Let's just say, I've figured out the Dark Matter/Galaxy Rotation Thingy...

[Anonymous No.11312906]

... and it's a fact everything can be solved without magic particles or altering physics.

Will dark matter theorists on this board be able to accept this with any grace?
Or will there be some massive autistic meltdown?
Ending in a suicide. Or more.

Modified Gravity fans, could you care less if there really is more matter/mass?

[El Arcón No.11312909]

Why not both?

[Anonymous No.11312921]

>>11312909
becuz haet is unhaekhty altogether anon

[Anonymous No.11312968]

>>11312906
Post findings then.

Now, youre theory is mathematically grounded at the very least right?

[Anonymous No.11312988]

>>11312968
I've posted my reasoning, on here, previously.

I'm not mathematically minded; although I do have an IRL model.
Am I required to provide a proof that real life is mathematically grounded before you entertain my notion?

[Anonymous No.11312996]

>>11312988
>Am I required to provide a proof that real life is mathematically grounded before you entertain my notion?

Mathematics is used to approximate reality in the context of scientific models. Who gives a shit if it’s “grounded” otherwise?

[Anonymous No.11313004]

>>11312996
>context of scientific models
>not ALL models

pray tell me of a situation where math would be wrong

[Anonymous No.11313010]

>>11313004
>pray tell me of a situation where math would be wrong

Newton’s theory of gravity’s mathematics are wrong.

[Anonymous No.11313021]

>>11312909
The fact this "mystery" has been going so long.
The zealotry.

That what I'm taking aim at.


>>11312996
>Mathematics is used to approximate reality in the context of scientific models. Who gives a shit if it’s “grounded” otherwise?
Physics is self-consistent

>>11313004
Where you are applying it incorrectly.
See: Dark Matter or MoND.

>>11313010
Not "incorrect" (arguably). Depends on the precision you need. In which case they need modification, but universally (as an approximation) they hold well enough.

[Anonymous No.11313072]

>>11312988
I'll entertain your notion OP. And I don't give a shit about the math so long as you at least have a testable hypothesis or real observable proof. People tend to forget that the math has to obey the reality, not the other ways around. So let's hear it OP. What the hell is your revolutionary discovery that's sure to cause physicists the world over to REEEEE?

[Anonymous No.11313078]

Even though you're probably trolling, I want to hear what you have to say

[Anonymous No.11313094]

>>11313021
>it's not MoND
oh boy, can't wait to hear this

[Anonymous No.11313096]

>>11313078
>I want to hear what you have to say
Me too.
Seriously interested.

[Anonymous No.11313104]

>>11312906
>Galaxy Rotation Thingy
few more things to clear up before you leave us oh guru
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence

[OP No.11313110]

Why is this the wrong way round?!
When I originally posted, I hoped for intrigue.
But now that I'm genuinely looking for insight regarding the psyche of those with strong beliefs..I get this?

Whatever.
I'm not looking to be a tease.
Let's fine out how pzuedophrenic I really am.

[Anonymous No.11313116]

>>11312906
Is your story compatible with this?

[Anonymous No.11313130]

>>11313110
>I'm not looking to be a tease.
Thread's 100 minutes old, still nothing but tease.

[OP No.11313137]

>>11313104
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence

Yeah yeah.
Been through that a dozen times.
Is there any *current* evidence against the source of additional mass being regular matter, besides the flatness of galaxies?
Literally a genuine question.

So, not baryonic oscillations, or other stuff that depends on other stuff, that depends on other stuff, that depends on...well we don't really know why.

[Anonymous No.11313141]

>>11313137
>Been through that a dozen times.
try again

[Anonymous No.11313155]

>>11313137
Starting to get a little bored.
What's the point of this thread Opie?
Are we just here to defend modern science you might not like, or do you have a genuine insight?

>the source of additional mass being regular matter,
Is THIS what I keep coming back to this window for?
Not gonna lie, I'd rather go shitpost on /pol/, troll Trump supporters.
If you've got something less stupid, please proceed.

[OP No.11313160]

Christ, I'm posting this as a hypothetical!

[Anonymous No.11313164]

>>11313137
>>11313160
I like how you said you figured it out, yet you still won't prove it. You've just said "oh you won't believe me" or "let me ask you this..."

Just fucking post your proof. Nothing else. Just post it or shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.11313166]

>>11313160
>I'm posting this as a hypothetical!
Posting what?
So far I see:
>>11312906
>I've figured out the Dark Matter/Galaxy Rotation Thingy..
>. and it's a fact everything can be solved without magic particles or altering physics.
>>11312988
>I do have an IRL model.
>>11313137
>any *current* evidence against the source of additional mass being regular matter,
...so vague hints at some unexpected regular matter, and that's all we get for over two hours???
And your only "reasoning" so far is "why not"?

