Dark Matter and Punching Holes:

[expletives deleted]

Note the following:

It's just a crying shame expletive deleted, that all you have is rhetoric on a public forum.
Do you really believe that unsupported nonsensical rhetoric will change anything?

The above quoted poster seems to not get that his repetitive trolling and cluttering and asserting etc, while ignoring and denying what has been posted re the science methodology which he is not applying, is the only "nonsensical rhetoric" here so far. He has nothing except personal opinions and assertions which miss the point. And continues in that vein despite all the science points posted which make his assertions and beliefs just that, his personal assertions and beliefs irrelevant to the science methodology. How can such a poster survive so long on a science site in science discussion threads. The moderation mystery continues.

 

[paddoboy]

Note the following:


The above quoted poster seems to not get that his repetitive trolling and cluttering and asserting etc, while ignoring and denying what has been posted re the science methodology which he is not applying, is the only "nonsensical rhetoric" here so far. He has nothing except personal opinions and assertions which miss the point. And continues in that vein despite all the science points posted which make his assertions and beliefs just that, his personal assertions and beliefs irrelevant to the science methodology. How can such a poster survive so long on a science site in science discussion threads. The moderation mystery continues.

No, that's simply another porky pie on your part, but expected on past interactions.
The nonsensical rhetoric I refer to is your unsupported claims, on DM not being needed now, and for which you have been asked many times to support with link and which you refuse or are unable to do, and that has been asked of yourself by other posters also.FACT:
I am not offering personal opinions, beliefs or assertions: DM is an accepted part of mainstream cosmology despite your rather pathetic unsupported claims to the contrary: FACT:
And as usual your appeal to the mods, for which you have had past threads and posts shifted to the cesspool is more pretentious nonsense:FACT.
At this stage the mods have not fallen for it.

 

[The God]

I admire your energy Expletive Deleted. Why don't you delete this Paddosyndrome from your system for sometime.

Don't you know that you can win an argument against a knowledgeable person but you can never win it against an ignorant uneducable person.

 

[paddoboy]

http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/25/1...axy-discovered-99-9-percent-dark-matter-stars

Massive new galaxy turns out to be 99.99 percent dark matter:

Powerful telescopes have revealed that a nearby galaxy is 99.99 percent dark matter. That number is a new record and the galaxy’s existence could help us learn more about the properties of dark matter, which makes up about 27 percent of the universe but hasn’t been officially detected.

 

[paddoboy]

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L6

A HIGH STELLAR VELOCITY DISPERSION AND ~100 GLOBULAR CLUSTERS FOR THE ULTRA-DIFFUSE GALAXY DRAGONFLY 44


Abstract
Recently a population of large, very low surface brightness, spheroidal galaxies was identified in the Coma cluster. The apparent survival of these ultra-diffuse galaxies (UDGs) in a rich cluster suggests that they have very high masses. Here, we present the stellar kinematics of Dragonfly 44, one of the largest Coma UDGs, using a 33.5 hr integration with DEIMOS on the Keck II telescope. We find a velocity dispersion of

, which implies a dynamical mass of

within its deprojected half-light radius of

. The mass-to-light ratio is

, and the dark matter fraction is 98% within

. The high mass of Dragonfly 44 is accompanied by a large globular cluster population. From deep Gemini imaging taken in

seeing we infer that Dragonfly 44 has

globular clusters, similar to the counts for other galaxies in this mass range. Our results add to other recent evidence that many UDGs are "failed" galaxies, with the sizes, dark matter content, and globular cluster systems of much more luminous objects. We estimate the total dark halo mass of Dragonfly 44 by comparing the amount of dark matter within

to enclosed mass profiles of NFW halos. The enclosed mass suggests a total mass of

, similar to the mass of the Milky Way. The existence of nearly dark objects with this mass is unexpected, as galaxy formation is thought to be maximally efficient in this regime.

