Dark Matter and Punching Holes:

[The God]

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.

What is this electrician stuff?

 

[The God]

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

I'm sure Kittamaru has a far better grasp then you ever will.

Your desire and ways to cling to authority is unmatched, whether mainstream or Modstream..

 

[expletives deleted]

Kittamaru please note the following:

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 above poster just opined that obviously non-sequitur analogy and mischaracterization is to be let stand, just because HE deludes himself that "it fits". As you can see from that, no amount of correction ever gets through that poster's own prejudicial beliefs and assertions. How can one carry on a science and/or logics discussion with someone like that, who will just ignore inconvenient corrections and barrel on his merry mischaracterizing way?

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.

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.

The above poster still doesn't seem to get that it is the new astronomical discoveries of huge amounts of previously 'dark' but now increasingly visible Ordinary EM-type Matter, that is prompting the scientific questioning and scrutiny; which is what That Science Methodology demands of all scientists, irrespective of past beliefs, claims or untenable hypotheses which are becoming scientifically untenable due to new discovery, no matter how longstanding those previous claims, hypotheses or beliefs may have been. New evidence trumps old and failing beliefs etc.


If the above poster ever learns the Scientific Method, and better still, actually applies it objectively and without personal irrelevances and beliefs getting in the way, he might then be taken seriously and will not ever again mischaracterize and mislead others into their own mischaracterizations and mistaken analogies etc in response to me. Thanks, Best.

 

[paddoboy]

Kittamaru please note the following:
The above poster still doesn't seem to get that it is the new astronomical discoveries of huge amounts of previously 'dark' but now increasingly visible Ordinary EM-type Matter, that is prompting the scientific questioning and scrutiny; which is what That Science Methodology demands of all scientists, irrespective of past beliefs, claims or untenable hypotheses which are becoming scientifically untenable due to new discovery, no matter how longstanding those previous claims, hypotheses or beliefs may have been. New evidence trumps old and failing beliefs etc.

While some MACHO's have been discovered the need for DM still stands as is, and to claim any different, no matter how many times is a porky pie.

If the above poster ever learns the Scientific Method, and better still, actually applies it objectively and without personal irrelevances and beliefs getting in the way, he might then be taken seriously and will not ever again mischaracterize and mislead others into their own mischaracterizations and mistaken analogies etc in response to me. Thanks, Best.

Your pretentious nonsense fools no one.
Obviously you are an unknown quantity as far as credentials are concerned, although the evidence points to zero in that regard, as the following facts show...[1]you misinterpret, deny, or ignore many reputable papers, [2] will not support your claims with any citation, link, or reference, and [3] your general anti mainstream stance is not just on the DM issue, but GR, gravitational waves, gravitational time dilation, cosmological red shift, BH's etc etc etc,
Those three facts imvho point to expletive deleted having an agenda of sorts, and such to the extent of so many broad issues, probably a "god of the gaps" issue.

 

[expletives deleted]

Note the following:

While some MACHO's have been discovered the need for DM still stands as is, and to claim any different, no matter how many times is a porky pie.

The above poster is finally starting to concede, but slowly and piecemeal, with a long way to go before he is finally forced by the facts to admit all the previously 'dark' ordinary stuff being found in addition to the MACHO features. Apart from LSB galaxies, there has been found galaxy mass extensions way beyond previously estimated perimeter limits; plus massive clouds of dust and hydrogen/helium previously undetectable within galaxies themselves and in the hemispheric volumes; plus uncountable numbers of brown dwarfs and low brightness red dwarfs; and even in galaxy clusters and superclusters with huge amounts of deep space Ordinary material of EM-type between the galaxies and the whole cluster(s); which are now being investigated via better Infra Red scopes to explain the observed motions and lensing effects which were previously hypothetically attributed to Non-EM type DM. The more we look in IR, the more ordinary stuff we find. That is the current trend.

Your pretentious nonsense fools no one.
Obviously you are an unknown quantity as far as credentials are concerned, although the evidence points to zero in that regard, as the following facts show...[1]you misinterpret, deny, or ignore many reputable papers, [2] will not support your claims with any citation, link, or reference, and [3] your general anti mainstream stance is not just on the DM issue, but GR, gravitational waves, gravitational time dilation, cosmological red shift, BH's etc etc etc,
Those three facts imvho point to expletive deleted having an agenda of sorts, and such to the extent of so many broad issues, probably a "god of the gaps" issue.

