[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 4 KB, 231x218, download (6).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10815335 No.10815335 [Reply] [Original]

>The primary evidence for dark matter is that calculations show that many galaxies would fly apart instead of rotating, or would not have formed or move as they do, if they did not contain a large amount of unseen matter.
Dark matter [...] does not appear to interact with observable electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum,

What does this sound like to you?

>> No.10815355

>>10815335
>our current calculations of reality show that galaxies are impossible, could they be wrong?
>no no no, there's just shitloads of secret matter that no one can see holding it together, promise ;)

>> No.10815377

>>10815355
Theories of modified gravity exist and people work on them.

Is dark matter such a weird idea? is it too radical to imagine that some particles wouldn't interact with photons?

>> No.10815382

>>10815335
>What does this sound like to you?
A wojak posting retard with barely surface level pop-sci knowledge talking about things outside of his depth with authority.

>> No.10815385

>>10815335
Probably one of the following
1.) Unknown particle
2.) A correction must be made to Einstein's field equations.

>> No.10815394

>>10815335
It's ok when people see this as one of many possibilities, but when someone took dark matter as a dogma he clearly retarded.

>> No.10815395

>>10815335
>Dark matter [...] does not appear to interact with observable electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum,

...and therefore has never been the input or output of any experiment so it does not actually exist. In fact we made it up, all you've been talking about is something we never actually observed or confirmed. Just a though experiment.

>>10815377
>photon
speaking of other thought experiments that have not been the input/output of any experiment...

>> No.10815553 [DELETED] 

>>10815335

Its literally just the aether. Of course dark matter does not interact with light, it freaking propogates it. Like, how is this not stupidly obvious to everyone?

Also, yes, dark matter exists, it "lenses" around mass by distorting the path of the light traveling through it, literally like a freaking aether fluid, because that is what it is.

*bangs head repeatedly against desk*

>> No.10815606

>>10815335
Do you also rage against the presence of incognitos in equations? Because that's literally what dark matter is, a placeholder term that represents mass that is missing according to our visual observation.
Why do you take the existence of dark matter as dogma and why do you become angry for doing so?
Also, your hangup about matter not interacting with electromagnetism is retarded ever since the neutrino was confirmed to exist. There are chargeless fundamental particles, deal with it.

>> No.10815708

>>10815335
It sounds exactly like why the philosophers of the 17th century introduced the Ether

>> No.10815717

wtf science is an empirical system that constantly uses a series of rational abstractions to explain the physical realm wtf gravity isnt actually a thing wtf

>> No.10815723

>>10815335
It sounds like a fucking moron on an imageboard that thinks he knows more than thousands of cosmologists and physicists.

If. You. Can. Think. Of it.
They. Already. Did.
And. Know. Something. You. Don’t

Create your own theory of gravity that explains the anomaly and earn your Nobel prize.

>> No.10815724

>>10815355
>>10815394
>>10815395
this is why physics is fucking dead, literally only pure math and fucking philosophy is safe from these retards

>> No.10815725

>>10815724
>Physics is dead because of stupid anons

Nah you’re too pessimistic. It’s fine.

>> No.10815731

>>10815724
Didn't hawking win a Nobel based on a theory that was never experimentally verified

>> No.10815734

>>10815731
No. He doesn’t have a Nobel. Look it up.

>> No.10815808
File: 18 KB, 395x387, lol wut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10815808

>>10815724
>philosophy
>safe from retards

>> No.10815809

>>10815385
>correction
More like the equations must be disregarded entirely. Relativity is pseudoscience.

>> No.10815812

>>10815377
Modified gravity is irrelevant because we've now discovered a galaxy with far less dark matter and its got a very different rate of spin than normal gravity with normal amounts of dark matter.

>> No.10815826

>>10815335
>What does this sound like to you?
Pseudoscience

>> No.10815834

>>10815809
>This bait

>> No.10815836

>>10815708
Does that mean it'll turn out that gravity can happen without mass?

