/sci/ - Science & Math

The ultimate cope is to pretend every hypothesis in science is a religious-tier delusion so you can feel better about the fact you unironically have “faith” as a grown adult and believe in wizards and magic

"I don't know" would be much more honest, accurate and elegant answer than dark matter

No. Scientists are bad at naming things. Popsci is even worse at taking those badly named things and presenting them incorrectly. It shouldn't be called "dark matter" at all. The only thing we know is there is some force holding galaxies together that can't be explained using the gravity of the known matter inside them. It might be matter we can't observe (hence dark), or something else entirely. I would have named it "unexplained gravity" personally.

>>12465829
>Our math dont work this way
>Is our calculation wrong?
>No, there must be another stuff we dont know yet!
Yes

>>12465829
Ultimate cope is GUT - theorists are obsessed with everything fitting together into a nice, neat, particle-propagated unified model, when the far more probable explanation is that gravity is just fucking different.

>>12465859
Why cant gravity explain this? There is gravity, this connect al mater in a galaxy, between galaxies is less matter so there is no gravity that rips it apart.

Dark matter is not nearly as interesting as dark energy.

>>12465841
>The ultimate cope is to pretend every hypothesis in science is a religious-tier delusion
Thank you for so concisely describing my biggest annoyance with the dumb fags on this board.

>>12465829
modern physics = circus show

>>12465841
Think it's a problem with culture and education. We are just told to swallow these things as fact. So when one thing reveals itself not to be right a lot of people distrust everything else.

>>12466093
>We are just told to swallow these things as fact
Told to swallow what and by who?

>>12466082
Nope, it's more like:
1+1+x=3
They're acknowledging an unknown variable, not defining it.

>>12465841
fpbp, OP a suggestion:

>>12465829
It's literally a fudge factor to account for inconsistancies in general relativity calculations for spiral galaxy rotation speeds.

>>12465841
Poor you

God is afoot, magic is alive
Alive is afoot, magic never died

God never sickened
Many poor men lied, many sick men lied
Magic never weakened, magic never hid
Magic always ruled, God is afoot
God never died

God was ruler
Though his funeral lengthened
Though his mourners thickened
Magic never fled
Though his shrouds were hoisted, the naked God did live
Though his words were twisted, the naked magic thrived
Though his death was published, round and round the world
The heart did not believe

Many hurt men wondered, many struck men bled
Magic never faltered, magic always led
Many stones were rolled, but God would not lie down
Many wild men lied, many fat men listened
Though they offered stones, magic still was fed
Though they locked their coffers, God was always served
Magic is afoot, God rules
Alive is afoot, alive is in command
Many weak men hungered
Many strong men thrived
Though they boasted solitude, God was at their side
Nor the dreamer in his cell
Nor the captain on the hill

Magic is alive
Though his death was pardoned
Round and round the world
The heart would not believe

Though laws were carved in marble
They could not shelter men
Though altars built in parliaments, they could not order men
Police arrested magic, and Magic went with them
For Magic loves the hungry

But Magic would not tarry, it moves from arm to arm
It would not stay with them, magic is afoot
It cannot come to harm, it rests in an empty palm
It spawns in an empty mind, but magic is no instrument
Magic is the end
Many men drove magic, but magic stayed behind
Many strong men lied
They only passed through Magic and out the other side
Many weak men lied, they came to God in secret
And though they left him nourished, they would not tell who healed
Though mountains danced before them, they said that God was dead
Though his shrouds were hoisted, the naked God did live

>>12466146
Every single hypothesis, by youtube and teachers. I'm a zoomer, youtube practically raised me. My math teacher was a historian, my science teacher had a degree in teaching... If you asked them anything you were just told to accept.
This is what drives people to stuff like crazy conspiracies, because authorities lied to them.

>>12465859
>that can't be explained using the gravity of the known matter inside them
Maybe our theory of gravity is wrong?
No, no... it's the universe that is to blame!

>>12466192
This
If you add "1" that implies that they know what it is. But now they try to validate their calculations with another variable.
>If your math dont work, just add another hypothetical variable that you never proofed or people will never proof. Than call it a day!

>>12466223
Dont forget any media scientist. There are alot of scientist that like to talk on documentations.

>>12466223
i agree with you, i think the problem here is that teachers just teach hard dry facts instead of going deeply into how we think those facts are true. for example, in primary school we are told that there are 8 planets revolving around the sun. at first hindsight, this looks very unrealistic to accept it since it's not self evident, it took decades to convince the top scientists in the time of geocentrism about heliocentrism but now kids are somehow supposed to come to this conclusion just by looking at a colored painting in a textbook? what im trying to say is that things which takes very lengthy amount of evidence to be considered truth by going deeply into all the possible scenarios of skepticism and refuting them is done by a few sentences

i remember one of my scientist teachers, he was one of those types of teachers everyone liked because he would give cool random facts about the world. my perspective now has completely changed, i think of him as an asshole for giving kids a false sense of education

>make a model of the cosmos
>doesn't match the observations
>add a "dark matter" to make the model match the observations
>claim you found dark matter whenever you see something that doesn't match the model

It's not a cope,it's utter nonsense

>>12466192
you miss the point, the x in this scenario would invalidate other types of findings. that's the problem with assumptions, you create a whole bunch of other problems and have to reconsider everything

>>12466077
Then I hope you don't wind up on /x/ somehow by accident.

>>12465829
Dark matter was not invented out of convenience but necessity. So it was "discovered" in the same sense as the atom or the neutron star.

We know that galaxies gravitate as if they had more mass than we can see, according to Newton's theory of gravity (or Einstein's for that matter; the difference is not significant in this case). This could be because the theory of gravity needs to be modified on larger scales or because there is more matter than we can see. This isn't a hypothesis; these are literally the only two options.

The first option is called Modified Newtonian Dynamics or MOND. A wide variety of different ideas have been explored. (Seriously, before you take these "astrophysics is dogma" guys seriously, look at how many diverse and fringe opinions get regularly published on this and other topics in astrophysics.) So far none have been remotely promising. But there are more fundamental problems with any MOND theory. One good example is the Bullet Cluster, which is currently colliding with another galaxy cluster. In the process, different components of the clusters are slowed at different rates. The interstellar and intracluster plasmas between the stars contain most of the bright matter in the galaxy, and it is slowed much more than the stars, since it interacts with magnetic fields. But most of the mass (as determined by gravitational lensing and other methods) remains with the stars, not the gas. There is no way to explain this by modifying Newtonian gravity. No reasonable modification will allow for a body's mass to separate from the body itself. There must be some invisible component.

The second hypothesis is called dark matter. There have historically been many candidates for what could comprise this invisible mass, including some conventional ones like brown dwarfs and primordial black holes, but all of these have been ruled out. None can account for anywhere near the required mass. Whatever the missing mass is, we call it dark matter.

>>12466336
>There must be some invisible component
Something like gravity?

>>12465859
>>12465938
its to do with the rotation of the galaxy and the fact that there is a force required to hold matter in a galaxy in orbit. however, some galaxies are spinning too fast for their gravitational force would suggest is possible. there is extra force holding everything in place somehow and it logically must come from gravity and hence dark matter in most physicists eyes including my own.

>>12466393
But do we have any proof that rotational speed in a vacuum or near vacuum can tear a constilation apart? Or is it just a calculation?
Because who says that the mass in a galaxy, or the blackhole in the mid isnt enough to keep all the stars in in place?

>>12466378
I don't understand your zinger at all. Did you read the whole paragraph? There is a galaxy whose gravitation is strongest somewhere there is apparently no matter. Are you proposing there are occasionally galaxy-sized areas where gravity just pulls things toward a vacuum? Because if not, there is *something* there.

>>12466450
Yes. Everything is explainable with gravity and the visible masses.

>>12466093
>told to swallow as fact
Pretty sure a lot of physicists and astronomers are uncertain about and unsatisfied with dark matter and dark energy, it's the best guess we have right now but they would happily accept something else, like something we can see/detect the normal way

>>12465841
>but not me, I'm above it all
every time lol

Dark Matter is solved by
[math]E=U/S[/math]
Bruh

>>12466481
But it isn't. The stars have been counted. We know how much mass there is. If gravity is so strong there, then either there must be more mass than we have accounted for or the laws of gravity must be such that things just fall in that direction anyway, even though there isn't any mass there. It's there or it isn't.

If you think bright matter can account for the mass distribution of the bullet cluster without modifying Newtonian gravity, I would love to hear how.

>>12466511
>We know how much mass there is.
Based on what

>>12466257
Yeah same, don't really consider teachers like that assholes but rather people not fit for teaching since they probably think what they're doing is teaching.
You worded the earlier stuff well, I remember feeling so weird just being shown a picture of computer painted planets when I was 7 and told that it is just how things are.
>how do we know
>well scientists
So one can imagine how so many people today just blindly trust anything that reads "scientists say" when this is ingrained into our developing minds. I'm just frustrated by the entire system and process. Whenever I talk about my disappointment in the system of current education people just assume I'm a high school dropout but I'm doing my undergrad and have an associates (not meant to be impressive, just saying I pass my exams with good grades). It's insane to me that because I am worried about public education for the other people I share a superset of a complex system with that I'm just immediately told off and that I probably just failed.
I asked the person who scored the highest in our calculus test to explain what an integral was to me but the person couldn't do it, I showed them a simple integral equation and got "oh I just memorized".
I can blame the system and parents all I want for my early education stuff but I cant anymore being 21 and I don't, I study on my own and do what I can.
I try to stay apolitical and agnostic and alreadypretty much am, but whenever I speak on this fundamental subset problem in the superset I get bombarded with assumptions and projections. Doesnt change that people do not know what science is, people graduate high school without understanding what pi is, people get a math honours when they cant explain what an integral is doing. I speak to my published dad about this, nothing, I speak to my teachers about this, nothing, my friends, nothing.
Really seems like I'm the one who is wrong about education sometimes but I'll continue trusting myself.

