expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
