/sci/ - Science & Math

The most likely is a new particle since that is what fits all the current evidence the best.

axions have been the best bet for a bit now
wimps got rekt by new collider stuff
modified gravitards were btfo by the bullet cluster and ultra diffuse galaxies, among other things

>>15533666
It doesn't exist and basically all of modern physics is wrong.

>>15533666
dark matter is made out of unicorns

>>15533674
Axions would be my bet as well. Most other potential particles have been ruled out, and axions existing would also neatly solve the strong CP problem as well. Next up would be small primordial black holes; IIRC there is still a pretty good size range were they would be too small to detect directly easily while still being large enough to have not evaporated from hawkings radiation.

>>15533666
It's just electromagnetism.

>>15533692
To be fair, the dark matter hypothesis is also stating that modern physics is wrong; that our theory of what sorts matter & energy exists in the universe is incomplete. Given that there have been plenty of times in the past when new technology let researches discover novel forms of energy and matter that were previously invisible (X rays & neutrinos would be good examples), it is certainly worth investigating to see if other yet undiscovered forms of matter exist.

>>15533715
Dark matter was made out of ignorance.

>>15533747
Well yeah, that is why it is called dark. Something is causing the large scale motions of galaxies to not match up with the theory of gravity we have, that works so well on the solar system scale. Dark matter is a good catch-all term for any many hypothesis that explains this discrepancy via some sort of difficult to directly detect matter; likewise there have been plenty of modified gravities theories that have been proposed as alternatives to explain this. But ultimately whatever is causing this discrepancy is still something we are currently ignorant of.

>>15533786
>Something is causing the large scale motions of galaxies to not match up with the theory of gravity we have
you got that backwards, the theory doesn't match galactic rotation because the theory is wrong.
the galaxies aren't wrong because they fail to match the theory.

>>15533808
>>15533808
>you got that backwards, the theory doesn't match galactic rotation because the theory is wrong.
That hasn't been shown. The predictions of gravitational theory depend on the mass models of galaxies. Either or both could be at fault.

>>15533824
the galaxies aren't wrong.

>>15533831
Nobody said that but you.

Dark matter is just cloaked alien superstructures littering the universe.

>>15533831
Remember, our knowledge of what sorts of mass and energy exist is also a theory; that theory could very well be wrong. Hell, plenty of times in the past the then current theory of what sorts of stuff exists was proven wrong, and the theory updated to include new forms of mass & energy that new technology allowed us to detect. It seems wildly premature to say we have discovered every possible form of mass and/or energy.

>>15533857
The classic example of this is how the neutrino was discovered. In the 1920s scientist discovered that beta decay seemly violated the law of conservation of momentum. Which of course meant that either the "law" was wrong, or that the then current theory of what kinds of matter exists was wrong, and an unknown, invisible to existing equipment particle was causing the discrepancy. It took several decades and multiple failures before researches managed to build a device that could detect these particles, neutrinos.

Likewise, the motions of galaxies are not matching the existing theory of how gravity works combined with current theory of what sorts/amounts of matter/energy is in said galaxies. So either the current gravity theory is wrong, the current theory on what kinds of mass is wrong, or both are wrong. All those need to be investigated.

>>15533674
>wimps got rekt
that's really sad, i was really hoping weakly interacting massive particles were a thing
there were a lot of potential applications for them

>>15533666
weak gravity

Theres actually no reason that dark matter needs to exist even given the apparent discrepancy of orbital velocities at the outer edges of galaxies. Relativistic and Newtonian gravity both fit that velocity field when its all considered in the correct context. The only reason dark matter "exists" is that astronomers are not very good at math or physics so they just consider gravitational orbits as an expanded version of a solar system instead of working from first principles.
I explained all this in a tl;dr a couple years ago with more detail, but nobody cares except a few dark matter fanatics who got angry over it, so I won't bother doing it again.

>>15533674
>>15533710
Are there any experimental tests for axions that could produce results in the near future?

>>15533978
they could still exist, they've just been ruled out as a dark matter candidate
>>15534071
explain the bullet cluster
explain how ultra diffuse galaxies can apparently have no dark matter
explain the dozen other lensing anomalies that have no explanation outside of dark matter

>>15534071
>>>viXra.org

>>15533666
Pure energy.

>>15533666
Clouds of particles stretched to galactic wavelengths as they fall into black holes.

>>15533666
It's a black hole
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4PmvpO3Te4

>>15533666
I still think it's just a measurement error, and astronomers/cosmologists refuse to admit that they simply need better measuring tools.

>>15533666
what you think of as dips in the field are vortexes

through some mechanism i dont understand these vortexes prefer one handedness over another and align over vast distances

i cant explain it very well because its not my information i got it from the big G but thats the gist of it

>>15534138
those all have explanations outside of dark matter, but you can't do math or physics so you will never understand them, your only recourse is to regurgitate whatever is published in the popular press because you are low iq

>>15535384
So explain them then, with physics and equations.

>>15533671
Niggers are dark and made of matter, maybe the universe is just full of niggers.
This theory fits well too.

>>15533847
that doesn't matter because the end point is that the math will never be right if it ain't dog

>>15533666
they forgot to carry the 1 somewhere

>>15533666
It doesn't exist. It's a pseudoscientific hoax.

>>15533692
>It doesn't exist
correct
>and basically all of modern physics is wrong.
not exactly, all the classical stuff (like Newtonian mechanics) is accurate, and QM is on the right track but QM interpretations are mostly wrong
>>15533747
correct
>>15533733
correct in a literal sense, but I think this thread is specifically about the "dark matter" theorized by Einsteinian Relativity Theory which doesn't exist because ERT is false
>>15533852
whoa based
>>15534071
You sound unironically smarter than most "professional" physicists and should pursue this idea further, but leave out the Einsteinian Relativity pseudoscience hoax

>>15533666
Like Newtonian gravity is insufficient at too high speeds and large scales (ultra dense stars), general relativity is also insufficient at too large scales and needs correcting. It's nothing to do with some extra mass that doesn't interact electromagnetically.
No, I know nothing about GR (consciously avoided the course in grad school) or dark matter (don't give a shit about cosmology, my work was quantum and numerical and therefore completely worthless). Thank you for listening to an idea I pulled out of my ass.

>>15534108
Can't speak to "near future" but Kent D. Irwin from Stanford is working on it. He gave a talk at APS March Meeting 2023 that I can't dig up right now.

One of the limiting factors is quantum vacuum noise. Using a phase-sensitive amplfiier to squeeze the vacuum state into a squeezed vacuum state can reduce the noise noise in the quadrature you're measuring in, which should speed up the search. Since parametric amplification is a hot topic in QC, this is something that might offer benefits to axion search in the near future.

Maybe as soon as this fall there'll be something interesting on the arxiv :^)

>>15536062
https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR23/Session/D71.7
I think this was the one, but the abstract doesn't mention squeezing. Maybe it's just in terms I'm not used to

>>15535893
>but leave out the Einsteinian Relativity pseudoscience hoax
its doesn't make much of a difference when you're talking about orbits and gravitation in most situations, einstein's version is identical to newton's in those cases. virtually everyone working professionally on real projects uses newtonian mechanic for the orbital calculations, the relativity junk is unnecessary excess to get the same result

Fuzzy Dark Matter

>>15533666
its antimatter

or an effect of electromagnetism, maybe the physics of spacetime is different with the presence of EMR and the regions of space far away from matter has a higher effective speed of light thereby allowing galaxies to translate across space faster than we expected

>>15533666
Super Symmetric particles, stringfags need not apply

>>15536695
Antimatter can't be dark matter you pseud, positrons and anti-protons have electric charge

>>15536713
yet the distribution of matter vs antimatter is very different in the universe. obviously the physics of antimatter isnt 1:1 and maybe it has some hyperdense state. like the gaps between galactic filaments are actually clusters of antineutrons bound giant super nucleuses

>>15536768
>yet the distribution of matter vs antimatter is very different in the universe.
I guess so, in the sense that there isn't any significant amount of antimatter at all. Despite extensive searches, the only anti matter known is short lived positrons and antiprotons which produced by high energy cosmic rays. Gamma rays from annihilation are unambiguous.