 

[expletives deleted]

Note the following:

Again the paddoboy clutterer is posting references which merely state the claims based on interpretations and assumptions of DM. How is it that such pop-sci and sci-fi mentality has taken hold and driven out the science methodology so effectively in the mind of that particular poster? He obviously hasn't yet twigged that for some decades the non-EM DM was the 'publish or perish' gold mine for hacks who want citations and peer recognition regardless of scientific rigor. Even now, when all efforts to actually detect and explain NON-EM hypothesized DM have failed, the zombie DM mantra is alive and well in the writings and quotes etc which have not bothered to address the accumulating evidence against that NON-EM DM claims and assertions of old. This paddoboy seems a bastion of PR for keeping that 'zombie' hack writers staple fare 'alive' in the minds of those not capable of applying the science methodology objectively. One has to ask: Is this site being coopted by paddoboy for providing his PR services for failed hypotheses-pushing publish-or-perish 'authors"? Is paddoboy being paid by the 'cite', 'quote' or 'link' by some clients? Does the site manager know that may be what paddoboy is doing with their site if that is so? The Mystery continues.

 

[paddoboy]

Note the following:

Again the paddoboy clutterer is posting references which merely state the claims based on interpretations and assumptions of DM.

That's what the evidence and data supports. Remember, the universe is a weird and wonderful place.

is it that such pop-sci and sci-fi mentality has taken hold and driven out the science methodology so effectively in the mind of that particular poster?

The "pop science" you mention is your own unsupported, unevidenced nonsense. When you are able to support anything you claim, here or elsewhere, then maybe, just maybe, members here will start taking some notice of you. in the mean time, there's that wind again you are pissing into.
the rest of your nonsense...
,

 

[expletives deleted]

The God:

I admire your energy Expletive Deleted. Why don't you delete this Paddosyndrome from your system for sometime.

Don't you know that you can win an argument against a knowledgeable person but you can never win it against an ignorant uneducable person.

Actually, I love a mystery. And the depths of ignorance, obtuseness and evasive tactics attendant to paddoboy's posting is a hell of a mystery as to why the moderators and management allow it to continue to such ridiculous lengths despite all the evidence needed for moderators to curb his clutter and breaches of rules and science methodology. I can only consider the possibility that the site knows and approves of his behavior because they get a cut of his PR type repetitive citations and postings of already known and challenged material from various authors who seem more like publish or perish and infotainment types in it for the money/publicity and hang the science. Anyway that's the impression one must inevitably get once the evidence of paddoboy's postings and the inaction of the moderators is taken into account. What is your own speculation re padoboy's continuing 'survival' here despite his many and ongoing breaches of rules and science methodology which would have seen others banned for long periods if they did like wise, The God?

 

[expletives deleted]

Note the following:

That's what the evidence and data supports. Remember, the universe is a weird and wonderful place.

The "pop science" you mention is your own unsupported, unevidenced nonsense. When you are able to support anything you claim, here or elsewhere, then maybe, just maybe, members here will start taking some notice of you. in the mean time, there's that wind again you are pissing into.
the rest of your nonsense...
,

The above quoted poster appears to equate his childish philosophical musings with actual science based observations and evidence about the physical reality. As if saying 'weird and wonderful' explains everything for him about the physical reality. And he still ignores and denies that I posted science based reasons for some things not existing; and for what was lacking in the Hulse-Taylor studies/papers; where as he posts evasions and beliefs and opinions which go against the science and miss the science point I put properly to him. How is such high level of denial and ignorance possible in one person like that? And allowed on a science discussion site too! Mystery.

 

[paddoboy]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.0456v1.pdf

Non-Baryonic Dark Matter in Cosmology:
May 2013:

Abstract.
This paper is based on lectures given at the ninth Mexican School on Gravitation and Mathematical Physics. The lectures (as the paper) were a broad-band review of the current status of non-baryonic dark matter research. I start with a historical overview of the evidences of dark matter existence, then I discuss how dark matter is distributed from small scale to large scale, and I then verge the attention to dark matter nature: dark matter candidates and their detection. I finally discuss some of the limits of the ΛCDM model, with particular emphasis on the small scale problems of the paradigm.

SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK:
In this paper, I have discussed the many evidences for DM existence, how it is distributed in cosmic structures, its particle nature and the "zoo" of candidates that could be the constituents of the dark Universe. I have discussed the direct and indirect methods of detection, and finally some of the known problems of one of the CDM models that nowadays seem to be the favorite one from observations, namely the ΛCDM model often called "the concordance model" or "standard model of big bang cosmology". Concerning the evidences of DM existence, in the last years, strong evidences come from galaxy clusters collisions, showing through weak lensing that clusters are made of a dissipationless component, not only gas. Cosmic shear, the weak lensing of the LSS is another strong evidence that Universe contains matter which deflect the light of remote objects. In 2012, was observed a weak lensing signature of a filament in the supercluster A222/A223, connecting the two clusters[324] An important news, coming from particle physics is the absence of SUSY effects in LHC experiments, and if this will be confirmed in the next years, one of the most promising candidates of DM, the neutralino, should be substituted by other kind of DM. The great hope put on colliders to reveal hints of the so called "new physics", has been up to this moment betrayed, but in 2015 LHC could give new and unexpected results. Colliders give a different point of view on DM with respect to astrophysical experiments, and at the same time they could provide the needed information to reveal the physics at the base of the DM particles. At the same time, colliders are not able to test its abundance in the universe or its cosmological stability. This is the reason colliders and direct and indirect searches must go hand in hand. Direct and indirect detection of DM has improved a lot in the last years. As early discussed, there was even a claim of axion detection, after disproved, and the DAMA experiment is claiming since a decade to have signal DM, even this never confirmed. The space telescope Fermi, has meanwhile studied the galactic center, MW dSphs, clusters of galaxies, the IGRB, finding possible evidences of DM existence but not any certainty. To disentangle the astrophysical signal from DM annihilation signal is a not easy task. The 511 MeV line observed several years ago by INTEGRAL, differently from other signals, is difficult to explain through astrophysics (SN Ia, Hipernovae, etc.), but MeV DM is difficult to explain. Indirect, experiments have put constraints to DM-nucleon cross-section which seems to be in the 1−10 ' zb range. An important improvement in direct search are the ton scale detectors (e.g., ArDM). These kind of detectors can test the most attractive DM models, including KK DM, that was before out of reach. Apart from the constraints to SUSY from LHC, these detectors could put strong constraints on SUSY and/or TeV scale physics. The next step, would be the detection of WIMPs, and the consequent precise measurements of its mass and interactions.

 

[paddoboy]

And he still ignores and denies that I posted science based reasons for some things not existing; and for what was lacking in the Hulse-Taylor studies/papers; where as he posts evasions and beliefs and opinions which go against the science and miss the science point I put properly to him. .

Certainly I do, 100% And as would any true scientific inclined person.
You see what you claim and what your purport to exist or to happen, is totally unsupported and you are as far as we know, a simple run of the mill, lay person......
When you support what you say, [you won't because you can't] when you disclose your credentials [again probably non existent] then like your friend the god, you are simply without credibility.
Wheras I support all I claim with reputable papers and links.
DM is part of the present cosmological model out of necessity, and evidenced based data.
The H/T system and gravitational wave evidence, and the apparent opposition you have to it, is laughable and probably more than any other of your totally discredited claims in the past, [cosmological redshift, gravitational waves etc]
points to an agenda, that you do not like me harping on.
Again, you [and the god] are fooling no one, with this pretense of being scientists or anything remotely similar...maybe an electrician, or some family company director. Either way, it makes no difference to the real scientists out there and the real science being done, and which when appropriate, I will continue to report on and link to.
If either or both of you object, then I'm sure we have an "Alice in wonderland" forum somewhere else.

