/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15180544
>and there are quite strong evidence for it's existence.
Such as?

>>15180544
>and there are quite strong evidence for it's existence.
I doubt it.

>>15180553
>Such as?
Gravitational lensing, bullet galaxy cluster, galaxies in which it's effect aren't present.

>>15180561
Oh, you doubt it? You doubit it? Huh? Huh? Huh?

>>15180565
>Gravitational lensing, bullet galaxy cluster, galaxies in which it's effect aren't present.
None of these indicate the presence of any mystery matter, just that the standard gravity-dominant model is inadequate to explain galactic structures.

Brainlet here
So can dark matter clump into shapes? like, could there be a cube made of dark matter just sitting about? what happens if I try to "touch" a clump of dark matter? would my hand just go right through it?

>>15180571
>So can dark matter clump into shapes?
There's web of dark matter holding galaxy clusters together, they call it "cosmic web".

>>15180570
>just that the standard gravity-dominant model is inadequate
What do you even mean?

>>15180571
>would my hand just go right through it?
Yes, however there would be more mass at location of your hand's presence than if it was your hand by itself.

>>15180571
there's dark matter in your body right now
it's over

>>15180544
>write down the prediction
>it's 90% off
>surely it's not because the formula is bullshit
>it's because there's dark energy
modern physics is a fucking joke

>>15180575
>There's web of dark matter holding galaxy clusters together, they call it "cosmic web".
This looks exactly like the Birkeland Current model proposed by the EU.

>>15180579
Models with a solely gravity-based understanding of galactic formation fall apart when advanced structures are detected. This indicates that gravity is insufficient, and that it's likely there is another force providing structure to these galaxies, like the electromagnetic force. Such a position is very well-evidenced in modern cosmology as we can now measure large-scale galactic electric currents using analysis of non-visible-light emission spectra, whereas when dark matter was inserted originally those measurements couldn't be made.

>>15180614
>it's likely there is another force providing structure to these galaxies, like the electromagnetic force.
Post studies.

>>15180544
UNIVERSE IS NOT A BRAIN CHUDS
OH VEY SHUT IT DOWN
http://bach.ai/the-universe-is-not-a-brain/
"If the neurons of the universe were indeed galaxy clusters, their speed of transmission would be limited to the speed of light, which means that sending a signal from one multigalactic neuron to its immediate neighbor would take in the order of a hundred million years. In the 13 billion years since the formation of the first galaxies, a signal would not have traveled further than a few hundred adjacent galaxies, i.e. much less than a millimeter of equivalent distance in the neocortex. It is pretty safe to say that the galaxy cluster brain will not have enough time to become aware of anything before burnt out stars and interstellar expansion will destroy any likeness to purple foam rubber."

>>15180620
Here's a good literature review on the subject. It has over 100 citations that are very worth looking at if you're interested in the current direction of the field (pun not intended).
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1302/1302.5663.pdf

>>15180630
>even larger volumes of the Universe may be permeated by “dark” magnetic fields

>>15180630
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9q-v4lBGuw

>>15180657
Isn't that guy just some shlub with a MA in education? I don't think he can "debunk" a report from the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy lmao.

>>15180608
Bingo. All this bullshit about dark matter and dark energy is a gigantic cope from these so called experts. They just can't accept that their theories are dead wrong, so they make shit up to prove their still right.

>>15180639
They don't mean that in the way people say "dark matter." We know from observation that these fields do exist locally and extend out past our instruments' ability to measure them, so they must exist outside our nearby galactic region. The issue is that it's difficult to observe them further away due to the relatively low energy they possess. New, more sensitive telescopes are being built to detect the more distant fields so measurements can be made for them and better rules can be made about how they work.

>>15180627
Nice cgi, chud.

>>15180676
Cool, will be waiting for based schizos to provide equations explaining phenomenons attributed to dark matter and gain Nobel prize.

>>15180733
You can just read the research cited in the paper. It's really not that controversial.

>>15180733
those equations have already existed for decades, they're ignored as "crackpot science" because dark matter is a big industry, they're spending billions on telescopes to look for dark matter. the astronomical community would have to own up to having wasted all of those resources if it were ever to admit dark matter doesn't exist, so they never will own up to it

>>15180630
You know damn well the person you were replying to doesn’t give a shit. They were just making you do pointless work they’ll just dismiss anyway.

