/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15477014
bump

>>15477014
>am I missing anything?
The irony is this is the same type of thinking that falsely reified dark matter in the first place. You calculate this non empirical theoretical particulate (or lack thereof, they don't even know and that's a good thing according to them) based only on what matter does. You're defining it with matter, then double speak it as something completely different opposed to the matter based on...a lack of thing you're looking for.

Basically it's the equivalent of measuring and calling shadows of matter "dark matter". A shadow is only defined based on light and the matter that casts it...you couldn't differentiate them from this "dark matter" if you had all the time in the universe.

>>15477074
well they're measuring mass by way of the effects of gravity. What other variable would account for a gravitational pull besides some kind of matter? Is there some other variable that can pull galaxies?

was I even on the right track with my initial post? I wasn't looking for a mess of technicalities saying I'm wrong. Is my understanding relatively correct or am I way off base?

>>15477074
>well they're measuring mass by way of the effects of gravity.
Ah yes, more things they define this absence of evidence with.

>What other variable would account for a gravitational pull besides some kind of matter?
>Is there some other variable that can pull galaxies?
>was I even on the right track with my initial post? I wasn't looking for a mess of technicalities saying I'm wrong. Is my understanding relatively correct or am I way off base?

See the unsure nature of your inquiries? See how you still ask "What is this thing"? That is your "dark matter". You call it by name and yet it is a completely unknown. It's the equivalent of religion filling in the blank with an omnipotence. Tell me what "force" is it that makes water go down a drain?
>gravity
Which is not a force but a description of mass accelerating to mass. How does it do that? I could pressurize the line and then the water would drain nowhere, what "force" is pressure mediation itself?

>>15477089
I'm open to the idea that modern atrophysics is largely incorrect and your posts are quite interesting but I'm just wondering if my way of thinking about how they came to find Dark Matter is correct.

as far as what force pressure mediates, hmm. I guess I don't really understand how gravity is said to mediate the space between atoms which occurs by exerting pressure on something. if there was no gravity what would happen when stuff collides? Would they pass through one another? Can the forces holding atoms together like the nuclear force exert force on an object in a collision without gravity?

>>15477138
*how they claim to have found dark matter
not how they came to find dark matter.
Thats an important difference in this discussion I suppose.

>>15477138
>if there was no gravity what would happen when stuff collides? Would they pass through one another? Can the forces holding atoms together like the nuclear force exert force on an object in a collision without gravity?

I use this "cotton candy" example to illustrate the issues with simply describing attractive mass:
If I take syrup and spin two "separate" cotton candy battings out of it, does this make either of them not made of syrup? Why can I not mash these batts together as easily and make one big one when I can take the mixtures that make them both and mix them as much as I want? What makes these weaves stick to themselves when spun on a stick instead of just being blown out the machine in millions of pieces?
Gravity? Again just a description of the candy sticking to itself with no "mode" explaining how. What? Is the "gravitational force" coming from the stick enough to attract these feather light candies to it in order to make a ball? That might make sense until you realize there has to be a technique to it. You have to input your own "spin" to the stick in order to make the floating candy "impel themselves" coherently in a specific way as to not have it clump and blown away from the pressurized air of the machine. It has to come out as that neat puffy ball shape you know and love...or else it doesn't come out at all and has to be melted down and recycled back into the machine to try again.

>>15477014
Frankly I think dark matter and dark energy are a mistake.
With gravity and astronomy we went from spinning great firmament to newton AAD to gr.
But now in their hubris many are stating "no, our theory is exact, the evidence is missing".
But the productive thing to do is to look for the next theory.
It's an enormous waste of time, talent, and money.
Don't be one of the fools

>>15477068
>>15477014
you posted a stupid thread about a stupid topic, thats why nobody replied. how desperate for internet dopamine are you?

you are just plugging arbitrary values into arbitrary equations

I'm a schizo shill

>>15477217
if measuring the movement of galaxies was more possible this would be a perfectly fine way of detecting a hidden mass. Everything is "arbitrary" by your logic....

>>154772
I'm a huge fag

>>15477211
>But the productive thing to do is to look for the next theory.
And what if it's still missing in the next theory?
>But now in their hubris many are stating "no, our theory is exact, the evidence is missing".
It it any more enlightened to say "no, our knowledge of matter is exact". That's what you assume by pointing blame at gravity.
The productive thing is to study both, and people have.

