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

PhysBang:

paddoboy:

I didn't come here to present dissertations and whole papers or claim things which are already in evidence in the updated astronomy and cosmology field literature and discoveries news. I am here to discuss and comment as I see fit from my own relevant reading and understandings.

If you doubt what I am observing in conversation, then is it too much to ask you both to read the latest astronomical discovery news to see for yourselves where the discoveries are heading as our telescopes get more capabilities to see ordinary matter which previous telescopes missed and hence hypotheses and estimates of 'dark' matter were misled by paucity of information at the time the hypotheses and estimates were formulated?

If and when you do catch up with what's happening in the relevant fields, you will realize that Fritz Zwicky's original observations and speculations led him to assume there was a lot of Ordinary matter out there which was invisible to our telescopes. Later on, other astronomers and cosmologists thought that Ordinary matter should be visible, but it wasn't for a long time after; so they began speculating that the 'dark' matter must have Extra-ordinary properties for it not to be visible (such as not interacting and/or radiating in EM manner like ordinary matter would).

That's when the Extra-ordinary DM hypotheses started to gain traction.

But recent discoveries (even some reported just today and yesterday!) are confirming Zwicky's assumptions that there was a lot of matter out there that was 'dark'; and also that this 'dark matter' was Ordinary matter; as is being found almost daily in huge quantities wherever the newer telescopes look.

As for my Hulse-Taylor related observations that Extreme Magnetic fields may be responsible for most of the orbital decay rate observed (and not GR GWs as assumed when interpreting the Hulse-Taylor observations initially so long ago), please point out in the literature where the Extreme Magnetic fields, forces interplay, retardation and radiation effects were properly quantified and considered. I already observed that I could not find anything in the relevant literature where this aspect and possibility was seriously treated scientifically, let alone discounted properly; perhaps because of confirmation bias leading to hasty assumptions that GR GWs should be responsible, and the rest of the efforts were aimed at confirming that presumed stance; improperly dismissing, without due scientific care, all other possibilities? (I am reminded of the Bicep2 confirmation biased assumptions, observations, analysis and conclusions which led to inevitable erroroneous procedure and claims). So if either of you two have any information (relevant and to the point information please; and not just more appeals to authority links and material which do not specifically address and refute properly what I have observed) that refutes my observations as made, please post it and I will thank you for it.

Thankyou both. Best.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I came here to present science and learn, and consider alternatives as posted in the correct sections, which you seem to mess up.
If you are not interested in what we already know, [mainstream science] why are you here?
Again, we do have an alternative section.

As of today, DM is still required to explain the rotational curves of galaxies, gravitational lensing and other effects.
Again, if you have any news that updates that please present it. So far, three [or is it four?] posters have continually denied any knowledge of what you keep claiming.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

DM is still required to explain many things as already listed, and as yet, certainly has not been invalidated.
If you have anything to the contrary, please present it.

Machos most certainly exist, but again the need for other DM appears paramount.

You also have that arse up. Just because the effects of magnetic fields are not mentioned, does not in any way shape or form, invalidate the generally accepted conclusions of the professionals, that gravitational radiation is responsible and subsequently the discoverers received the Nobel for.
The onus is on you to show any literature, any article, any paper that supports your hypothetical proposition.
Your observations????

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So far I see nothing really professional in your posts, other than as another has said, a penchant for fantasy.
That obviously also applies with your confusion re DM.
Again, in case you have missed it, the onus is on you to show that the two issues discussed at hand and accepted by mainstream is invalid. Until you do that, all we have is rhetoric...nothing more, nothing less.

ps: And obviously the facts as I have put them, supported by multiple links and papers, trump your own unsupported fantasy claims as noted by another.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...24/latest-results-in-the-hunt-for-dark-matter [25th July 2016:]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.techradar.com/news/world...-for-dark-matter-here-s-what-happened-1325351
[13 hours ago]

Our latest search for dark matter suggests we're looking in the wrong place
By Duncan Geere 13 hours ago World of tech

Deep underground, at the bottom of a mine in the Black Hills of South Dakota, scientists have been working for three years on one of the most sensitive experiments ever conducted.