[OP No.11313169]

>>11313164
MOTHER.
FUCKER.
It was bait! The discussion I'm trying to evoke is to help me understand the resistance to a solution that conforms to our current understanding.
What is wrong with you?!

FINE.
Our estimates of stellar mass are based on apparent size and luminosity; correct?
You take a picture of a bulb in a warehouse.
In the next photo, the bulb has to appear both smaller and less luminous. What single step can you take to achieve this?
As an example, you could alter the ISO or voltage applied to the bulb (both results in the same apparent size).

[Anonymous No.11313170]

>>11313169
And you got no resistance from anybody, just requests for proof. So your bait was stupid and nobody fell for it.

And for whatever it is you're going on about, the answer is no.

[Anonymous No.11313171]

>>11313169
>correct?
nope

[OP No.11313178]

>>11313171
Enlighten me.
I'm an amateur with a wild fucking guess who couldn't give two shits about the whole thing before stumbling upon a pzeudophrenically sound hypothesis.

>>11313170
First statement, objectively false. And so on, I presume.
A request that IRl is mathematically sounds a tad absurd, no?

[Anonymous No.11313182]

>>11313178
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/141875/how-do-you-estimate-the-mass-of-a-star

10 sec of googling, you stupid lazy fuck

[Anonymous No.11313184]

>>11313178
Considering that literally everything is a mathematical construct, no, requesting that *anything* is mathematically sound is exactly what one should do.

[Anonymous No.11313186]

>>11312906
I'm kinda in the middle ground about new theories, I find in very interesting that a good number of people here are happy to accept concepts even when they know they are just mathematical in nature to make up for a physical word (clearly the aproach is to fix things by math and hope for it to fit physical data)... BUT on the other hand the people that offer "novel theories" have turned out to be just as insatisfactory, theres almost equal amount of "holes" in their side that don't fit physical data

I really like to look at "novel" theories because it makes me think about different possibilities, theres also a real possibility that some of this ideas could actually be true... but a lot of the people proposing new ideas many times don't even know all the intricacies of the problem that they think they are "solving" for example I remember someone critiquing lorentz transformations by arguing that any vehicle will be destroyed if it had to be "stretched" "therefore it is a false theory..."

another example is Electric Universe proposal, it is quite interesting at a cosmic level BUT when it comes to assigning gravity to a electrodynamic reason they really don't have anything, the "atomic nucleus shift" leaves more questions than answers... but at a cosmic level I would say they do have a very interesting proposal (to focus more on plasma than just gravity to explain cosmic phenomena) .

[OP No.11313189]

>>11313182
Did you, literally, unironically, link me to something that states that mass and luminosity are the basis for estimating stellar mass?
Without pointing to any parts that state otherwise?
Then have the gall to call me stupid/lazy?

>>11313184
So what you're saying is, that we should question that IRL is mathematically sound?

[Anonymous No.11313191]

>>11313186
Lol

Wanker

[Anonymous No.11313205]

>>11313189
>mass and luminosity are the basis for estimating stellar mass
wew lad

[Anonymous No.11313210]

>>11313189
are you using "IRL" to mean real life, or some other made up model you came up with? In either case, yes.

[Owner No.11313211]

sorry but dark matter is just a group of particles that are very small but they are concentrated somewhere... light particles likely turn into dark matter after some time

[OP No.11313214]

>>11313191
It says, without stating a preference in any direction, for which potential criticism may be aimed at. Stunning and brave at it's peak.

>>11313186
Level-headed take.
Would you say it's consistent with our observations to say that evidence for dark matter is entirely correlated with observations of normal matter (I.e. we don't observe dark matter in the absence of normal matter)?
Or that observations in favour of dark mater peak with the highest concentration of normal matter (Bullet-Cluster) and trough with the lowest concentration of normal matter (Ultra Diffuse Galaxies).

>>11313205
Do. Tell.
Do.
Tell.

>>11313210
Yes.
IRL = In real life = reality = mathematically consistent.
You want to argue that IRL is not mathematically consistent, I guess? As anything else would be beyond retarded.
Not that the former would be any improvement.

[Anonymous No.11313216]

>>11313214
>>mass basis for estimating mass

[OP No.11313218]

>>11313216
>x is basis for estimating x
Do you even
?

[OP No.11313227]

>>11313164
Look through this thread.
Same shit.
No-one can even answer a trivial question.