>>15477609
>And what if it's still missing in the next theory?
This implies there's something else missing in GR, but so far there isn't at a macro scale. Only dark energy and dark matter bs.
>It it any more enlightened to say "no, our knowledge of matter is exact". That's what you assume by pointing blame at gravity.
It is far more enlightened to state that our knowledge of matter, on a macroscale and for that matter also on a microscale, is very much more complete than our understanding of gravitation, despite the fact neither might ever reach a completeness state.
Instead, you and others postulate magic matter that can only somehow be found where the current theory of gravity fails.
>The productive thing is to study both, and people have.
Only nominally. People, as a whole, have dedicated more resources to dark matter and very little if any official at all, to alternatives. Time passed and the "mainstream" has wholesale adopted dark matter, to the point where other theories are called "alternative" and no one finds that weird. The productive thing is indeed to study both, in the ratio of their confidences.
Seeing that a better approach, then, would be perhaps 99% of research towards alternatives, and 1% being the lunatic looking for magic particles or dark stars or (insert fantasy).
If nothing else, I blame the media and the fetishization of einsteinian theory.

>>15477734
> very much more complete than our understanding of gravitation
That's a giant assumption. If there really is a substance like dark matter then it may not be true. You're also assuming that a better model of gravitation will significantly differ from GR on large scales. Another assumption.
>The productive thing is indeed to study both, in the ratio of their confidences.
That is what's happening. In it's first two decades the dark matter hypothesis developed into one which could describe observations of galaxies, and aimulatiously the formation of structure in the universe. In that same time alternatives stagnated. Ideas like MOND have not progressed at all. And that is not for lack of trying. The reason alternatives are weird is that none of them work with even today's data.

>>15477827
>You're also assuming that a better model of gravitation will significantly differ from GR on large scales. Another assumption.
I specifically mentioned GR at macro scales, not quantum, and that the only inconsistencies currently known involve dark matter and dark energy bullshit. Therefore a better model will significantly differ on large scales, by definition. No assumptions here.
>That's a giant assumption. If there really is a substance like dark matter then it may not be true.
Our understanding of matter is far, far better than our understanding of gravity, as evidenced by the fact this discussion started over 60 years ago while the other theories, which disregard gravity, have moved on to treat all manners of phenomena in matter with increasing success over the years. And to make it even more preposterously obvious, the attempts to describe gravity on a micro scale have also failed catastrophically, yielding nothing.
In the meantime everything that disregards gravity does a relatively great job describing matter. So no assumptions here either.
But what you said is interesting in another way, you see:
Suppose we never find dark matter or a new model of gravity at large scales, but time passes and our understanding of other aspects of nature evolves and many many years into the future, we have far better maps of the state of every known region of the universe.
Still you will be able to say "Aha but that's a giant assumption, you see, you are assuming there's no dark matter.
Suppose then we literally travel to the regions in question, still you will be able to say "Aha but you see, you are assuming there's no dark matter. Even though I am here where I said it should be, and I search up and down and all around and I find nothing, and I see nothing, and I measure nothing, and I see nothing interacting with anything in any way whatsoever, still there could be dark matter here, and you are assuming there is not." (1/3)

>>15477827
>>15478214
As you stated it, yours is an unscientific, non-falsifiable argument. Because your idea of "dark matter" is a ghost in the ether, something that would make things right if only you could find it but you do not define what it is, and you accordingly name it "dark".
You are the one making the assumption, yours is the positive claim, and you have nothing. Your claim as you stated it is equivalent to brain in a jar or God makes you see things scenarios. In jest I might as well ask you, is the dark matter in the room with you now?
"Look around you, do you see the invisible unicorn? Stop assuming it's not there!"
Anyways, you should rectify this, by replacing your non-descriptive idea of "dark matter" with the proper theories: The dark stars or magic particles that I mentioned earlier.
That would save you in a way. But the result is the same, because ultimately there's no evidence of any of those. Nothing. Nil.
Far better would be to attack the measurements in defense of GR, instead of postulating a savior form of matter. Alas dark energy, dark matter, etc. belong in the most useful part of a physics lab: The trash can.
>That is what's happening. In it's first two decades the dark matter hypothesis developed into one which could describe observations of galaxies
The dark matter hypothesis as you call it, again, is literally just a made up distribution of extra mass around galaxies, a bail out and a cop out. The attempts to detect any such matter have all failed.
>The formation of structure in the universe
Bullshit par excellence, since you like attempting to identify assumptions do note the infinity of assumptions that fits in that statement.
(2/3)