The above poster still can't distinguish between his own un-argued beliefs based on old data, and the new scientifically based scrutiny and questions being asked of those same old beliefs which are increasingly brought into question by new astronomical discovery. He resists the Science Method, I employ it. The difference is stark. Yet the above poster still cannot see where he is going wrong in making personal attacks instead of admitting new evidence and arguments based on science facts increasingly being provided by new discovery as alluded to above. It takes a while for religious-like-acolyte zealots to learn that religious/personal status, reputation etc not relevant in the face of objective science advancing.

 

[paddoboy]

Note the following:

The above poster is finally starting to concede, but slowly and piecemeal, with a long way to go before he is finally forced by the facts to admit all the previously 'dark' ordinary stuff being found in addition to the MACHO features. Apart from LSB galaxies, there has been found galaxy mass extensions way beyond previously estimated perimeter limits; plus massive clouds of dust and hydrogen/helium previously undetectable within galaxies themselves and in the hemispheric volumes;

No my dear friend, the above poster is conceding nothing and that's there from day one.
Matter previously thought dark, MACHO's [nice to see you now familiar with the term] has been found. It has not changed the need for non baryoinc DM though, which is still needed at the current rate/amount.
Of course as we all know if you were able to support your fairy tales you would, but you can't.

The above poster still can't distinguish between his own un-argued beliefs based on old data, and the new scientifically based scrutiny and questions being asked of those same old beliefs which are increasingly brought into question by new astronomical discovery. He resists the Science Method, I employ it. The difference is stark.

Yes, the difference is stark: I support my claims with references: You support your ignorance with no references.
And again, not my beliefs at all, just the established theory based on the latest data.
You're not doing any better than you were last week, last month for that matter.
Your claims stand as a monument to writers of fairy tales and delusions of grandeur, I'm sorry to say, and the associated lack of credibility will remain until you are able to support any claim you make! That's sad.

 

[expletives deleted]

Note the following:

No my dear friend, the above poster is conceding nothing and that's there from day one.
Matter previously thought dark, MACHO's [nice to see you now familiar with the term] has been found. It has not changed the need for non baryoinc DM though, which is still needed at the current rate/amount.
Of course as we all know if you were able to support your fairy tales you would, but you can't.

The above poster doesn't seem to realize that I knew all about it before he did; long before he did. And also know much more about the other stuff being found which he still doesn't know about or cannot comprehend the accumulating mass extent of, and still increasing with every new IR scope discovery. He depends on out of date links, references, estimates and claims etc, while ignoring the newfound material is adding up to quantities which increasingly explain the observations re motions/lensing etc, and so increasingly displacing the old Non-EM type DM 'interpretations' and speculations.

Yes, the difference is stark: I support my claims with references: You support your ignorance with no references.
And again, not my beliefs at all, just the established theory based on the latest data.
You're not doing any better than you were last week, last month for that matter.
Your claims stand as a monument to writers of fairy tales and delusions of grandeur, I'm sorry to say, and the associated lack of credibility will remain until you are able to support any claim you make! That's sad.

The above poster links and references/papers etc from long known mainstream claims, interpretations and speculations which are all now increasingly obsolete and falsified by new discovery of ordinary stuff everywhere we look. What good his links and references then? I work from new discovery by IR scopes coming on stream more and more. The difference? He is out of date, and I am up to date, regarding the real facts as opposed to increasingly obsolescent hypotheses being falsified by the new facts. His continuing personal attacks and insinuations while ignoring the new facts is against all good science method and discussion ethics. Yet he survives in these science threads. Mystery.

 

[paddoboy]

Note the following:

The above poster doesn't seem to realize that I knew all about it before he did; long before he did.

Sure you did!

And also know much more about the other stuff being found which he still doesn't know about or cannot comprehend the accumulating mass extent of, and still increasing with every new IR scope discovery. He depends on out of date links, references, estimates and claims etc, while ignoring the newfound material is adding up to quantities which increasingly explain the observations re motions/lensing etc, and so increasingly displacing the old Non-EM type DM 'interpretations' and speculations.

