Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
What is Newton´s G doing in the linked calculations of galaxies as he was completely contradicted in these realms?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Serious Dark Matter Problems
G appears in Einstein's equations as well. And, in this paper, using Einstein's equations without dark matter seems to fit the rotation curves.
So, from what I can see, this is not a problem for dark matter. Early collisions notwithstanding, dark matter halo is still the explanation for the Milky Way rotation curve.
At the end of the day, though, rotation curves aren't even the best evidence for dark matter. Baryon acoustic oscillations are. If I were able to, I'd upload some slides I made about using BAO as independent constraints on dark energy alongside Type 1a supernovae at high redshifts: different topic, but ultimately relevant when we get to the BAO portions.
We know the density parameter of baryonic matter very well, and it's just not enough to produce the peaks (and acoustic echoes) in the BAO. That'd be a problem because the energy densities are parametrized by the critical density at which the universe appears flat. In other words, if dark matter didn't exist, dark energy would have dominated MUCH earlier and the universe would have flown apart. We'd be measuring a completely different BAO.
The evidence is so strong for dark matter existing that it's really pretty much on the skeptic at this point to explain why we get the BAO curves that we do when we plot the multipole moment. I can't stress enough how precisely Planck has done this.
Here, I figured out how to upload images:
[GALLERY=media, 9470]A1 by Miss Meow Mix posted Jun 18, 2021 at 2:13 AM[/GALLERY]
[GALLERY=media, 9471]A2 by Miss Meow Mix posted Jun 18, 2021 at 2:13 AM[/GALLERY]
These were originally about constraints on lambda's density parameter (and its equation of state), but BAO features heavily. What you should be reading from this is especially the fact that three completely independent methods of investigation (including BAO) agree on a value for the density parameter of matter.
I'll remind you that we know the baryonic component of matter's energy density very well. The conclusion is obvious: dark matter has to exist.
[GALLERY=media, 9470]A1 by Miss Meow Mix posted Jun 18, 2021 at 2:13 AM[/GALLERY]
[GALLERY=media, 9471]A2 by Miss Meow Mix posted Jun 18, 2021 at 2:13 AM[/GALLERY]
These were originally about constraints on lambda's density parameter (and its equation of state), but BAO features heavily. What you should be reading from this is especially the fact that three completely independent methods of investigation (including BAO) agree on a value for the density parameter of matter.
I'll remind you that we know the baryonic component of matter's energy density very well. The conclusion is obvious: dark matter has to exist.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
No "dark matter" isn´t the problem.
The problem is de facto that Newtons "laws of celestial motion" was contradicted by the observation of the galactic rotation curve - and as the scientists didn´t take the other and logical EM fundamental forces into consideration, they were forced to invent and insert "something which could hold the stars from flying away from the galaxies".
The very problem is the standing "gravity thinking" in modern astrophysics and cosmology.
EM forces don't get us anywhere; and their interactions are well understood. I've gone to some lengths to show that the story you give of dark matter being this ad hoc shrug of throwing our arms up is not the case. We don't even need rotation curves to assert dark matter exists.
Edit: in fact some known dark matter already exists, we call them neutrinos.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
May I recommend you to take a momentary brake from your University lectures?
The entire modern astrophysics and cosmology are DEPENDED of all kinds of EM forces and frequencies in order to measuring anything at all. All cosmic measurements speaks of electromagnetic activities in cosmos all over the places.
And even your brain is depended of such forces and impulses in order to grasp and explain anything at all.
This is inconsistent and illogical. The rotation curve was THE REASON ITSELF that "dark matter" was invented et all.
I'm not sure that this constitutes an argument. I don't say this to be rude, there's just nothing to respond to here. I can respond to some kind of concrete claim if you make one.
The reason something was discovered doesn't remain the best reason to accept it. Don't get me wrong, dark matter is still a great explanation for rotation curves. Some of my colleagues are also in active research regarding a correlation between light concentration and galaxy type, for instance.