>> No.10815854

Sounds like the universe still has more secrets to discover.

That and or the equations and theories of a man that has been dead for almost 100 years were probably wrong and need to be corrected.

>> No.10815905

>>10815854
>That and or the equations and theories of a man that has been dead for almost 100 years were probably wrong and need to be corrected.
This. Relativity is a meme. However, 'almost 100 years' is hardly accurate.

>> No.10815931

>>10815905
>This. Relativity is a meme.

Earn your Nobel prize by creating a new theory of gravity. The world waits.

You won’t, because you’re just a retarded anon. Einstein could probably outsmart you even in his current state.

>> No.10815932

>>10815905
Fine almost 70 years then. I honestly thought the dude died way before 55. Besides years are pretty relative. Is 30 years much of a difference in the grand scheme of things?

>> No.10815940

>>10815931
>Earn your Nobel prize by creating a new theory of gravity. The world waits.
Okay
>You won’t, because you’re just a retarded anon.
Whether or not I do is irrelevant to the fact that relativity is wrong
>Einstein could probably outsmart you even in his current state
retard
>>10815932
More like 36
I agree with your assertation though. Einstein was smart and made some good contributions to physics, but he was wrong about some aspects of relativity (i.e. relativity of simultaneity).
Later in life he did go back on some things, i.e. reverting to believing in the ether

>> No.10815948

>>10815931
>Earn your Nobel prize by creating a new theory of gravity. The world waits.
^This. I don't think you guys appreciate just how much work has gone into trying to make GR go away. If it were really that much of a failure it would've been replaced a long time ago. Not like there's a shortage of alternative suggestions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity

>> No.10815949

>>10815931
The Nobel prize is a fucking meme

Or do you want to explain to me how Obama is even eligible for a Nobel peace prize when the dude has ordered the deaths of far more people (civilians) than you or I ever could dream of.

>> No.10815956

>>10815949
>peace prize
I don't think that's the same as the physics category.

>> No.10815957

>>10815948
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity
based
>>10815949
>Or do you want to explain to me how Obama is even eligible for a Nobel peace prize when the dude has ordered the deaths of far more people (civilians) than you or I ever could dream of.
based

>> No.10815959

>>10815956
If one category is tainted with corruption then why should I believe the others are clean?

>> No.10815961

>>10815959
Because "peace" isn't a real subject. It's like you're comparing honorary degrees given to celebrities with actual hard science credentials.

>> No.10815966

>>10815940
>Okay

Lemme know when you publish it in Nature.

>Whether or not I do is irrelevant to the fact that relativity is wrong

There’s no evidence it is wrong, actually.

>> No.10815994

>>10815931
Just because Einstein was a genius does not mean he was right. Einstein disproved a lot of Newton's ideas yet he said he was the greatest ever.

Are you saying that Aristotle, Socrates, Freud, and Nietzsche were idiots because we disproved some or most of their ideas?

>> No.10816000

>>10815808
a large percent of them are not retards, but theyre defintley there, yes.

>> No.10816006

>>10815966
>Nature
Cuck journal
>There’s no evidence it is wrong, actually.
Except it is wrong, retard
>>10815994
Wow, a smart anon on /sci/ for once.

>> No.10816023

>>10815994
>Just because Einstein was a genius does not mean he was right.

Never said so. You’re arguing against no one.

>Are you saying that Aristotle, Socrates, Freud, and Nietzsche were idiots because we disproved some or most of their ideas?

No.

>> No.10816024

>>10816023
So you're agreeing that relativity is a meme?

>> No.10816026

>>10816006
>Cuck journal

Literally one of the best in the world. What are you talking about? Did they reject your paper so you published it in the Journal of Hermeneutic Quantum Pakistani Interlays?

>Except it is wrong, retard

Prove it.

>> No.10816029

>>10816024
Nope, never said that either.
Why are you so eager to misrepresent people and lie?