Except that's just more porky pies and of course a paper supporting the DM theory was as late as 2016
Do better my friend.

I work from new discovery by IR scopes coming on stream more and more. The difference? He is out of date, and I am up to date,

Sure you do! And sure you are!
Have a good day/night ya hear!

 

[paddoboy]

Massive holes 'punched' through a trail of stars likely caused by dark matter
September 7, 2016 by Sarah Collins

Artist's impression of dark matter clumps around a Milky Way-like galaxy. These clumps are invisible and can only be detected through their gravitational effect on visible matter. The clumps, also known as subhaloes, come in a range of sizes with the smallest one set by the mass of the yet to be discovered dark matter particle. The more massive the dark matter particle, the slower the dark matter moves, and the easier it is for regions in the early universe to collapse and form small subhaloes. In this work, a tidal stream from a disrupting globular cluster is used to probe their presence. Credit: V. Belokurov, D. Erkal, S.E. Koposov (IoA, Cambridge). Photo: Color image of M31 from Adam Evans. Dark matter clumps from Aquarius, Volker Springel (HITS)
The discovery of two massive holes punched through a stream of stars could help answer questions about the nature of dark matter, the mysterious substance holding galaxies together.



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-09-massive-holes-trail-stars-dark.html#jCp

above post number 1: date 7th september: 20116
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.01282v1.pdf

The above paper, post 2: 5th September: 2016.

So much for the "claims" being of out-dated made by my delusional friend.

 

[paddoboy]

https://arxiv.org/list/hep-ph/new

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology:

Impeded Dark Matter:

We consider a new class of thermal dark matter models, dubbed "Impeded Dark Matter", in which the mass splitting between the dark matter particles and their annihilation products is tiny. Compared to the previously proposed Forbidden Dark Matter scenario, the mass splittings we consider are much smaller, and are allowed to be either positive or negative. We demonstrate that either case can be easily realized without requiring tuning of model parameters. For negative mass splitting, we demonstrate that the annihilation cross-section for Impeded Dark Matter depends linearly on the dark matter velocity or may even be kinematically forbidden, making this scenario almost insensitive to constraints from the cosmic microwave background and from observations of dwarf galaxies. Accordingly, it may be possible for Impeded Dark Matter to yield observable signals in clusters or the Galactic center, with no corresponding signal in dwarfs. For positive mass splitting, we show that the annihilation cross-section is suppressed by the small mass splitting, which helps light dark matter to survive increasingly stringent constraints from indirect searches. As specific realizations for Impeded Dark Matter, we introduce a model of vector dark matter from a hidden SU(2) sector, and a composite dark matter scenario based on a QCD-like dark sector.

 

[expletives deleted]

Note the following:

Sure you did!

I have been pointing out all the new stuff being discovered in various forms, including MACHOS/Low Surface Brightness galaxies near and far distant; plus all the other previously low brightness stuff in diffuse clouds and extended space regions beyond the previously estimated galaxy boundaries etc. Now the above poster is trying to imply that I didn't know about it all before he did? Now that is pure unadulterated hutzpah! coming from someone who was ignorant of all of that before I started to point it all out for him and others. If he can convince himself of such self serving beliefs in the face of recorded fact, then nothing is beyond his self serving 'massaging' of facts; no wonder he can blithely mischaracterize at will, even against the plain obvious facts to the contrary! A special talent. But not suited to science or science discussion and comprehending. A pop-sci/Sci-fi writer's talent to be sure, but no talent for objective scientific reality discussion and comprehension.

Except that's just more porky pies and of course a paper supporting the DM theory was as late as 2016
Do better my friend.

Sure you do! And sure you are!
Have a good day/night ya hear!

The facts do not sway him. His Mischaracterizations and denials know no bounds of common shame or remorse. He still doesn't realize that his 'recent' references/papers were merely REVIEWING and LECTURING about the HISTORY of the Non-EM type DM hypotheses and searches and experiments DEBACLE. NO new supporting evidence was involved in those reviews. They essentially admitted to the litany of failures and the unlikelihood of finding their hypothesized Non-EM type DM 'particles' after all the failed attempts at many energy scales and particle candidate types. How can such an uncomprehending poster (even of his own links and references/papers etc) still be here in the science section of the board when others more scientifically and logically competent posters have been sanctioned for much less travesty against the science method and logics process? Mystery.