>>12466223
zoomers are to blame. Nobody wants to teach zoomers because they are fucking awful so teachers are shit as a result.

>>12466515
>Based on what
The number and magnitude of stars. There might be other stuff in there we can't see, but that is literally the definition of dark matter.

>>12466518
From someone who actually did get a good education in science... you pretty much have it backwards. People who understand the science are much more likely to accept the explanations they receive than people who don't understand it. It's pretty obvious, really. Who is convinced by an explanation they don't understand?

>>12466336
could there be some sort of permanent curvature in spacetime around galaxies?

>>12466523
Children are not to blame

>>12466534
I don't think you're seeing what I'm getting at or I did a bad explanation of it.
I'm not talking about people accepting explanations, I'm talking about the vast amount of people accepting things without an explanation and me not getting an explanation when I ask for it when I was younger and not in university.
>who is convinced by an explanation they don't understand
We have had completely different lives and experiences with people apparently

>>12466536
Maybe, but why would it only be present in a single galaxy cluster?

>>12466550
But *people like you* are the ones who accepted answers in school without demanding a satisfactory explanation. Nothing was stopping you from learning the material on your own, and still nothing is stopping you. The problem is that your understanding of physics is less than rudimentary, so naturally it seems mystical.

It's not like that's really your fault. I agree that it is the fault of the teachers and really of the school systems at large. But you seem to have the world flipped on its head, where the experts in physics are the ones doubting mainstream science, and I assure you that is not the case.

>>12466511
They behave different because they are different viscousity in space.
Just like Non-Newtoinian liquids they behave differently under stress.

>>12466550
But also adding to the last point, the answer is a lot of children and teens.
Going to my primary point of desperately wanting to change the system of education.
>>12466523
Peoples iq heritability and behavior doesnt genetically become a dominant 80% factor until they are around 20 years old. You can talk about free will but the vast majority of children are developing and affected by what's around them by a lot. Blaming an age group will literally get you nowhere and is incredibly lame thinking.

>>12466564
So this one galaxy cluster is uniquely "viscous" (whatever that means). Fine. What is the microscopic origin of this viscosity? Is it some . . . matter? That we haven't described yet? Or is that point in space preferred by the laws of physics despite containing nothing of interest?

>>12466564
Oh shit I just got the joke.

Time for me to go to bed.

>>12466560
I am not doubting mainstream science? Where did I even say that? As I said in my earlier longer comment even though I stay agnostic in my explanation people like you just keep on fucking projecting and inserting their own explanations into my thinking when I talk about the mentally ill inducing system we live in. If you think I'm OP I am not.
Nothing was stopping me on learning the material as a kid? Anon you're not understanding me. Nothing is stopping me now when I am 21 and I have really been doing my best since I picked up a book by Frege at 17 to learn and am attending university.
As a kid I wanted to learn to paint, parents got me painting classes. I was not taught anything in it, the teacher smoked and told us to paint giraffes while the person smoked. I quit and continued to draw on my own. I wanted to learn about electronics, instead I was given an electronical toy set. I wanted to learn to do woodworking at 8, I was given a video game about building houses.
At this point I couldn't speak English, the internet is in English. When I went to the school library you're greeted with pop science books and children's fiction.
Look at it this way, my entire life I was looking for an answer in the system and was lied to again and again as a child with a mind that was not fully developed. I didn't learn until I stopped looking for answers in the system and instead looked into the writings of people like Newton, Russel and Frege, etc. Like are you really blaming a north european kid for not being able to teach itself the foundations of arithmetic at 7? Yes Tesla built a kite, I'm not Tesla, I was an average curious kid, the average person is not Tesla anon.
I'm sorry I'm just ranting at this point, I just get emotional when people don't listen to what I say and project stuff into me so good job if that was your intention. But no sure, continue to make the same constant mistakes of blaming zoomers/kids growing up in an infantilizing complex system.

>>12466633
>Look at it this way, my entire life I was looking for an answer in the system and was lied to again and again as a child with a mind that was not fully developed.
That, frankly, explains a lot. You were poorly-educated in school and learned much more on your own. I was sometimes well and sometimes poorly-educated in school and made up the difference on my own.

But the fact that you were taught science poorly by your teachers *is not evidence* that science itself has gone too far, any more than the failings of math teachers worldwide are evidence of fundamental problems in math.

When people first learn about calculus, a lot of them see it as some sort of voodoo math. It was seen that way in Newton's day, and it still kind of feels like it. A lot of the rigorous details are obscured behind graduate-level math, and you end up with this seemingly arbitrary list of rules. But that doesn't mean there is something wrong with calculus. It means there is something wrong with the way we *teach* calculus.

There is something very wrong with the way we teach physics in school. But that isn't because physics is foundering. Basic science research into many branches of physics is some of the best-funded and most applicable of all sciences, especially on the material and condensed-matter ends. Evidently it works. The problem is in the entire system--the curriculum, the lesson plans, the explanations, the examinations, the methodologies--and even more fundamental than that, in the way we organize childhood education into classes. But it's not because teachers are hiding the secret physics out there, or kowtowing to some physics elite. Seriously, take a look at arxiv and see how many batshit crazy ideas you can find. Creating new, highly divergent theories is often seen as an advantage, because these theories are often easier to differentiate from competing ones. None have any traction whatsoever. Do you really think that's just bias?

>>12466674
>A lot of the rigorous details are obscured behind graduate-level math
0.exer

>>12466674
>is not evidence that science has gone too far
>isn't because physics is foundering
Who are you talking to? Because you're not talking to me or what I have been writing.
It's insane, how when I bring up points against the system we live in, people aleays conjure up multiple points which they attack when I never even mentioned them or anything related to them. I am attacking a subset within the superset of the complex system we live in. Education. I am not attacking science which I am now telling you for the second time. Just further showing my point that we live in an infantilizing mentally I'll inducing system. Look around you, you're a scientist right? Empirically look around you. Are people healthy, is my age generation healthy?
You're just trolling me at this point aren't you.

>>12466715
The entire thesis of your argument was that you got taught by idiot teachers in school, and that proves scientists don't know what they are talking about. If not, can you formulate this in a way that makes more sense to me? Your very first post was about how you had to "swallow things as facts." I mean, I'm sorry if you did, but that's not the case for all of us.

>>12466769
Aaaaaaaaaaaa
>proves scientists don't know what they're talking about
I'm done sorry, you won, I'm not explaining that I was not attacking science or scientists for the third time to you but the complex societal system and its subsystems the younger generation I am a part of is growing up in and the one making people believe in crazy conspiracy theories.

>>12465841

Lol @ thinking Moses talking to a bush or any other religious "story" is any more outlandish than this present reality we are observing

>>12466781
>the complex societal system and its subsystems the younger generation I am a part of is growing up in and the one making people believe in crazy conspiracy theories.
Yes, the society you are growing up in is making you believe in conspiracy theories. I do agree with that.

>>12466791
>you
>you
>you
Go read Peterson you asshole

>>12466809
>implying I would read a literal quack

>>12466830
Well you act like him with your individualism

>>12466838
Peterson is trying to be a nice guy but has a massively distorted view of reality. I am not trying to be nice at all, and my view of reality is fine. Being an asshole isn't a political stance.

>>12466858
lol, you can't be real

>>12466886
If there were a place where anonymous people could let off pent-up anger, what would it be? Shit, isn't that the whole point of this site?

>>12466769
you should probably do the other anon a service and reread >>12466518 because you seem to have completely misrepresented him repeatedly. His core thesis is that his experience with education was that students are taught that the reason X is true was "because scientists determined that X is true". He conjectures that this type of teaching leads students to question the integrity of scientists as a whole when they hear later on that X is false, leading to mistrust and conspiracy thinking. You have misrepresented him as his example, which seems rather infuriating from his perspective, no?

>>12465829
The ultimate cope in modern science is quantum physics and all the workarounds they use to make it work. Virtual particles by definition break thermodynamics and they're fine with it

>>12467028
>His core thesis is that his experience with education was that students are taught that the reason X is true was "because scientists determined that X is true". He conjectures that this type of teaching leads students to question the integrity of scientists as a whole when they hear later on that X is false, leading to mistrust and conspiracy thinking.
No, I agree with all of that. But that is a failure of teaching, not of research. There isn't some boogyeman just around the corner that will show how Algebra 2 tricked you.

>>12466450
My hypothesis is that not all matter interacts with the electromagnetic spectrum, which renders it invisible to our observation methods.

>>12467116
>I agree with all that
then you agree with everything he wrote. End of discussion. I don't understand why you keep tacking on this disagreement you keep pulling out of thin air post after post of him telling you otherwise. At least make an effort.

>>12465938
The galaxy should be spinning faster at the core then at the rim by a considerable factor like a vortex.
Yet observation shows that the whole galaxy spins at almost the same speed.

I always thought it was due to the effects of time dilation where the core experiences less time due to the higher density (stronger gravity) compared to the outer rim.

Time slows down as gravity increases or as speed increases to a local limit of c.

