Dark Matter

[Anonymous No.12266424]

>Isaac Newton makes theories of motion and gravity
>Isaac Netwon's theories work for predicting cannonball trajectories
>Hundreds of years later, mankind produces better telescopes
>Mankind looks at Mercury
>Mercury defies Isaac Newton's theories
>"Huh ... maybe there is a bunch of magical unobservable 'dark matter' around the sun, which fucks with Mercury?" (this is real, look it up, they even named it "Dark Matter")
>Albert Einstein is born
>Albert Einstein is bored out of his mind in the patent office, and daydreams about physics
>Albert Einstein thinks to himself: "Dark matter is stupid. You can't just imagine a bunch of magical unobservable matter to fix the failures of your theories."
>Albert Einstein: "Isaac Newton's theories themselves must be replaced with new theories!"
>Albert Einstein makes new theories to explain Mercury
>A hundred years later, mankind uses Albert Einstein's theories to launch satellite telescopes
>Mankind looks at galaxies
>Galaxies defy Albert Einstein's theories
>"Huh ... maybe there is a bunch of magical unobservable 'dark matter' around the galaxies, which fucks with stars in the galaxies?"
>Universities: "We saw what happened the last time a random 'independent scientist' was allowed to propose their own new pet theories."
>Universities: "Let's rig the peer-review system to ensure there will never be another 'Einstein' to challenge the status quo."
>Dark matter becomes unquestionable "settled science"
Dark matter is not science.
Dark matter is indefensible.

[Anonymous No.12266455]

and how is GR proven inconsistent exactly?

[Anonymous No.12266461]

>>12266455
The same way Newton's theories were proven inconsistent.

[Anonymous No.12266513]

>>12266461
because of black holes? what are you even talking about? post a link or something.

[Anonymous No.12266531]

Op is right and based. Academia is racketed and cucked to the hilts. Anyone doing anything of value became a outsiders by necessity.

[Anonymous No.12266533]

>>12266513
>because of black holes?
Oh shit, I wasn't even thinking about that.
You must be referring to this:
>https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1158337/ewton-wrong-science-dismiss-isaac-newton-theory-gravity-albert-einstein-black-hole
I'm wasn't even thinking that far.
As I alluded in the OP, Newton's theories were proven inconsistent back in the 1800's when they created telescopes powerful enough to track the orbit of Mercury.
The orbit of Mercury is inconsistent with Newton's theories.
Likewise, the orbits of stars around galactic nuclei are inconsistent with relativity, and modern dark matter is the same fake band-aid for the same problem.

[Anonymous No.12266539]

prove it isnt there

galaxies would fly apart without it

[Anonymous No.12266546]

>>12266539
>prove it isnt there
Proving a negative; burden of proof is on dark matter proponents, not opponents; etc.
>galaxies would fly apart without it
Only if the theories of relativity were real and consistent.

[Anonymous No.12266575]

>>12266424
Obviously hasn't bother to actually read Newton or Einstein or would have realized that Newton published his thoughts without peer review and Einstein published his in a teaching journal. Hardly top tier academia, it was opposite an article about how drinking straws work, for crying out loud.

If you've got some good ideas to share find a platform and if they've got any value they'll gain traction.

Also, there's plenty of work published on new theories of gravity stuff mechanics at super galactic scales

[Anonymous No.12266582]

>>12266575
Gravity and mechanics*

Auto correct

[Anonymous No.12266593]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory

[Anonymous No.12266599]

>>12266575
I know Newton and Einstein didn't have to deal with peer review.
That's why I mentioned the peer-review lines at the bottom of the OP.
>If you've got some good ideas to share find a platform and if they've got any value they'll gain traction
The peer-review system has been purposely redesigned to ensure this doesn't work anymore.
Otherwise, the theory of dark matter (for example) would have died a long time ago, because it cannot withstand independent scrutiny.
The theory is indefensible, so it must be shielded from being questioned.

[Anonymous No.12266629]

>>12266599
Peer review was an option for both of them. They both just found ways to share their thoughts without submitting to it.