>>15533666
>what can be asserted without evidence can be dis-uuuuuuuuhhh i mean I FUKCNI LUUV S O Y E N C E1

>>15536768
>bound giant super nucleuses
then they shouldn't be empty

>>15533666

The Earth is flat with a dome.
God exists.

Aliens don't exist.
Dark Matter is a meme.
Space isn't real.
Gravity doesn't exist.
Never went to the moon.
Asteroids don't exist.
UFOs are a psyop.
Nukes don't exist.
Evolution is a lie.
Germ Theory is a lie.

The world is ruled by secret societies that worship Satan. Jews/Jesuits/Freemasons/Illuminati are Gnostics and Kabbalists. Masters at deception. One satanic philosophy is inverting reality.

They make you think you live on a spinning ball.
They make you think you're just an animal.
They make you think there's a deadly virus out there.
They make you think there are gay space niggers from outer space out there.

>>15533674
difference between axions and wimps for a retard?

>>15536978
They're basically the same for most purposes. The most plausible way to get WIMPs was supersymmetry, which now looks less likely. Axions however are from a much more humble model.

Statement: 1 plus 1 equals 2.
Wait, measurements tell us that it actually equals to 3?
Quick, let's add another 1 to the equation, that'll work!
Statement: 1 plus 1 plus 1 equals 3.

>>15537275
More like
>x+y+z SHOULD = q
>x+y+z < q
>all observations of the universe indicate q = q
>therefore, x+y+z is an incomplete model, and a new variable has to be added to account for the discrepancy between real world observation and flawed mathematical models.
I can understand why you wouldn't know that if all you do is watch youtube about it though :^)

>>15536922
a neutron based matter would appear as empty to any sensor we have, especially at the distance away from us

>>15536062
>>15536065
Thanks. I saw a talk way back in 2015 that suggested this was just around the corner, so I was curious

>>15535893
>>15536438
mercury's orbit

>>15537282
Exactly what I was saying.
Dark matter is nothing but an unprovable crutch so that the equation seems to work.

>>15537350
It's quite provable, find the particle and measure the density.

>>15537350
Your reading comprehension is very poor. It isn't an invented value, it's a previously unaccounted for value.

>>15537287
If it's far away then it doesn't explain dark matter inside our galaxy. Or any galaxy for that matter.

>>15537481
if there is an absolute shitload of mass around the galaxy, not inside it, it would still spin at a different rate than expected

the medium an object is in is very important, youd really struggle with orbital mechanics desu

Could the dark matter be in another dimension which the gravity then bleeds into ours?

>>15537519
>if there is an absolute shitload of mass around the galaxy, not inside it, it would still spin at a different rate than expected
No it wouldn't. If you make a spherical shell of matter outside the galaxy, the inside doesn't feel any net gravitational force at all. It needs to be inside the galaxy.

>>15537562
the shape of the universe isnt even remotely uniform though so hinging your idea on a perfectly spherical boundary is nonsense

>>15538207
A significant fraction of it will be spherically symmetric.
Secondly putting a big asymmetric mass also doesn't help. Being next to a huge mass isn't going to make to magically make a galaxy rotate faster around some external point. What it will do is disrupt the galaxy, and the masses will merge.
So in either case it doesn't work at all.

>>15534071
Hey look this guy is smarter than all astrophysicists

>>15537296
virtually identical in both systems, your belief in that meme turns on your inability to run the numbers yourself in either system

Caveat: our problem is probably worse than a lack of theories; the fact we do not know if it is even possible for us to concentrate energy to the extremes necessary to study gravity on particle scales has strangled my hopes of understanding "dark matter" in the conceivable future years ago.

But anyways, how I'd guess the better theory is likely to look and why:

To get that out of the way, I like to stick to interpreting it as "stuff" instead of pulling a new theory of gravity or far-fetched doubts on decades of galactic density profile measurements out of my ass.

First note, that there are fit parameters left in the standard model. This alone goes to show it is missing something pretty important. But the successes of the standard model cannot be coincidental, it "must be up to something" if may put it that way.

I thus hope for a better set of QFTs, parts of which are similar to the standard model, but which as a whole take a totally different approach to particle physics and - most importantly - have less fit parameters and instead more degrees of freedom.

Finally, those extra degrees of freedom may accommodate particles checking all the boxes for properties of dark matter which near-future observation of the phenomenon can resolve.

Here is some TeX to erase any doubts about my infallibility in all matters of science: [math]\psi(t)=e^{-i\hat{H}t}\psi(0)[/math]

>>15535893
wrong thread

>>15533666
Expansion of the universe.

>>15537469
>It's quite provable
It's an undetectable particle by definition. It's entire existence is retarded.
>>15537476
>a previously unaccounted for value
As opposed to the current formula just being wrong?

>>15535408
fuck off low iq(that was your test and you failed, again)

>>15538796
>It's an undetectable particle by definition.
No it's not. If it were there would be zero direct detection experiments running.

>>15538796
>It's an undetectable particle by definition
It's not god, retard. "Dark matter" refers to actual anomalous measurements.

>>15538845
>If it were there would be zero direct detection experiments running.
So if I start detecting for, let's say, god, he must be detectable because I am trying to detect him?
That's a retarded argument.
>>15538855
>actual anomalous measurements
Ah, that's wrong. Dark matter don't originate from measurements, they originate from a lack of measurements.
Take for example the formula "x + y = z". Now image you're measuring z, and find out that it is larger than x and y combined!
Now you could assume that there must be something wrong with either x or y, but apparently it's much easier to just pretend there's a hidden n in the formula.
"x + y + n = z" is the correct formula! ...except that n isn't measurable and doesn't actually exist (as the complete lack of detection despite years of trying points towards).

>>15538868

>Ah, that's wrong
Except I did not say anything wrong and you just let yourself be triggered by me calling the phenomena "dark matter" so as to stick to their most common name. It did not even occur to you, that I may be well aware gravity might just work differently at large distances than we thought or something

>x + y + n = z
I'm pretty sure you are just confusing yourself, so I'll recap the state of the topic in brief terms for you:

1. Velocity and density measurements show us that z - (x + y) is not zero. Let us give that non-zero quantity a name, say "correction" or "discrepancy" and, for ease of use, a symbol; you chose n, so I will, too.

2. It is undeniable that if our current theory expects x+y=z, but we in fact measure n, we need a new theory, which to reproduce n

3. In the case of anomalies in galaxy formation, velocity profiles, gravitational lensing, etc. an undeniably elegant proposition has been made: Our new theory should probably go for new matter types.

You're welcome!

>>15538894
That's a whole lot of cope for trying to justify an magic, undetectable particle that only exists as a crutch for our current equations.

>>15538913
Just keep your anti-establishment shit in politics and let the professionals do the science, alright?

