Scientists find less "dark matter" NHK news item

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RainbowSingularity, Mar 1, 2018.

  1. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Dark Matter as hypothesized in mainstream is quite elusive.

    IMO (alternative to mainstream)
    Actually there is no Dark Matter, and no force is required for expansion of the universe.
    The additional gravity is on account of stretching of space (PSMR : Progenitor State of Matter & Radiation), this PSMR does not interact with its progeny (matter & radiation) but the stretch in the PSMR causes gravity.

    The expansion of the universe is again not like that balloon spreading and causing increase in the intervening gap, it is covering more and more at rest PSMR beyond the horizon of the universe. It is like the fire in the jungle spreading. This fire does not require any Dark Energy or force, and it is not going to extinguish, the universe will continue to expand.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    There is actually quite a lot of evidence for dark matter:

    (All of this seems to be about dark energy, which is completely different from dark matter, and thus irrelevant.)
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    from my very loose understanding of current psychacists Dark matter is all but assured.
    basic laws of physics have been used to define the requirement of dark matter to allow basic physics to maintain its basics laws.

    suggesting Dark Matter does not exist one needs to define what it is that is being effected to maintain the laws of gravity mass etc etc...

    though i hold Einstien in very high regard, i am not a zealot, and so think he may not have some things quite the way they are when given modern scientific ability to quantify things like dark matter and dark energy.
    i do not have any issue with Einstien being wrong on some thing and if he was/is then i do not take that to then undermine his scientific work.
  8. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    I agree with everything you just said. I have just one comment/clarification: when talking about dark energy, it seems unfair to say that Einstein was wrong about it. Dark matter had already been postulated in his time (+-1930's):
    but dark energy is a relatively recent thing (+-1970's), introduced only after Einstein's death:
    Without any need to come up with the idea of dark energy, I think Einstein did the right thing by not introducing it (Occam's Razor).
  9. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Since the ratio between total calculated universal matter and total visible universal matter is 2*Pi+/-1% in both the WMAP and PLANCK CMBR data, despite their being different hardware platforms, Einstein would surely have smelt a rat.

    Good results for the WMAP and PLANCK teams but sad news for LambdaCDM unless they fix it.
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Dark Matter - Dark Energy - 50 Shades of Black - Grey - White
    It's just god screwing with the Universe and your mind

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    First of all, 0.046 ( is not "close" to 2*Pi+/-1%. Second of all, numerology is bogus.
  12. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member



    It's so much easier to spout on about numerology without even bothering to check something because magical stuff not made of anything we can describe in our current physics is so much better.

    As I said before Einstein would have smelt a rat.

    Also, considering that the difference between the reduced Compton wavelength (per Schrödinger's) and the standard Compton wavelength (per visible light) is 2*Pi, wouldn't you expect an artefact of 2*Pi attached to the mass (everything else is constant in the Compton equations) if you used both in the same equation/process without converting?
    Finally, Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson, first Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Oxford) always sent Alice down the rabbit hole into Wonderland AND brought her back out again. Why do theoretical physicists leave Alice down the rabbit hole and call the 2*Pi difference dark matter?
  13. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Hint: the first ? = Pi and the second ? = 1.1
  14. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    (Small correction: it's "25.8", not "25.82")

    (Small correction: it's "24", not "24.0")

    Aha, you're only counting the matter-contributions; sorry, I missed that.

    Yes, the numerical value of Pi lies within that interval of 3.11-3.25.

    Which this is.

    Check what? You have posited no hypothesis. Only that "this ratio happens to contain 2*Pi within its error bars, therefore something weird must be going on", which is a conspiratorial and unscientific claim. For example, please explain why the ratio of visible to total matter is important like this, but the ratio of matter to energy is not. Please explain why this interval is not allowed to naturally contain 2*Pi. Please explain why anybody that's faking data would purposefully leave such an apparently clear indication of maliciousness.

    Dark matter is not magical, nor is it made of nothing.

    Yes. That's because the concept of dark matter is scientific, while numerology is not.