>> No.10816030

>>10816026
>Literally one of the best in the world.
All printed journals are cuck journals.
>Prove it
Burden of proof, candy-ass

>> No.10816034

>>10816029
You just said that you didn't say that Einstein was right. Stop contradicting yourself you massive fucking faggot. Relativity is a meme and you are a meme.

>> No.10816035

>>10816030
>All printed journals are cuck journals.

.....Why?

>Burden of proof, candy-ass

Yes, it is yours, since you made the claim that relativity is wrong here.
>>10816006

Meet your burden of proof, please. You can’t wiggle out of it.

>> No.10816038

>>10816034
>You just said that you didn't say that Einstein was right

Wrong. I said that I never said Einstein was right because he was a genius.
You just lied, again, and everyone can see it.
Why?

>> No.10816039

>>10816035
>.....Why?
The contributors (researchers) aren't paid for their contributions to the journals and in fact they often have to pay to submit their content.
>Yes, it is yours, since you made the claim that relativity is wrong here.
No, it's yours, you fucking retard, because you are the one claiming the theory is correct.

>> No.10816041

>>10815812
how do we measure the amount of dark matter in a galaxy?

>> No.10816052

>>10816039
>No, it's yours, you fucking retard

No, I didn’t make the claim. You did. Here.
>>10816006
Even if I had made a claim of my own, you’d still have your own burden of proof as you also made a claim.

>because you are the one claiming the theory is correct.

I actually never did so. I only disputed your claim that it is false, which you have yet to substantiate.

>> No.10816068

>>10816041
Spin rate of a galaxy + distribution of stars in the galaxy.

>> No.10816076

>>10816052
>I actually never did so. I only disputed your claim that it is false
>I didn't say it's true, I only said it's not false
Imagine being this retarded.

>> No.10816079

>>10816076
>I actually never did so. I only disputed your claim that it is false
>I didn't say it's true, I only said it's not false

Not the same thing.
I return to my previous question.
>>10816029

Why do you keep misrepresenting me? Why do you keep lying? Is it because, if you don’t, you see no possible rebuttal?

I’ll explain this for you very slowly.
Maybe relativity is false. I don’t know. You made the claim it is false, so prove that claim. I wait.

>> No.10816113

>>10816068
So in other words, it's measured by filling in the holes produced by using a potentially incorrect theory? In other other words, it's not measured as much as it is made up.

>> No.10816119

>>10816113
All theories are potentially incorrect, that's what makes things a scientific theory rather than a faith based revelation. All theories must be falsifiable as a result. Why? Because all theories are models that we make through observation and mathematical rigor.

>> No.10816121

>>10816113
>So in other words, it's measured by filling in the holes produced by using a potentially incorrect theory?

Lemme know when you produce a better one, anon.

>In other other words, it's not measured as much as it is made up.

Wrong.

>> No.10816138

>>10815335
Tinfoil hat theory?

The big Intel powers that be have been promoting disinformation surrounding gravity for the last 70 years or so. Why? Because it gives them power over the masses. Likely that our entire reality is electrical and magnetic in nature, and gravity is closley related to these two phenomena. With that they are able to build machines that interact with this gravity and move in ways unexplained by the misinfo form of gravity. By promoting the misinfo form, they ensure those powers that aren't inside their secret club will be kept in the dark chasing false realities. Without this, the masses now have access to a tech that moves them across space quickly and at low energy inputs, which makes all power structures irrelevant and will lead to chaos.

>> No.10816145
File: 1.00 MB, 1716x1710, 1549889112982.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10816145

>>10815382
So what /sci/ does everyday with other fields like philosophy?

>> No.10816147

>>10815723
OP's retarded but the reasoning in this post is pathetic. I hope you're a woman, a man shouldn't be such a push over.

>> No.10816151

>>10816119
True. But what we're talking about here is a potentially incorrect theory being bandaged by an even more potentially incorrect theory. It's doubling down on stupid and has convinced too many smart idiots that it's the only way forward.

