds galaxies together, how is that any different than claiming dark matter does the same thing?

Explain the difference to me, because I'm not seeing it.

Neither the man, nor the matter, can be directly detected by any means. Their existence is inferred, it is not observed. That is a religious belief.

originally posted by: ArbitrageurScience isn't married to the ΛCDM model if a better model can be found. Gravitational models seem to work exceedingly well in our solar system, so they are obviously very good models in that respect. The ΛCDM model has an even bigger problem than dwarf galaxies, which is the CDM standing for cold dark matter is only inferred by observation and has never been experimentally confirmed. An ATS member is on a team of scientists looking for this CDM and who knows if they will find it?

There are other models, like MOND, which is basically a different gravity model that doesn't include the undiscovered CDM, but the problem is that the MOND model has even more problems than the ΛCDM model. To say the electric universe model has more problems than either one would be an understatement, since it's not even a consistent model from website to website, and it matches far fewer observations than ΛCDM or MOND.

No, they are not very good models in that respect. They are not good models because a good model would correctly scale (like plasma models scale).

MOND is a joke. It's more religion heaped upon religion. Have we ever directly observed Newtonian physics suddenly changing here on Earth? Please give me an example, otherwise this is another man-in-the-sky scenario.

EU does not have more problems than either MOND or CDM. PIC simulations show galaxy formation models that match what we observe out in space. EU models blow all other models out of the water, and they do so without the use of fictitious matter and energy.

www.plasmauniverse.info...

The standard model has to dream up alternate realities or invisible matter and energy in order to match what EU theory provides using nothing but standard plasma physics.

EU theory scales from the electron up to the size of a galaxy, which is something the standard model has failed to accomplish for over 100 years. SR and GR have not been unified, and never will be.

that would be me my general lack of any presence and argument here is simply due to fatigue as said experiment is in final construction stages. Iv been doing hands on shifts for the last 8 week and are generally too tired to form good arguments, since I need to think about some of the answers.

Other than some flashy videos and a few claims which involve calling people names, iv never seen any of the evidence you speak of

originally posted by: ErosA433
that would be me

my general lack of any presence and argument here is simply due to fatigue as said experiment is in final construction stages. Iv been doing hands on shifts for the last 8 week and are generally too tired to form good arguments, since I need to think about some of the answers.

Other than some flashy videos and a few claims which involve calling people names, iv never seen any of the evidence you speak of

Your answers don't matter.

Let's say you can come up with some explanation for these findings. No matter what you may come up with, it's going to involve some form of hypothetical matter, energy or density. Occam's razor is clear in this case. PIC simulations show galaxy formation models that do not require any hypothetical matter and energy; therefore, they are the best hypothesis.

The standard model fails to pass the falsifiability test as well. No matter what observations we may make about space, the standard model will always cling to life by throwing in yet another hypothetical form of matter or energy. What are we up to now? Something like 22 adjustable parameters in the LCDM model? It can't be falsified. It's a joke of a theory.

Thanks for wasting my money looking for fairies though. I'm sure you'll end up getting the same results as the LIGO (fail), the CDMS (fail) and the Xenon (fail) experiments. But hey, at least you got a paycheck - right?

You expressed your thoughts really well, JiggyPotamus.

It seems every few hundred years a Newton or Einstein comes along and shakes things up, shifting the whole paradigm around. And though they are heralded as super human, super geniuses and giants of the scientific world, in time they, too, must step aside for the next super genius who comes along with a better, more comprehensive model of nature and reality. And, once again, our whole concept of reality takes an abrupt right turn.

I sometimes think we will probably never find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. It seems the older I get, the less sure I am that there even is an objective reality. Or, at least, I’m not sure that humans are capable of experiencing it in any objective sort of way. I don’t know if that’s even possible. So, we’ll just continue to create new models to replace the old models, ad infinitum. And that’s a good thing, as long as we continue to grow and make “progress”.

In light of all that, I have to wonder if perhaps we had approached things from a completely different angle long ago, it may have resulted in a totally different “standard model”, but one at least as valid, if not more so, than the one we currently have. There’s usually more than one way to skin a cat. I’ve heard so many times that if we ever encountered an alien intelligence greater than our own, we could surely communicate via the universal language of mathematics and scientific principle. Personally, I’m not so sure of that. Their intelligence may have evolved in a totally different fashion than our own. Their perception of reality would likely be quite different, and their methods of describing and exploiting it may be completely incomprehensible to us.

All of science, including particle physics, is and always has been subject to change. It’s part of what makes it cool. The mystery of it all drives us to keep looking deeper and deeper for the answers, and that’s surely one of the noblest of human traits.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
How so?

You cited an article saying that researchers found a problem with their simulation not matching the ΛCDM model. If the the ΛCDM model was a religion as you and others claim, this would be blasphemy and would not be allowed.