Same as the first time.
Same as the last time.

All posture.
Not even a single considered response to a single question posed, all is a REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE against a straw-man that never even fucking existed.
Guess I got my answer about the suicide or more ^_^

[Anonymous No.11313234]

>>11313227
>No-one can even answer a trivial question.
Answer: you're full of shit.
you not liking the answer doesn't make it wrong

[DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk No.11313242]

>>11312906
>everything can be solved without magic particles or altering physics.
how can they be solved then?
>inb4 you meme "by no using magic particles or altering physics"

[Anonymous No.11313247]

>>11313227
This is the same derp that lost his mind over what was it? Prove space. Now he has cracked reality.

[Anonymous No.11313250]

What a fucking shit thread

MODS this is off topic, please send to /trash/

[Anonymous No.11313254]

>>11312906
sry dude, but we just spent $13 billion dollars on JWST to study dark matter. admitting the stuff doesn't exist would be too embarrassing to the academic community now, so we're sticking with the dark matter story for at least the next couple decades.
p.s. anyone with half a brain can figure out that issue without inventing imaginary invisible magic sky particles, you're nothing special. if you can get your alternative theory take seriously by the professionals who have personal vested financial interests in maintaining the status quo then you'll impress me. while you're thinking that one over, have a look at redshift quantization and see if you can figure out a way to dovetail that aspect of observed reality one with imaginary the big bang.

[Anonymous No.11313261]

>>11312906
if it's a unification of particle physics and nuclear cosmology with a touch of m theory then don't bore me. i already get it.

[Anonymous No.11313263]

I personally know an actual scientist (not a larper like myself) who's full time job is looking for dark matter. Why is this shit upon on this board like it is less than global warming?
>>11313254
Can relate.

[Anonymous No.11314264]

>>11312906
everybody knows that the doppler shift of a group of photons averages out over long distances
the problem is that doesn't involve getting fat grants

[Anonymous No.11314332]

>>11313169
Although to answer your question. If you had indeed done what you said you did, it would be /sci/icide. Everyone here would immediatly start blabbering in tongues. You would find reports world wide of people attempting to eat their keyboards. El Arcon would transform into a literal Arcon and begin destroying cities. "The Wizard" would probably be laughing hysterrically while going out on a shooting spree to "purge the world of normie scum". There would be anarchy on the streets. Reactor cores would melt down. God would weep, Angels would cry! Devils laughing while demons spill into the aetheric realm and beyond. And then the world would stop.

[Anonymous No.11314345]

>Let's just say, I've figured out
Let's not say that
Because you didn't

[Anonymous No.11314500]

>>11312906
>could you care less
Obvious troll, don't respond

[Anonymous No.11314506]

>>11312988
>Am I required to provide a proof that real life is mathematically grounded before you entertain my notion?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.11315086]

>>11313137
>Is there any *current* evidence against the source of additional mass being regular matter, besides the flatness of galaxies?
Yes, just google "why isn't dark matter baryonic?"

[Anonymous No.11315225]

>>11313169
You could change the lens? To make the bulb appear smaller and dimmer. Is that what this is?

And that "solves" the flatness problem,
by putting a giant lens in space in front of every galaxy we see?
Is this a flat-earth theory?

[Anonymous No.11315640]

>>11312906
Dude, science is already lost. It isn't even equipped to accept new theories at this point.

[Anonymous No.11315789]

>>11313263
>an actual scientist who's full time job is looking for dark matter
That's cool dude. Some of the experiments being done to find dark matter are technically incredible.

>Why is this shit upon on this board
Because there is zero direct evidence for dark matter, yet many dark matter theorists still act like it's been confirmed, as if they have a jar of in the lab. Then they shit on anyone who disagrees with them.

[OP No.11316342]

>>11315225
Someone on this thread actually tried to answer a question.
I don't believe it.

Yes, if you have some sort of lensing effect going on in front of galaxies then the objects within them will appear smaller and dimmer and we will be underestimating their mass.

Yes, if you look at a galaxy side-on with the correct sort of lens, you will get the bulginess back that we expect. Whilst also increasing the size and brightness of the objects within.

To get the correct lensing effect however, you will need the effect to increase proportionally to the amount of mass present in the galaxies.

[Anonymous No.11316406]

>>11312906
The sad truth is that hundreds of borderline schizo indie scientists have also already solved these deep problems of physics, but mainstream science consists of gatekeepers who want to keep their expertise relevant rather than making it obsolete. btw you can find those schizos on arxiv. There is amazing word being done; genius-tier ideas have come forth...but nobody cares. It's all about reputation now.