/sci/ - Science & Math

dark matter is literally just a placeholder until we know what it is lmao, or what force causes it

>>11196222
look up what dark matter is before ranting about it...

>>11196227
this

>>11196236
and this

Dark matter is the equivalent of "lol idk" and because of the name normies think it's the most amazing thing ever

>>11196222

> Argument by not understanding the problem.

The observation that started the dark matter theory is not about the shapes of galaxies, but instead rotation of objects within them around the center. When astronomers first started measuring this they expected stars in the outer part of a galaxy to have slower orbital speeds than stars near the center, much like in our own solar system Mercury goes around the sun much faster than Jupiter. Yet what they found was that stars near the edge were orbiting the center just as fast. That led to two groups of theories to explain this - one is that at large scales gravity works differently, the other is that there is a lot of really hard to detect matter holding things together. Various other observations, like gravitational lensing occurring in areas that have no visible matter, have pretty much always pointed at the difficult to detect matter theory.

>>11196222
chad aether vs virgin dark matter

>>11196227
>until we know what it is
People have always known anon quackedmeia feel for the (((Einstein))) relativity bs and refuse to acknowledge it.

>>11196222
trips of truth

>>11196359

>>11196227
No. We just need to accept that our understanding of physics is probably wrong. It can't explain quantum physics, it can't explain black holes, it can't explain bumblebees, it can't explain portals, it can't explain galaxies and it can't even explain light. Just throw it out already.

>>11196222

>>11196222
>I don't know what causes the spiral patterns,
The zero point magnetic flux, aka the swastika, aka shakti

>>11196292
also bad scientific divulgation name, like big bang, were no bang was, but a pop

Ah, yes, the three states of matter.

>>11196222
OP thinks he's real smart.

>>11196412
How can the whole thing be wrong if it accurately describes certain things? You don't have to re-write the whole system, just amend the parts that don't work. None of physics is actually understood, rules are just written to describe what is observed. Galaxies act like they have more matter, ok just add "dark matter" to it for now and the next step is figured out, and back substitute from there. No form of understanding is ever needed.

Give me a single piece of evidence FOR dark matter.

>>11196538
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence

>>11196570
Nice reading comprehension.
If the Hubble constant is still uncertain, those are multiple pieces of evidence for additional matter.

Why does it have to be dark matter, not more normal matter?

>>11196497
I tried thinking about it and yeah, a really underwhelming pop noise sounds about right for my autistic mental picture

>>11196501

>>11196538
This board is pure shit these idiots have no capacity to understand anything they only regurgitate pop sci bullshit from a very pleb level understanding

>>11196782
Name a reason additional matter isn't in the normal matter we can see.

>>11196813
http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

>>11196501
Way to miss OP's point.
They said that they are all made of the same kind of matter.

>>11196617
>asks for evidence of dark matter
>it's given it
>complains
If you don't want something don't ask for it. Also the Hubble constant is known to be within a certain range and doesn't effect the fact that dark matter exists.

>>11196982
If we're going to general, we've never detected dark matter, so that's evidence it doesn't exist.

How come the models of galactic rotation curves which work accurately are ignored?
Including factors for Hubble expansion predicts galactic rotation to be as its are observed to be without needing to invent invisible matter. That seems so much more realistic to me than saying "maybe theres something else out there like neutrinos which is nearly impossible to observe due to a noninteracting nature". Astrophysical science fiction fantasy scenarios such as non spinning black holes are easy to invent, but that doesn't make them real, if there is a theory which dovetails with observational reality (such as considering the tensions placed on a spinning galaxy by Hubble expansion when trying to estimate the rate of spin as a function of radius) then why is it so completely ignored by the academic world?

>>11197144
You want to explain the flat velocity curve AND why the outer objects don't fly off because of their high speed.
It's nicer to do in one go by adding more matter, instead of having the complexity front-loaded with other theories.

Alternatively, you can just increase the size of everything relative to the matter you estimate is there.
Then the stars and whatever get bigger, giving you your additional mass, and the velocities increase due to greater orbit size, inline with MoND or something.