[Anonymous No.12266648]

>>12266575
Then why isn't Tooker's modified cosmological model taken seriously by the institutions then anon? Unbelievable ignorance if you really think academia isn't a gate keeping masturbation cult

[Anonymous No.12266684]

>>12266424
I suggest you consider how Neptune was discovered - in the late 1700s astronomers noticed that Uranus's orbit didn't match up with Newton's equations. So while some suggested gravity worked differently far away from the sun, others suggested that the gravity of an unseen planet was causing the issue. A few decades later and they were able to directly find Neptune.

Or also consider that when Pauli discovered that beta decay seemed to violate the law of conservation of momentum, he predicted that there would be a bunch of small, super difficult to detect particles carrying away that missing momentum. We now call those neutrinos. Again, it took decades to confirm them.

So yes, assuming your model/theory is correct, but some invisible shit is causing your observations to not match up, and then looking for that invisible shit, is a perfectly valid way to do science. The idea that there is some sort of particle like a neutrino, but even harder to detect, doesn't seem like that big of a stretch to me.

Ask yourself OP, what sort of things would you look for that could distinguish between the dark matter hypothesis & the modified gravity hypothesis? Any unusual astronomical objects we could look for that would make sense under one hypothesis but not the other?

[Anonymous No.12266732]

>>12266424
>>Mankind looks at galaxies
>>Galaxies defy Albert Einstein's theories

Ah, but we now know that while the rotation of stars in most galaxies defy Einstein's theories, a few dwarf galaxies have been discovered that throw a monkey wrench into things; their stars and dust clouds rotate in a way much, much, closer to what relatively predicts (and very differently from other dwarf galaxies that are visually similar). The dark matter hypothesis can explain that 'easily' enough - those galaxies have an unusually low amount of dark matter for some reason. But they are a bitch to shoehorn into any of the modified gravity theories I have seen.

[Anonymous No.12266762]

>>12266455
by the fact that scientists use dark matter ( a magic substance that cannot be seen) to explain why galaxies don't just fly apart

[Anonymous No.12266809]

>>12266684
>Ask yourself OP, what sort of things would you look for that could distinguish between the dark matter hypothesis & the modified gravity hypothesis? Any unusual astronomical objects we could look for that would make sense under one hypothesis but not the other?
OK I'll bite.
A simple plasmoid with extreme energy density would both look and behave like a black hole, without the need for relativity.
Considering the recent "photo" of the black hole is 99.9% CGI, it's not evidence of anything really.
A plasmoid would require "invisible" electrical energy, similar to invisible dark matter.
The differene being that such electrical energy also explains the spiral shape of the galaxy, the formation and nature of stars, comets, inter-galactic interactions, etc. in addition to explaining behavior presently attributed to otherwise invisible black holes.

In other words, a much more solid theory than dark matter and relativity, based in hard science (electrical engineering) rather than speculative particle physics.

[Anonymous No.12267319]

>>12266424
Maybe there's just force, that stick things together at place, instead of pushing it together like gravity, which is observable only with large quantities of empty space aside.

[Anonymous No.12267335]

>>12266424
Dark matter is real Anon, are you by any chance a science denier? Real just as the out-of-africa theory, anthropogenic climate change and no differences about social constructs such as race in different IQ scores because of genetic differences

[Anonymous No.12267350]

>>12266424
You think dark matter is only pseudoscience? Wait till you see string theory and wormholes, they've surpassed pseudoscience and went into the realm of religion. How could anyone fathom the idea of a wormhole when it's never been observed in the universe. It's like they are hypothesizing concepts that have never been observed in nature or the sky in this context and trying to justify it with no evidence. This shit is infuriating because they garner so much support when they don't have any falsifiability or any empirical evidence on their side

Good job op for having a discerning eye, there's more bull shit to come after you've realized that dark matter is just an ad hoc fallacy that tapes the inconsistencies of relativity

[Anonymous No.12267371]

>>12266809
> would both look and behave like a black hole
It's easy to claim this when you never bother testing you claims. Show a fit for the orbits of the stars around Sgr A* then. Make sure to quantitively explain the predicted effects of gravitational redshift and precession.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.07187
https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.09409
Fuck off with this EU bullshit.