 

[expletives deleted]

Note the following:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.0456v1.pdf

Non-Baryonic Dark Matter in Cosmology:
May 2013:

Abstract.
This paper is based on lectures given at the ninth Mexican School on Gravitation and Mathematical Physics. The lectures (as the paper) were a broad-band review of the current status of non-baryonic dark matter research. I start with a historical overview of the evidences of dark matter existence, then I discuss how dark matter is distributed from small scale to large scale, and I then verge the attention to dark matter nature: dark matter candidates and their detection. I finally discuss some of the limits of the ΛCDM model, with particular emphasis on the small scale problems of the paradigm.

SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK:
In this paper, I have discussed the many evidences for DM existence, how it is distributed in cosmic structures, its particle nature and the "zoo" of candidates that could be the constituents of the dark Universe. I have discussed the direct and indirect methods of detection, and finally some of the known problems of one of the CDM models that nowadays seem to be the favorite one from observations, namely the ΛCDM model often called "the concordance model" or "standard model of big bang cosmology". Concerning the evidences of DM existence, in the last years, strong evidences come from galaxy clusters collisions, showing through weak lensing that clusters are made of a dissipationless component, not only gas. Cosmic shear, the weak lensing of the LSS is another strong evidence that Universe contains matter which deflect the light of remote objects. In 2012, was observed a weak lensing signature of a filament in the supercluster A222/A223, connecting the two clusters[324] An important news, coming from particle physics is the absence of SUSY effects in LHC experiments, and if this will be confirmed in the next years, one of the most promising candidates of DM, the neutralino, should be substituted by other kind of DM. The great hope put on colliders to reveal hints of the so called "new physics", has been up to this moment betrayed, but in 2015 LHC could give new and unexpected results. Colliders give a different point of view on DM with respect to astrophysical experiments, and at the same time they could provide the needed information to reveal the physics at the base of the DM particles. At the same time, colliders are not able to test its abundance in the universe or its cosmological stability. This is the reason colliders and direct and indirect searches must go hand in hand. Direct and indirect detection of DM has improved a lot in the last years. As early discussed, there was even a claim of axion detection, after disproved, and the DAMA experiment is claiming since a decade to have signal DM, even this never confirmed. The space telescope Fermi, has meanwhile studied the galactic center, MW dSphs, clusters of galaxies, the IGRB, finding possible evidences of DM existence but not any certainty. To disentangle the astrophysical signal from DM annihilation signal is a not easy task. The 511 MeV line observed several years ago by INTEGRAL, differently from other signals, is difficult to explain through astrophysics (SN Ia, Hipernovae, etc.), but MeV DM is difficult to explain. Indirect, experiments have put constraints to DM-nucleon cross-section which seems to be in the 1−10 ' zb range. An important improvement in direct search are the ton scale detectors (e.g., ArDM). These kind of detectors can test the most attractive DM models, including KK DM, that was before out of reach. Apart from the constraints to SUSY from LHC, these detectors could put strong constraints on SUSY and/or TeV scale physics. The next step, would be the detection of WIMPs, and the consequent precise measurements of its mass and interactions.

Here again paddoboy posts a link and excerpt of a piece/lecture etc which basically outlines the failure of many DM hypotheses and candidates and experiments etc which have a zero success rate. The piece also basically admits that it is all indirect inference and interpretation of observations in the hypothesized construct of DM which is interacting only via gravity. It obviously hasn't caught up with the astronomical discoveries of copious amounts of Ordinary EM type matter which is distributed at all scales but which was missed before because it was 'dark' to the earlier telescopes. Now we know such huge amounts of matter is out there and was there despite the collisions and motions of the galaxies now being observed, then the old claim that the DM went through unaffected etc is seen to be falsified interpretation of the observational data, instead of the reality involving previously undetected ordinary matter where the grav-lensing etc occurs. So all the above link does is to admit the failure of the non-EM hypothesized efforts; and misses the new information re ordinary perviously dark matter distributions which now increasingly explain observations without needing NON-EM type hypothesized matter which all efforts have failed to find any real trace of.