 

[paddoboy]

Note the following:
Note the following,

I have been pointing out all the new stuff being discovered in various forms, including MACHOS/Low Surface Brightness galaxies near and far distant; plus all the other previously low brightness stuff in diffuse clouds and extended space regions beyond the previously estimated galaxy boundaries etc. Now the above poster is trying to imply that I didn't know about it all before he did?

In essesnce, I'm pointing out that you are delusional and your "claims" do not stack up.
Now you can simply show I am wrong by giving a citation and/or link supporting your fairy tales. But we know the answer to that

The facts do not sway him.

You have stories, fairy tales but no facts that you can support with reputable citations or links, here or anywhere else where you are conducting your crusade

 

[paddoboy]

Here's another wonderful paper on the accepted DM scenario and speculative worm holes..
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.00155.pdf

Could wormholes form in dark matter galactic halos?

Abstract
We estimate expression for velocity as a function of the radial coordinate r by using polynomial interpolation based on the experimental data of rotational velocities at distant outer regions of galaxies. The interpolation technique has been used to estimate fifth degree polynomial followed by cubic spline interpolation. This rotational velocity is used to find the geometry of galactic halo regions within the framework of Einstein’s general relativity. In this letter we have analyzed features of galactic halo regions based on two possible choices for the dark matter density profile, viz. Navarro, Frenk & White (NFW) type (Navarro, Frenk & White 1996) and Universal Rotation Curve (URC) (Castignani et al. 2012). It is argued that spacetime of the galactic halo possesses some of the characteristics needed to support traversable wormholes.

 

[paddoboy]

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.

Spot on!
Obviously also by his weird logic, he believes he can claim what he likes in the sciences, without any support or citation when requested.
Obviously again by his weird logic, he should also have the right to make his "word salad" claims, without any requests for his expertise an credentials, although the evidence shows it to be zero.
Obviously also by his weird logic,[ with regards to this thread,]he believes he is capable taking into account the previous two "logics" of refuting professional scientific papers by hundreds of physicists over a period of 40 years, and the subsequent research they have put in.
Obviously also by his weird logic, he is capable of dismissing just about all of 21st century cosmology, without any credentials, without any links and citations, without any evidence other then unsupported rhetoric, from the comfort of his lounge chair at home on a public forum.
Obviously, painfully obviously, he fails to implement any logic at all in this crusade he is conducting.

 

[expletives deleted]

paddoboy:

This is getting serious, paddoboy. You can't even understand your own 'understandings'. I will explain in the hope you listen for a change instead of knee jerking again without learning to tell the subtle but important differences involved in what you read/link below:

above post number 1: date 7th september: 20116
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.01282v1.pdf

The above paper, post 2: 5th September: 2016.

So much for the "claims" being of out-dated made by my delusional friend.

Do you know what the subtle but IMPORTANT differences between MACHOS and HALOS/SUBHALOS are?

The former (MACHOS) are NORMAL MATTER astronomical bodies or features of usually low brightness, whose motions etc are used as possible 'indicators' of DM presence/effects in the search for that hypothetical non-EM DM distributions/motions.

Whereas the latter (HALOS/SUBHALOS) are the hypothetical 'clumps' of DARK MATTER 'object/distribution' which is theorized to form around a galaxy (HALOS) and in smaller 'satellite' clumps the vicinity of galaxies and their gravitational influence.

Two TOTALLY DIFFERENT things.

I already knew long ago about the MACHOS which you mentioned previously. That's what I knew before you.

HOWEVER, even with the SUBHALOS of this thread's opening article, I knew before you also.

How can you tell I already long knew about BOTH things well before you? Easy, I knew the difference long ago, while you don't know at all even now.

Hence why you are still catching up while I knew and understood all about those things (and more) long ago.

So you trying to pretend to be 'informing' me about them is plainly ridiculously naff. Moreover you still haven't understood what you read in your own links etc; else you would have known the subtle but important difference between the real, but faint, ordinary matter MACHOS and the hypothesized non-EM type DM so called HALOs/SUBHALOS clumps.