>> No.10816155

>>10816151
There is nothing bandaged here. A galaxy with minimal dark matter works perfectly fine in dark matter theory. It doesn't work out in any other alternative models, this is why such a discovery in fact, gives the theory of dark matter even bigger boost due to the discovery confirming how # of dark matter in a galaxy can shape the galaxy itself and discounting the other competing theories.

>> No.10816452

>>10816113
>Totally disproving GR based on a comment explanation of dark matter
The retardation is palpable within this one.

>> No.10816465

>>10816076
There are no "true" theories anon, just good enough at the moment. GR is corroborated by the models and predictions it has produced, but no one expects it to be the ultimate theory of gravity, it will be replaced eventually when we find one that accommodates the data better, forms better predictions. But as it stands, GR has no been falsified, and if you claim it is, then you have the burden of proof.

>> No.10816478

>>10815836
Yes, Bob Lazar

>> No.10816808

I thought we were talking about dark matter

>> No.10816814

>>10815812
there are some modified gravity theories that work with the bullet cluster

>> No.10816991

>>10816145
>philosophy
>>>/his/
>>>/lit/
>>>/b/
>>>/x/
This would be a better board if the philositards stayed where they belonged.

>> No.10816995

>>10815836
What happens when you pump as much energy as possible into a confined region of space.
Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.

>> No.10817289

>>10815723
You do realize that your reasoning would mean that no one will never ever invent anything new?

>> No.10817292

>>10816991
Low verbal IQ

>> No.10817294

>>10815812
I recall seeing a news item about that observation being all wrong.

>> No.10817295

>>10817289
Wrong. I am referring to layman opinions like “Da climate has always been changing”.

>> No.10817650

>>10815335
The evidence for Dark Matter is now so overwhelming that we must accept that there is a substance out there which does not interact with light but does have mass.

Why is this so hard for some people to accept? How is the idea that there exists some matter that doesn't interact with light impossible to be understood?

Dear god it's not rocket surgery.

>> No.10817651

>>10817295
that's not an opinion, that's a factual statement and also correct.

>> No.10817655

>>10817650
it should still collide with other matter shouldn't it? can such collisions be measured? if not, how can that be?

>> No.10817660

Why doesn't dark matter form into planets or star-sized stellar objects? When will scientists admit dark matter is just pure delusion kept afloat by theorists just like Suzy and string theory?

>> No.10817718

>>10817655
>it should still collide with other matter shouldn't it?
Define 'collide'. Macroscopic collision is usually understood as electrostatic repulsion between charged particles.
Neutrinos are a perfect example of a confirmed-to-exist particle that doesn't interact with electromagnetism. If you shoot one at the floor, it will phase through the entire planet and fly off the other side. Its mass is so small the gravitational pull of the Earth barely deflects it.
In fact, one of the candidates for dark matter is 'insane ammount of neutrinos'. But it has such small mass they'd have to be in absurd quantities and we'd have to explain their source.
Since we have insufficient data to assert what that mass-that-doesnt-seem-to-interact-with-light is, we came up with a placeholder name for it that reflects its two known properties: 'dark (no interaction with light) matter (massive)'.
For some reason, the concept of an incognito confuses some people. These same people also believe dark matter (placeholder name for undefined substance) holds the same status as matter and antimatter when it does not, since the last two are well defined. Brainlets rage at this, I still don't understand why.

>> No.10817728

>>10817660
>Why doesn't dark matter form into planets or star-sized stellar objects?
It can, in theory. Why wouldn't it? It would also likely pool near the cores of celestial objects regardless of what they are made of.
>When will scientists admit dark matter is just pure delusion kept afloat by theorists just like Suzy and string theory?
What exactly is the problem with the concept of dark matter? Please tell us what doesn't make sense to you. Its a name for a hypothetical form of massive substance. We have already discovered three different particles with the exact same properties (the neutrinos). But scientists hate affirming things without evidence, contrary to your belief, that's why they leave it at dark matter until a better characterization can be made.