Of course there are two possibilities here, there could be a problem with the ΛCDM model, or there could be a problem with the researchers' simulation. It will be up to other researchers to evaluate the research to see which is more likely or perhaps devise better methods of data collection or simulation as appropriate.

Quick history review:

In 1997 cosmologists thought the expansion of the universe was slowing down.
Researchers collected data and they all reviewed the data and admitted they were all wrong, and the expansion of the universe is speeding up.

When was the last time the members of a religion admitted they were all wrong and adopted an opposite viewpoint based on new data?

originally posted by: ErosA433
that would be me

my general lack of any presence and argument here is simply due to fatigue as said experiment is in final construction stages.

So the experiment will be running by 2015 then? And by 2016 there could be some results?

That would be interesting.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
How so?

You cited an article saying that researchers found a problem with their simulation not matching the ΛCDM model. If the the ΛCDM model was a religion as you and others claim, this would be blasphemy and would not be allowed.

Of course there are two possibilities here, there could be a problem with the ΛCDM model, or there could be a problem with the researchers' simulation. It will be up to other researchers to evaluate the research to see which is more likely or perhaps devise better methods of data collection or simulation as appropriate.

Quick history review:

In 1997 cosmologists thought the expansion of the universe was slowing down.
Researchers collected data and they all reviewed the data and admitted they were all wrong, and the expansion of the universe is speeding up.

When was the last time the members of a religion admitted they were all wrong and adopted an opposite viewpoint based on new data?

Oh tut-tut now, that's not valid comparison.

Adopting an opposite viewpoint would be questioning the underlying assumptions of the ENTIRE theory, not adding a new hypothesis to paper over the damage. The correct SCIENTIFIC response to the findings should have been to question whether the entire gravitational model of the universe itself was predicated on faulty assumptions.

As the paper I linked in the OP notes, the odds of redshift being caused by "expanding space" are 3,000,000,000 to 1. Doppler redshift was never brought into question, when it should have been the first thing on the chopping block.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Eventually, if you live long enough, this whole framework of beliefs you have built up will crack and come flying apart at the seams. The gravitational model of the universe is antiquated and irrelevant. It offers no useful predictions. Observational findings continually surprise physicists, rather than confirming their theories.

Do you know how many times I've heard the phrase, "physicists were surprised to find" (or some variation thereof) - when skimming through astronomy articles? That phrase appears in practically every article that covers observational astronomy. That's a sign of a bad theory.

In the few cases when an observation happens (by luck or chance) to meet with their theories, they flood the media and pop champagne corks, typically only to have their findings over-turned at some later date.

The gravitational model of the universe is a religion. You should question it daily. That is your job.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


In 1997 there was no common consensus as to the expansion of the universe. There may have been a more widely held belief...but I think you absolutely can find a better example than that.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Arbitrageur


In 1997 there was no common consensus as to the expansion of the universe. There may have been a more widely held belief...but I think you absolutely can find a better example than that.

heh, I wish him luck in that endeavor.

There hasn't been a sea change in cosmological theory since the Michelson-Morley experiment.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
In 1997 there was no common consensus as to the expansion of the universe. There may have been a more widely held belief...but I think you absolutely can find a better example than that.

OK maybe I should have phrased it better, but I'll cite the explanation from NASA, where they use the phrase "fairly certain" which is not a phrase they use very often. What it signifies is that there wasn't any dissent to this view:

science.nasa.gov...

In the early 1990's, one thing was fairly certain about the expansion of the Universe. It might have enough energy density to stop its expansion and recollapse, it might have so little energy density that it would never stop expanding, but gravity was certain to slow the expansion as time went on.

So, if you don't like my wording use NASA's, "one thing was fairly certain about the expansion of the Universe....gravity was certain to slow the expansion as time went on." and NASA is absolutely right and there was absolutely a consensus about this and if you believe otherwise you've been misinformed. You may be thinking about the options listed there about exactly how much gravity would slow it down, and NASA confirms there was some question about that in the quote, but there was not any doubt that gravity was slowing it down.

The other major associated change is that in 1997 they thought the universe was dominated by matter, and now they think it's dominated by energy, specifically dark energy.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yeah, we will hopefully take gas fill data by the end of the year and begin liquid fill and physics running soon after. First 1 tonne fiducial dark matter detector ever built. Fingers crossed


Tell me AnarchoCapitalist, what kind of salary does an average physicist in the field of high energy physics or low energy physics such as rare event searches get?

What you will find is that the government(s) wastes more money because they cannot get big corporations to pay their tax bill, than the entire science budget (academic science). Money is not a valid criticism, there are many things that are just like pouring money down the drain, blue skies research is not one of them.