So the center IS spinning faster it just doesn't have as much time to travel as the rim does because the gravity of the core is more intense and so is the time dilation.

...could also explain 'Dark Energy' that expands space exponentially.
As the voids between galaxies get bigger they do so faster then the space within a galaxy ( or multiple galaxies close enough together) because they experience more time to do so.

Its a sort of LAG like a computer experiences but on a cosmic level... Cosmic lag for the win!

>>12467132
Pretty interesting idea, we could call it black mass because we can't see it and it's massive.

>>12465957
Dark Energy is not on as strong an observational footing at Dark Matter so it could actually turn out to be a false idea. Even if it is real it can already be explained by existing theories.

Dark Matter on the other hand has many different observations supporting the fact it exists. It being some kind of matter that does not react to EM waves is the only theory that matches all measurements. No other explanation, such a modifying the laws of gravity, can do that. Whatever it turns out to be our current theories do not contain it so it means new physics.

>>12465829
Physics is a ever changing field where we probably will never know the true nature of, so we come up with stories that we throw out the window every couple of years.

>>12467487
You win anon, I can't tell if this comment is supposed to be facetious or honest.

>>12465829
the problem is they still base everything on einsteins bullshit.

they'd never acknowledge the fact he was wrong and the older models of aether were correct/ on the right path. like >>12467104 pointed out


they overcomplicate the system more and more with "quantum" shit adding more and more variable and quarks to make the system halfway work like >>12466082 >>12466082


this >>12466093 is right as well

>>12466553
im not suggesting it's a coincidence. Maybe galaxies are pulled towards the curvature

>>12467918
I can't tell if you're trolling or fucking retarded. Help a bro out and give me a clue thx.

>>12467104
thermodynamics is classical, nobody gives a shit and people half expect it to break.

>>12466267
How does saying "there's something we're missing" invalidate other findings?

>>12467477
no, relativity is taken into account it's not time dilation.

>>12467931
keep seething

>>12467510
That's a fairly low bar for the use of the word 'observation'. And of course, you can get rid of dark matter if you modify the law of gravity, just like you can invent dark matter if you keep the current one.

The problem with physics in general is that mathematics allows for speculative theories far beyond what is *actually* observable to be perceived as science. All interesting concepts and complex ideas, but the idea of dark matter is as valid as ether as far as real observational science is concerned.

>>12465841
kek based

>>12467477
Wrong. The velocities involved, a few hundred kph, are too small to produce any obvious relativistic effects but even those very small adjustments can be taken into account and still give the same result.

>>12467957
>That's a fairly low bar for the use of the word 'observation'.
What else would you call cosmological observational data? Of course it's observation.

>the idea of dark matter is as valid as ether as far as real observational science is concerned.
False. Both dark matter and dark energy were put forward to explain observational data. The aether was hypothesised because physicists at the time assumed that light needed a medium.

>>12467957
> you can get rid of dark matter if you modify the law of gravity
Actually you can't. In the early days of MOND when the number of DM observations were just galaxy rotation curves you could argue it was possible. Now however there are at least 4 or 5 different measurements that show DM effects that MOND fails at. So unless you make MOND gravity very very weird indeed, it would have to have several different power laws at many different length scales, it simply can't be done.

>>12465929
>adjust model to fit observations
>"nooooo you can't do that!"

>>12467935
lol

>>12467931
This whole thread is a testament to how shit /sci/ is. Lots of people attacking "pop sci" but almost no one with any real knowledge. Zero mentions of the CMB powerspectrum. Zero mentions of nucleosynthesis. Its easy to claim dark matter is wrong, it's much harder to come up with a model as powerful and successful as CDM. And now there are anti-science morons who claim we should reject GR and bring back the aether.

>>12467983
You haven't observed anything that confirms it though, you have cosmological observations that are at odds with our understanding of a theory. Claiming that 'dark matter' can bridge this gap to be valid is not science, it is mathematics and does conform to anything actually scientific.

>The aether was hypothesised because physicists at the time assumed that light needed a medium.

Precisely, just like physicists now assume what gravity is in order to justify dark matter.

>>12467992
>very very weird indeed
>it simply can't be done

I wouldn't say that is any more 'weird' than inventing mathematical models that conforms to some current theory in order to justify dark matter.

>>12468039
Why are you on a science board when you don't understand science?

>>12468018
>Its easy to claim dark matter is wrong, it's much harder to come up with a model as powerful and successful as CDM.

It is not a question of being wrong, it is a question of being right. And I'd love to hear about how successful or powerful it is, because I haven't seen what kind of insight it gives into reality other than being a spring board for other mathematical models that could be right or wrong.

>>12468046
I don't think you understand what science is if you think 'dark matter' speculation is science.

>>12468059

>>12468059
> a theory based on evidence is not science
were you banned from /x/ or something?

>>12468071
This is just a nonsense sentence. You cannot have a theory of gravity, have it be insufficient in explaining some observation in the universe and then invent another concept that is also just theoretical and call it science.

What's with the insults? It seems you are unable to engage like a human being.

>>12468101
gravity does explain the observations. that is literally the point. if you can't understand that then I pity you.

insults are enjoyable because you're an idiot who lacks basic critical thinking.

>>12465829
stars bleed particles. even black holes do it. you dont even have to believe steven hawkings version of things. x ray and gama emissions from black holes prove it. both are forms of electromagnetic emissions and on paper according to science comprised of none charged electrons quantum paired oscillating on 2 different axis relative to one another .the sun is constantly bleeding particles

most rocks you find on the surface of the earth emit radiation. you get a range of 2-4 on a geiger counter from them. radioactive isotopes exist as well naturally. astroids probably are bleeding radiation constantly

the universe would be a wash in particles from that and unresolved incomplete mater from the big bang. is that enough to affect gravity? idk but particles are every where

>>12468071
>a hypothesis is evidence
retard

>>12468115
No, the theory of gravity cannot explain it without inventing a mathematical concept of 'dark matter' that is entirely mathematical in nature and has never been observed. That is literally the point. If you can't understand that, you're an idiot who lacks basic critical thinking.

>>12468039
>You haven't observed anything that confirms it though
What do you mean? Cold Dark Matter has made numerous successful predictions. Probably the most spectacular was the form of the power spectrum of the fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background. Models without dark matter have still not explained these observations 15 years later, while DM predicted it.

>you have cosmological observations that are at odds with our understanding of a theory
Which observations are in conflict with Lambda CDM?

>Claiming that 'dark matter' can bridge this gap to be valid is not science
I don't think you understand. Dark matter is not some "god of the gaps" in cosmology. It is a very well defined model, which can be calculated and simulated in detail. This model makes predictions, and several have been confirmed.

>Precisely, just like physicists now assume what gravity is in order to justify dark matter.
Nope. GR (and classical) gravity faced numerous tests.

>>12468052
>It is not a question of being wrong, it is a question of being right.
No. Empirical science only lets you rule out models. You can never prove a model is right.

>>12468137
> has never been observed
The effects of dark matter have been observed. That is why we are having this discussion in the first place. You seem to be confusing the fact dark matter exists with what it actually *is*. Every piece of data and observation agrees with the former, no new laws of gravity required, but the latter is still an open question.

>>12468101
>You cannot have a theory of gravity, have it be insufficient in explaining some observation
But in order to calculated the expected gravitational effect you had to have some model of the mass distribution. The model is the combination of gravity and a model of the composition of the object. If you find the wrong answer it could be either (or both) at fault. Unless you know exactly what a galaxy is made of you cannot claim to know gravity is at fault.

>>12468137
you would have sounded more credible had you responded to >>12468139 instead of using the flame bait to launch your usual talking points.

>>12466336
>Bullet Cluster
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-bullet-cluster-as-evidence-against.html

>>12468366
Hossenfelder is full of shit. She admits in the comments that she presented an entirely onesided argument. She misquotes many papers. Read the responses, you'll see many people calling her out.

The central claim of her article is agreed to be false now. CDM can reproduce the infall velocity of the bullet cluster.

>>12468391
Yeah. She has admitted she was wrong and even uses that bullet cluster as an example of the existance of dark matter in at least one of her recent YT videos.

>>12467132
>My hypothesis is that not all matter interacts with the electromagnetic spectrum, which renders it invisible to our observation methods.
This is the very definition of dark matter. It's matter, but it's "dark" because it doesn't interact electromagnetically. It still interacts gravitationally and may also interact weakly.

>>12468116
Stars don't "bleed" particles. They shine them out at incredible intensity. Of course we see them. We see them with the naked eye. And although we can't see quasars with the naked eye, we see them fine with telescopes. We know that radiation is emitted from the vicinity of black holes.

>both are forms of electromagnetic emissions and on paper according to science comprised of none charged electrons quantum paired oscillating on 2 different axis relative to one another
Not sure if you made that up, read it from a kook, or misremembered some unrelated fact. But there is no such thing as an uncharged electron. Electrons by definition have the elementary charge -1. As for oscillation on two axes, it sounds like you are describing electromagnetic radiation again, but you swapped the photon for the electron.

Photons are massless, but a collection of photons can have mass. Photons are always accounted for in the Friedman equations governing the evolution of the universe. At smaller scales, they are accounted for by the way they heat up gas and cause it to expand. Photons cannot explain the mystery of dark matter.

Another form of uncharged radiation that has been considered as a dark matter candidate is neutrinos. But neutrino fluxes can also be observed, and again they cannot account for more than a negligible fraction of the dark matter observed.

>>12468884
> It's matter, but it's "dark"
Is called "dark" because no one knows what it is.