>> No.10817730

>>10817718
dark seems to be a misnomer, transparent or invisible would be better. dark means light-absorbing.

>> No.10817736

>>10817728
>It would also likely pool near the cores of celestial objects regardless of what they are made of.
wouldn't this make the body more massive and thus change orbit calculations etc.? if they stick to a particular planet then that planet should effectively become heavier, but I thought the claim is that solar systems or entire galaxies are heavier than expected, so you'd be looking for something that orbits around in a fairly random pattern so you don't see it swaying the flight path of any particular body. am I making sense? not an astronomer.

>> No.10817862

>>10817730
I agree with your suggestions, but its just nomenclature. The important thing is the concept in itself. I also wish the words 'flavor' and 'color' weren't used to describe fundamental properties of fundamental particles, but what can we do after it's been internationally agreed upon?

>>10817736
>>10817736
>wouldn't this make the body more massive and thus change orbit calculations etc.?
Yes it would, it would change their angular momentum, gravitational pull and the orbits of surrounding bodies.

>if they stick to a particular planet then that planet should effectively become heavier, but I thought the claim is that solar systems or entire galaxies are heavier than expected,
Exactly! Their angular momentum indicates a larger mass than what is observed visually. That's why the concept of dark matter exists.
>so you'd be looking for something that orbits around in a fairly random pattern
Initially, sure. But if it interacts gravitationally, it would be pulled onto (preferentially very) massive celestial objects.

>so you don't see it swaying the flight path of any particular body. am I making sense? not an astronomer.
The dark matter object would also have to be very massive to have a noticeable effect on other celestial objects, and still would not be visible. If you found a star or planet being affected by the gravitational pull of an invisible object that isn't massive enough to be a black hole, it could be a dark matter body or a topological defect in spacetime. If it moved, it would likely be the former (and if it expanded isotropically, it would likely be the latter).
These conditions aren't noticeable from the Sol system unless we had an example very close to us, and dark matter is likely more concentrated near Sagittarius A* or as diffuse WIMPS around the Local Group.
Our best bet is that it interacts through the weak force and can be created in a hadron collider to confirm it.
(cont)

>> No.10817876

Continued from
>>10817862

Or maybe dark matter was neutrinos all along and there's simply some undiscovered reason we don't observe more of them here (Note: every square centimeter perpendicular to Sol around the Earth receives 65 billion neutrinos per second).
The neutrino has very, very low mass and the processes that produce them don't seem to be able to account for the amount necessary for it to replace dark matter.

>> No.10818077

>>10817660
>Why doesn't dark matter form into planets or star-sized stellar objects?
When a cloud of material compresses gravitationally, it begins to spin around faster due to its initial angular momentum. Even tiny initial angular velocities are amplified drastically as the cloud collapses over astronomical distance scales. Eventually, the cloud is spinning fast enough such that each particle orbits around without being able to fall any farther. To compress more, the cloud needs friction to transfer potential energy to heat. Since the proposed dark matter interacts very weakly with itself and other matter, it wouldn't be able to collapse on itself very far and instead remains in diffuse halos.

>> No.10818139

>>10815335
>What does this sound like to you?

like they don't know how gravity works, but are too well funded to ever admit they made a mistake.

>> No.10818640

>>10815731
>Didn't hawking win a Nobel
You idiotic sack of shit. How much effort does it take to Google something so simple instead of asking here first?

>> No.10818658

>>10815335
I understand what it is and how it works. I wouldn't call it dark matter though. It's merely the other sides gravity having an effect on our universe.

>> No.10818660

>>10816145
>/sci/ does with other fields like philosophy
philosophy isn't a science bub.
hit the road.