>>15181166
Yes but maybe someone like you, another passer-by, will gain value from reading the paper I posted. And perhaps someone uninvolved in the argument will see him chimping out and being unreasonable and decide to research my side of the argument.

>>15180672
>All this bullshit about dark matter and dark energy is a gigantic cope from these so called experts.
Its not just a cope, its an excuse they made up to justify flamboyantly wasting billions of dollars of other people's money on useless telescopes which produce nothing of any value other than more replication crisis publications

>>15180630
>>15180753
>>15180670

Nope. That paper says absolutely nothing about magnetic fields contributing significantly to the dynamics of galaxies, i.e. as an alternative to dark matter. You're just posting shit you didn't read. Just randomly googling "magnetic fields" is not a fucking citation.
Note that the observed fields are fucking tiny, 10s of microGauss. Magnetic fields are also a terrible candidate for dark matter because the force depends on the charge/mass ratio which will not be the same for stars, neutral clouds and star forming regions. So there is no reason the rotation curves from different tracers would be consistent .They also cannot explain the lensing at all.

>>15180608
>Write down a prediction for the scale of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background
>Only dark matter predictions match the data.
>Eh, um, eh. It's just a coincidence.

>>15181627
>>Only dark matter predictions match the data.
Dark matter isn't a "prediction." Absolutely zero evidence of dark matter has ever been discovered despite trillions being poured into sensitive instruments to detect it. WIMP dark matter is dead. You've defined yourself into a vanishing sliver of the possible areas left to search for it without even a single whiff of what's supposed to make up the majority of the matter in the universe.

>>15181652
>Dark matter isn't a "prediction."
That's not what I said. Words are hard. Dark matter was an ad hoc component added to cosmology for a variety of reasons. But that model can now make predictions for new observations done after this. One of those was the powerspectrum of fluctuations in the CMB, which charts gravitational collapse and sound waves in the early universe. Predictions from dark matter models matched the data, and normal matter only models like MOND failed. Pic related shows the divergence between normal matter only models and standard CDM. 20 years later there is no explanation for this data which is not dark matter, or an equivalent matter-like field.
>WIMP dark matter is dead.
The hypothesis was not tied to any particular microscopic model. Particle physicists were excited about WIMPs.
> Absolutely zero evidence of dark matter has ever been discovered despite trillions being poured into sensitive instruments to detect it.
Trillions my ass, don't talk shit. And I would call the successful prediction of the CMB and other cosmic phenomena indirect evidence. Direct detection is not the only avenue of research.

It's Hydrogen.

>>15181673
Forgot pic

>>15180544
>Why people often consider dark matter to be in some way mysterious, whacky, or even disproving theory of relativity?
Because they enjoy shitposting.

>>15181673
>One of those was the powerspectrum of fluctuations in the CMB, which charts gravitational collapse and sound waves in the early universe. Predictions from dark matter models matched the data, and normal matter only models like MOND failed.
The "CMB" is likely all noise. It can say whatever you want it to say if you torture the data properly. It's just as much nonsense as dark matter is, though I suppose at least they're measuring *something* instead of having no results whatsoever.

>>15181687
>The "CMB" is likely all noise
That is demonstrably false. Firstly the CMB has been detected by hundreds of telescopes. Secondly the CMB has been used to find galaxy clusters via the shadows they cast.
The SZ effect was predicted to occur when hot electrons in the atmospheres of galaxy clusters scatter the CMB photons to higher energies. The result is a bright spot at high frequencies and a shadow at low frequencies. Pic related is a beautiful SZ detection from ESA's Planck. If there was no CMB there would be no SZ effect. If the CMB was noise you could explain the bright spot at high frequencies as the cluster's radio emission contributing on top of the noise. But there is absolutely no way a distant galaxy cluster can leave a dark spot on "noise" if it never passed by it. The fact that the SZ effect is detected shows clearly the CMB is a true cosmological background.
> It can say whatever you want it to say if you torture the data properly
Pure copium. You can dismiss literally any data with this empty excuse. But even if you believe that, the CMB and the SZ effect have been used to find thousands of new confirmed galaxy clusters. It's not noise. Don't just arrogantly dismiss everything you don't understand.

>>15181702
You showed him...

>>15181678
Dark matter are way heavier than hydrogen.