Certainly I do, 100% And as would any true scientific inclined person.
You see what you claim and what your purport to exist or to happen, is totally unsupported and you are as far as we know, a simple run of the mill, lay person......
When you support what you say, [you won't because you can't] when you disclose your credentials [again probably non existent] then like your friend the god, you are simply without credibility.
Wheras I support all I claim with reputable papers and links.
DM is part of the present cosmological model out of necessity, and evidenced based data.
The H/T system and gravitational wave evidence, and the apparent opposition you have to it, is laughable and probably more than any other of your totally discredited claims in the past, [cosmological redshift, gravitational waves etc]
points to an agenda, that you do not like me harping on.
Again, you [and the god] are fooling no one, with this pretense of being scientists or anything remotely similar...maybe an electrician, or some family company director. Either way, it makes no difference to the real scientists out there and the real science being done, and which when appropriate, I will continue to report on and link to.
If either or both of you object, then I'm sure we have an "Alice in wonderland" forum somewhere else.

Given that the above poster wasted so much time and effort finding and linking papers and content which basically admits failure of hypothesized DM searches, and the failure to include new copious amount of ordinary matter being found everywhere we look, it doesn't surprise that he again makes assertions and claims about unproven interpretations and disproven possibilities; all as if science cared about such irrelevant and invalid claims and assertions when the reality is being discovered for real by real scientific application of logic and method objectively. No further comment re above poster's links and assertions straight from "Alice in Wonderland science school" is necessary.

 

[paddoboy]

Note the following:
Here again paddoboy posts a link and excerpt of a piece/lecture etc which basically outlines the failure of many DM hypotheses and candidates and experiments etc which have a zero success rate.

Every man and his dog realizes the difficulty in detecting something that doesn't interact with normal matter, other than gravitationally.
The evidence though despite that is very strong in support of DM and stands just as strong today, despite your anguished cries to the contrary.

Ordinary EM type matter which is distributed at all scales but which was missed before because it was 'dark' to the earlier telescopes. Now we know such huge amounts of matter is out there and was there despite the collisions and motions of the galaxies now being observed, then the old claim that the DM went through unaffected etc is seen to be falsified interpretation of the observational data, instead of the reality involving previously undetected ordinary matter where the grav-lensing etc occurs. So all the above link does is to admit the failure of the non-EM hypothesized efforts; and misses the new information re ordinary perviously dark matter distributions which now increasingly explain observations without needing NON-EM type hypothesized matter which all efforts have failed to find any real trace of.

Your new information is nothing more than a fairy tale which you are unable to support. Sure some MACHO's previously unknown have been discovered and many more will be discovered in the future, but none as yet, and as supported by many papers, does away with the need of DM of the non baryonic variety.
As many told you in the other DM thread, DM is still evidenced and needed and part and parcel of the standard cosmological picture.
It may not be a part of the expletive deleted and god picture preached on a public science forum, but really, that's probably expected with the god of the gaps baggage you both seem to carry.

Given that the above poster wasted so much time and effort finding and linking papers .

No time wasted at all, whenever I am able to refute the non mainstream cosmology you seem to want to preach here.
In fact, it's a pleasure!

 

[The God]

The God:

Actually, I love a mystery. And the depths of ignorance, obtuseness and evasive tactics attendant to paddoboy's posting is a hell of a mystery as to why the moderators and management allow it to continue to such ridiculous lengths despite all the evidence needed for moderators to curb his clutter and breaches of rules and science methodology. I can only consider the possibility that the site knows and approves of his behavior because they get a cut of his PR type repetitive citations and postings of already known and challenged material from various authors who seem more like publish or perish and infotainment types in it for the money/publicity and hang the science. Anyway that's the impression one must inevitably get once the evidence of paddoboy's postings and the inaction of the moderators is taken into account. What is your own speculation re padoboy's continuing 'survival' here despite his many and ongoing breaches of rules and science methodology which would have seen others banned for long periods if they did like wise, The God?

You asked me a question, I will take that. But answer is not straightforward.