>> No.10818667

>>10816145
Philosophy angers the naturalist

>> No.10818670

>>10815335
...and Gravitational lensing, and...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence

>> No.10818677

>>10815335
Like crazy schizo talk from/x/ but the "calculations" say "otherwise" :^)

>> No.10818679

>>10818670
Dark matter is undetectable.

>> No.10818681

>>10818679
Except when we literally detect it by measuring gravitational anomalies in space

>> No.10818688
File: 14 KB, 633x758, eyeglass wojak.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10818688

>>10818681
Dark matter is just a hypothesis which could be filled by any number of different objects. The necessary properties of dark matter do not pick out any unique thing. Dark matter has never been detected in a laboratory, and probably will never be detected

>> No.10818879

>>10815606
>Why do you take the existence of dark matter as dogma and why do you become angry for doing so?
Because he gets this warm, cozy feeling of superiority by believing that he's on some superior level of understanding when, in reality, he's made an incorrect assumption about the current state of scientific dogma and looks a fool.

>> No.10818889

>>10818679
lrn2read

>> No.10818898

>>10815959
Only physics, chemistry and physiology/medicine prizes are the original Nobel prizes. Peace and literature prizes were added later, and they are not funded from Alfred Nobel's foundation. Peace and literature prizes are an American invention.

>> No.10818905

>>10815905
>The second most tested theory in history, is correct every time
>meme
Opinion discarded.

>> No.10818909
File: 844 KB, 1093x893, 1562172605728.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10818909

>>10815335
Sounds like another retard has made another thread about dark matter whilst knowing next to nothing about it thinking they are the first person to arrive at the most elementary conclusion. Read a book sometime and maybe you wont be a pseud for the rest of your life.

>> No.10820574
File: 79 KB, 600x600, 1560027110650.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10820574

>>10815335
I thought Eric Dollard, Ken Wheeler, and some of the Electric Universe guys had some interesting ideas.

The entire idea of a dark matter and dark energy "skeleton" of the universe, which was guiding its development much like voltage gradients guide nerve axons together, is very interesting regardless of the absolute underlying basis of that reality.

>> No.10820588
File: 445 KB, 746x676, yukari_smile.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10820588

Dark matter axions solve the strong CP problem and form topological defects that can be experimentally detected.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.1244

>> No.10820960

>>10815377
Brainlet here.

Is dark matter composed of completely different particles from your standard atom?

What would prevent said particles from interacting with or deflecting photons as atomic nuclei do?

>> No.10820989

>>10815724
What no, physics is constantly evolving. This just means our current understanding of the universe’s properties isn’t rigorous enough. Just like how Einstein’s relativity tweaked some major problems with Newtonian mechanics.

>> No.10820994

>>10815809
>Relativity is pseudoscience

Unironic retard, we already have substantial evidence of relativity and have made use of it in practice

>> No.10821026

>>10815385
3.) Our measurements suck dick
4.) Our simulations for how a galaxy should rotate are completely out of touch

>> No.10821033

>>10815723
OP is right though as far as I know Dark Matter isn't THE answer it is just a placeholder until people actually find the truth.

>> No.10821037

>>10818688
>Dark matter is just a hypothesis which could be filled by any number of different objects.

All of those “objects” are dark matter.

>> No.10821041

>>10821033
Then we’ll just call it metric quantirons or whatever the hell we end up naming the particles.

>> No.10821049

>>10816145
Physics has been clamped and circumcised. Then vaccinated against intelligence.

>> No.10821052

>>10821041
Dark matter is a fine name I am just saying it isn't something that you can just say "Yep it exists we have discovered it there is no question" because that is not true.

>> No.10821063

>>10821052
It’s only a silly name because it gives the false impression that it’s somehow comparable to matter. I’d prefer calling it “dark mass”.