Though, now that I think of it, why did I expect someone who misunderstands a topic as simple as this to actually read my five lines of text

>>15538942
>let the professionals do the science
I hate you religious types.
Fuck you for hijacking and ruining the scientific method.

>>15538868
>So if I start detecting for, let's say, god, he must be detectable because I am trying to detect him?
Clearly under your model, yes. It's only retarded because you had to jump to this ubsurd example, because you can't discuss in good faith.

Show us this definition of dark matter which means it's undetectable.

>>15538958
>because you can't discuss in good faith.
More like you're performing massive jumps in logic to defend the existence of dark matter.
If I calculate that frogs can jump 2 meters in the air, but find out that they can jump 3 meters, does this mean that a magic, undetectable substance exists within the air, allowing them to jump that extra meter, or is it because my calculations are wrong?

>>15538965
How about you discuss the actual physics and observations, and not some childish analogy?

>>15538968
>How about you discuss the actual physics and observations
I would, but there have been no observations of dark matter.
Only propositions that something must exist for the current equations to work on specific scales.
Which is what I've been talking about the entire time.
>childish analogy
If they're so childish, it should be easy to point out how to they don't correspond with the dark matter debate, no?

>>15538972
>I would, but there have been no observations of dark matter.
>Only propositions that something must exist for the current equations to work on specific scales.
>Which is what I've been talking about the entire time.
There are many indirect observations which constrain possible scenarios.
>If they're so childish, it should be easy to point out how to they don't correspond with the dark matter debate, no?
Well has your frog-jump model passed every precision lab and solar system test? No. But standard gravitation has, and it has predicted dozens of entirely new phenomena. This is why discussing an analogy is retarded. Where does the CMB and the bullet cluster fit into this frog analogy? You're using these to isolate the points you want to talk about, but you're ignoring the rest of physics and history. If you can only make your point when discussing frogs then really it's not a good argument.

>>15533666
The scientists got their math wrong, it's just neutrinos in galactic orbit.

>>15538991
>indirect observations
These are literally nothing more than what I just described.
The end states of certain processes don't correspond with the current leading theories, so there must be something causing the deviations (as opposed to the leading theories being wrong).

>>15539008
>there must be something causing the deviations (as opposed to the leading theories being wrong).
And that's where your wrong. The leading theory is not just gravity, it is also the then model of the structure of galaxies. Only together can they compute a prediction for the dynamics. People explored both aspects being at fault, either by modifying the content of galaxies or gravity/dynamics. The end result is that the dark matter hypothesis has proved to be far more predictive on large scales than any alternative. And adding dark matter is no more of a fudge than skewing gravity, they are both assumptions. But one can go on to describe much more. It's even made novel successful predictions, which modified gravity models still cannot explain.

>>15539018
>they are both assumptions
I agree. Only, one of them is an magic, undetectable substance.

>>15539022
>Only, one of them is an magic, undetectable substance.
In what sense is arbitrary modifying gravity more "detectable" and less "magic". Invisible force field Vs invisible particles. Most of these models literally have a switch that turns it off in the solar system.
And dark matter not undetectable. Nothing about the hypothesis requires that. It's a strawman.

>>15539027
>Invisible force field
What are you talking about? Gravitational waves have been detected since at least 2015.
Just because it is a weak force doesn't mean that the absence of it wouldn't have consequences.
>And dark matter not undetectable.
We tried pretty much every method we could think of to detect it at this point. Every single attempt has failed.
Claiming that dark matter exists is the same as claiming that tiny unicorns are the reason why our current equations are wrong.

>>15539031
>What are you talking about? Gravitational waves have been detected since at least 2015.
Gravitational waves are a prediction of standard gravity, not modified gravity. And they are still quite invisible. Invisible=/=undetectable.
>Just because it is a weak force doesn't mean that the absence of it wouldn't have consequences.
As I said, most of these models screen the modification inside the solar system. So it can never be measured like gravitational waves was.
>We tried pretty much every method we could think of to detect it at this point.
Which means very little. Note that there is still plenty of parameter space to search (e.g. axions).
>Every single attempt has failed.
Note this is also true of modified gravity. People have looked for deviations from GR for a century, and they have found nothing. By your logic this should be abandoned.
>Claiming that dark matter exists is the same as claiming that tiny unicorns are the reason why our current equations are wrong.
Oh look, the childish analogies return.

>>15539038
>And they are still quite invisible. Invisible=/=undetectable.
So we're just omitting facts now? The fact is that dark matter isn't just invisible, it's also undetectable. Gravitational waves aren't.
Pretty sloppy misdirection on your part.
>As I said, most of these models screen the modification inside the solar system. So it can never be measured like gravitational waves was.
>Which means very little. Note that there is still plenty of parameter space to search (e.g. axions).
I don't think you understand. We've tried every possible way in which dark matter could be detected. There are no other methods.
>By your logic this should be abandoned.
Of course not, there are still a few verification methods left to try out. If those are fruitless as well, then the theory is just as faulty as dark matter.
>Oh look, the childish analogies return.
No analogy, I'm just making fun of how retarded people sound when they're placing their faith in an undetectable substance.

>>15539044
>So we're just omitting facts now? The fact is that dark matter isn't just invisible, it's also undetectable.
But it's not. And you know this claims is retarded, because in the same post you're talking about direct detection experiments. But you know if you let it go your argument deflates, so you live with the double-think.
Cite me this definition.
>I don't think you understand. We've tried every possible way in which dark matter could be detected.
False. This would take an infinite number of experiments.
>there are still a few verification methods left to try out.
Such as?

>>15539050
I get the feeling you're not at all familiar with the concept of dark matter and are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
I propose that you read the following paper: https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=pandion_unf
Unless you're going to suggest that our assumptions of what dark matter is is wrong, then I can't see how you can still claim that there are methods of detection left to try out.
And logic follows: if there are no ways to detect it, it is undetectable.
>This would take an infinite number of experiments.
I am going to call you a retard for a.) unironically using the concept of infinity as part of an argument and b.) for trying to state that something can only not exist when it has been proven to not exist.
>Such as?
Read a book, nigger. Or studies, in this case.
https://s3.cern.ch/inspire-prod-files-0/0b237df3352e08621eb21da0f5cb2f56
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/478/3/3627/5000180

>>15539057
Oh look, that paper doesn't mention the word undetectable. Find a real citation, I am quite familiar hence why I can smell the bullshit on your breath.
>Unless you're going to suggest that our assumptions of what dark matter is is wrong
You are misreprenting those assumptions. It's a stawman.
>for trying to state that something can only not exist when it has been proven to not exist.
Zero points for reading. Nowhere did I say that. My point was that it's pretty much impossible to prove a negative and yet you are claiming it has been done. No one will ever prove there is zero deperarrure from GR, it cannot be done. No one can also prove that there is zero dark matter.
>Read a book, nigger. Or studies, in this case
If all it takes is posting random papers then it's quite easy to disprove your claim that all possible dark matter detection experiments have been done.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.14201
https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.07001
https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.11753

>>15539075
>i refuse your articles, for they do not contain the exact term i wish to see!
lmao, okay retard.
>You are misreprenting those assumptions
...there are tons of people who make those assumptions.
What, did you think that everyone, everywhere all agree on one specific form of dark matter?
You really are retarded, holy shit.
>posting random papers
I am done. There is no arguing against someone who clearly has no idea what he's arguing about.
I accept your concession.