1. Actually none of the Moderators reads Paddoboy's posts.
2. Mods do not consider blanket blind citation as breach of site rule.
3. There is a total lack of critical thinkers here on this Sub Board, I can name all very safely, without missing anyone...You, Dmoe, Q-reeus, Schmelzer and yours truly, so support system is lacking. On the other hand Paddo has a hell lot of time pass supporters who have no ability to decipher the issue crtically.
4. This site is too cool on discussions, because of complete lack of moderation. Moderation here is not even a part time activity.
5. Paddoboy is irrepressible. I give him some credit here, he lacks formal education but he is very keen on cosmo stuff. So he got himself acquianted with all the prevalent concepts of cosmology. It is a great achievemnt for Paddoboy to keep an identified person like Ila Schmelzer engaged in discussion on GR/Black Holes/ Ether Theory, because face to face it is just no go.

 

[paddoboy]

You asked me a question, I will take that. But answer is not straightforward.

1. Actually none of the Moderators reads Paddoboy's posts."

Obviously false, since the general cosmological accepted theories I have debated on and which you have denied, have seen your threads on those denials shifted to the fringes....quite a number by last count.

2. Mods do not consider blanket blind citation as breach of site rule.

Obviously1 Mods and admins to not consider science links as a breach of the rules...why would they?

3. There is a total lack of critical thinkers here on this Sub Board, I can name all very safely, without missing anyone...You, Dmoe, Q-reeus, Schmelzer and yours truly, so support system is lacking. On the other hand Paddo has a hell lot of time pass supporters who have no ability to decipher the issue crtically.

The reputable ones actually have you on ignore, and both Schmezer and q-reeus have pointed out your own nonsense....expletive deleted? dmoe?
records speak for themselves.

4. This site is too cool on discussions, because of complete lack of moderation. Moderation here is not even a part time activity.

The fact is that lax rules here allow for the anti mainstream agenda laden nonse you and expletive deleted push, but which would be banned anywhere else.

5. Paddoboy is irrepressible. I give him some credit here, he lacks formal education but he is very keen on cosmo stuff. So he got himself acquianted with all the prevalent concepts of cosmology. It is a great achievemnt for Paddoboy to keep an identified person like Ila Schmelzer engaged in discussion on GR/Black Holes/ Ether Theory, because face to face it is just no go.

Schmelzer is a self confessed Maverick and Independant.
Generally his views are OK, except on the ether and my criticism of such. That has seen him of late to be somewhat unprofessional imho.
What you believe or don't believe about me and lack of formal education and/or my so called irrepressiblity is of no concern to me one way or the other.
I do not take kindly to bullies though, nor to religious god botherers and their predicted attempts at deriding mainstream science whenever they see the opportunity, or whenever they see their magical spaghetti monster being pushed further and further into oblivion.

 

[Kittamaru]

The God:


That is so. They have interpreted observational data to infer non-baryonic etc DM, but have yet to actually detect it. To some (you know who), 'interpretation' and 'inference' are equivalent to 'evidence' for non-baryonic DM. The science method must suffer through and withstand such facile ignorance on the part of pop-sci writers and incompetent sci-journalists (like the one who wrote the ten years old article linked by you-know-who) who so readily confuse and mischaracterize even such simple and easy to understand subtle but important differences while claiming evidence and existence of things yet to be actually detected. Best.

By your logic... because we cannot see the wind, but only infer it exists through its effects on other things, we cannot prove it exists.
By your logic... because we cannot see gravity, but only its effects, we cannot prove it exists.
By your logic, because I cannot see you, I cannot assume you exist...

I'm certain the fault in your logic is plenty evident by this point... though I'm also certain you'll continue to blather on with said faulty logic, as you have in the past even when proven utterly wrong.
That kind of behavior is dishonest and foolish at best, malicious and intentionally damaging at worst... so far, I am inclined to believe you fall more on the latter end of the spectrum.

 

[The God]

By your logic... because we cannot see the wind, but only infer it exists through its effects on other things, we cannot prove it exists.
By your logic... because we cannot see gravity, but only its effects, we cannot prove it exists.
By your logic, because I cannot see you, I cannot assume you exist...