>> No.10821183

>>10817718
>Its mass is so small the gravitational pull of the Earth barely deflects it.
the absolute state of this board

>> No.10821346

>>10815940
>but he was wrong about some aspects of relativity (i.e. relativity of simultaneity)
What do you mean by this? That's not even GR, that's just SR and it follows from the constancy of the speed of light. You can't just say that relativity of simultaneity is "wrong" in isolation; to make it wrong you'd have to deny the constancy of the speed of light or claim that the laws of physics somehow change between inertial frames of reference, perhaps by invoking the ether. "Ether" as in something permeating space with an absolute velocity that comprises a preferred/universal reference frame -- not to be confused with the ether you claim Einstein "reverted" to believing in which bears no resemblance whatsoever to the actual pre-relativity ether theories and has no universal position/velocity/orientation of its own, rather being nothing more than a conceptualization of the properties of spacetime in GR. It was just terminology; not a theory in and of itself. The terminology never stuck of course (due to unwanted association with those pre-relativity ether theories) but the theory behind it still remains strong so far.

Which of those premises do you deny and what is your alternative, if any, to SR that solves whatever problem you think there is with relativity of simultaneity? Keep in mind that special relativity (and thus relativity of simultaneity) is also a part of quantum electrodynamics and other quantum field theories so your alternative must be compatible with their precise and successful predictions to supersede SR.

>> No.10821497

>>10815377
I think invisible space leprechauns are holding the galaxies together. Is that such a weird idea?

>> No.10821502

>>10821063
"Dark Mass" sounds too much like a Satanic ritual.

>> No.10821520

>>10815335
This sounds to me like calculations themselves are incorrect due to systematic error introduced by GTR diverging with reality it is meant to describe.

>> No.10821523

>>10815724
Pure math was murdered in cold blood by Godel, philosophy - by Hume. Get on with the times, pops.

>> No.10821529

>>10815994
No, the disproving part was actually Michelson, not Einstein.

And, regarding Freud, you know, arguably, the "talking cure" originated from Anna O (Bertha Pappenheim) through her collaboration with Breuer. Freud essentially modified the already existing technique to fit his fancy based on what he learned from Breuer concerning the whole incident.

And Nietzsche was simply a Schopenhauer's fanboy, and a mouthpiece for his retarded sister's ideas.

>> No.10821552

>>10815335
From what I read it’s most likely invisible particles. That’s what best fits the observations. Alternative gravity theories are cool too, but it’s apparently a struggle to make an alternative gravity theory that matches what we see that’s not much more convoluted than the invisible particle theory.

It reminds me of the discovery of the neutrino.

>> No.10821653

>>10820960
lol we don't know

>> No.10821707

>>10820960
>Is dark matter composed of completely different particles from your standard atom?
Yes
>What would prevent said particles from interacting with or deflecting photons as atomic nuclei do?
Not having electric charge. Particles without electric charge don't interact with the electromagnetic force. Neutrinos are an example.

>> No.10821710

>>10821183
>another electric universe /x/traterrestrial who thinks gravity and mass are unrelated

>> No.10821713 [DELETED] 
File: 296 KB, 500x375, nj.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10821713

>>10815724
>only pure math us safe
>what are real numbers

>> No.10821717 [DELETED] 
File: 296 KB, 500x375, nj.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10821717

>only pure math is safe
>what are real numbers

>> No.10822147
File: 296 KB, 500x375, 1485015072410.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10822147

>>10815724
>only pure math is safe
>what are real numbers

>> No.10823794

>>10821037
not that same guy, but the word "matter" implies a particle or set of particles, often thought of as new, yet undiscovered fundamental particles

what he meant is that it is a problem which can be solved in many other unknown ways without the necessity of new particles. it can be a fundamental misunderstanding of galaxies, simulations, the way light travels towards, whatever.

galaxies rotate differently that what we thought they would. there's broadly two choices
1. there is some new particle there we can't see to make data fit with our current knowledge of how galaxies rotate
2. we are wrong on how we think galaxies should rotate under our current assumptions

>> No.10824467
File: 19 KB, 231x218, transUntitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10824467

>>10815335

>> No.10824477

>>10815335
you do realise gravitational lensing exists right?