Invisible Dark Matter: Scientists have come up empty-handed.

What does this mean:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You missed few option....I did not list them as they were not required for Paddoboy.


1. The quantum of baryonic matter improperly assessed.

2. The so called universal constant G being different up there.

3. MOND is actually right.

4. The maths with mass distribution of galaxy being non symmetrical may actually give such speed curves.

5. Improper speed measurements or interpretations. I am not doubting the capability, it is just the multitudes of issues involved.


See in case of Milky Way, our understanding has changed since Galaxy Speed distribution curves first obtained. So my vote can be for 1, 4 and 5.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

TG, don't be such a hypocrite.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The OP is the simple posting of an article.
Out of that, you've managed to find some way to troll the OP and try to bait an argument about anti-science. It's dishonest to post what you did and still claim to be pro-science.

I'm not trying to impress you, I'm trying to stay on-topic. Now, how about we talk about the findings of Dark Matter experiments.

 

4th option: Dark matter is not what we surmise it is. The experiment ruled out at least one hypothesis of what it is. That's progress.

 

You have made around 10 odd posts in this thread, none talks about OP or science, you are just trolling.

 

...

 

That is not actually what trolling means. Trolling is an intentional attempt to derail a conversation.

I have been trying to clarify the content of users' posts about the OP. That is on-topic (albeit indirectly).

BTW, also demonstrably wrong. See post 45.

 

Yes, the post #45, the first one on topic. But I was typing when you posted that.
Making 10 irrelevant posts, getting 10 counter replies, is certainly off tracking the thread. You please do not be a judge, just report and let the guys who are assigned the job handle.

BTW, also demonstrably wrong as none of your posts (barring #45) is an attempt to clarify the content.

 

Post 10 is on-topic, asking for clarification.
Actually post 3 is asking for clarification too.
It is on-topic to question the content of someone's response to the OP, (especially if it appears to be just off-loading bile). I am giving them a chance to show how their post is relevant.

Now, I've addressed this. Any further discusson can be taken offline so as NOT to distract from the topic.

 

Barring #45, all are irrelevant or annoying, a deliberate attempt to act funny. Infact #7 is puerile.

No more discussion with you on this, neither on line nor offline.

 

It is certianly not a requirement that you like anything I post.

 

This is pure fantasy.

 

While some are still are having problems with their knees and jerking, it's worth noting that as usual they are unable to support their stated ignorance with any reputable link.
DM still is certainly needed to explain what we observe and the effects that gravity has, not withstanding the next predicted [

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

] "fire and brimstone" evangelistic crusade directed in my direction.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again as obviously those that are so tired up with their fire and brimstone preaching seems to have missed, with regards to "justified "appeals to authority" which of course will continue.....

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=appeals to authority
What is argument from authority?
The argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) alsoappeal to authority, is a common argument form which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise, or when the authority cited is not a true expert.

What does it mean to appeal to a higher authority?
In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism. The appeal to authorityrelies on an argument of the form: A is an authority on a particular topic. A says something about that topic.

What is the fallacy of appeal to unqualified authority?
DEFINITION: The arguer appeals to an inappropriate or unqualified authority (expert) as the basis for accepting a conclusion. The viewpoint of such an individual is logically irrelevant. However, an appeal to a legitimate expert (i.e., Einstein in physics; eye-witness in court case) is a type of inductive argument.

 

And you and expletive deleted have made many unsupported claims re mainstream cosmology in general, that totally defy the logic of the scientific method and peer review.
Your claims re DM is just one more to add to the nonsensical unsupported claims by both of you.

 

In actual fact the real "off topic" nonsense that the mods need to attend to, is the pseudoscience nonsense yourself and expletive deleted are flooding the science forums with:
We have the fringes for that nonsense, and which in time most of your own threads are removed to anyway.

 

My claim regarding DM is nothing new. It is a fudge factor, that even you know.

 

Your erroneous claim re DM is tilted obviously towards fabricated to invalidate cosmology once again, so that you can have that opening for your god of the gaps.
DM was initially a fudge factor...Findings and observational evidence since those days, has now seen it generally accepted by professional mainstream personel.
Same went with Einstein's CC, first obviously a fudge factor, but now not so certain.

Those findings obviously include the bullet cluster collision and gravitational lensing by DM.

 

Just this last Friday, a local public lecture by a Prof. Elisabetta Barberio gave at the end what imo is so far the most convincing evidence favouring DM. Years of accumulated data showing consistent annual cyclic variations in scintillation counts at Gran Sasso DARMA underground particle detector facility. Pretty much everything within SM (standard model) is ruled out as explanation, leaving only some as yet unknown WIMP. A list of talks: https://people.roma2.infn.it/~dama/web/down.html
The first one: http://people.roma2.infn.it/~belli/belli_IDM2016.pdf
p2 outlines the idea. p7 provides the telling data. Numerous pages devoted to weeding out possible spurious sources. Looks good to me. Construction of a 'sister' facility in AU began this month. Hopefully will provide strong confirmation of Italian site's findings once up and running for a few years.

 

PhysBang:

What is "fantasy"? Are you calling the current astronomers and their newest telescopes "fantasy merchants"?

Did you miss the last few years of (and ongoing) astronomical discoveries now slowly filtering into the literature and the theorists reviews of past theories which were formulated in total ignorance of what was really out there?

You must have missed my post where I pointed out how so much Ordinary 'stuff' is being found that was 'dark' before, and which when added up would explain much of the previously required 'dark' matter but now not needing to be Extra-Ordinary but Ordinary, as now increasingly found to be. If you missed it, here is the relevant bit:

So PhysBang, have you actually been keeping up with the science efforts and results in the relevant fields? It seems not. It might be better all round if you could catch up with what's going on in the real world instead of making uninformed trolling posts at me. Thankyou. Best.