>>15539082
You cited a 300 page thesis which you found on Google. It's quite obvious you didn't read it as you didn't attempt to quote from it. You just posted it to waste peoples time.
>...there are tons of people who make those assumptions.
Cite some actual papers.
Also if you bothered to look at your citation for undetectably it says directly the opposite.
>Nevertheless, for the purposes of this paper I will assume that dark matter does exist, and that it can be detected.
So you don't read your own source. I can't say I'm shocked.

>>15539057
From your own fucking paper:
>Current theories suggest that, if dark matter particles do pervade the earth, they have to be lower than 1 MeV in size. If dark matter existed above that size, then a detector would most likely have detected it by now. However, detectors that are sensitive below the 1 MeV mass range are either still in development
or have not been active for long enough to produce meaningful results.

>>15539109
>or have not been active for long enough to produce meaningful results.
This says it all.
Considering you're going to call my sources bullshit no matter what I post, would you mind looking up for me how long we've been trying to detect dark matter and what the expected time-to-detect was?

>>15539120
>Considering you're going to call my sources bullshit no matter what I post
Pointing out that your sources disagree with your claims is unfair, is it?
>what the expected time-to-detect was?
Why would there be such a time if it was assumed to be undetectable? And fortune-telling is not science.
It's also a nonsense argument as people have been looking even longer for modifications to GR. You're going in circles.

>>15539008
>as opposed to the leading theories being wrong

the leading theories are wrong

>>15538942
>let the professionals do the science

>>15533852
Hey that’s pretty neat right there

>>15539018
I like how mysterious this dark matter is, perhaps it’s not a discrete measurable substance but an net effect of causality, or the shadow of time, or entanglements

>>15533666
I think the most likely candidate for dark matter is Big Black Booty.

>>15533666
>>15533666
First of all Satan — I need you to calm down. Regardless, I think Dark Matter is probably like areas in a video game that you have yet to visit

>>15535843
thats a premise for a horror story, not a theory.

>>15540839
Incoherent worldview

>>15533666
Why can't it be matter that's too dim to be observed either because it doesn't produce light or so little that it's drowned out by surrounding light sources?

>>15541551
Because it would still interact with itself and normal matter through collisions. This would lead to a different distribution of matter than the one we measure.

>>15538230
Without dark matter lots of them would end jobless, is sad but true.

>>15533852
Most probably solution. They only need to be efficient enough to dilute all the star energy into very low frequencies that are barely above the cosmic background. Alicization-like cultures inside, and is party time all the time.

>>15533666
it's a cope. we need bigger brains.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/naL7urXXZLfl/

>>15533666
an acounting error

>>15541630
>>15533852
Nope. Dyson spheres wouldn't hide the gravitational lensing, and people spent a long time looking for dark compact objects. The result is that there isn't anywhere near enough to explain dark matter. The other problem is that studies would require normal matter, which isn't allowed by the CMB and big bang fusion. Both say dark matter isn't normal matter, and this proves a time before stars or planets, or heavy elements.

>>15533666
Dark matter is God. Both can't be observed, but we can infer their existence indirectly.

>>15533666
The top left one

>>15542215

>>15536768
You would be able to see anti-matter the same way we see regular matter. Macroscopic anti-matter would be nearly indistinguishable from normal matter

If dark matter exists, how do we know it isn't obstructing our view outside the galaxy? is dark matter the firmament?

>>15534749
sounds interesting, think i've heard this before but never seen any more details on the math of it. sounds like something you could make some pretty definite calculations about. you should be able to estimate the size/location of this black hole binary partner and look for the lensing effects.

>>15534071
believable but why didn't you save a copy of your tl;dr so you could paste it again? would love to see your breakdown of how galaxies should work from first principles.

>>15535102
if there's one thing scientists universally do, it's whine that they need better measuring tools. sorry that doesn't sound like a good explanation.

>>15545196
Because 'dark matter' is a technical description. Dark: it doesn't interaction with the electromagnetic force which means it is transparent to light. Matter: it has mass and so experiences gravity.

>>15545326
>>15545326
>look for the lensing effects.
He says we're too close for lensing
But he does offer other predictions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqJKlj2K5mk

>>15545379
what is it about black holes that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys?
is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that make black holes so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?

>>15545379
>in the future the universe will be older
that prediction was pretty hilarious, even if i'm pretty sure he meant the universe will appear to get older faster than time progresses for us.

how exactly can we possibly be "too close" for observation though? we can observe lensing from our own sun which is definitely closer than the black hole would be.

>>15546247
Thanks for this classic.

>>15545379
>>15534749
The idea doesn't work at all. Time dilation does not explain rotation curves. It would make the whole galaxy rotate faster, whereas the observation is that it's only the outer edes of galaxies that see excess rotation. It not give you flat rotation curves, it would just rescale them. And obviously this doesn't do anything for all the other dark matter effects, such as the lensing in the bullet cluster or the CMB.

Note if it were true our own galaxy would be massively blueshifted. It isn't.

>>15546701
>Note if it were true our own galaxy would be massively blueshifted. It isn't.
True true. And back holes are fake anyway

>>15547335
You can't magically time dilate some objects and not others. The Galaxy would be blueshifted.

i can't beleive ppl are really stupid enough to believe in the dark matter lie

>>15545195
you're a pseud

I literally talked about anti-matter bonding to itself and falling into a darker energy state thats immune to the electromagnetic field, imagine the anti-matter version of iron having an inverted ferromagnetic effect, then imagine anti-hydrogen metal being possible. we would never know without either finding a lot of anti-matter without destroying ourselves, or making it ourself. both extremely unlikely

>>15533666
cloaked alien civilization. how do we make sure what we are seeing hasn't been tampered with in some form?

>>15548949
How does anti matter react to photons? Won't they be constantly annihilating itself or us with anti photons?

>>15533666
I'm going to pull something completely from my ass and say quantum entanglement on a cosmic scale. It would definitely skew orbits if mass amounts of particles were being drawn in multiple directions. And yes, I did spend more time scrolling for this image than the 5 seconds I spent thinking

>>15533666
dark matter dont be real

>>15549431
>>15549431
>It would definitely skew orbits if mass amounts of particles were being drawn in multiple directions
I don't think that's what quantum entaglement does my fren

>>15549438
I assumed if you had two particles spread out in different galaxies, they would experience both sets of local forces. I guess that would make them take the midpoint between the two, or how else does that work? I've never actually seen a detailed breakdown of how entangled particles react beyond "they do the same thing no matter how far away"

>>15549441
>>15549441
>they do the same thing no matter how far away
I don't know either but it's def not that

>>15533852
Wrong, because you would expect there to be less aliens the further back in time you go, and on average, the amount of dark matter doesn't appear to be changing with time. Also, one wonders why the aliens would be happy with just 3/4 of all matter, and not extinguish the last stars

I can't wait until we're given the tools to manipulate dark matter at will.
Performing acts of magic is gonna be really fun!

>>15549560
I can already do that. Its a fairly simple trick, I collected a bunch of dark matter and have been trying to sell it to researchers, but so far nobody wants to buy any.

>>15546247
There’s still some explained aspects about black holes that humanity hasn’t figured out yet so they generate a lot of discussion. People enjoying an unsolved mystery of the universe doesn’t make them a basedboy you faggot.

Couldn’t it just be a lot of small black holes. A black hole the size of a piece of fruit would have the mass of a planet and would be impossible for telescopes to see besides their gravitational influence.

>>15550551
People have spent decades monitoring background stars for microlensing events, as an unseen object like a white dwarf or a black hole passes in front. The result of these surveys ruled out black hole dark matter down to very small masses as a significant contribution to the total density.