What I was saying was that if we had discovered certain other things before anyone even noticed galactic rotation curves were "off" from Newton, we still would have arrived to the conclusion that dark matter exists.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
It´s a philosophical argument in order to make you think twice.
This is an amazing comment. If something is scientifically observed as an anomaly, it certainly is the best reason to accept and deal with it. But they didn´t as they just inserted an UNOBSERVED dark matter.
Well fine. Then recommend your colleges to connect the actual galactic EM luminosity with the galactic rotation and then you´ll get the real reason for the galactic rotation curves - without any need for "dark matter" at all.
You simply have to incorporate the EM forces and qualities as the formational and motional force in galaxies - and forget all about "gravity" which was contradicted in galactic realms.
Last edited:
I feel like the point is being missed that we'd have discovered dark matter with or without noticing galactic rotation curves. That we happened to notice that first is incidental.
As for "the EM forces and qualities as the formational and motional force in galaxies," could you explain that to me quantitatively? You can't be talking about Coulombic action, so what exactly are you talking about? I'm a physicist, you can be as technical as you want to in your explanation.
Edit: And to be clear about the correlation between light concentration and galaxy type, this still involves dark matter (a galaxy's concentration is proportional to its dark matter)
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Excuse me, but all the assumed dark matter otherwhere but in galaxies, are just further ad hoc assumptions which patches the fact that scientists don´t know what is going on in generally.
I´m talking of Plasma Cosmology in general in where cosmic electric currents forms the cosmic clouds og gas and dust via the attractive polarity in the EM into forming stars and planets by the so called EM Z-Pinch effect.
This effect is most significant in galactic cores and the strong nuclear gamma- and x-rays beaming out of the galactic poles are the evidence of this nuclear star formation in galaxies.
This formation mirrors precisely the EM laws and circuital motions with a standing electric current which create the rotations and where the perpendicular magnetic field mirrors the orbital motions in galactic disks.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I forgot this:
Is it really? What then about galaxies which don´t contain the assumed dark matter?
I, for one, think we should pause for a moment and take a vote:
All those opposed to invented dogmas say "AYE"!
Meanwhile, see Mystery of Galaxy's Missing Dark Matter Deepens.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
All missing dark cosmological ghosts is the big chance for seeing more and more of the all important EM-Light in cosmos
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Quote from this link - NGC 1052-DF2 - Wikipedia
"The apparent lack of dark matter in NGC 1052-DF2 may help prove that dark matter is real".
This is SO illogical and scientific stupidity! How can a lack of "dark matter" prove that "dark matter" should be "real dark matter"?
Good Grief!
"The apparent lack of dark matter in NGC 1052-DF2 may help prove that dark matter is real".
This is SO illogical and scientific stupidity! How can a lack of "dark matter" prove that "dark matter" should be "real dark matter"?
Good Grief!
Last edited:
Wait, are you suggesting that zeta-pinch is the formation mechanism for planets and stars? Just to be clear?
Jayhawker Soule said:
What's meant by this is that alternatives that just amend gravity like MOND or TeVeS have a harder time explaining anomalous galaxies/clusters like this than dark matter does.
The dark matter explanation is simple: something stripped the galaxy of huge chunks of its dark matter. We see this elsewhere, we catch the Bullet Cluster in the middle of the act. (During collisions of clusters, baryonic matter self-interacts and tends to get tangled up with other baryonic mass while the dark matter flies through unperturbed. In the Bullet Cluster, as the most famous example, we can even see a bow shock in the baryonic matter where it self-interacted and the dark matter is by this point far away).
This thing is not a problem, it's more scientifically exciting than it is problematic.
Bullet Cluster - Wikipedia
If you take a look at the main image you can clearly see the bow shock from self-interaction on the right in the bright baryonic matter.
If you take a look at the main image you can clearly see the bow shock from self-interaction on the right in the bright baryonic matter.