>>11197026
We've detected its effects in numerous ways, which is the evidence it exists. You have no argument, time to grow up and abandon contrarianism as a substitute for intelligence.

>>11196222
Dark matter = game rendering
/thread

There's a myriad of evidence of God's existence so I choose to believe that he does exist

>>11197222
Bullshit.
The only way it's supposed to interact is gravitationally. So the only effect you can detect is it's gravity.
What possible difference would there be between gravity coming from dark matter or normal matter?

>>11196222
Explain pic related without dark matter.

>>11197378
The heavier objects just look much smaller than they really are, so we are underestimating their mass.

But for that to be true, you'd need an extra dimension and a way for gravity to distort what we are trying to observe.

>>11197378
>>11197409
Sorry, when I say:
>But for that to be true, you'd need an extra dimension and a way for gravity to distort what we are trying to observe.”
I mean:
Isn't it really fucking strange that we've tried adding an extra-dimension (or ten) to every theory that involves gravity, except for this one?

There's no observational evidence of a 4th spatial dimension...except for on a galactic scale.
There's no way to solve gravity...except by adding another dimension.
There's no way to solve the galaxy rotation problem...except by increasing the mass and velocity in one go.

Reply with a pic and no text if you've read this and can't see what I've messed up.
Or tell me where I'm going wrong.
Or pussy out if you're a bitch who just wants to recite the literature to do others down.

>>11196518
You can't just make up matter because your narrative doesn't make sense. """Scientists""" need to just take their L and start over. It's getting embarrassing how prideful they all are

>>11197378
>explain false color images
data massaged until it looks pretty

>>11197378
there's an explanation that conforms to General Relativity without having to invoke any dark matter, but for some reason fucking everyone is completely ignoring it
https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.00095

>>11197968
>for some reason fucking everyone is completely ignoring it
because those fuckers have spent hundreds of billions of dollars over the past 40 years studying dark matter, admitting it doesn't exist would be admitting to massive waste and fraud, large fractions of the establishment would be completely discredited and they'd have to start wondering where the grocery money was gonna come from if it became apparent that their contributions to academia were worthless.

>>11197998
no, that's stupid, even if dark matter is actually just gravitational self-interaction I still want to see bigger and better telescopes to understand how it works better, temporarily misunderstanding nature is not "fraud"
they were not just "studying dark matter" they were studying the universe

>>11198006
willfully ignorance is fraud

>>11197968
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.00095

"Using direct calculations based on General Relativity's Lagrangian, and parameter-free galactic models, we show that the nonlinear effects of General Relativity make baryonic matter alone sufficient to explain this observation."

okay, Tooker? someone else? Care to verify their calculation of the GR Lagrangian? It'd take me way too long.

>>11196412
>it can't explain bumblebees
What does this mean? I'm not into science to this degree.

>>11196412
okay, you first. Throw out your smartphone, computer, stop taking medications, supplements, stop using electricity, don't ride on vehicles, etc.
You're fucking retarded.

>>11198222
Nvm, it's false.

>>11198220
some already have, but i haven't seen anyone give it much attention
http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/p/deurs-work-on-gravity-and-related.html

>>11197270
Your premise that mass can only be detected one way is false. See >>11196570

>>11196570
>empirical evidence is not evidence
>IT IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
>except when we say it is because we have no idea what we are doing and we need those grant money
never change /sci/

>>11198220
>>11198366
wrong link, meant to link this one, http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2019/09/a-new-paper-by-deur-on-gravity.html

>>11198376
That's bait? I didn't even mention how to measure gravity.

Let's say you have a Kg each of feathers, steel and dark matter.
If the only measurement you can know about them is their mass, they will be entirely indistinguishable from each other.
This is the case EVEN IF you have ten, or even a million, different ways to measure their mass.

Pic and video related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fC2oke5MFg

>>11198225
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8SWMAQYQf0

>>11196412
I don’t think it’s ‘wrong’, I think on certain scales none of the rules apply, I think quantum physics is a step in the right direction, I think it’s kind of useless to postulate arbitrary rules for things as random and incomprehensibly random as things in Nature but kudos for trying.