>>12469059
Nope. The scientist that named it dark did so because it doesn't interact with light. A better word though would be transparent.

>>12469085
So does dark energy doesn't interact with light either? That's merely a hypothesis, the reason they are both called dark is because knows what they are or what they are made of.

>>12469113
No one knows*

>>12469113
Actually the guy who came up with the label dark energy did so as a joke but it ended up sticking as the name. There is no link between the use of dark in each.

>>12469113
Obviously dark energy doesn't interact with light (excluding gravitational effects) either because if it did it would be pretty fucking easy to see now wouldn't it.

>>12469122
>>12469131
Meh is kind of the same as the guy who came up with the word "big bang" did so in a derogatory way, everyone still sticked up with the word. Either way, no one knows what dark energy or dark matter is/are so it is the same situation.

>>12465841
>pretend

It's not like you faggots know how a magnet works either.

>>12465859
>The only thing we know is there is some force holding galaxies together that can't be explained using the gravity of the known matter inside them. It might be matter we can't observe (hence dark), or something else entirely. I would have named it "unexplained gravity" personally.

Gravity is a description. Hos is a description a force? This is what I mean. "Scientists" pretend to know the answers yet all you have are fancy re-descriptions or the answer is simply another description. I don't give a fuck how many words you can make up for a "field", tell me how the fuck they work already.

>>12465929
>math
Oh look. Another description pretending to explain something.

>>12465957
You said absolutely nothing of use.

>>12466077
>Thank you for so concisely describing
Exactly, now go collect another grant.

>>12466082
A bread and circus show with no bread. No sustenance to keep me full and willing to deal with more "entertainment".

>>12469085
>The scientist that named it dark did so because it doesn't interact with light.
>Ah yes let me define something by what it isn't and what it doesn't do
I would love to see an experiment performed on that. Oh wait, that doesn't really tell me what it is but it keeps me chasing a fucking shadow at least.
>>12469113
It's defined by privation. No one could tell you what it is because it doesn't actually fucking exist.

>>12469164
>It's defined by privation. No one could tell you what it is because it doesn't actually fucking exist.
So what are this effects of dark energy-matter, why and how do they happen at all.

>>12469164
>It's not like you faggots know how a magnet works either.

>>12469161
> Either way, no one knows what dark energy or dark matter is/are so it is the same situation.
Sure we don't know what they but your point was they were called dark because they were unknown which isn't that case.

>>12469176
>So what are this effects of dark energy-matter, why and how do they happen at all.

I couldn't tell you because I can't put "dark energy" in an experiment and prove it to you. Anyone telling you otherwise is making it up as they go along. It's a placeholder for unexplained effects, but the cause is still *not there*

>>12469188
Hey at least they can tell you "hurr magnets attract". Just like they can tell you "hurr mass attracts other mass". Which is a description that just about anyone on the planet is capable of.

>>12469198
You are showing a picture of Feynman stating that he *does* know how magnets work but can't explain it in terms that the interviewer would understand, because magnetism is more fundamental than the things the interviewer knows about.

Pretty on point here, I think. I could explain to you why permanent magnets attract each other, but you wouldn't understand. And given your opinion that science is bullshit and scientists are stupid, you probably wouldn't even try.

>>12469206
>You are showing a picture of Feynman stating that he *does* know how magnets work but can't explain it in terms that the interviewer would understand, because magnetism is more fundamental than the things the interviewer knows about.

Precisely. A bread and circus show with no bread.

>I could explain to you why permanent magnets attract each other, but you wouldn't understand. And given your opinion that science is bullshit and scientists are stupid, you probably wouldn't even try.

A bread and circus show with no circus or bread. Why did you even make a post? All you're doing is restating the premise of what I just said...

>>12469206
I thought Feynman said that if you can't explain something in simple terms, then you don't really understand it?

>>12469233
Yes

>>12469233
That was Einstein, at least it is attributed to him but could be apocryphal. Feynman could have given a simple explanation for magnets the interviewer could understand but it would be wrong and that Feynman would hate to do.

>>12469214
Your bread and circuses analogy is the only thing here that can't be explained.

>>12469164
>>12469198
>>12469214
Take your meds

>>12469233
>>12469242
>explain advanced physics in simple terms which are necessarily approximate and contain obvious holes
>good enough for most people
>/sci/ autists encounter simplified explanation
>REEEEEEE SCIENTISTS LIED TO ME
>this thread is born anew

>>12469242
>Feynman could have given a simple explanation for magnets the interviewer could understand but it would be wrong and that Feynman would hate to do
"I don't know and I don't know of anyone else that does".

But he just has to "know" and can't be bothered to explain it. The truth is that he doesn't know which is why he had such an issue when first presented the question. It's almost as if he didn't even comprehend the question. "of course, they repel each other now what is it you want to know"? The guy asking the question was even thrown off by Richards confusion at the question. Once they ask him again, he then catches up and derides/distracts with an irrelevant story and a half assed cope of why he's incapable of explaining why they attract/repel but still insists that he knows. A hubristic fool, but what else can you expect from *generic charisma science man of the decade*?

>>12469250
Your bread and circuses analogy is the only thing here that can't be explained.

An analogy is used specifically for the purpose of explaining something. If you don't know what a "bread an circus show" is then I suggest you go educate yourself on what it is so you have the ability to draw a comparison.

>>12469273
Take your caffeine pills and go do another multiple choice test and pretend you're learning something.

>>12469278
To 'explain' magnets in his mind Feynman would have to make someone understand lattice structures, atomic orbitals and how they relate to ferromagnetism, Maxwell's equations and gauge theories, special relativity, quantum field theories and specifically QED. Unless you understand all of that you do not fundamentally understand how magnets work.

>>12469278
Yeah, that idiot Feynman, what did he ever do for society?

Seriously, I bet you think science is totally divorced from reality, that technology works by magic, and that experiments are manipulated until they agree with theory. I mean, you could actually read Feynman's lectures for yourself and see how he does in fact explain permanent magnets. But you would rather shitpost here.

>a "bread an circus show"
Can't say I've ever seen it written that way before. "Bread and circuses" is a phrase used by Juvenal to describe ancient Roman politicians appealing to the masses. It has fuck all to do with dark matter or Richard Feynman.

>>12466082
But the Higgs particle proves that sometimes we can account for things we cannot measure, yet.

>>12469389
So does Neptune.

>>12469300

>To 'explain' magnets in his mind Feynman would have to make someone understand lattice structures, atomic orbitals and how they relate to ferromagnetism, Maxwell's equations and gauge theories, special relativity, quantum field theories and specifically QED.
Everything you just posted is a description of a magnet. None of that explain how or why it has a field and does what it does.

>Unless you understand all of that you do not fundamentally understand how magnets work.
Tell me in simple terms what a field is and why a magnet has a more pronounced fields than...oh lets say the same quantity of material that isn't a magnet? That is the exact same quantity of "magnetic material",shape, weight, amount of matter, just one is magnetized and the other isn't. Tell me what it is. Surely it can't be the "quantity" because the quantity has not changed.

>>12469307
>Yeah, that idiot Feynman, what did he ever do for society?
Is that a rhetorical question? Do you have an actual answer or?

>I bet you think science is totally divorced from reality
Reality exists without a human exercising the use of a tool, yes. This is on par with age old question "does a bear shit in the woods?"

>Can't say I've ever seen it written that way before.
And yet you explain the origin and use of it so well...

>It has fuck all to do with dark matter or Richard Feynman.
Both physishits and politicians talk about shit that doesn't exist to appeal to what's popular with the masses. "Free healthcare" and "dark matter" don't exist yet are spoken of as if they do...because it's popular. I don't see why else...surely it can't be scientifically because like I said, there's no proof of them existing.
They go so hand in hand that one gets grants from the other to simply exist.

>>12469497
free healthcare exists in almost all first world nations though.

>>12469523
>free

>>12469533
>it's not free because it wasn't literally created out of this air
at this point you're arguing semantic bullshit no one cares about but you. When people talk about free healthcare they know exactly what they're talking about because it's very well defined and common elsewhere. The fact you can't understand this is also why you get butthurt because your baby brain is too lazy to actually do the work to understand electromagnetism.

>>12469497
Feynman did important research in the Manhattan Project developing the atomic bomb (and also nuclear energy). He invented the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics which is essential for the development of modern quantum field theory. He did fundamental work into quantum electrodynamics, for which he won the Nobel prize in physics. He worked on all four fundamental forces, including quantum gravity. And in education, he is considered one of the greatest science lecturers in history.

>And yet you explain the origin and use of it so well...
Because people do talk about "bread and circuses." It would make sense as an analogy to, say, a tax holiday. It does not make sense as an analogy to science. If you really think the billions of dollars spent on astronomy are just there to make gullible people happy with fake results, I have some news for you. There are much cheaper ways to do that.

As for there being no proof of dark matter existing, people here have already pointed it out many times. The displacement of gravitating matter from visible matter in the bullet cluster is pretty clear proof on its own.

>>12469497
>Tell me in simple terms what a field is
A means of describing how things can exert forces on other things without actually touching them.

>why a magnet has a more pronounced field
Permenant magnets have internal components that are also magnetized and happen to all be arranged in the same way, which has the effect of combining their individual magnetic forces into a much larger force that we can feel and observe its effect on other things. A non-magnetic thing with the same mass may also have magnetized components, but they are not arranged in the same way and thus their internal magnetic forces mostly cancel out.

Eagerly awaiting your explanation of how I didn't actually answer the questions you posed.