>>15477827
>>15478217
>In that same time alternatives stagnated. Ideas like MOND have not progressed at all. And that is not for lack of trying. The reason alternatives are weird is that none of them work with even today's data.
MOND is from the 80s, and there's only a handful of ideas like it. In the meantime, https://www.space.com/dark-matter-most-sensitive-detector-first-results dark matter gets a fuck ton of funding to look for something where nothing is.
Every cent going into that and the various other dogshit attempts at detecting dark matter should have gone into other scientific efforts.
>The reason alternatives are weird is that none of them work with even today's data.
We have no alternatives, because the money and brainpower went into the bullshit.
MOND itself fits the data reasonably well, though I don't support it.
>That is what's happening
(referring to searching in the ratio of confidences)
No, it is not what's happening. The bullshit cop-out idea gets all the funding, and alternatives get none and sure as fuck not for experiments, not even for theory. Scientists are raised on the bullshit idea, and their successors go on to bullshit more. Popsci writers popularize it and people like you go on to "study" it and repeat it. Ptolemy's circles and the early 19th century combinatorial school all over again.
It was a mistake for me to participate in this thread, I tire of it. I tire of all the bullshit and the moronic insistence on the ghosts in the ether. (3/3)

>>15477827
>>15478220
and I fucking forgot: (4/3)
I'll wrap this up by answering your OP question:
>take a known mass...
You're wrong, no need to worry about multiple galaxies at a time or triangulate anything. The main anomaly IIRC is the apparent velocity of the outer sections of a galaxy. The dark matter solution is a ghost distribution of matter surrounding the edges of a galaxy. Basic images and explanations of this are easy to find. There's no need to look for where it should be, they know where it should be. The problem is that they look there and there's nothing, because dark matter is bullshit and bullshit it shall remain.
What a dogshit topic indeed, and what a dogshit stage of science.

>>15478214
>I specifically mentioned GR at macro scales, not quantum, and that the only inconsistencies currently known involve dark matter and dark energy bullshit. Therefore a better model will significantly differ on large scales, by definition.
That does not follow. GR is better than Newtonian gravity, doesn't solve dark matter.

>As you stated it, yours is an unscientific, non-falsifiable argument.
So is saying it will all be fixed by some ultimate model of gravity. Because claims like this are not falsifiable. You think this is some interesting point specific to dark matter, it is not. You will never falsify the entirely of modified gravity, nor dark matter. Vague categories of models cannot be ruled out, but specific models like standard cosmology and MOND can. This is precisely why the vast majority of the work is on models of dark matter, because they can actually be tested against current cosmological and astronomical observations. It is possible to rule such models out observationally. The vague idea that it might be due to nonstandard gravity is not testable in this way. Non-existent models cannot be tested.

>You are the one making the assumption, yours is the positive claim, and you have nothing.
Saying "there could be additional particles which are not yet known" is not an assumption. As you stated it can always be said.

>MOND is from the 80s, and there's only a handful of ideas like it.
Yes, as I said these ideas have stagnated.
> The bullshit cop-out idea gets all the funding, and alternatives get none and sure as fuck not for experiments
But you just admitted there is nothing to test. MOND conveniently leaves no tests in the solar system, and many modified gravity models adopt similar screening.

>>15478220
> In the meantime, https://www.space.com/dark-matter-most-sensitive-detector-first-results dark matter gets a fuck ton of funding to look for something where nothing is.
One can say the same about all the experiments which have looked for deviations from general relativity. There are far more of those, and they cost a shit load more than the experiments into DM. They have also found nothing even after a century of looking. By your logic this is all wasted money.

>>15477014
Why do you write. Your sentences. Like this.

>>15478227
thank you very much, good info. Have a cat on a foot.
>>15478291
I write at the same time/speed I think and often forget to proofread so it ends up like that. You're basically reading a readout of my inner speech

>>15477014
>take a known mass of a galaxy
Ok, you're wrong.