They've been trying to find out why four fifths of the matter in the Universe seems to be missing. We can see its influence, in the rotation of galaxies and the way light curves as it travels through the cosmos.

But the actual substance, which physicists call "dark matter", is proving elusive, and they're trying to figure out why.

The leading theory is "weakly interacting massive particles", or WIMPs. If the WIMP theory is correct, then the Universe is flooded with them - billions pass through your body every second. But because they're "weakly interacting", you don't notice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

paddoboy:

Fellow member, I will be patient and polite and try again to get through to you some subtle aspects which obviously are escaping you in all of this. Please read slowly and carefully and try to understand without kneejerking to your own preconceived notion of what is being said. Thankyou in advance.

I have seen you present news items and unargued appeals to authority. Please show where you have argued on science and on topic without defaulting to ad hominyms and other tactics to distract and derail otherwise cogent discussions between others.

I am here because I want to discuss things which mainstream may not have "known" properly, as indicated by new information may be the case in a couple of areas I have pointed out. Recall that science changes (as you have agreed before); and what may have been "known" (past tense) may not be the same as what is now known or will be known after new information percolates through the process. So any valid challenge, to what "was known" that may have been in error as explained, is valid to discuss. Thankyou in advance for taking the time to understand those subtleties and not kneejerking again.

Correct! But you miss the subtle point that the 'dark matter' is now being found all over the place! And that it's Ordinary Matter that was previously 'unseen' but 'now being seen by newer telescopes'. If you had read my posts properly, you should have got that subtlety by now. Take your time; don't kneejerk. Thanks.

The Ordinary Matter being found is no longer 'dark'. It increasingly explains the observed motions of galaxies, clusters, superclusters etc. So "DM" is no longer needed (especially Extra-ordinary hypothesized stuff), because we have found the previously 'dark' matter, and it's increasingly not 'dark' to our newer telescopes. Is that subtle point clear? If not, take your time and think it all through calmly without kneejerking. Thanks.

That which is being found is Ordinary gas, dust and plasma and already known stuff like BHs, low brightness galaxies and brown dwarf and giant planets etc etc), in huge quantities and widely occurring and in many forms. Don't fixate on just your own limited view or particular favorite 'stuff', paddoboy, else you'll miss it all.



As for the Hulse-Taylor issue:

Are you aware of how double standards your view is? If any 'crank' tried that argument: "Just because the effects of magnetic fields are not mentioned, does not in any way shape or form, invalidate the", you would be up in arms and let your ad homonyms fly unmercifully!

paddoboy, that is the whole point. My observations are that the scientific literature does not contain any evidence they took the matter seriously before going straight to "GR GWs did it!" interpretations of observed orbital decay rate; while proper evaluation of the Extreme Magnetic fields forces and losses at the time may have led to an entirely different conclusion (ie, that it was mainly Magnetic field interaction and retardation forces not GR GWs at work; which would have meant no Nobel prize, and you would not now be using that prize as some argument of validity of scientific claims which are now in question despite that prize award which may have been awarded on flawed basis).

paddoboy, you yourself are not immune from "confusions". It would seem that you are more vulnerable than I could ever be to that condition; due mainly to your demonstrated propensity and eagerness for not reading and understanding properly the subtle points posted, and so kneejerking and being contrarian despite not having any valid scientific or logical counter arguments to present in rebuttal of the points raised.

Do yourself and everyone a favor, paddoboy; try to resist the kneejerking and misunderstanding and ad homonyms and empty trolling tactics. Just read and learn (since that is what you say you are here for) without interrupting at every turn with stuff that does no good to anyone or anything, especially not to the scientific and logical discussions which you keep derailing with your personal tactics and irrelevant appeals to authority galore.

Thankyou, paddoboy. Best.