>they finished your moms dildo

>>12469523
The US doesn't have that shit, that's socialism, fuck socialism.

>>12469636
Yeah I said first world nations.

>>12469639
The US is one of the most innovative nations on earth, as well having of one of highest GDP per capita in the world, also nothing comes close to Ivy League education. If that's third world then third world is better than first world.

>>12469623
Dildo? That's my dad's Fleshlight.

>>12469657
>nothing comes close to Ivy League education
Nothing close to the cost, anyway

>>12469657
Of comparable countries, the US has the lowest life expectancy, the highest suicide rates, the highest rates of preventable death, the highest chronic disease burden. Education in the US is also much worse than comparable countries, lagging behind in math and science testing, as well as basic literacy.
Richest country in the world and the average citizen is considerably worse off by any metric.
You are right about Ivy league though, like all nations with rampant corruption, playgrounds for the elite are pretty nice.

>>12469724
> the highest suicide rates
Same suicide rates as Sweden and Japan. Belgium, Iceland and South Korea have higher suicide rates than the US.
>the US has the lowest life expectancy
The average of the EU is 81, the US has it at 78, is nearly the same.
>the highest rates of preventable death
Sure, the US has high rates of obesity, countries like Mexico have higher obesity though if I remember correctly.
>Education in the US is also much worse than comparable countries, lagging behind in math and science testing, as well as basic literacy.
Not at all, the US does fine in PISA measurements, rank 38 in mathematics, 19 in science, and 14 in Reading.
>Richest country in the world and the average citizen is considerably worse off by any metric.
Not true at all, the poorest people in the US are at least x10 richer than any person in poorer countries in comparison.

>>12469556
>it's not free because it wasn't literally created out of this air

No. It's not free because at the end of the day someone paid for the fucking medical equipment/staff to perform the work., that is unless you legalized slavery again and have some nigger picking cotton for your corona swabs.

>The fact you can't understand this is also why you get butthurt because your baby brain is too lazy to actually do the work to understand electromagnetism.

Same to you which is why you choose to press the topic of healthcare instead of explaining to me what a fucking field is.

>>12469575
>Feynman did important research in the Manhattan Project developing the atomic bomb (and also nuclear energy)
Oh I see, he developed a way to end society for society.

>he is considered one of the greatest science lecturers
Because he can work his charisma magic instead of explaining how a magnet works.

>It does not make sense as an analogy to science
Which is why I didn't compare it to science. I compared it to physics.

>If you really think the billions of dollars spent on astronomy are just there to make gullible people happy with fake results, I have some news for you. There are much cheaper ways to do that.
That some of that money is also spent to artists for artistic renditions of "findings"

>There are much cheaper ways to do that.
But they don't want a cheaper way which is why they always ask for a bigger particle accelerator,

>As for there being no proof of dark matter existing, people here have already pointed it out many times.
And you're arguing with me why then?

>The displacement of gravitating matter from visible matter in the bullet cluster is pretty clear proof on its own.
Proof of what?

1/2

>>12469777
>No. It's not free because at the end of the day someone paid for the fucking medical equipment/staff to perform the work., that is unless you legalized slavery again and have some nigger picking cotton for your corona swabs.
which anyone who is talking about free healthcare understands already. The fact you think you're smart for pointing this out proves you're fucking retarded

>>12469164
God tier shitposting

>>12469767
>comparable countries

>>12469767
>comparing life expectancy
>not annual change in life expectancy

USA is falling apart

>>12469777
>instead of explaining to me what a fucking field is.
>>12469598

>>12469818

>Ignores E&M
There has to be some invisible matter that makes gravity so strong on cosmological scales.

>>12469827
Is higher than previous years, what are you talking about. There's no such thing as life expentancy getting "lowered" in modern times. People live now more than ever everywhere.

2/2

>>12469598
>A means of describing how things can exert forces on other things without actually touching them.
So a field isn't actually something quantifiable then?

>Permenant magnets have internal components that are also magnetized and happen to all be arranged in the same way, which has the effect of combining their individual magnetic forces into a much larger force that we can feel and observe its effect on other things
>A non-magnetic thing with the same mass may also have magnetized components, but they are not arranged in the same way and thus their internal magnetic forces mostly cancel out.

>Eagerly awaiting your explanation of how I didn't actually answer the questions you posed.
You explained perfectly why magnetism has nothing to do with quanta"/quantum/quantity.

>>12469807
>which anyone who is talking about free healthcare understands already
So it's not "free". Like I said. It doesn't actually exist, dipshit. Now go write out a will and tell your loved ones you might not make it through the complicated operation of wisdom tooth removal in your Cuban shithole.

>The fact you think you're smart for pointing this out proves you're fucking retarded
All I did was compare two things that didn't exist. You're literally arguing over nothing which is absurd and I'm not entertaining it with another (you).


>>12469831
>fields are descriptions
Yeah, just like Gravity and dark matter. Now can I have some empirical evidence please?

>>12469777
>Which is why I didn't compare it to science. I compared it to physics.
Wow, sick burn. I guess nuclear reactors just work by magic, then. Physics isn't valid.

Your whole post is so weird.
>Free T-shirts aren't really free; the organization had to pay for them.

>This universally-renowned professor whose lectures I have never seen or read must be shit because of a five minute Youtube video I saw.

>The government pays money for art, how worthless. Fuck art.

>Particle accelerators don't real. All the physicists are in on it.

But you do make one good point:

>You're arguing with me why?

>>12469839
Large scale electric fields are killed off by Debye screening, and large scale magnetic fields are not strong in galaxies.

>>12469839
This thread is bad enough without EU moutbreathers shitting everywhere but why not see how far we can take it?

>>12469853
>Wow, sick burn. I guess nuclear reactors just work by magic, then. Physics isn't valid.
They work until they don't, and when they don't shit gets really fucky.

>Free T-shirts aren't really free; the organization had to pay for them.
Yes.

>This universally-renowned professor whose lectures I have never seen or read must be shit because of a five minute Youtube video I saw.
Or because they can't provide any evidence of the claims perhaps? I don't even need the youtube video.

>The government pays money for art, how worthless. Fuck art.
"YES"

>Particle accelerators don't real. All the physicists are in on it.
They're real but the particles sure aren't. Now go make another magnet wheel.

>You're arguing with me why?
I bet you don't even know because you're blinded by psychosis driven butthurt at this point.

>>12465829
Its just dust lol

>>12469852
>So a field isn't actually something quantifiable then?
You did ask him "in simple terms." If you want the actual math behind it, you can look into quantum field theory. In mathematical terms, a quantum field is a complex tensor field. Essentially, you can think of it as defining a different linear operator for every point in spacetime.

>>12465938
there isnt enough stuff in galaxies to amount for the gravity they have on the stuff, and the funny part is, this effect is not the same in every galaxy. Some galaxies diverge more then others from this, some have almost no dark matter. Its also not some vague effect equally distributed over the whole galaxy. Its clumps of gravity moving just like nebula's do, and have stars interact with them gravitationally. Its like there's actually something heavy there, but its not normal matter like asteroids or stars or black holes.

Its like there is completely invisible 'non-matter' flying around in them, adding gravity to the point that galaxies stay together even though the normal matter moves at escape velocities if it was just normal matter alone.

>>12469852
>So it's not "free". Like I said. It doesn't actually exist
No one is talking about free healthcare as you define it. No one claims it exists. Congratulations you've demolished a straw man that doesn't exist. You are very smart.

>>12466257
>in primary school we are told that there are 8 planets revolving around the sun
found the underageb&

>>12469880
>Or because they can't provide any evidence of the claims perhaps?
Like, you don't even know what any of his claims are. You are completely ignorant on the subject. Of course there is proof; quantum electrodynamics is the best-tested theory in history. Experiments agree with theory to nine digits of precision in some cases. The theory is completely necessary for the design of new fabrication processes for chips that are now in the 5 nm node. You might not believe it works, but I guarantee you the people at TSMC and Intel designing the fabs will disagree. Modern technology is the ultimate proof that physics works.

>YES FUCK ART
I'm not sure how to respond to that. You must live a very sad life.

>>12469883
No it's not. Dust can be seen directly at long wavelengths, and it can be measured with extinction. It's also incompatible with the CMB, which shows evidence for dark matter being different from normal matter when the universe was still 3000 K (too hot for dust to form). It would also fail to explain the abundances of light elements, which are not consistent with a model where all dark matter is normal matter.

>>12469767
>Not true at all, the poorest people in the US are at least x10 richer than any person in poorer countries in comparison.

>gibbedy gook, babbledieblab

What the fuck did you just say. Seriously.

>>12469777
>not free

Your definition of free is not possible in our universe, therefore its for all intents useless in the context of what you are talking about.

Free in this context means free from purchase to the user, whover ends up using it, did not pay for it directly, hence free.

I can give you a candy bar for free, even if i paid for it, heck, we can both split our money for 1 candy bar, and then i give you my share of the candy bar once its clear you are starving and i am not. You got a free candy bar even if you paid for your half technically.

Free

>>12469880
>They work until they don't,

people predicted they work before anyone had built one. Predictive power becomes greater the greater the understanding and vice versa.

Its science not because it magically makes light bulbs glow, its science because it can predict when the light bulb will glow before it ever did.

>>12469889
If you want the actual math behind it, you can look into quantum field theory.
I want to know where the "quantity" is in the first place. You could be counting unicorns for all I know.

>In mathematical terms, a quantum field is a complex tensor field. Essentially, you can think of it as defining a different linear operator for every point in spacetime.
Well what is it in "reality terms"? What is a fucking field?