You say Scientists are surprised... well isn't this the whole point? You seem to claim that scientists are a bunch of know alls not willing to question their evidence, experiments or favourite pet theory and yet even by your own admission this is exactly what scientists are doing day by day. there are a few bad examples of people with huge egos, but they represent a small fraction

LIGO, the CDMS and the Xenon what exactly do you know and understand about these experiments. Firstly One of them is the odd one out here, which i hope you understand, it didn't fail, it is still on going. And the other two use two different technologies and have two different search regions and different target mass. The actual testing of theories and evidence is exactly what these Two experiments are doing, since they are testing regions of claimed discovery, as well as trying to get down to sensitivities that can begin to probe regions predicted by theories of various kinds and also bounds set by other physics in the LHC.

Iv left the names out for now as you should (since you claim to be an authority) already know what i am talking about, and these experiments didn't fail one bit. Their physics runs are just starting to touch regions of prediction from the LHC.

originally posted by: ErosA433
Tell me AnarchoCapitalist, what kind of salary does an average physicist in the field of high energy physics or low energy physics such as rare event searches get?

What you will find is that the government(s) wastes more money because they cannot get big corporations to pay their tax bill, than the entire science budget (academic science). Money is not a valid criticism, there are many things that are just like pouring money down the drain, blue skies research is not one of them.

It is when the hypothesis being chased are demonstrably wrong.

originally posted by: ErosA433
You say Scientists are surprised... well isn't this the whole point? You seem to claim that scientists are a bunch of know alls not willing to question their evidence, experiments or favourite pet theory and yet even by your own admission this is exactly what scientists are doing day by day. there are a few bad examples of people with huge egos, but they represent a small fraction

LIGO, the CDMS and the Xenon what exactly do you know and understand about these experiments. Firstly One of them is the odd one out here, which i hope you understand, it didn't fail, it is still on going. And the other two use two different technologies and have two different search regions and different target mass. The actual testing of theories and evidence is exactly what these Two experiments are doing, since they are testing regions of claimed discovery, as well as trying to get down to sensitivities that can begin to probe regions predicted by theories of various kinds and also bounds set by other physics in the LHC.

Iv left the names out for now as you should (since you claim to be an authority) already know what i am talking about, and these experiments didn't fail one bit. Their physics runs are just starting to touch regions of prediction from the LHC.

Of course I know, and they have failed - spectacular fails.

To quote myself:

The LIGO has never detected a gravitational wave. LIGO (on the fourth science run [S4]) and GEO600 together did not detect any gravitational waves. To date, LIGO’s fifth and sixth science runs, which had all three interferometers running continuously in triple-coincidence for an entire year, has not yielded any gravitational wave candidates.

FAILBOAT!

To quote the Scientific American on the other two:

"The world’s most sensitive search for dark matter announced today that it has found—nothing. The first results from the Large Underground Xenon (LUX) detector are null, scientists say, indicating that the invisible matter thought to make up a large chunk of the universe is even more elusive than many experts thought.
...
The new LUX results also cast doubt on previous claims of possible dark matter detection. The DAMA (for DArk MAtter) project in Italy claimed to have seen signs of WIMPs more than a decade ago, and more recently the CDMS (Cryogenic Dark Matter Search) and the CoGeNT (Coherent Germanium Neutrino Technology) experiment, both in Minnesota, saw handfuls of events that might be attributable to dark matter. “I’m afraid I can’t see their claims really surviving this,” Gaitskell says."

FAILBOAT!

I pose the same question to you as I posed to Arbitrageur.

If I said an invisible man in the sky holds galaxies together, how is that any different than claiming dark matter does the same thing?

Explain the difference to me, because I'm not seeing it. I'm entirely serious. I want you to provide a reason why Dark Matter is not actually an invisible man in the sky. I want you to explain why God is not responsible for these observations, yet dark matter is. I want the logic that differentiates them. Because from where I'm sitting, there is no logical difference between the claims.

The term "Dark Matter" could be swapped for "Invisible Man" or "Jesus" or "Buddha" or "Allah" or "Fairy God Mother" and absolutely nothing would change. It is an entirely hypothetical, inferred entity. The hunt for dark matter is like the hunt for the Easter Bunny.

You got NOTHING.

I already showed you a paper that can FULLY ACCOUNT for galaxy formation AND it can account for their rotational velocities - WITHOUT ANY DARK MATTER. DARK MATTER DOES NOT EXIST.

I love how you are able to completely ignore the papers I present. I find that ability amazing. If I was you, I'd be tearing into the papers trying to find something wrong with them. Yet you seem completely oblivious to their existence.

Should I post them again for you?

Did you not see them?

Let's go through them one at a time!

LCDM Models FAIL:
arxiv.org...

Doppler Redshift FAIL:
arxiv.org...

Dark Matter Necessary FAIL:
www.plasmauniverse.info...