Paddoboy, I genuinely plead with you now as never before: Please drop your personal crusade against posters, and concentrate all your energy and comprehension on the actual science matters which are being discussed. Learn more DEEPLY and thoroughly so as to be able to see and comprehend subtle but important differences in the logics and concepts involved in the scientific discoveries and discussions. Thanks. Best of luck, paddoboy.

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy:
This is getting serious, paddoboy.

It was serious from post one, until you started your campaign against accepted mainstream cosmology, which still at this stage needs DM to explain what we observe.
They are facts, just as the H/T system gravitational wave results are facts, just as worm holes are speculative science while still being researched.
The rest of your post is irrelevant fabricated bullshit as usual so ignored.
And again for the umpteenth time, if it wasn't bullshit, then support it with link or citation and also you would be writing up a paper for peer review. And that is worth a laugh!

 

[expletives deleted]

paddoboy:

Seriously, paddoboy, you are being dishonest again. You did that to James R despite being told I replied and corrected his misimpression. Now you are doing it to Kittamaru below, even though I replied and corrected HIS misimpression.

Spot on!
Obviously also by his weird logic, he believes he can claim what he likes in the sciences, without any support or citation when requested.
Obviously again by his weird logic, he should also have the right to make his "word salad" claims, without any requests for his expertise an credentials, although the evidence shows it to be zero.
Obviously also by his weird logic,[ with regards to this thread,]he believes he is capable taking into account the previous two "logics" of refuting professional scientific papers by hundreds of physicists over a period of 40 years, and the subsequent research they have put in.
Obviously also by his weird logic, he is capable of dismissing just about all of 21st century cosmology, without any credentials, without any links and citations, without any evidence other then unsupported rhetoric, from the comfort of his lounge chair at home on a public forum.
Obviously, painfully obviously, he fails to implement any logic at all in this crusade he is conducting.

Please paddoboy, it's unscholarly and ungentlemanly to keep doing that to innocent bystanders. Please don't drag in these out of context posts and make belated and improper mischaracterizations and irrelevant comments about those poster's wrong impressions which have been corrected since. In your country that would be called being a bad sport and bad loser. Not cricket and all that, paddoboy. Please don't try that tactic again as it's not a good reflection on your integrity. Thanks.

 

[expletives deleted]

paddoboy:

It was serious from post one, until you started your campaign against accepted mainstream cosmology, which still at this stage needs DM to explain what we observe.
They are facts, just as the H/T system gravitational wave results are facts, just as worm holes are speculative science while still being researched.
The rest of your post is irrelevant fabricated bullshit as usual so ignored.
And again for the umpteenth time, if it wasn't bullshit, then support it with link or citation and also you would be writing up a paper for peer review. And that is worth a laugh!

Yes yes, we have seen all that from you many times before. Just repeating claims which are now increasingly being questioned due to new discovery. No amount of claiming that non-EM type DM is 'still needed' will refute the new evidence mounting up against that hypothesis and claimed 'need'.

Anyway, do you now understand the subtle but important difference between MACHO and HALO/SUBHALO objects? I trust you now do so, and your future participation in discussing those things will be more relevant and comprehending. Best.

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy:


Yes yes, we have seen all that from you many times before. Just repeating claims which are now increasingly being questioned due to new discovery. No amount of claiming that non-EM type DM is 'still needed' will refute the new evidence mounting up against that hypothesis and claimed 'need'.

You will always see facts and scientific reasoning from me, as opposed to your worthless fairy tale musings.
DM is still needed despite the findings which we all know about, to explain what we observe.
And you as usual in your delusional world, have faailed to support what you claim, other than with the useless unsupported rhetoric you are renowned for.

Anyway, do you now understand the subtle but important difference between MACHO and HALO/SUBHALO objects? I trust you now do so, and your future participation in discussing those things will be more relevant and comprehending. Best.

I understand and have always all that I claim, despite your own irrelevancies and attempts to get out from under.
DM is still part of the accepted mainstream cosmology without much changes in percentage amounts etc, despite your fairy tales.

 

[The God]

This Paddoboy Vs ED saga is extending threads after threads, three open threads, Paddoboy refuses to distinguish between popo and science. ED is hell bent on teaching him the difference, chances of success = O.