12469923
>I am lost in a conversation between two other anons or I lost my train of thought when you made the analogy between charisma snake oil salesmen talking about things that don't exist
Well go unfuck yourself and reread.

>>12469927
Like, you don't even know what any of his claims are.
Neither does he when he compares Youtube videos to me ripping on Acedemia.

>Of course there is proof;
>quantum electrodynamics is the best-tested theory in history
Okay...and the proof please?

>Experiments agree with theory to nine digits of precision in some cases
>When a field has no quantity
>The theory is completely necessary for the design of new fabrication processes for chips that are now in the 5 nm node
>cannot tell me what a field even is

>Modern technology is the ultimate proof that physics works.
>arranging the same quantity of material a different way to produce a different result means the quantity mattered in the first place

>>12469973
>Your definition of free is not possible in our universe
So "quanta" doesn't mean jack shit then
>Free in this context means free from purchase to the user, whover ends up using it, did not pay for it directly, hence free.
>It's free because it's bought
Well I'm not buying the contradiction you're selling, used care salesman. The point is that it didn't pop out of a vacuum to be given away.

>>12469994
>its science because it can predict when the light bulb will glow before it ever did.
It's "science" when you can put it into an experiment. Then you can know when it will glow before it does.

>>12469954
That poor people in the US have more prosperity that poor people in poorer countries than the US.

>>12470105
by what metric?

>>12470031
>Well what is it in "reality terms"?
You asked for it "quantitatively." It's like saying that quantitatively, electric charge is an integer multiple of the elementary charge.

In physical terms, a field is a three-dimensional time-varying structure that gives rise to particles. In the electron field, quantized excitations produce electrons. In the electromagnetic field, they produce photons. Strictly speaking, the particle description is an approximation of the field description.

I mean, if you want quantum mechanics to be simple, well I'm sorry, it isn't. That doesn't make it a religion. Religions don't produce technology that works.

>Okay...and the proof please?
Which thing do you want proved? Just anything? I'll pick p-n diodes as an example. Without understanding the behavior of mobile charge carriers (electrons and holes) and immobile ones (anions and cations), there would be no way to understand why current flows in one direction but not the other. We couldn't understand why a depletion region forms without understanding the behavior of the electric field between the p- and n-type semiconductors. And in particular, we couldn't understand them at the microscopic scale found in modern electronics without understanding the quantization of that field, called QED.

If you want to talk about pure science, measurements which confirm the theory rather than technology which demonstrates it, then I am sorry to say you will be disappointed. Because you won't accept any evidence I present. You literally don't even believe the measuring devices are real. All physicists are involved in a vast and nebulous conspiracy or whatever, so what's the point?

>>12470031
>>When a field has no quantity
Um, it does. It's a complex tensor function. That's a "quantity." But more to the point, the observable results of experiments are obviously quantifiable. Decay rates, masses, momenta, currents, these are all easily quantified, even if you don't know that they are.

>It's "science" when you can put it into an experiment. Then you can know when it will glow before it does.
Yeah, that's what he said. We knew a lightbulb should work before we built one. We knew radios should work before we built them. We knew gravitational lensing would occur before it had ever been observed. These are the sorts of predictions that physicists find persuasive.

>>12470181
>>12470203
Based and good-faith-replies-to-shitpostingpilled

>>12467970
Its It's not the speed of the objects but their proximity to the galaxtic core which is predicted to have a supermassive black hole in the middle and has an observed denser population of stars then the outer parts.
Gravity 'bleeds' out so why not time with it?... its called Spacetime after all.
It makes a lot more sense then invisible matter that is there but not really we don't really know what it is...

>>12467941
Probably wrong then...Unless their math is wrong.

I made a neat graphic to help explain it but my reply wont upload with it attached... are pics banned or something?

>>12466221
>Poor you
>God is afoot, magic is alive
>Alive is afoot, magic never died
I hope you know that acting smugly self-righteous is frowned upon even in your religion, and that I hope that if hypothetically if god were infact real your cult of masturbatory ego-filled christianity never gets spotted by them, it's nothing but a shameful display of arrogance and greed.

>>12465841
Virgin detected. How many girls rewarded you with sex for defending them online?

>>12470181
>In physical terms, a field is a three-dimensional time-varying structure that gives rise to particles. In the electron field, quantized excitations produce electrons. In the electromagnetic field, they produce photons.
Where does the quantity come from?

>Strictly speaking, the particle description is an approximation of the field description.
So "fields give rise to fields". Great explanation.

>Which thing do you want proved? Just anything?
The existence of an electron particle would be a great start. Then we can move onto "photons".

>>12470203
>Um, it does. It's a complex tensor function
>That's a "quantity."
And where does the quantity come from?

>Yeah, that's what he said. We knew a lightbulb should work before we built one.
Thomas Edison had no fucking clue how a light bulb worked before he built one. He had to build quite a few of them beforehand before he figured out how they actually worked. So did a lot of inventors who had ideas in their non physical form.

>We knew radios should work before we built them.
Telsa had an idea that it was possible, but still had to actually prove what he was saying was true. He did so with several experiments before "radio" actually became a patent.
We "know" now, but we didn't before we engaged in testing and comparing them to other things.

>We knew gravitational lensing would occur before it had ever been observed.
How does a description of mass have the ability to do anything but be translated by a human.

>These are the sorts of predictions that physicists find persuasive.
Right. But you don't have "the thing" before you think of or make "the thing". Just like an electron doesn't spontaneously pop into existence simply because you described it mathematically.

>>12470448
>Please teach me a course in QFT real quick
No. You can try to learn on your own. This is graduate level physics.

>And where does the quantity come from?
What do you mean "come from"? Fields are the fundamental structures in QFT. They don't "come from" anything in that theory. Do you want me to explain to you the origin of everything? A theory does not need to explain that to be valid in its domain.

>The existence of an electron particle would be a great start.
OK. How about the Crookes tube? A cathode is separated from an anode by a near-vacuum contained in a glass tube. When a current is applied, the cathode heats up and emits "cathode rays" which hit the anode. These rays must be charged, because they can be deflected by applying an electric field across the tube perpendicular to the current. So there is some sort of negatively-charged particle in the cathode that is emitted and built up on the anode.

Or better yet, consider Millikan's famous oil drop experiment, frequently repeated in modern form by students across the world. A non-volatile oil was sprayed through an atomizer into a container with a voltage applied across it. Some of the droplets were charged, and these could then be made to rise or fall depending on the voltage applied. The volume of a drop could be calculated by observing it through a lens and measuring its diameter. After isolating a single drop, it was observed falling with no current, and its terminal velocity was measured. From this terminal velocity, the weight could be calculated. A voltage was then applied, and the drop rose and reached a different terminal velocity. From this, the electric force on the particle could be determined. Since the voltage was known (using a voltmeter), the charge of the droplet could then be calculated.

The droplets were found to have charges that were all multiples of the same elementary charge. Thus, these drops were gaining or losing a whole number of charged particles.

Or for that matter, consider the scanning tunneling microscope. This machine moves a sharp metal tip over the surface of the sample being scanned. A very small distance is maintained between the tip and the surface, and a voltage is applied between the tip and the sample. Although there is not enough energy in the electric field to classically liberate electrons from the tip, there is a small chance for electrons to tunnel through. This weak tunneling current is extremely sensitive to the position of the tip relative to the surface, so microscopic details in the surface can be sensed, down to around 1 Å resolution. These rely intrinsically on a detailed calculation of the tunneling current, which can only be done in QED.

>>12470875
>Learn to count unicorns
Yeah no thanks.

>What do you mean "come from"? Fields are the fundamental structures in QFT.
WHAT CAUSES THE THING YOU CALL A FUCKING "FIELD". GODDAMN.

>They don't "come from" anything in that theory. Do you want me to explain to you the origin of everything?
Explain to me the origin of a fucking field (if it exists that is).. I understand it can be mathematically described, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking for the empirical evidence/ cause of a "field". If they don't actually exist, then the "fundamental structures in QFT" must also not exist.

>A theory does not need to explain that to be valid in its domain.
No, but I mean it may as well be a religion if it's not based on any actual evidence.

>OK. How about the Crookes tube?
It doesn't show me an electron either.

>So there is some sort of negatively-charged particle in the cathode that is emitted and built up on the anode.

Why is the discharge between a cathode and anode a "particle"? The fact that it takes place in a vacuum tube should tell you enough about the "quantity" present (or lack thereof). The notion of a "negatively charged particle" is for use in math.

>Or better yet, consider Millikan's famous oil drop experiment, frequently repeated in modern form by students across the world. A non-volatile oil was sprayed through an atomizer into a container with a voltage applied across it. Some of the droplets were charged, and these could then be made to rise or fall depending on the voltage applied.
>Oil being reactive to magnetic/electric fields like every other material on earth proves a particle causes it
Why?

>The droplets were found to have charges that were all multiples of the same elementary charge.
That proves a particle exists? It's the same type of oil reacting to the same current.

>Or for that matter, consider the scanning tunneling microscope
>Which only works when the surface conducts which is why they sputter coat samples in gold.

>>12471030
bro a field is just a representation of a physical property at every point in space
the electromagnetic field is a measure of the "strength and direction of electromagnetism" at every point in space.
they "exist" because we know their corresponding forces/interactions exist, and thus we use fields to describe these forces/interactions at all points.
later on we came to discover that, even without particles, these fields have properties such as momentum and energy. thus, the school of thought shifted to the treatment of fields as fundamental properties of the universe.