>x + 4 = 10
>we haven't yet figured out how to solve for x
>therefore, math does not exist

>>11200171
>x + 4 = 10
>we have figured out how to solve for x, but lets pretend that we don't understand, watch this
>HOLY FUCK X = 9000
>NOBODY UNDERSTANDS THIS CRAZY RESULT
>WE BETTER SPEND SIX TRILLION DOLLARS STUDYING WHY X = 9000 FOR THE BETTERMENT AND ADVANCEMENT OF HUMANITY
>GIBES ME DAT SCIENCE MONEY FO FREE
> GIBES ME DAT TENURE MUTHAFUKKA

>>11198678
If they have different densities, then they will occupy different volumes, and distort spacetime differently.

>>11196222

Science is a train wreck when it comes to public relations. Scientists know what they are really talking about but they forget normies will get hopelessly confused.

The terms "dark matter" is just a placeholder. Its something which current evidence strongly suggests exists but at the moment scientists have no firm idea what it is.

Its like calling it "x matter" or "unknown matter".

Same thing for "dark energy". It may well turn out both are entirely different from what we know, which is what makes the subject very interesting. Or perhaps our data has been fucked up and finding out how it got so fucked up will be very interesting. Or its even possible that we discover we have had some major misconceptions about how the Universe works, which is also interesting. Fuck, its all so very fucking interesting.

>>11200251
HAHAHAHAHA!
Picking density to argue that a kilogram of steel weighs more than a kilogram is feathers.
Nearly fell for the bait, well played.

>>11200416
Are you right in the head?

>>11200496
Did you see the video?
>>11198678
The reason the stupid person in the video thinks there should be a difference in measurement is based on the fact that steel is denser than feathers.

>>11200577
Yes. Density is the operative word here. We're not talking about weight, we're talking about the extent to which mass locally distorts spacetime, which has as variables density (or from another perspective, occupied volume). More dense matter will occupy smaller volumes, resulting in more extreme local spacetime curvature. Meaning that the same mass in different volumes will have different effects on the local curvature of spacetime. This is a measurement to distinguish the different types of masses.

>>11200496
Is autistic screeching an equation

>>11200602
thats deep stuff, are you saying that the factors governing openness or closedness in the conventional model are a function of topology and mass distribution as well as observed total mass vs observed expansion characteristics rather than just on mass vs expansion like whats conventionally discussed? surface integrals of space-time planes in configurations of high vs low density variance wouldn't disagree with you, but it's possible that the time variation in the contracted spaced makes up for that when its all added up.

Hello, virgins.

Look at a sunflower.

Now back to me. Now back at your sunflower. Now back to me.

Sadly, he isn't a Galaxy.

But if he stopped using lady scented spiral patterns...

...and switched to Dark Matter, he could look like he's a galaxy.

Look down. Back up. Where are you?

You're on the 7th moon of Saturn with invisible magic bullshit.

What's in your hand? Back at me.

I have it.

It's spiral galaxy arms with 8 helixes to that thing you love.

Look again. The arms are now sunflower seeds.

Anything is possible when your flower smells like Dark Matter and not a lady.

I'm on a horse.

>>11200638
>>11200648
These were equally as entertaining shitposts.

>>11197378
Can someone explain in laymens terms what is visibly wrong with this photograph? Or is it meant to invoke something else that is not actually visible in it

>>11200678

>>11196222
There's only a nature of a thing if it does a thing. And by "does" I mean actively intentionally does it. Water doesn't wave along because it intends to, there are lunar tides and currents.
Sunflowers however have a nature to grow in a pattern based on maximizing stimulation and growth from the sun.
Galaxies however do not try to grow or shape themselves in a certain way. So what forces are doing it?

Btw dark matter exists. And it's not like it's some phantom 200th element.
Imagine you find your fridge door hits something and you can't open it up. Only you can't see it, hear it, touch it, manipulate it, put a magnet on it, see with night goggles, etc etc. None of your tools or senses can interact. But somethings there in the way of your fridge.
To you, that's dark matter. To an astronomer it's some weird shit in space.