 

Your post has been reported for your continuing insinuations/claims re accepted mainstream knowledge and your own fantasy version of both.
You have no reputable article/papers/links to support any of what you are claiming.

 

Yep, spot on! If he confined his fantasies to the fringes, or at least backed up his rhetoric with professional article/paper/link, [as I have supporting the DM fact as well as the Hulse Taylor Binary Pulsar unsupported nonsense he is on about] but no, just keeps ignoring the request and posting his fantasy.

 

...a quick search of the web, produces...

: http://science.time.com/2013/02/26/cosmic-fuggedaboudit-dark-matter-may-not-exist-at-all/
: http://phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html
: http://www.space.com/8588-dark-energy-dark-matter-exist-scientists-allege.html
: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/dark-energy-and-dark-matter-may-not-exist-after-all
: http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2013/06/26/does-dark-matter-really-exist/
: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ark-energy-matter-exist-claim-scientists.html
: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...tter-might-not-exist-todays-most-popular.html

...when one is presented with information that may not agree with what one is willing to accept, it is up to each individual to decide whether to expand ones knowledge/learning while "doing time on Planet Earth" or to vigorously exercise ones right to simply "...stagnate on this little blue orb..."

...again, just the results of a quick search of the web...

 

Great stuff, just as is the OP. None say though that we now have enough baryonic matter to counter the need of DM as per the exotic or unknown WIMP type.
That's presumably why expletive deleted did not link to any of those. His claim is that we now have enough matter to invalidate the DM theory.
We do not of course. But good try, none the less.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

again and only 13 hours ago...Ooops, sorry, make that 15 or 16 hours by now....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.techradar.com/news/world...-for-dark-matter-here-s-what-happened-1325351
[16 hours ago]

 

And five days ago, and as inferred in the OP........
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160721072613.htm
World's most sensitive dark matter detector completes search
At a conference in the United Kingdom, scientists with the LUX dark matter experiment present results from the detector's final 20-month run
Date:
July 21, 2016
Source:
DOE/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Summary:
The Large Underground Xenon (LUX) dark matter experiment, which operates beneath a mile of rock at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in the Black Hills of South Dakota, has completed its search for the missing matter of the universe. At a meeting in the UK, LUX scientific collaborators presented the results from the detector's final 20-month run.
concludes......
"The announcement of this new result from LUX raises the bar in the search for dark matter, exceeding our expectations," said Natalie Roe, Physics Division Director at Berkeley Lab. "With the successful completion of LUX, we are now focused on the success of LZ, which we hope will produce a dramatic discovery."
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Again, nowhere does it say we now do not need the theory of DM to explain the anomalous rotations of galaxies, nor gravitational lensing by unseen lenses.

 

...interesting reading at :
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...tter-might-not-exist-todays-most-popular.html
..."anomalous motions of stars"..."gravity on extragalactic scales"...

Meh...actually reading provided links...

 

Meh....[excuse me]it certainly does!
Nice speculative article but again, as of today, and according to the BB and GR, DM is needed to explain the things already mentioned.
Could that change?Yes! Could the time come where we do not need DM? possibly!....Could GR be surpassed one day? Again possibly.......but at present, and despite the many speculative scenarios [I have a couple to

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

] Finding the missing matter, [DM] is a prime goal of cosmology.

 

Paddoboy,

Wayback in 1930s, Oort while considering the galaxy spins, suggested dark matter, that aspect can be addressed by Black Hole at the center of such Galaxy....

Late in 1960s Vera Rubin used Dark Matter Solution for resolving anomalous Speed Distribution Curve (Flat) not observing the Keplerian Calculations.

In late 1990s, we got the Dark Energy Hypothesis, thanks to accelreating expansion of the Universe. So I presume only after late 1990s, we got the matter distribution figures roughly as 5% Baryonic, 27% DM, rest DE.