>>15550548
>>15550551
They don't even exist.

Dark matter is the particle of consciousness. It doesn't interact with other particles because they are not conscious. This is easily provable - you will not find any dark matter where the is conscious life (it's not dark anymore) just like you don't see it on earth.

>>15550687
>b-b-but i know they're real, i saw them on star trek!!!
>black soience man says they're real!!!

>>15550687
>>15551568
Behold! The man who believes that microwaves are fake!

>>15551673
cold xrays exist, cold uv exists, if there is a bunch of cold microwaves being emitted out there, how the fuck would we even detect it?

>>15533666
I'm a SUSYfag, thus my money is on some super symmetric particles

>>15550551
It would give off have a lot of hawking radiation and evaporate fairly quickly

>>15551997
What the fuck are cold microwaves or x-rays?

>>15551997
>cold xrays

>>15536438
>virtually everyone working professionally on real projects uses newtonian mechanic for the orbital calculations
Lol we don’t. The correction is small but it still needs to be taken into consideration. And the computational cost is absolutely minimal.
>t. Aerospace engineer

how gullible and low iq do you have to be to think dark matter is real?

>>15553140
How low IQ are you to not realize "dark matter" is an expression for the problem of current theory accuracy in celestial physics?

>>15553156
Oh it's the "dark matter is a name for an observation" schizo.

>>15533674
I was listening about thid axions in Fraser Cain video, man what a crock of shit and great trolling lmao

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SruXU-Owz_M

>>15553158
you don't belong on this board if you're just gonna be ignorant on purpose

>>15553158
if you're actually serious you'd know that it is an observable phenomena. Arguing outside of good faith would be trolling and that's against rules :^)

its so ridiculous seeing the saint einstein cultists denying reality in order to preserve the legacy of their infallible science god

>>15553868
Various anomalies to standard model astrophysics exist. "Dark matter" is the name for a proposed particle that makes up the fudge factor that modelers use to model the universe. Nobody calls the anomalies dark matter, they just use a kludge to fix the math that became known as dark matter.

>>15536964

And your god would let all this supposed evil take place? Lol, what a loser.

>>15555200
> "Dark matter" is the name for a proposed particle that makes up the fudge factor that modelers use to model the universe.
Not true. Dark Matter is the term used to describe the set of unexplained observations, a new particle is just the most likely explanation for those.

>>15555615
>unexplained
Unexplained according to what

>>15555618

>>15555633
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

>>15549422
Anti-matter reacts to photons just like ordinary matter with opposite charge does. There is no "anti photon," a photon is its own anti-particle.

Dark matter is made out of Covid-19

LMAO that soience faggots unironically believe in the dark matter meme. They must have no critical thinking ability whatsoever, how low IQ do you need to be to have zero critical thinking ability?

>>15557980
> how low IQ do you need to be to have zero critical thinking ability?
you would know that answer to that, look in a mirror

>>15557989
no u

>>15538270
this, spouting memes is only a legitimate substitute for doing the math yourself if you're a dunning kreuger babby that can't do the math yourself

>>15555200
no, thats not true at all, they've built massive telescopes and wasted billions of dollars looking for dark matter.

>>15537350
Dark matter is not a theory, its a set of an observation. Everything from MoND, to WIMPs, to MACHOs, to axions are the theories competing to explain it.

>>15552008
what if small black holes could bond with each other into a more stable configuration?

maybe theres a resonant triple point where the weak force, strong force, and gravity start working together.

only a black hole could be small and dense enough to interact directly with all 3 forces afterall

>>15537296
You are a brainlet. Space agencies plan flights with newtonian mechanics because it's a million times simpler and the results are good enough for government work. The particulars of mercury's orbit can't be solved with them but who fucking cares about that when you're planning a satellite mission to mars?

>>15562174
>but who fucking cares
If relativity didn't come along and the perihelion of mercury's orbit was still an unresolved problem I guarantee all the pop-sci contrarians would be bitching and whining about the discrepancy wr/t Newtonian Mechanics or theories of Vulcan the exact same way that they are now regarding theories of dark matter.

>>15562182
ok?? That's not what we were talking about. You're acting like mercury's orbit makes newtonian calculations unusable. We know that newtonian mechanics aren't accurate and we know the real calculations needed, we just don't use them because it's a pain. If this was supposed to be an equivalence, it's not a very good one.

>>15562155
You meant to say "lack of observation", because dark matter is as observable as magic.

>>15562418

>>15562430

>>15533666
its just normal matter thats cooled down a lot so retard scientists cant see it

>>15562500
yeah if there were a region of absolute zero space how would anyone know other than we cant see through it?

>>15562430
>random colorful blobs
good argument

>>15533666
>What is your favorite candidate for dark matter?
My favorite is the one where we admit we have absolutely no idea how th3e universe works.

>>15533674
Retard

The best explanation is large scale electromagnetism.

>>15563782
Not him, but it's the observed mismatch between our current gravitational theories and the observed distribution of matter at a macro level.
Which actually proves that other anon right, because it's a lack of observation (no dark matter to be found).
It's more likely that just how gravitational theories don't work on a micro scale, they also don't work on a macro scale, but what do I know? I haven't ran hundreds of failed experiments to prove dark matter exists.

>>15562430
>>15562452
you cant point to the dark matter anywhere in either of these

>>15533666
Wasn't it recently discovered that a very large part of dark matter is actually just webs of hydrogen atoms held together between galaxies? I feel like it will continue to be uninteresting and we should instead focus all research on black holes.

how low iq do you have to be to unironically believe in dark matter?

>>15534108
https://alps.desy.de/our_activities/axion_wisp_experiments/alps_ii/

>>15564854
very

>>15564770
No. In order to explain galaxy dynamics the matter has to be inside the galaxy.
The matter in the intergalactic medium was actually expected from simulations.

>>15566001
galaxies all look flat even though planets and everything else are spherical

theres probably some mechanism where dark matter orbits in a halo above and below the galaxy as well, galaxies are actually a sandwich flanked by two sphere halves of dark matter

actually in that case it would make infinitely more sense that the dark matter sandwiching us is actually anti-matter thats repulsed from normal matter and thus stays outside

>>15564854
mandatory embargo for at least 10 years on new theories on the world origins. send all physicists to work as accountants in the meantime. janitor positions available as well

>>15557263
and global warming

>>15567389
There are spherical objects, like elliptical galaxies and galaxy clusters. Neither of which are flat and they both show evidence of dark matter. Also putting the matter just outside the galaxy doesn't really change it's detectability, hydrogen is mapped in absorbtion around galaxies. There isnt enough to be dark matter.

Dark matter is not antimatter, as we would see annihilation gamma rays.

how does the new age of the universe affect the dark matter issue?

>>15569121
Nothing has changed, the paper puts forward a mishmash of ideas but never actually shows any improvement over standard cosmology. The media attention makes it sound serious, but it's a just a random low quality paper.

>>15569402
i will now present an argument against the person

>paper by gupta of ottawa

>>15533666
Interest rate.
No refunds.

>>15533666
maybe the dark matter was the friends we made along the way

Dark matter is made out of the missing IQ points of midwits who presume themselves geniuses

>>15533666
Vibranium - from Wakanda

>>15569121
it means that the amount of dark matter contrived for the big bang theory to work no longer matches the amount contrived to explain galactic orbits

>>15571595
That would never agree, only a small fraction of matter is inside big disks galaxies. Don't talk shit.