>>15180565
>Gravitational lensing
That's caused by gravity, not dark matter

>>15182051
Genius.

>>15182053
I know, right, imagine looking at gravity, an already well known phenomenon and going "yup, das dark matter :))"

>>15182056
What do you think are causing this gravity? DMT elves?

>>15182060
Regular matter, like in absolutely every other observation we've ever made, this whole dark matter schtick started because people still ignorantly think that gravity is caused by mass

>>15182066
>Regular matter
Why we can't see enough of it then?
>people still ignorantly think that gravity is caused by mass
So what is it if not mass?

>>15182074
>Why we can't see enough of it then?
Because gravity behaves differently than what our current models assume
>So what is it if not mass?
Atomic forces forming an unified higher magnitude field, would explain why gravity is not observed with a single atom, but is observed with 10 quadrillion atoms

>>15182094
>Because gravity behaves differently than what our current models assume
Than why there are galaxies in which dark matter effects aren't present, and instead act exactly as predicted if only regular matter composed it?

>>15182094
>Because gravity behaves differently than what our current models assume
Great hypothesis. Now if you could post the equations for your new model we can try to test that hypothesis.

>>15182103
Schizos can't into math.

>>15182114
Hence why they apply "dark" constants to reify bad math.

>>15182641
Show us your big-brain math then.

>>15182682
I need to build a Dark Collider to give you those answers. That will be $1,000,000,000 plus tax.

>>15182694
So how do you know it's bad math?

>>15182699
Refutation is independent of replacement.

>>15182721
Show us your refutation then.

>>15182738
Already done. It's not my fault if you didn't read it.

>>15182743
Oh look, you're too embarrassed to point out which shitty argument is yours. There is nothing substantial in this thread.

>>15182760
>There is nothing substantial in this thread.
If you think that then I'm afraid the work required to fix you is too much for a free course. You'll have to pay the standard enrollment rate of $10,000 per credit hour.

>>15182766
No one said anything about fixing anything. You said you had already refuted the model, let's see it.

Remember when you learnt that once upon a time people really believed in epicycles, even as they had to become increasingly absurd to match what we were observing?
Dark matter and dark energy are just the epicycles of the modern era

>>15182786
>Pauli's "Neutrinos" are just the epicycles of the 20th century
anon, 1930

>electric universe

Why science deniers are so triggered on dark matter existence?

>>15182786
Epicycles weren't wrong though. They were just a very inefficient method to calculate orbits and did not explain them.

>>15184054
Inefficient?

>>15180544
Good video for the topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_qJptwikRc

>>15184160
To calculate / simulate the elliptical orbits of the heavenly bodies they added together a large number of perfect circles. In effect they were an early form of series expansion.

>>15180544
Physicists won't admit that their models don't work so they invented black matter

>>15184208
What's to admit? Nobody has come up with anything provably better.

>>15184232
That gravity is made up bullshit.

>>15184236
your mom

>>15180553
Time dilation
Dark matter is supposed to be the thing that gets bent by gravity

>>15184774
How you connected time dilation and dark matter?

>>15184236
Meds

>>15181673
“Dark matter is undefined and since the results from the model show “something undefined” works we must be correct! It’s Dmatter forsure.”
You’re chasing ghosts, bucko

>>15180544
It doesn't really exist. The supposition of such a thing is just a way physicists use to cope that their math doesn't add up.

>>15180571
No. It doesn't form structures like visible matter per se. It doesn't stick to itself electromagnetically like visible matter, so a cube with sharp edges would be highly unlikely.

Is there more dark matter toward the center of a galaxy? is the Earth plowing through a sea of dark matter right now?

>>15186021
Dark Matter is defined in standard cosmology, as Cold Dark Matter. It is not just a big free parameter x_DM in every equation. Maybe try to pretend you know what you're talking about.

>>15186353
anon I hate to break this to you, but those are just theories, which means it’s based on inferences that are based on implied implications of the shadow of a dark spot in an endlessly dark space, literally.

>>15186401
>those are just theories
Literal retard speak.

>>15186418
It's just /sci/ tourist.

>>15180608
This is brainlet cope
>add up all the mass you can count in galaxy
>realize said galaxy is behaving as if it has 5x more mass than you can count
>extreme optimism on error margin doesn't even get you close

>>15180544
Brainlets get filtered because they can not conceive of placeholders in science.