    Not only is that an argument from authority, but you're putting words in Einstein's mouth without giving any proof that Einstein would indeed have held that particular opinion.

    As your own linked Wikipedia article explains, that's true per definition, as that's how the reduced Compton wavelength is defined. You cannot use a definition as proof of something. This is exactly as with the Planck constant (\(h\) versus \(\bar{h}\)).

    No, because the definition of a variable or quantity has no physical implications. Additionally, you haven't shown how the Compton wavelength vs the reduced Compton wavelength relates to the ratio of visible matter vs all matter. And, most importantly, there isn't any artefact of 2*Pi. You have just found a ratio that happens to be compatible with 2*Pi, and are ascribing meaning to this arbitrary ratio. That is numerology in its purest form.

    If you do not convert where needed, you are making a mathematical mistake, because you can't just throw away factors of 2*Pi. If you consistently apply the proper definitions and factors of 2*Pi, there is no discrepancy.

    That's a bad question, because theoretical physicists don't do that.

    But more importantly, dark matter is pretty much a proven thing. Check the link in my post #3. Funny, that you accuse me of spouting things without checking something, and you appear to have forgotten to check something so obvious yourself…

    False, it's not exactly Pi.

    False, it's not exactly 1.1.

    I think this thread should be moved to a more appropriate section of the forums; specifically, one where the application of numerology is deemed more acceptable.
  15. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    At least you are checking something.

    Stephen Hawking in his paper "Soft hair on Black Holes" calls the reduced Compton wavelength the Compton wavelength (h_bar/M) at the bottom of page 13 but everybody knows that it was the reduced Compton wavelength because?

    Also you didn't pick up that the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics is at Cambridge not Oxford and Charles Dodgson was at Christ Church College, Oxford. Stephen Hawking left the position in 2009.
  16. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    On a universal (average matter density) basis there is no problem with using a 2*Pi multiple of visible matter for total universal matter because that's what our observational data says, within its own error bars, from multiple sources with different hardware.

    Also, considering that our current universal models and our physics from Isaac Newton up have difficulty measuring any universal gravitational influence outside our matters own sphere of influence, what about if there is something out there that our universe is expanding into? We can't really tell with our current physics and our current models, at any level, if the rate of expansion of the BB bubble is influenced by external matter that is outside our own current comprehension.

    If somebody is prepared to look and check and try to find something different, apart from just looking for obscure and extremely rare and impossible to find particles, to explain the differences, our science can move on and widen all of our minds instead of stultifying them so we call out 'burn the heretic' whenever anybody rocks our boat.

    In the book "On The Shoulders of Giants", Stephen Hawking quotes Sir Isaac Newton as saying "I do not know how I appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy, playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself, in now and then finding a smoother pebble or prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

    Sorry if you think this is fallacious argument from authority because you miss the real wonder of science.
    river likes this.
  17. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Indeed I am. Are you too? Have you read through the list of evidence for dark matter?

    Not sure how that's relevant?

    Not sure how that's relevant, or why I even should have "picked up" on that?

    So you say that it's not special or weird after all?

    What alternative are you proposing, or what alternative was there previously?

    This is irrelevant; we are talking about dark matter, not the expansion of the universe.

    "External matter" is an incoherent concept in the current BB model, so that’s obviously the case. But I don't see how this is relevant in a discussion about dark matter?

    The burden of proof is on you; you are making the claim.

    Turns out the Higgs boson wasn't impossible to find. But please explain how does finding new types of (massive) particles does not assist in our understanding of the nature of matter in the universe?

    What differences?

    Yes, that's a noble goal. So please provide us with a scientific hypothesis that we can test!

    Then demonstrate that there is a reason why our minds should be widened. An arbitrary ratio of two matter-related quantities happening to be compatible with 2*Pi isn't convincing at all.

    I don't see how that is relevant to our discussion about dark matter?

    I don't merely think that; it is one.

    Then please provide me with a compelling reason to not miss out on this "real wonder of science" you have figured out.
  18. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    That's funny, I can hear your brain snap shut from over here. Not much point continuing this conversation, maybe someone else will do the necessary checking.