>>12471030
>I don't understand this field, and I refuse to learn it. Therefore it is wrong.
That's basically your whole approach to science.

>Explain to me the origin of a fucking field
I said that fields were the fundamental object of study in QFT, and your response is "well where do they came from?" It's like you didn't read my post at all. QFT can't tell you where they came from. They are the fundamental object of study. If you want to talk about theories that do address that question, there are several, including string theory, but they do not all agree, and none can really be tested at this point. So we don't know.

I'm not sure why you think this matters. We don't know where life came from either, but that doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution. After we discovered atoms, we didn't have to wait until we discovered nucleosynthesis to use atomic theory. Wherever the atoms came from, we knew they were there.

>I'm asking for the empirical evidence/ cause of a "field"
Well you won't get the cause, but the empirical evidence is abundant. QFT makes different predictions from old QM, and these differences have been measured. Experiment agrees with QFT, not old QM. But again, you literally don't think these experiments exist at all, so what is the point of this conversation?

>Why is the discharge between a cathode and anode a "particle"?
Well it wasn't necessarily. Most scientists believed that cathode rays were waves. The convincing evidence that they were particles came in 1897, when J. J. Thompson measured the mass of the rays and found it to be 1/1800 the mass of a proton. Again, you could just look this up yourself.

>The fact that it takes place in a vacuum tube should tell you enough about the "quantity" present (or lack thereof).
What are you talking about? What's wrong with vacuum tubes?

>The notion of a "negatively charged particle" is for use in math.
Well, if it were positively charged, it would deflect in the opposite direction.

>>12471030
>That proves a particle exists? It's the same type of oil reacting to the same current.
Well yes. Oil drops all are gaining and losing charge in discrete increments of equal size. The obvious interpretation is that particles of that charge are entering or leaving the droplets.

Previously, your complaint was that there was no evidence for the existence of electrons (a preposterous claim). Now that I've given you some examples of evidence, your complain has shifted to "but that doesn't make sense to me." No shit it doesn't make sense to you. You never learned physics.

>>12471048
>bro a field is just a representation
And so is the star stickers on whiteboard with your name on it on the fridge. Earn enough star stickers from mommy and it represents you getting one step closer to earning a treat!

>of a physical property at every point in space
Space has no properties. It's another non existing thing you use as a representation.

>the electromagnetic field is a measure of the "strength and direction of electromagnetism" at every point in space.
"A field is a field in this place I made up". Cool story, re describe it in the next theory and go build another magnet wheel.

>they "exist"
They don't exist and you make it up as you go along

>because we know their corresponding forces/interactions exist, and thus we use fields to describe these forces/interactions at all points
Oh I see. "It's field because we measured it with everything except the field, therefore it's described as a field. Also it doesn't exist."
This is a comedy.

>later on we came to discover that, even without particles, these fields have properties such as momentum and energy. thus, the school of thought shifted to the treatment of fields as fundamental properties of the universe.
Even though you you have no idea what they are or whether they "exist" or not.

>>12471054

>That's basically your whole approach to science.
If it's not actually science then no, I refuse to learn it. In this case I refuse to believe in the contradictory nonsense I've heard so far.

>I said that fields were the fundamental object of study in QFT
>It's like you didn't read my post at all.
Okay

>So we don't know.
Well you could have just said all of that earlier and I would have stopped replying to you. Carry on!

>Most scientists believed that cathode rays were waves.
Of what?

>What are you talking about? What's wrong with vacuum tubes?
no quanta.

>Well, if it were positively charged, it would deflect in the opposite direction.
Is the south pole a "negative integer"?

>>12471097
I popped into this thread for one post and it seems you're just very adamant about disagreeing with what everyone says. I'm not sure what answer you're looking for, and I'm pretty certain you're not actually looking for answers in the first place.

>>12467935
>breaking thermodynamics is fine
>breaking relativity isn't fine

>>12471065
you've done a good job of explaining things to this retard but i'm afraid you're wasting your time at this point. What you need to do is establish where he's coming from. The largest two issues he has are with 'existence' if you want to get anywhere you need to establish what he thinks actually exists, and what criteria he has for existence. From there it should be fairly easy to either explain fields and particles satisfy these criteria. Or absolutely nothing does. Once you do this he'll either finally understand or just resort to name calling and you can finally decide explaining things to such a retard is a total waste of time.

>>12471065
>Oil drops all are gaining and losing charge in discrete increments of equal size
Or discharging due to the shape/size/capacitance/resistance of the oil. The oil which is being particularity atomized and filtered to yield those results in the first place.

>The obvious interpretation is that particles of that charge are entering or leaving the droplets.
>interpretation
is that the "electron" was made up as a placeholder for mathematicians to use. It "works", it just doesn't exist.

>Now that I've given you some examples of evidence, your complain has shifted to "but that doesn't make sense to me." No shit it doesn't make sense to you
You show me the measured output but not the actual "discrete particle" causing it! The oil drops are atomized and ionized. By adjusting the voltage, between the metal plates, the speed of the droplet’s motion can be increased or decreased. Where the "particle"? You have the discrete charge when an x ray is present. Where is the particle?

>Previously, your complaint was that there was no evidence for the existence of electrons (a preposterous claim)
Prove they do.

>>12465841
Galaxies prove unified formation. 1 galaxy should be impossible but instead there are so many that they break the perception of light. For anything to ever make sense then the big bang should of been nothing but an expression of energy that remained formless and abstract until entropy dissolved it back into nothing... but no... we pay taxes and our little monkey brains can't cope with the fundamentals of something from nothing.

>>12471097
>You can't use space in your theories of mechanics

>>12471097
>no quanta.
?

Like I literally have no clue what you are saying. "No quanta" isn't a sentence, even if you put a period after it. What has no quanta of what?

>Is the south pole a "negative integer"?
In most geographic coordinate systems, the south pole has a latitude of -180 degrees. So . . . I guess? In degree measure?

There are two opposite charges. We can call one "negative" and the other "positive," and that assignment is arbitrary. But we have to differentiate between them, because they behave in opposite ways. Similarly, if I want to describe position on the surface of the Earth, I need to choose my axes in some way. The way I choose them is arbitrary, but going north is still always the opposite of going south.

This is like a remedial middle school class.

>>12471116
Every classical theory breaks down completely at that scale, because physics is not classical at that scale. So yeah. Modern thermodynamics is founded on statistical mechanics, and you only get classical behavior in the limit as the number of particles goes to infinity. One particle is not close to infinity.

>>12471128
>Or discharging due to the shape/size/capacitance/resistance of the oil.
But discharging only in integer multiples of the same charge? I would love to see you explain how that happens without invoking particles.

Like, if I repeatedly measured the mass of an ice cream truck, and it always decreases by a multiple of 4 oz, I would conclude that it sells treats that each weigh 4 oz. I wouldn't conclude that it scoops out continually varying amounts of ice cream but just so happens to always be on the dot of 4 oz every time I come to measure it.

I'm not sure how X-rays got into the equation, desu. There were no X-rays in either of these experiments.

>Prove they do
As I predicted, you have no interest in accepting any proof. I could give you a pet platypus and you would still insist "prove platypuses exist!"

>>12471141
>the big bang should of been nothing but an expression of energy that remained formless and abstract
Energy is just a property of a system, like temperature or mass.. It isn't this formless, mysterious substance that can give birth to anything we fancy.

>>12469837
the Chinese lie about everting from finance to baby formula, they also only take the test scores from elite coastal academies that are made for the and wealthy and well connected to the ccp.

I have a few questions.

1. can you interact with dark matter

2. if you can, can you get energy out of it

3. can you smack into it at high speeds

bonus: what would if feel like if I stuck my dick in it.

It's a simulation and not all variables of code were made visible to us, the player. Only way we could find it is if we found a way to hack out of the simulation into what ever the "real" world is, and gained access to the database, but that would be potentially dangerous, allowing us to grant super powers to anyone.

>>12465829
I’ve never seen a reasonable explanation of the scientific big bang. How does it make sense unless time doesn’t, and in that case it probably overlays reality. Space is fake and it’s not a vacuum get woke son.

>>12471510
1. All we know for sure is that it interacts gravitationally and that it either does not interact at all electromagnetically (the usual assumption) or interacts so weakly that even on astronomical scales it is unobservable. But there are reasons to suspect we can interact with dark matter through the weak interaction. As the name suggests, this interaction is very weak, but it is still many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. Many scientists believe the most likely candidates for dark matter are "WIMPs," which stands for "weakly interacting massive particles." These would be affected by gravity and the weak interaction but not electromagnetism or the strong interaction. (Note however that the failure of the LHC to detect any evidence of SUSY has made this approach less appealing.)

Depending on their cross-section, prevalence, and other factors, WIMPs may be directly detectable. They would be detected in a similar manner to neutrinos, shielded from other radiation by a large volume of rock (which would not meaningfully impede the dark matter particles). So far, none of the experiments designed to detect WIMPs have found any.

Many other categories of candidates have been described, some with names along the same lines, like SIMPs (strongly interacting massive particles, which interact with all forces except electromagnetism), GIMPs (gravitationally interacting massive particles, which interact only with gravity), and MACHOs (massive compact halo objects, which would be macroscopic and have been practically ruled out). GIMPs would be the least likely to be detected. Sterile neutrinos are an intriguing and theoretically sound option, which disappointingly, may never be directly detectable.

TL;DR: We have no idea.

2. Not enough energy to make a difference, unless we are talking about astronomical engineering on the scale of whole galaxies.