I'm certain the fault in your logic is plenty evident by this point... though I'm also certain you'll continue to blather on with said faulty logic, as you have in the past even when proven utterly wrong.
That kind of behavior is dishonest and foolish at best, malicious and intentionally damaging at worst... so far, I am inclined to believe you fall more on the latter end of the spectrum.

I am inclined to believe that your expertise lies somewhere else. Your misplaced analogy based examples, all three sadly lacking force, will further embolden few posters to copy paste mindlessly.

 

[paddoboy]

I am inclined to believe that your expertise lies somewhere else. Your misplaced analogy based examples, all three sadly lacking force, will further embolden few posters to copy paste mindlessly.

I know you lack any of the expertise to argue/debate anything cosmological.
As an Electrician, I suggest you go change a light bulb or two.

 

[expletives deleted]

Kittamaru:

By your logic... because we cannot see the wind, but only infer it exists through its effects on other things, we cannot prove it exists.
By your logic... because we cannot see gravity, but only its effects, we cannot prove it exists.
By your logic, because I cannot see you, I cannot assume you exist...

I'm certain the fault in your logic is plenty evident by this point... though I'm also certain you'll continue to blather on with said faulty logic, as you have in the past even when proven utterly wrong.
That kind of behavior is dishonest and foolish at best, malicious and intentionally damaging at worst... so far, I am inclined to believe you fall more on the latter end of the spectrum.

That is not my logic, that is your mistaken analogy. The observed effects re galaxy etc motions are what they are. That is not in dispute by me. It is the non-EM type DM HYPOTHESES and claims that are in dispute. And that is because of the increasing finds of Ordinary EM-type (previously 'dark' but now visible via Infra-Red scopes) material, which makes the previous and continuing non-EM type DM speculations, interpretations and explanations of what is observed moot.

Perhaps you may have been led astray by believing what issues from the above poster; who is becoming expert at mischaracterizing what others post. If so, then I will overlook your own mischaracterizations via your non-sequitur analogies, which do not in any way reflect the logic or the thrust of what I said that is based on recent and increasing astronomical discoveries of previously 'dark' but Ordinary EM-type Matter. Which latter effectively makes the previous and continuing claims associated with non-EM type DM increasingly scientifically and logically untenable. Hence my questions and observations about that situation now pertaining due to new discoveries which anyone can check for themselves in the astronomy news and relevant science literature. Thank you for your kind attention anyway, Kittamaru. I trust you now have a better grasp of that which you comment on. Best.

 

[paddoboy]

Kittamaru:
That is not my logic, that is your mistaken analogy.

If the cap fits, wear it...and from where I sit, its a perfect fit!

The observed effects re galaxy etc motions are what they are. That is not in dispute by me. It is the non-EM type DM HYPOTHESES and claims that are in dispute. And that is because of the increasing finds of Ordinary EM-type previously 'dark' but now visible via Infra-Red scopes, which makes the previous and continuing non-EM type DM speculations, interpretations and explanations of what is observed moot. Perhaps you may have been led astray by believing what issues from another poster who is becoming expert at mischaracterizing what others post. If so, then I will overlook your own mischaracterizations via your non-sequitur analogies which do not in any way reflect the logic or the thrust of what I said that is based on recent and increasing astronomical discoveries of previously 'dark' but Ordinary EM-type matter which effectively makes the previous and continuing claims associated with non-EM type DM increasingly scientifically and logically untenable. Hence my questions and observations about that situation now pertaining due to new discoveries which anyone can check for themselves in the astronomy news and relevant science literature. Thank you for your kind attention anyway, Kittamaru. I trust you now have a better grasp of that which you comment on. Best.

I'm sure Kittamaru has a far better grasp then you ever will.
DM is an accepted part of mainstream cosmology, and while some previously undetected MACHO's have been verified, the concept of non baryonic DM is still overwhelmingly needed to explain our observations.
And for you to continue to infer/imply that it is not now needed, without any evidence/citation/link or reference is a porky pie to put it as nice as possible.