But ask yourself, if all universal mechanisms work the same, why don't galaxies look like giant planets of stars and dust. Why don't planets have spiral arms?

>>11200678
Light follows the curvature of spacetime. Mass (matter) distorts spacetime, so it distorts the path that light follows. Large distortions of spacetime mean large distortions in the path that light follows, which are observable to us as gravitational lensing.

So anon could be implying gravitational lensing, or anon could be implying that the clustering of galaxies in the first place is unusual. This has been suggested as the result of unequal distributions of matter and dark matter during the early history of the universe, prior to hyper expansion. The presence of dark matter is currently suggested as a requirement to keep those galaxies gravitationally bound together.

Or anon could just be saying that there's nothing wrong with the picture and that dark matter is an elaborate troll requiring a modification to a part of our physics we inherently misunderstand.

>>11197897
There's no such thing as taking an L in science. You just revise the model and move on. The only people bent out of shape are weirdos like you.

>>11196222
Cosmological red-shifting doesn’t exist, only Doppler red-shifting exists
There, dark matter solved

>>11196222
>I don’t understand the problem so it’s not real

>>11196412
>Bunblebees
>Portals

Either a troll post a real life moron

>>11196430
where did you get that image that accurately explains what its like to have an outside temp IQ?

>>11200416
are you legit claiming we can measure the mass of every point of light we see in space? lol?

>>11200602
Gee, guess the density thing wasn't a troll, sorry if I came across as harsh.

We can't see where the dark matter is, like we can see where the stars are, so we can't make a direct estimate of volume.
All we can do is infer it's volume/density using models, and those models don't end up being great for predicting rotation curves,
Dark matter also has to be pretty smoothly distributed, otherwise we would see gravitational micro-lensing in places without normal matter.
There also doesn't seem to be any instances of dark matter appearing without normal matter.
That's what leads me to believe there's no way to distinguish between the effects of additional normal matter and dark matter. Hope that makes sense.

>>11200648
This is gold.

>>11200678
The estimates for mass indicate there is more matter in the gas than in the stars (and stuff). Without additional matter there should have been something like a collision. Instead the galaxy clusters have sort of slid through each other, as if the gas didn't have the dominant amount of mass.
Someone correct me on this, it always messes with my head.

>>11200717
Yes, there is such a thing as taking an L.
Phlogiston, Aether Geocentric model, Spiral Nebulae.
That doesn't mean you should take the L until you've exhausted every option...but we are fast approaching the point were we've exhausted every candidate for dark matter.

>>11200809
My point is that...
Wait.
Which side are you on?

I'm confident we can ESTIMATE the mass of each "point of light", by which I guess you mean all the mass outside our solar system.
I also think our estimates are off because gravity distorts space-time.

If you're more specific I can clarify further.
lol?

>>11200810
>there's no way to distinguish between the effects of additional normal matter and dark matter
Isn't this a tautology? That and the "inert" nature of dark matter (limited to gravitational interaction) are its defining characteristics, and is what's making the whole thing difficult in the first place.

>>11200835
we dont even know the real mass of earth. even earth is an estimate based on how much matter we think is under our feet. we have never made it past our own mantle. you cant just look at a planet and guess its made up of x, and if its that big and made of x then it weighs this much. they are like 500 assumptions deep trying to make up more bullshit

>>11200663
>i'm not capable of participating in or enjoying intellectual discourse other than at the level of a vapid shitposter

>>11200847
>>11200638
Fine.
>...factors governing open or closed in the conventional model are a function of topology...
Like >>11200810, is this not a tautology?
>...and mass distribution as well as observed total mass vs observed expansion characteristics...
How could it not given the malleability of spacetime?
>...rather than just on mass vs expansion...
Again, how could the distribution of mass (matter), its density, and their effects on spacetime not be an influence? Or, perhaps a better question is, what is spacetime, if the implication is that a fixed universal topology supersedes any and all local spacetime distortions, no matter how extreme? Or, put another way, if there were a sufficient density of matter to result in a contraction, would the topology of the universe allow it?
>...it's possible that the time variation in the contracted space makes up for it.
Go on.