3. There are probably many dark matter particles passing through you at high speed right now.

>>12471162
And these same concepts don't apply to a non-quantum theory such as relativity why?

>>12471618
Gravitational time dilation is negligible here. It's less than one part per million.

>>12471646
They do apply. Special relativity does not apply to very dense or very rapidly accelerating objects. General relativity does not apply at the smallest scales. We have no theory of everything, so every theory is only correct within its domain of validity (and then only approximately).

>>12465829
It's just a placeholder name. Like a working title. Research goes in many directions regarding this problem, not just "a bunch of invisible particles".
So far any kind of matter that interacts only through gravity explains most findings better than modifying existing theories. It's not far off from neutrinos which also almost do not interact with matter. Maybe electroweak and strong interactions are just fringe phenomena in this universe. Like foam on a glass full of cappucino. Interacting only through gravity could be the dominant way of interaction. There could be a whole zoo of particles that have 50 different fundamental interactions and we would never know because we are made of fermionic matter.

>>12471650
Where are you getting the math from?
I want to try some stuff out, it would be good to see what others have tried.
Link or papers etc?

>>12471667
The escape velocity of the Milky Way is around 550 km s-1.[1] The gravitational potential energy of a 1 kg test particle in the solar system is thus U = -½ mv2. The gravitational potential in the galaxy is roughly constant,[2] so we can estimate the gravitational potential by g = U/(mr) = -½ v2/r, where r is the distance from the Solar System to the edge of the galaxy. This approximation also lets us use the weak field approximation for gravitational time dilation: Td = 1 + gr/c2 = 1 - v2/(2c2) = 0.9999966 (nice), or 1 - 3.4 × 10-6.

So I guess I was wrong. It's actually a bit more than 3 parts per million. To be fair, this is a very rough estimate, so it could easily be a few times greater or lesser. We also would need to add around a third to the final figure if we first have to escape the Solar System. It's still negligible, though.

[1] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992AN....313...83N/abstract
[2] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Mass-Distribution-and-Gravitational-Potential-of-Ninkovi'c/4f6ee3ab64b9559a9ca47093963a0df9b8614d3e/figure/0

>>12471778
Oh, 4chan doesn't want me to use unicode. It should read v = 550 km/s, [math]U = -\frac{1}{2} m v^{2}[/math], [math]g = \frac{U}{mr} = -\frac{v^{2}}{2 r}[/math], and [math]T_{d} = 1 + \frac{gr}{c^{2}} = 1 - \frac{v^{2}}{2 c^{2}} = 0.999966 = 1 - 3.4 \times 10^{-6}[/math].

Two more errors: I called g the gravitational potential (right equation and symbol, wrong term), and I left out a 9 in the second post (still the right exponent). I shouldn't derive drunk.

>>12465829
>KAMEHAMEHA

>>12472152
>KAJOKEN TIMES 10 AAAAAAAAAAAA

>>12465841
>anon is butt hurt that other humans still use a perfectly viable evolutionary coping mechanism
You will suffer indefinitely

>>12466336
There's evidence that a full GR treatment yields closer results than a Newtonian approximation without the need for exotic matter.

>>12467487
kekd

>>12472988
>closer than Newtonian
yet still not close to reality unfortunately.

>>12471504
Of course it is a lie, that's why they only allow the test to be done in specific cities, Beijing, Shanghai..

>>12470111
Minimum wage alone.

>>12465829
dark like hidden, unknown, concealed.
the term is chosen precisely for this reason.

see dark energy...

>>12465829
this stupid thing looks like a condom, lol

>>12466393
Perhaps it’s just an even bigger force of gravity spinning faster?

>>12471146
You can but that doesn't magically induce it to spontaneously exist.

>>12471157
>?
>Like I literally have no clue what you are saying. "No quanta" isn't a sentence, even if you put a period after it. What has no quanta of what?

Exactly. Where is the fucking quantity? So why do you quantify an electron as something? IU'm asking where the actual "particular" is. You have nothing but a measurement, (oh what I don't know but you're calling it "electron").

>In most geographic coordinate systems, the south pole has a latitude of -180 degrees. So . . . I guess? In degree measure?
Neat. Now what does that actually mean? It's not an absence or what's owed. It's just convention for use in math, negatives..
>There are two opposite charges. We can call one "negative" and the other "positive," and that assignment is arbitrary.
Exactly, okay you get this.

>But we have to differentiate between them, because they behave in opposite ways. Similarly, if I want to describe position on the surface of the Earth, I need to choose my axes in some way. The way I choose them is arbitrary, but going north is still always the opposite of going south.

I get all of that. Now *what is the thing* being described? There's no proof of *the thing carrying the charge8. I haven't seen one anyway, even according to mainstream, science these "electrons" pop in and out of existence at a whim.

>>12471167
>Like, if I repeatedly measured the mass of an ice cream truck, and it always decreases by a multiple of 4 oz, I would conclude that it sells treats that each weigh 4 oz. I wouldn't conclude that it scoops out continually varying amounts of ice cream but just so happens to always be on the dot of 4 oz every time I come to measure it.

It's still "icecream". Not "particular ice-cream that magically becomes different and discrete from the rest of the icecream and deserves it's own noun. You have removed the icecream that was already present on the truck, so now you have less icecream.
The problem with this analogy is that the "icecream truck" in this case is also an icecream maker. The point where electric and magnetic fields perturb is where an "electron" is formed, which happens all over the place in the Millikan drop experiment. It's generating the "icecream" being negated in the first place. The quantity is formed and destroyed in the same same process hence *no net change in quantitiy*. You're just inducing them and what they in a controlled environment.

>I'm not sure how X-rays got into the equation, desu. There were no X-rays in either of these experiments.
There were in the drop experiment, it's what ionized the air.

>As I predicted, you have no interest in accepting any proof. I could give you a pet platypus and you would still insist "prove platypuses exist!"
I'm just not understanding where you're deriving the "quantity" of electrons from. This experiment never isolated or tested an electron. It's charge and weight is said to be measured, but that doesn't really tell me anything when I don't have the "*actual electron* to research and understand in the first place.

>>12469164
>Gravity is a description. Hos is a description a force?
Obvious b8, just leave it at this for your final (You)

>>12473655
>b8
>Gravity still remains a description

Go ahead and make an attempt at explaining how a description is a force, I dare you.

>>12465829
Yes

(((they're in this thread)))

https://phys.org/news/2020-12-unique-gravity-dark-theory.html

>>12465841
Nobody ever said God didn't use "science" to create the universe. The ultimate cope is dismissing an idea because it doesn't fit your already perceived beliefs.

>>12473154
Closer than you seem to think. Just last year a group at Turin published a model that produces an almost indistinguishable rotation curve (comparing with refined measurements from the Gaia mission) without the need for any supermassive halo of dark matter.

Small minds is thinking "universe age" means that there was nothing before this big bang point. and that there is only just the one big bang at a time.

Our big bang is just a big bang that is happening in our region of space. What humans fail to grasp is that we have more than one big bang at any one time, and matter clumps and is ejected randomly from each big bang sphere.

The torus design is laughable. its a dynamic system, not what the torus model gives, which has a fixed, determined amount of matter in each cycle. The reality is that matter is shared between each big bang matter clump in a random fashion (based on ejected speed and gravity interactions moving in space. The 'final' Black hole is the fate of all matter that wasn't ejected fast enough, and so a new big bang occurs when a threshold of mass is accumulated.

>Take your meds

>>12473400
The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr lol. That's less than Luxembourg, Ireland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, Spain, and Canada. It is much less than the wages negotiated with unions in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, and Italy. On the whole, the U.S. has a *very* low minimum wage relative to its cost of living in the West. Granted, it still does better than monarchies in the Middle East and Southeast Asia. I think that's a pretty low bar, though. And sure, poorer countries with lower costs of living like Greece or the Czech Republic will have much lower minimum wages, but what do you expect?

Where did you get the notion that we had an unusually high minimum wage?

>>12473465
>dark like hidden, unknown, concealed
Nah, it's called "dark" because it doesn't shine. More specifically, it doesn't interact with light at all.

>>12473613
>Exactly. Where is the fucking quantity? So why do you quantify an electron as something? IU'm asking where the actual "particular" is. You have nothing but a measurement, (oh what I don't know but you're calling it "electron").
Your train of logic left hours ago. I have no clue what this is supposed to mean. I can't translate it into English. Maybe you need to go to a dictionary and look up the words "quantity" and "particular," because the way you are using them literally makes no sense.

>"electrons" pop in and out of existence at a whim.
What nonsense have you even been reading if you think this?

I genuinely think you would get more out of going back and rereading a middle school chemistry text than continuing this fucking stupid discussion.

>>12473654
>The point where electric and magnetic fields perturb is where an "electron" is formed
No. The electrons are already in the atoms. I am genuinely in awe of your ignorance. You don't even know what atoms are made of?

>There were in the drop experiment, it's what ionized the air.
No, X-rays are not present in ionized air. Ions are present. And electrons. And if you turn the lights off, you will see it glow visibly (and in IR and UV wavelengths) because it is really hot. It won't emit X-rays. Moreover, the air in the Millikin experiment was not ionized. It was just normal-ass air.

>I'm just not understanding where you're deriving the "quantity" of electrons from.
The quantity being measured here is the charge of an electron. We can measure it because all charges are multiples of the same elementary charge. I already explained this. It's really not that complicated.

If you want to talk about detecting individual electrons, I return to my point about the electron microscope.