No Dark Matter paradox? God.

[questfortruth]

NEWS:

Thus, on the one hand, there is no MOND and Dark Matter, because gravity and light propagate at the same speed; but on the other hand, there is MOND and no Dark Matter, because of the new observational results.

Therefore, there is a logical contradiction in nature. This, means, that we live in a real-illusory fairytale.
Indeed, in our life, there is the 1=3 equation for God (the Holy Trinity), and the run of the clocks (passing of time) is considered an illusion in General Relativity (however the time with its dates is a real thing).

 

[ChristineM]

NEWS:

Thus, on the other hand, there is no MOND and Dark Matter, because gravity and light propagate at the same speed; but on the other hand, there is MOND and no Dark Matter, because of the new observational results.
Therefore, there is a logical contradiction in nature. This, means, that we live in a real-illusory fairytale.
Indeed, in our life, there is the 1=3 equation for God (the Holy Trinity), and the run of the clocks (passing of time) is considered an illusion in General Relativity (however the time with its dates is a real thing).

Dark matter exists, it can be indirectly measured and observed. I am sure i told you this the last 2 times you have tried to diss evidence in favour of a no evidenced god.

Survey reveals most accurate measurement of dark matter structure in the Universe – Astronomy Now

 

[Native]

Therefore, there is a logical contradiction in nature.

I somewhat have to "correct" you in this sentense: There are NO *contradictions in nature*.

The contradictions are all thanks to the scientists lacking skills of practising *natural philosophy*. They´ve simply deposited their logical and intuitive skills in the *Calculus Department*.

IMO *gravity* should be revised and eventually discarded. An *occult force* which leads to further *dark matter occult agensies* is nothing to have ghosting around in real science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The FSM explains the fact that things fall down without gravity. It appears to be as good of an explanation as the Electric Universe.

Ramen.

 

[Regiomontanus]

NEWS:

Thus, on the one hand, there is no MOND and Dark Matter, because gravity and light propagate at the same speed; but on the other hand, there is MOND and no Dark Matter, because of the new observational results.

Therefore, there is a logical contradiction in nature. This, means, that we live in a real-illusory fairytale.
Indeed, in our life, there is the 1=3 equation for God (the Holy Trinity), and the run of the clocks (passing of time) is considered an illusion in General Relativity (however the time with its dates is a real thing).

Thank you for deciding some of my weekend reading! That paper referenced in the video looks very interesting.

I had high hopes for MOND 'back in the day' but it never worked out. For example, the evidence against it in the example of the Bullet Cluster has been considered pretty solid (though I have not really kept up). But if this latest work holds up it is going to be an important part of the puzzle...

Bullet Cluster - Wikipedia

 

[ecco]

Factual Math: One-half of the four preceding posts are ridiculous nonsense.



Dang! @Regiomontanus interjected. Now I have to reword my post.

Factual Math: One-half Two-fifths of the five preceding posts are ridiculous nonsense.

 

[Estro Felino]

Interesting.
But MOND are just theories and atoms are pretty empty considering the distance between the nucleus and electrons.

 

[PureX]

Dark matter exists, it can be indirectly measured and observed. I am sure i told you this the last 2 times you have tried to diss evidence in favour of a no evidenced god.

Survey reveals most accurate measurement of dark matter structure in the Universe – Astronomy Now

Actually, what is being observed and measures is a mystery. We labeled that mystery "dark matter" based on how the mystery relates to our presumptions about observed matter. It would dishonest to present the fact that we have a name and a measurement for this mystery as if it were some sort of resolution of the mystery. Because it isn't. It's simply an acknowledgement of it.

 

[ChristineM]

Actually, what is being observed and measures is a mystery. We labeled that mystery "dark matter" based on how the mystery relates to our presumptions about observed matter. It would dishonest to present the fact that we have a name and a measurement for this mystery as if it were some sort of resolution of the mystery. Because it isn't. It's simply an acknowledgement of it.

What is causing gravitational lensing is unknown, hence the term "dark" matter. Whatever it is can be measured. What is dishonest about that?

 

[exchemist]

Actually, what is being observed and measures is a mystery. We labeled that mystery "dark matter" based on how the mystery relates to our presumptions about observed matter. It would dishonest to present the fact that we have a name and a measurement for this mystery as if it were some sort of resolution of the mystery. Because it isn't. It's simply an acknowledgement of it.

Quite. Dark matter is just a label for something that appears to gravitate bu not to radiate (or to absorb radiation). We have no idea what it is.

 

[Suave]

NEWS:

Thus, on the one hand, there is no MOND and Dark Matter, because gravity and light propagate at the same speed; but on the other hand, there is MOND and no Dark Matter, because of the new observational results.

Therefore, there is a logical contradiction in nature. This, means, that we live in a real-illusory fairytale.
Indeed, in our life, there is the 1=3 equation for God (the Holy Trinity), and the run of the clocks (passing of time) is considered an illusion in General Relativity (however the time with its dates is a real thing).

Although dark matter can't be seen directly, its gravitational interactions with familiar matter leave unmistakable evidence for its existence.

 

[PureX]

What is causing gravitational lensing is unknown, hence the term "dark" matter. Whatever it is can be measured. What is dishonest about that?

A measured unknown is still an unknown. Spouting off "rules" about it would be very misleading at this point.

 

[ChristineM]

A measured unknown is still an unknown. Spouting off "rules" about it would be very misleading at this point.

Yes, hence the naming. Misunderstanding the reason dark matter and dark energy and spouting of ignorance is very misleading.

 

[questfortruth]

Thank you for deciding some of my weekend reading! That paper referenced in the video looks very interesting.

I had high hopes for MOND 'back in the day' but it never worked out. For example, the evidence against it in the example of the Bullet Cluster has been considered pretty solid (though I have not really kept up). But if this latest work holds up it is going to be an important part of the puzzle...

Bullet Cluster - Wikipedia

Dear brother/sister in Christ, please read this as well and reply:
Toward Advances in Medicine and Interstellar Travel, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2101.0111

 

[Regiomontanus]

Dear brother/sister in Christ, please read this as well and reply:
Toward Advances in Medicine and Interstellar Travel, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2101.0111

Hmmm...

Maybe. Likely not

 

[questfortruth]

Likely not

To serve each other is the Christian commandment.

 

[Regiomontanus]

To serve each other is the Christian commandment.

Well, reading your paper = checking all of your calculations. Not high on my priority list today

Just started reading the one mentioned in that video though:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/abbb96/pdf

 

[questfortruth]

Well, reading your paper = checking all of your calculations.

Not necessary. It is enough to understand the abstract and introduction.

 

[questfortruth]

Well, reading your paper = checking all of your calculations. Not high on my priority list today

Just started reading the one mentioned in that video though:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/abbb96/pdf

Dear Professor, have you read the paper you promised to read? Tell us your opinion.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, reading your paper = checking all of your calculations. Not high on my priority list today

Just started reading the one mentioned in that video though:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/abbb96/pdf

I skimmed it and it is interesting, if true. Combined with the Bullet Cluster evidence, it suggests that there is BOTH Dark Matter and some aspect of MOND. The violation of the Strong Equivalence Principle in this paper, if verified, would be ground breaking. The Bullet Cluster data says that even with MOND, some sort of dark matter is required, but this paper says that some sort of modification, at least for small accelerations, is required.

There is also the issue of a relativistic version of MOND. One is mentioned in the paper here, but there was another a few years back called TeVeS (Tensor, Vector Scalar gravity). So this might get interesting!