>>15533666
bbc hidin in your wives vagina which is why white boy telescopes cant find it

why do astrochumps seem to expect stars in galaxies to have what are basicly newtonian orbits when newtonian mechanics is a static universe model and astrochumps also think that we live in a rapidly expanding universe?
belief in circular orbits for galactic matter is fundamentally at odds with the idea of an expanding universe.
how come astrochumps don't experience cognitive dissonance over that conflict of ideas?
are they low iq?

>>15533666
1 55 33 666

Nice Jesús git.

We live in a universe reactor that a space wizard has running in his basement. He programs in the universal consents and cranks up our subjective time to see what comes out at the end. Dark matter is merely losses in the reaction and the expansion of the universe is him causing us to separate so he can sift through the results more easily.

>>15539018
Wrong. MOND-like theories make better predictions and need less tunable parameters.

>>15572891
Wrong. MOND can't even get galaxy clusters right, it literally only works for galaxies as it was designed to do. And because it's Newtonian anything cosmological fails completely, pic related.

The way I think of it is that the mass we describe to matter can be explained as the inertial mass of a charged particle in an electricfield. And since matter is just a form of energy, I think dark matter is a form of energy structure on a larger scale that influences gravity in certain ways like traditional matter does, yet isnt a form of matter that we can detect. Either because the mass of dark matter is an emergent property not tied to a particle/pattern or because it directly effects gravity without being a form of matter. That said I am not a physicist.

if dark matter is 95% of the universe then how come there is no dark matter in our solar system and newtonian mechanics explains all orbits here perfectly?

>>15573839
if we could see it and know what it is it wouldn't be dark matter any more
why do you fags act like anyone claims dark matter is anything but a scientific placeholder?

>>15573839
The dark matter theories based on small, hard to detect particles (WIMPs, axions, etc) propose that those particles are spread very thinly throughout the galaxy. So the total amount of dark matter in the solar system in those models ends up not being that much; roughly 10^17 kg of dark matter within a sphere the size of the orbit of Neptune, or about the same mass as a modest asteroid. However, because the space between the stars is so much larger than the size of a star system, even at that low density those models propose the total amount ends up out massing all the stars and normal matter.

I want to believe.

http://thesingularprimordialpreontheory.blogspot.com/

>>15572969
youre a physicist. i won't tell nobody.

What's up with all this satanic shit on /sci/?
Literally a black cube.

Knots of spacetime

>>15574047
how is it that baryonic matter clumps together due to gravity, but phantom matter is not subject to the same forces?

>>15575078
It does lump together under gravity to form galaxies, but the problem is that on smaller scales it cannot lose energy and cool like normal matter can. Once in a galaxy the particles have a non- negligible velocity from infall, this causes them to orbit rather than collapsing further. Baryonic matter has EM interactions which allow it to collide with other matter and lose angular momentum to fall in further much faster. Without cooling and friction you cannot form stars.

>>15533666
fairy dust and unicorns

>>15574047
>axions
>small

Nothing. Because it doesnt exist.

>>15533666
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

>>15533666
dark matter is just another jewish lie, it was invented to protect the reputation of st. einstein, the soience god of the atheists

>>15578430
>Maintaining the meme of Einstein the super genius is more important than learning new scientific facts about reality
Nice priorities those "scientists" have

If there is a massive halo of """""dark matter"""" surrounding the milky way then that means all of our views of anything extragalactic are badly distorted by the dark matter halo's gravitational lensing effects and that extragalactic astronomy is essentially not worth doing because everything about it is a mirage.

dark matter is made out of the value supposedly represented by fiat currency

>>15572918

MOND is a non-relativistic model so I don't see why anyone would expect it to have anything to say about the CMB. There is now a relativistic model of MOND that fits the CMB as well as DM does.

I personally do not find MOND very convincing but what you wrote has as much sense as saying cosmology refutes Newtonian gravity and so we should scrap the use of Newtonian gravity even when it's accurate.

>>15533666
checked
also its most likely made of chocolate

>>15581499
No MOND theory will ever explain the bullet cluster, sparse galaxies or gravitational lensing with no visible mass present.

>>15581724

Just because you state something doesn't make it true. People were going on for years about how 'no MOND theory can fit the CMB and large scale structure'. If you know anything about gravitation you will know that generically theories beyond general relativity introduce new degrees of freedom into the gravitational sector and so generally there are going to be deviations from any exact correlation between 'where the visible mass is' and 'where the gravitational field is'.

>>15581717
way way back in the early days of 4chan i used to play a game with /b/ called "chocolate or shit" i'd post a picture that was visually ambiguous and the most discerning /b/tards would look for subtle visual cues that would reveal the answer. after the first dozen or so threads everyone figured out that i never posted chocolate and that was the end of the game

>>15581499
>There is now a relativistic model of MOND that fits the CMB as well as DM does.
By literally adding a bunch of free parameters and functions with no physical meaning. Fitting some data post-hoc by brute force is always possible, it utterly meaningless. CDM on the other hand predicted it. They add invisible scalar fields which, by design give the same density scaling as matter. Invisible stuff which behaves like matter, where have I heard that before? So to save MOND one needs to accept dark matter. But worse, these models are much more complex than standard DM.
>MOND is a non-relativistic model so I don't see why anyone would expect it to have anything to say about the CMB.
MOND proponents calculated predictions for the CMB power spectrum before BOOMERANG and WMAP. They thought it would be a great test, and in the early days they thought they got it right. And then it turned to shit and now the excuse is that "it's only Newtonian".
A true solution shouldn't have a domain of usefulness, particularly one which is adjustable based on the current data.

>>15581933
>so generally there are going to be deviations from any exact correlation between 'where the visible mass is' and 'where the gravitational field is'.
Handwaving excuse. It's the relativistic god of the gaps, it does what they need it to. MOND's claim to fame was that it was so simple and they assumed a 1-to-1 mapping, if it's not true then all the work on galaxies is meaningless. There is no reason this has to only work in areas where MOND doesn't work.

>>15574047
so you are saying that dark matter is just gas and asteroids in the space outside star systems?

>>15549450
>you would expect there to be less aliens the further back in time you go
/you/ might expect that, not me

>>15541892
That assumes those civilizations are not camouflage themselves. The Dark Forest hypothesis must be taken seriously, in fact our solar system may have being targeted by a preemptive strike in Mars. There is evidence of massive nuclear explosions millions years ago in that planet that can't be explained by natural events. An inhabitable Mars could have being a far better place to build a space port to colonize space due its lower gravity. Unfortunately those explosions were so massive they destroyed Mars' atmosphere. On top of that we don't know if there are natural resources that make space exploration easy, and were depleted on Earth long before humans even existed.

>>15533666
aether

>>15533666
i don't get why people here are so adverse to the idea of dark matter, dark matter is basically just anything that has mass but no electric charge (or at least not enough that you can see it with light)

By that definition many things can be dark matter, even neutrinos are a type of dark matter. We know what neutrinos are, where they come from, how they're made and how they behave. Neutrinos have mass but no electric charge which is why they can pass through atomic matter like it isn't there. There could be so many other things out there like this we just haven't seen or thought of yet

>>15583853
>There could be so many other things out there like this we just haven't seen or thought of yet
I've seen one other type of person cope just like this: religious folk who claim that god totally exists despite there being no evidence for its existence.

>>15584174
>could be
>totally exists
You see these are not the same?
Note that claiming to know for certain there is no dark matter is very much in the latter category.