Now point for your pondering, not trolling is, did we get any clue or any observation which enhanced our knowledge about the baryonic mass of any Galaxy ? I think we got. Around 2 years back, our own Galaxy MW mass distribution got corrected, new set of rings or clusters were brought in as the part of our MW. What does it imply ? So let us redo our calculations on Speed Distribution aspects on our MW Galaxy, in that case I am sure at least for ur Galaxy, the BM/DM/DE ration would change in favor of BM (Baryonic Matter). Will it not ?


PS : I am not supporting that we have found so much BM that entire 27% DM can be ruled out, but then things are getting tough for DM hypothesis, which was originally a fudged stuff. Everyone knows that it cannot be abandoned with one failed experiment, but that dent is created.

 

Can you please explain, how DM is linked to GR ?
You are supporting a concept that DM is the prediction of GR, how ?

If the supporters are just influenced by the mass term in GR equations, then thats not the done thing. Say you make an observation, the observation is not as per existing known mass, it requires bigger mass to explain the observation. So is it right to claim that look we need higher mass but it is not to be seen, so it got to be Dark and lo thats THE prediction of GR ? How silly ! To fix a problem, you create a fudge factor and claim that to be the prediction (strength) of a theory. Since Rpenner also has tacitly supported this view that DM is the prediction of GR, I call uppon him to give a citation for that. And mind you we are talking about mainstream not some alternatinve stuff, so please do not kill the thread with counter nonsense like I do not give citations etc. Pl be on topic.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let who redo what? The answer anyway at this time is no. DM stands as absolutely necessary for reasons already given.

Finding DM has of today, alluded us. That does not invalidate it.
Took an upgrade of LIGO to find gravitational waves, although we had pretty good evidence of it anyway with the Pulse Taylor binary system.
Likewise, we still have good evidence for DM......bullet cluster observation, gravitational lensing just to name two.

 

DM is simply contained within GR. GR is not invalidated with it. The same way that the CC does not invalidate anything.
But you already asked that and got the same answer from at least two of us from memory.
Not really interested too much in what else you have said.....I see it as a personal fabrication.

 

Paddoboy,

You did not get it.

I assume after 1998, when we agreed that Universe is accelerating the distribution was fixed at 5% BM, 27% DM and rest as DE. Am I right ?

Way back in 2013 or so we agreed upon certain observations and calculations that enhanced the BM scope of our Galaxy, so do you not think that it is mandated that we redo the ratio calculations. If we do so, it will be in favor of BM while detrimental to DM. Will it not be ?

 

DM is not contained in GR, M (mass) is contained in GR.
Failure of DM will not violate GR on the face of it.

 

I object. You are accusing me of fabricating something and posting on science forum.

Pl pin point what is the fabrication or withdraw, otherwise I will report so that your habit of accusing people and derailing the threads is curbed.

 

You need an excuse?
What is this "it"? And what exactly does "it certainly" do?

It is all "speculative", paddoboy!
When the Science is no longer predominately "speculative", it is no longer referred to as "theory"...it is then referred to as "Law".

It would be quite the bummer, paddoboy, if it turns out that you need something that doesn't actually exist, "to explain the things already mentioned"...

...Straw Man ? ...What is "[I have a couple to

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]"? And of course, the useless "emoji", paddoboy...!

If you had actually been reading the numerous Linked articles - including the OP - and been Truly interested in the Science being discussed, you may have realized by now that it may just be that there is no "missing matter" to be found!

 

Object all you like, you have made many many less then logical/reasonable claims on this forum of late....GP-B and aLIGO fraudulent, and many other things, and now you say the following.....

fabricated? Nonsense? take your pick.
On DM being a prediction of GR, I never said that......I said....

Like I said, DM of sorts is needed to explain many things...it does not contravene or contradict GR.
With your "off topic" remark, this thread was started by me, and went off topic pages ago with the raising by someone of the "Hulse Taylor binary Pulsar issue.
I saw that as important enough to rebut that person for that nonsense and inference.
What is off topic, and what James has alluded to in our recent exchanges open to all to read, was that alternative ideas were not applicable to the sciences section.
Perhaps that is the issue you should report. OK?