>>11200885
u got trolled by the big dawgz pic
lol

>>11200889
It was love all along.

>>11196412
Okay, create your own theory then. This might sound like I'm bitching to you but I'd love a detailed and comprehensive physics model created by an anon.

dark matter is shit

>>11201290
to be more precise, what i mean by "dark matter is shit" is that after any race goes into space and lives in low/zero gravity situations the physical penalties for obesity are reduced and the fatties are able to grow to enormous sizes without being crushed to death under the weight of their own hideous gargantuan mass. After a few generations the fatties have evolved bodies more in line with their excess nutritional intake and as everything else about them grows, so does their brains. The fattest of fatties grow super smart and conquer everyone completely, possibly eating a lot of them in the process and eventually enormous space whales the size of planets rule the universe an thats how it all plays out in the end. Fatties win bigtime and the dark matter is evidence that the process is ongoing, dark matter is spacewhale shit

>>11196222
come up with a better explanation and leave it to the scientific community for peer review

>>11196412
aight, so let's just fill the gaps with whatever bullshit fairytale most appeals to you, then

>>11200914
I've got one. It's the 4+1D thing.
Take a 2D model of a galaxy and use the z-axis for the 4th dimension instead of the 3rd dimension. Then you get bigger objects (more mass) and bigger orbits (higher velocity).
Wanna see a model of how the 4th (non-time) dimension works?

>>11200839
I don't even know anymore man.
I think there were supposed to be ways to differentiate dark matter from normal matter (distribution, density, direct detection) but those seem to have been ruled out.
What we actually see (in general) is that the more mass you have in any region, the more dark matter you have. In which case, a sort of "mass multiplier" function seems a more likely solution.

>>11200846
Yeah, we don't know it's precise mass, but we can use the estimate to figure out how fast stuff falls and we use that for tons of everyday stuff and we can always improve upon it.

>>11201362
OP here.
I figure it's just a system of gravitational fields that increases hydrogen density in a very simplistic pattern around a central mass.
It's just clumping together, essentially. Like water spiraling down a drain. The only "invisible force" acting on it is mathematics.

>>11202317
What the fuck?

>>11202317
That just sounds like modified gravity theories, no?

>>11202639
no, yeah, I believe in the gravity theories. It just makes sense to me.
But I don't think it's a special quality of large-scale gravity, I think it's just a natural effect of billions of interacting fields of force

>>11202655
Right, I think I know what you're getting at now, although it's still hard to interpret.

The related pic shows how the 4th dimension works. I think the bit of gravity we need to modify is how gravity distorts space-time.
The sculpture itself would be how galaxies actually are and the projection is what we observe.
You can see that all the shapes on the sculpture are of equal size to each other, whereas in the projection, the size of objects increases the further they are from the centre.
So if all you could see was the shadow and the only accurate data you had was for the outer-most objects, you would need to greatly increase the size of objects towards the centre (relative to their size in the shadow).

I feel like this is in line with modified gravity and doesn't need magic particles (so hopefully that would keep you happy), but it also has the missing matter/mass that the dark matter lot won't stop banging on about.
Thoughts?

>>11196222
>Look at a sunflower. Now look at Saturn.
Kill Yourself, owl. Go and sacrifice yourself. People, who actually LIVE, are here

>mfw this whole thread
/sci/ needs to fucking go.
Either that or a calculus captcha to weed out the double-digiters once and for all.

>>11203120
Make dark matter as good as modified gravity for galaxy rotation curves or stfu.

>>11203082
what do you mean when you say "owl"??

>>11203171
it doesn't even need to be modified gravity, just considering the hubble expansion when estimating what you think rotation curves should look like results in something very like the observed galactic rotation curves.

>>11201362
peer review only enforces the established social order, peer review exists to prevent the publication of nonconformist ideas in the academic press
>peer