>>15584174
>dark matter is god
god is a fatass

>>15580483
hey shut up

>>15584174
what are neutrinos then and why don't galaxies fly apart

>>15582752
why couldnt the space between galaxies be composed of highly compressed higgs field?

>>15568427
>There are spherical objects, like elliptical galaxies
GPT wrote this or you're completely retarded

Have we looked into how gravitational waves physically interact with matter? For a while I theorized darm matter was the effect of gravitational waves accelerating normal matter.

>>15582752

'relativistic god of the gaps'. It's not my fault if you don't know much field theory!

>>15585003
So go ahead and solve relativistic MOND for us now then.
Oh wait, people have done that, and the first one was ruled out. So now there are more which add additional scalar fields. There are basically infinitely many ways to do so. And so one can always claim the next one will solve these issues.

>>15533666
I think Jean-Pierre Petit's Janus Model is the most promising cosmological model right now. The guy's a brilliant explainer, but he's considered a joke in the French scientific community because he's a UFO guy and not very sociable.
(here https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfdj8oy5zeoHJohMx_VLaK0-2_A_TQrKB for the English version. I don't know the quality of the subtitles, I only watched the original French version, which has more videos)

The TL;DW version is that his model is an extension of relativity that includes negative mass and energy.
In this model dark matter is negative energy antimatter IIRC.

>>15584612
Macro-scale gravitational theories are just like the micro-scale gravitational theories: the further you move from the average, the less accurate your calculations are going to be.
Dark matter is nothing more than a crutch that validates using the wrong calculations at the wrong scale.

>>15586412
>the further you move from the average, the less accurate your calculations are going to be.
And yet, in the early universe when the CMB was emitter the whole universe was almost average density with tiny perturbations. But standard gravity and normal matter fail to match the data catastrophically. The "crutch" on the other hand correctly predicted the power spectrum.

>>15586569
thats because the crutch is a variable that automatically matches every observation. dark matter is a theory that can't be proved wrong, hence it is not a scientific theory.

>>15586605
Wrong. Cold Dark Matter adds only a single parameter to standard cosmology, it's average density. The distribution is set by gravity and it's initial conditions (the same as normal matter). And it predicted the observation, not just matched it.
It could easily be disproven. If the current density of normal matter was found to be too high, or if higher resolution CMB observations deviated from CDM predictions.

>>15586996
>predicted the observation
This is news to me? When did dark matter predict anything

>>15587027
Pic related is a predicted angular power spectrum of the CMB fluctuations from 1995. You can also see the best measurements at the time, which were compatible with anything. But this theorical curve looks just like the modern WMAP and Planck data. CDM predicted this.

>>15587027

This (>>15572918) on the other hand is the modern Planck data, and the best model which has no dark matter. These baryon only models fail completely.

I think it's not real and GR is just plain wrong.

>>15586605
>dark matter is a theory that can't be proved wrong, hence it is not a scientific theory.
Dark matter is defined as the discrepancy between observed reality and the predictions of Einstein's theories

>>15587858
If its not possible to disprove GR then that means that GR is not science, but a faith based belief

>>15587858
That is complete bullshit. There are models for dark matter such as CDM. That would not be possible if it was defined as you claim. GR only makes predictions when combined with models of the the mass distribution and dynamics. It is not GR alone.
>>15587885
It is possible.

>>15562430
still compatible with Quantized Inertia

>>15587966
it isn't possible, whenever it happens dark matter always magically appears to fill in the gaps.

>>15587985
Mike has never actually demonstrated that, all we have is handwaving. The actual mathematical part of QI is just MOND, which does not work in the Bullet Cluster or galaxy clusters in general.

>>15587990
There are tests of gravity which don't depend on how much matter you have. And as I said, it is not the case that DM is just added wherever needed.

>>15588004
it is the case that DM is just added wherever needed. the dark matter fiction was invented for that purpose

>>15533666
>What is your favorite candidate for dark matter?
There isn't one. The discrepancies are more fundamental to the theories or a result of major human errors.

>>15588011
So why do models like CDM exist then? Why would they need something that predicts the distribution?

>>15588011
Dark matter exists everywhere that St. Einstein, the soience god of the atheists, was wrong
>the universe in 95% dark matter
Einstein must've been dumb as shit to need that much fictitious phantom matter to be imagined in order to maintain his reputation.

>>15533666
It's just unlit mattter from our perspective.

gravity being 1/r^2 only applies within the magnetosphere of a solar system, it follows more closely to 1/sqrt(r) within the domain of a galaxy
gravity is not a fundamental force in of itself, but a manifestation of the electromagnetic force

They left it in the simulation to troll us

>>15534438
There are people like this who post literally worthless posts like this one and do not even understand why their statements are worthless.
Like, I could explain to you how you need to define how the "pure energy" interacts and how it's different, otherwise everything would just be "pure energy". Congrats, you have now defined the dark matter.

I am sharing this planet with such euthanizable NPCs.

>>15581724
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-bullet-cluster-as-evidence-against.html?m=1
>The Bullet Cluster isn’t the incontrovertible evidence for particle dark matter that you have been told it is. It’s possible to explain the Bullet Cluster with models of modified gravity. And it’s difficult to explain it with particle dark matter.

>>15588842
Pretty sure he was ironic there bud. Did get a chuckle out of me

>>15588908
She's wrong about that, but lets say she's not. That still leaves all the other observations. No MoND theory can explain the galaxies and galaxy clusters where dark matter is either absent or present where normal matter is missing. Mond is a modification to the law of gravity, you don't get to pick and choose the locations where it is applicable. It either applies everywhere or it doesn't apply at all.

>>15588908
If you read the comments she admits the article is intentionally biased and completely misleading. She deliberately lies about what the papers say. There is no tension today with particle dark matter, that was all based on the false assumption that the merging velocity must be the shock velocity. It is completely explicable with cold dark matter. The other reality is that no modified gravity model can explain it, and it's not even clear how they could if you built a new model. Sabine doesn't even discuss that key part of the bullet cluster, the offset lensing. Serious MOND people accept that it means they need extra mass, whereas Sabine clings to the hope that one day some one will make a magic modified gravity that does all of this.

>>15589069
>people accept that it means they need extra mass
or that the distance scale is wrong

>>15590453
That wouldn't fix the issue.

>>15588046
>Why would they need something that predicts the distribution?
The distribution is predicted by GR, wherever GR fails, dark matter magically appears

>>15533666
research grants, Satan
it's research grants that make hack "scientists" hallucinate theories which make no testable predictions but don't contradict any of the available experimental data
pointless exercises in curve-fitting

let's be clear about another thing:
neither GR nor QM are complete, there are "magic" constants in both, they are incomplete in different ways, and their supporters are wrong to believe that they can be merged together into a GUT
the scandal of renormalization never went away, "scientists" just sorta got used to doublethinking around it
scandal of the gravitational constant, ditto

>>15592281
wait till you learn some of the fundamentals of statistics and then go perusing through the data analysis in astrophysics papers

it's fucking horrifying

for a different, more general illustrative example of lofty conclusions from lousy data (if you don't feel the urge to study the next step in the progression of lies and damn lies): the "anthropic principle" is statistically and philosophically meaningless. it is about as useful to the discussion as a dogmatic solipsist is to a philosophical debate. the fact it wasn't tossed aside immediately, but instead continues to be pushed by active researchers in the field of cosmology as some staggering insight, should tell you a great deal. IT'S A FUCKING TAUTOLOGY.

physicists seem to repeatedly stumble, for years at a time, at rudimentary philosophical questions. quantum physics does this, cosmology does this, high-energy particle physics does this - at a certain point i have to wonder if an entire course in epistemology should be mandatory for all physics graduates (and believe it or not, it'd be quite complementary to the aforementioned statistics studying).

i think there's something of an institutional cultural barrier there - the physicists want to feel like they're operating closer to reality, that everything else builds on physics, but the appalling truth is the closest disciplines to the fundamental properties of reality are... mathematics and philosophy. not interpretive models of natural philosophy, from which physics as a field was derived, but the process of thought that allows for anything at all to be derived, and the language with which to standardize it.