"There's something off between our theories and the observed phenomena. Therefore either our theories are wrong, or our data is wrong, or there are some stuff we cant detect yet. So we revisit our theories but so far no one has any bright ideas. So we revisit our data and it still seems pretty solid, although error can not be ruled out yet. So in the meantime let's assume there is stuff we cant detect becasue of our present technological limitations. Let's see if we can work out a way to detect it. Let's call this stuff dark matter and dark energy for now. We will keep them as useful placeholders until its ruled out by either new discoveries, new data, or confirmed with evidence."

You know, its really that fucking simple.
But seeing as more than half this board would find the above explanation too hard to follow then their confusion probably shouldn't be a surprise

>>15186883
This was my point.
“Dark matter“ doesn’t actually represent anything, it only stands as a variable to make sure our models work. So saying that the models working is evidence of dark matter means absolutely nothing. Might as well call it “unknown matter”.

Dark Matter is photons that have been de-energized in a Black Hole and spewed through the Relativistic Jets. You can see the Matter pooling on the surfaces of Stars.

>>15182694
Will you build it with Dark sciencists?

Is dark matter the most expensive cope in all of human history
>oh shit i looked in muh telescope and i don't understand what i'm seeing, whys everything moving around like that? its spinning too fast!
>must be ghosts making it happen, thats the only explanation i can think up
>no that i have my foregone conclusion i can calculate exactly how much ghosts i need to imagine to confirm all my previous biases about how things work in space
>relativity is real because muh ghosts are real and muh ghosts are real because relativity is real
>good thing i believe in ghosts when its convenient for me
>t. atheist
>lets build the world's most expensive telescope and use it to look for ghosts

>>15187556
Yes. I'll need extra money to hire a team of 99 Dark Scientists to work alongside me.

>>15180599
So dark matter acts like a field to increase the mass of an object? And when we talk about dark matter we're actually talking about the affect that it has on matter. Could cosmic strings be a possible explanation for dark matter?

>>15185678
I saw the movie interstellar so I made it the fuck up
>no one actually has real evidence so Im not wrong either (yet)

>>15180544
We are still performing active experiments and observations to determine whether or not Dark Matter is a tolerance factor issue.

It might not exist at all, and we're just bad at observing the Universe.

James Webb has ongoing observations to clarify whether the concept of Dark Matter is truly real.

>>15188304
Scientists are already having a laugh at the expense of dark matter believers. Searching for "WIMPs" and "SIMPs" and narrowing the field so far that there essentially can't be dark matter at all.

>>15180544
>What's the deal with dark matter?

Why don't we call it N-matter?

>>15182047
since when did hydrogen have an absolute weight

>>15186876
the behavior is a result of something other than the countable neutral matter, leaving 2 possibilities:
1. it's more neutral matter that interacts exclusively and precisely to produce the effects that make your counting incorrect, but is itself uncountable otherwise
2. your neutral matter model is incomplete

the only evidence for 1. is an error in prediction that must exactly match the quantity of dark matter. the evidence for 2. is the behavior that doesn't match your neutral matter interaction theory

crucially, 2. doesn't even exclude dark matter - it just doesn't shout from the rooftops that it can ONLY be dark matter because "the calculations that dark matter was invented to correct are corrected by dark matter means dark matter must exist"

>>15187670
>So dark matter acts like a field to increase the mass of an object?
No, it has it's own mass, it's just can "stack" with ordinary matter, akin to neutrino.

>>15188673
it has whatever characteristics are needed to prevent observational evidence from disproving relativistic theories of gravity.

>>15188675
If requires one to have blind faith in mass budgets for galaxies then it's hardly disproving anything.

>>15188304
It is not a "tolerance" issue. Both the fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background and the abundances of elements formed in the early universe rule out dark matter simply being missed normal matter.

>>15186876
Maybe It's our own initial understanding of how the galaxy behaves was wrong instead mysterious matter and energy existing

>>15188731
Maybe that's a completely empty statement which answers nothing. And it's about much more than just galaxies.

>>15188318
stop being racist, dark whites are the exact same thing as regular whites, theres no distinction between the two, thats why we don't even need to specify what shade of white someone is when we're discussing their characteristics, everyone is exactly the same.