[Anonymous No.12267439]

>>12267371
>It's easy to claim this when you never bother testing you claims
People in glass houses, fren.
Show a fit for the coronal heating problem then.
Or space rocks generating cometary comas containing lightweight gasses.
>gravitational redshift
I challenge you to prove this exists at all.
Make sure to explain clearly colliding galaxies that have completely different redshifts.
>precession
I can't remember the explanation for this off the top of my head, and I don't have time to look it up right now; getting ready for a morning hike.

[Anonymous No.12267451]

>>12267371
>>12267439
Additionally, explain why stars form in filamentary structures.

[Anonymous No.12267513]

>>12267439
>People in glass houses, fren.
See the models in those papers. See the observers testing GR in two different ways, among hundreds of other papers. How many observational papers have EUers written about testing their "alternative" black holes? Zero.
>I challenge you to prove this exists at all.
Learn to read. If you claim it does not exist then you have to actually explain the data which showed an effect consistent with redshift and precession. Note GR and black holes predicted these effects, which is infinitely better than coming up with an explanation after the fact.
>I can't remember the explanation
I said quantitative. Waving your hands means absolutely fucking nothing. Wordsalad is not an explanation. If you cannot fit the data then you cannot claim your model behaves like a black hole.

>>12267451
Defend your own assertions first.

[Anonymous No.12267544]

>>12267451
Waves

[Anonymous No.12267561]

>>12266424
Lot of shittalk, no argumentation. Why do you believe it doesn't exist? We can clearly observe some unexplainable effects that couldn't be caused by any of currently known well-documented material forces so the logic deduction is there is some other force at play in the void, which seems empty to our matter-based eyes.

I mean you just sound like dumb flatearthers, saying its wrong just because you can't physically see it. If you have any substantial arguments, i'd love to hear them.

[Anonymous No.12267582]

>>12266424
Dark matter and dark energy literally means "shit we need to make our theories work at larger scales".
So, yeah, not very good science.

[Anonymous No.12267735]

>>12267561
It's an EU troll thread, he makes it every other day.

[Anonymous No.12267911]

>>12267582
Predicting that we need some (currently) invisible shit to make our theories work is good science though. That's how Neptune & neutrinos were discovered. Yes, you do sometimes need to consider new theories, but so far all sorts of large scale observations astronomers have seen make more sense under the dark matter hypothesis than any of the modified gravity theories.

[Anonymous No.12267967]

>>12267350
Agreed that normies tend toward pseudoscience like wormholes. Especially when a wormhole has never been observed. But do you think time travel is possible? We incorporate the function of time in most of physics already so why can't we control it yet

[Anonymous No.12267976]

>>12266424
How do we know there aren't magnetic fields out there?

[Anonymous No.12268206]

>>12267976
There are magnetic fields, but they are known to be weak (~10 microG).

[Anonymous No.12268410]

>>12266424
Bump, interesting thread

[Anonymous No.12268824]

>>12267513
>testing GR in two different ways
Did they make five-sigma on those tests? Uh huh, I didn't think so.
Learn what "testing" is.
The scientific method is critical, and completely ignored in the realm of astronomy.

You ignored half of the points I made; the most inconvenient points to your narrative.
So I don't particularly feel the need to extrapolate further, since my points rest well as is.
You wanted to throws stones at me, address these or GTFO:
>coronal heating problem
>space rocks (yes, rocks) generating lightweight gas comas out of nowhere
>colliding galaxies with completely different redshifts (i.e. data which shows blatant inconsistencies which cannot be ignored in good faith)
>stars commonly forming in filamentary structures, not predicted by evenly distributed gravitational models
Relativity is absolutely dead.
All the shaky anecdotal evidence you cling to is reminiscent of Ptolemy, and should be explained through other, simpler methods.