>scandal of the gravitational constant
i was aware of the former but not this one, QRD?

>>15592409
>more general illustrative example of lofty conclusions from lousy data
Give us an example.
>the fact it wasn't tossed aside immediately
Why would you discard something which is obviously true? It is an incredibly niche concept, which has no relevance to most of cosmology.

>>15592422
>Give us an example.
if you mean for the statistical thing, the prevalence of lack of control for selection effects alone makes for worthless analyses. the assumption of homogeneity (where Earth has the unprivileged vantage point of... being able to estimate all other possible vantage points, how convenient) is literally a cope to keep that from breaking everything

the industry data standard in astronomy is literally p-hacking

>Why would you discard something which is obviously true?
>legitimately unable to understand that truth isn't usefulness
to be, or not to be, that is the question.

the answer is "true", and it's useless.

the anthropic principle can be boiled down to "we exist because we exist". that's it.

holy fuck you're retarded

>It is an incredibly niche concept
so you've just not been fucking paying attention to all the things it's been invoked to explain, then. i'm sure the theorists wish dark matter was still "niche"

besides, how popular something is does not matter - epistemology isn't fucking democratic, it's fundamental to knowledge itself.

>going "it's not wrong, but if it is it doesn't matter" as a defense in the span of two sentences
i reiterate, holy fuck you're retarded

>>15592281
>there are "magic" constants in both
yeah if you think the speed of light is a "magic constant" you need to never return to this board ever again

>>15592409
No, by examples I meant "lofty conclusions from lousy data".
>the prevalence of lack of control for selection effects alone makes for worthless analyses
One never controls that for observational sciences. It doesn't make them worthless, it just means one needs to model selection effects in a model dependent way. If what you say was true then all observational sciences would be discarded, astronomy, geology, earth science...
>the assumption of homogeneity (where Earth has the unprivileged vantage point of... being able to estimate all other possible vantage points, how convenient) is literally a cope to keep that from breaking everything
Homogeneity has been tested observationally many times using galaxy surveys. It has passed every test. These tests are model dependent but that's the best one can do.
>the industry data standard in astronomy is literally p-hacking
No it's not. p value statistics aren't even common in astronomy. Show us an example instead of making empty claims.
>so you've just not been fucking paying attention to all the things it's been invoked to explain
Oh look, zero examples given.

>>15592513
>observational sciences
that's why that quote ends with "analyses" you lump

>It has passed every test.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules%E2%80%93Corona_Borealis_Great_Wall

what do you know, this article has both contradictions of homogeneity AND suggested abuse of statistical analyses

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle#CMB_dipole

what's this, another failed test? inconceivable! perhaps the Planck team simply screwed up the data collection so we can dismiss the anisotropy (don't worry about losing the entire CMB map in the process)

i'm going to bed, you're not worth the time. have a nice pray at your shrine to the LambdaCDM creation myth or whatever

>>15592553
>that's why that quote ends with "analyses" you lump
So by your twisted definition all of these sciences are "worthless". That is not mainstream epistemology, this is your own silly claims. It is fucking absurd to place all these aspects of the world behind a curtain because you don't like the fact that you can vary the parameters at will.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules%E2%80%93Corona_Borealis_Great_Wall
This is your big result? The fact it's not reproduced in other studies tells you everything you need to know. It probably isn't significant at all.
>suggested abuse of statistical analyses
Strange. You're citing this article as evidence of a departure from homogeneity, and saying you the statistics used to build the case for it are bullshit. These are mutually exclusive claims.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle#CMB_dipole
You would only expect it to be zero if the Earth was in a very privileged position. What a silly argument.

>>15592474
That's just one step removed from the permissivity of free space magic constant

>>15582683
so you made everyone look at shit. i don't see a difference to what we have now though.

>>15583322
mars is not heavy enough to hold an atmosphere for long

>>15533666
Nothing. It's an artifact caused by our wrong assumption that the universe is a deSitter universe rather than a Machian one.

>>15533666
Error because the gravity equation that says dark matter should exist is wrong.

>>15536713
>>15536695
All antimatter is highly unstable and decays into regular matter. Only anti-electrons annihilate with electrons. Antiprotons don't annihilate, they just decay.

>>15593056
neither antiprotons or protons have ever been observed to decay

>>15533666
checkd

I just wonder what dark matter would mean for unified theory

>>15536964
>god exists so he made earth flat while other planets are orbs
so gods retarded?

>>15593538
To be fair, he accounted for that with "Space isn't real".

>>15533710
>strong CP problem

>>15592474
gravitational "constant" pfffffthahahahahahahha

>>15592409
>QRD
it does not follow from any of Einstein's work in theory and it refuses to stay constant in practice
other than that it's just fine, one little magic number "physicists" base their "understanding"' of the world on
it is enough to make one vomit

>>15592553
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle#CMB_dipole
>it's just dopplering, bro
>we are moving in relation to the cosmic background because reasons, this is not at all unusual and you should not ask why it should be so
>it all smooths out at larger scales, bro
>pls believe me, bro
>bro
>pls??!

>>15533666
Dark matter isn't real and it is exactly like the aether hypothesis in the 1800s. I shitpost a lot pretending to be retarded but I mean this 100%

>>15595048
Because peculiar velocities caused by local inhomogeneity and gravity. How strange that the dipole velocity points away from a big void towards a big supercluster.

>>15596702
it doesn't, but even if it did, that wouldn't be meaningful

>>15598288
It does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_repeller
https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/c/Cosmic+Microwave+Background+Dipole
>that wouldn't be meaningful
How so? Try forming an argument.

At what point do we admit that dark matter simply isn't real, and the models that require it are a band-aid to avoid admitting our theory of gravity is wrong and we don't know how to fix it?

>>15537469
>find the particle
No luck so far!

>>15537544
You've just made the problem even worse, now you need to prove "other dimensions" (whatever you mean by that) even exist in the first place.

>>15598880
Why would you just jump to the opposite assumption and accept it without evidence? It would not be accepted until a) a better model of gravity is constructed which explains this and all GR effects or b) a convincing experiment shows GR is violated (regardless of assumptions about DM).
You forget people have been looking for deviations from GR and a better model for much longer than dark matter.

>>15533666
dark matter is a BLM psyop

>>15598880
Not even close to reaching that point. In fact the more evidence we collect the more it indicates our theory of gravity is correct. The only thing that has changed is the likelihood of what kind of particle dark matter is.

it's axions

THIS THREAD

IS DED

Holy shit, was this thread really kept alive for so long purely by mondoid seethe?

>>15598458
>argument
they don't have any, it's just dogma
> the universe is isotropic at large scales because... it just is, okay?! shit

>>15599370
Yeah, instead of this fictional particle, it'll totally be this new one. That will be 50 million dollars, please. Plus tip.

Where the dark matter particle?
OOH AH OOH AH OOH
I can't observe it!