    Maybe when the mad bastards do something that the straight bastards have failed to do for over 60 years, we'll just have to reassess who the mad bastards really are?
  19. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Perhaps, if the sound is so loud, it's coming from inside your own house?

    I agree; you have provided nothing to talk about except numerology and empty claims that you refuse to back up. It seems someone's brain has indeed snapped shut.

    I have already done all the checking necessary to demonstrate that your claims need evidence, which you are now refusing to provide. Any further checking would be a waste of time; the ball is in your court right now. Saying that other people have to do the checking is shifting the burden of proof, as I've already mentioned.

    Name calling? Really?

    Well, with you providing no evidence whatsoever, we can at least be certain who is not going to trigger such a reassessment any time soon.
  20. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Is it necessary to have something known out there that our universe is expanding into?
    Since t = 0 (BB) till today (t=13.4 billion years) the universe is expanding, but we do not know into what! The made up argument is that the spacetime is getting created, how? No one knows? What is physicality of spacetime? None knows. How can you have something like singularity of infinities to start with? IMO The BB singularity concept itself appears to be bad, but so much is invested (time and money) that it is very difficult to abandon it. None of the supporters of Big Bang Cosmology on forums like this can answer these questions, still they would ridicule or troll anyone coming up with alternative, instead of objectively discussing such scenarios.

    Earlier you were quite cryptic about your intent on this point of mass ratio as being discussed here, but on this thread you are quite clear on your intent on questioning the mainstream.

    I have put up couple of "bastardous" threads here.
    It is the question of changing the definition of nothing. Nothing, as we understand today, is actually the Progenitor State of Matter & Radiation (PSMR). Nothing is not zero, it is THE creator.

    Now pl consider a simple doable thought experiment; say you have a vast field of inflammable material, you ignite (at one place or multiple places), what happens? The fire starts and expands, it never stops as long as that inflammable material is present, and it needs no more energy input, just the first trigger.

    So, at t= 0, it was the vast nothingness, completely relaxed PSMR (no Hawking imaginary time), everything was same, no change and thus no sense of time. Suddenly a trigger came, this nothingness stretched (like that fire trigger) and t = 0 started. This stretches is expanding into into the un-stretched PSMR, like the fire expanding into hitherto un-burnt material.

    PS: In case you have not seen my threads, the hypothesis is : The stretch in the PSMR beyond certain limit causes creation of matter mass and the relaxation in stretched PSMR causes emission of photonic Radiation. This unbelievably simple hypothesis plausibly explains every known observation so far. No Dark Energy required, Dark Matter is actually stretched PSMR.
  21. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member


    Why don't you let the discussion happen? You are acting like a spoil sport.
    I know now that all the people whom you have brilliantly cornered with your excellent word games (like me, Schmelzer, and Now LaurieAG) are with infinitesimally small IQ as compared to yours. But please let lesser mortals like us live and permit us to exchange our views. This place is not for super intelligent people like you.
  22. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Actually, I am the one trying to get discussion to happen in the first place! I'm the one checking claims, providing links to evidence, and asking for more evidence when claims aren't properly supported.

    Great, more name calling, just what this thread needed.

    If you say so.

    1) Keep pseudoscience restricted to the fringe section of this forum;
    2) Don't make demonstrably false claims.

    Easy peasy.

    That is not for you to decide.

    Also, I find it interesting that you feel compelled to make an argument like this, instead of addressing my actual points.
  23. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    If anybody would care to look up numerology in Wikipedia and read the whole article they just might learn something.

    Also while you're there you might as well lookup the history on the Compton wavelength page, read the page and do a bit of historical research on Arthur Compton and what he actually did in the late 1920's and early 1920's. You just might also notice that November 2015 was when the difference between standard and reduced was further clarified on that page.

    I make no excuse for what I do, people all live in their own little worlds and can only improve things outside that little world by expanding their own knowledge and questioning what others say and then revise what they know ad infinitum. If others don't want to join that journey then they limit themselves to their own little world and blind themselves to the real wonders of science that teem around them.

Share This Page