In order for us to move on from dead theories, people need to make it through the five stages of grief:
>denial <- you are here
>anger
>bargaining
>depression
>acceptance
Academia is putting maximum effort into ensuring we are never allowed to make it past the denial stage.

[Anonymous No.12268862]

>>12268824
>Did they make five-sigma on those tests? Uh huh, I didn't think so.
"The difference in χ^2 yields a formal significance of 5σ or greater in favour of the relativistic model."
Maybe you should glance at the paper before talking out your ass. And no, "testing" does not require them to find a significant result, you illiterate fuck.
>You ignored half of the points I made
You did what all good EU cultists do when asked to cite your claims, you tried desperately to change the subject with the old gish gallop. You're not asking these questions because you're interested in the discussion, you're just trying to waste people's time. If you won't back your claims up there is nothing to discuss.

You still haven't actually backed up your black hole claims, at all. Just admit you were making shit up. I asked you to prove that there is some substance to this and all you have done is demonstrate that you can't read and smear shit on your keyboard.

[Anonymous No.12268865]

>>12266424
What you're describing is rationalist poisoning of science - the act of proposing things that are unobservable because we lack the means to observe what's actually happening, but admitting that would be a blow to academia's credibility which is the sole thing on which the university industry is hanging upon, so we take them as the ultimate truths instead. It occurs cyclically throughout history. Don't worry we'll grow out of this phase as well. You cannot fight a war against objective reality.

[Anonymous No.12268994]

>>12266809
i remember a time when the phrase "ok ill bite" was used by the sensible people of /sci/ when dealing with an /x/-tourist or /x/-larper.

now it is the other way around and it is used as an act of "normalization" of retard science. fair is foul and foul is fair. fucking clown world.

[Anonymous No.12269095]

>>12266455
Outer bands of galaxies

[Anonymous No.12269101]

>>12269095
And how do you know the mass distribution for certain?

[Anonymous No.12269107]

>>12269101
And how do you?

[Anonymous No.12269111]

>>12269107
I don't claim to.

[Anonymous No.12269125]

>>12268862
>"testing" does not require them to find a significant result
I never said it did.
I said it requires the scientific method, which these people have botched.
Why doesn't this test work with outer stars?
It only works at short distances (120 AU) i.e. the same old scale problem.
Of course it works at that scale, for the same reason it works inside the solar system.
Make this test work at distances greater than 50ly, and get back to me.
Until then, don't sit here and prop up these papers as if they prove something new or different.
>You did what all good EU cultists do when asked to cite your claims
I asked YOU to cite your claims, first even.
This thread is about demonstrating the catastrophic holes in dark matter theory, challenging you, if you will.
You want to support GR, the burden of proof is on you.
Explain these (you haven't yet, and you can't):
>coronal heating problem
>space rocks (yes, rocks) generating lightweight gas comas out of nowhere
>colliding galaxies with completely different redshifts (i.e. data which shows blatant inconsistencies which cannot be ignored in good faith)
>stars commonly forming in filamentary structures, not predicted by evenly distributed gravitational models

These parts were interesting:
>talking out your ass
>you illiterate fuck
>you're just trying to waste people's time (mind reading)
>If you won't back your claims up there is nothing to discuss (speak for yourself)
>Just admit you were making shit up (no)
>I asked you to prove that there is some substance to this (I asked YOU)
>all you have done is demonstrate that you can't read and smear shit on your keyboard

I think you have progressed:
>denial
>anger <- you are now here
>bargaining
>depression
>acceptance

>>12269111
>I don't claim to.
Okay ... stalemate then?
What are you getting at here?

[Anonymous No.12269148]

black holes have infinite mass of course they are going to keep shit orbiting around them regardless of distance

also most galaxies are spirals for a reason. What wouldn't make sense is if they had long straight arms. but they don't so it's fine.

also dark matter isn't fake matter it's just not illuminated. there's probably a lot of rocks and planetoids just whizzing through intergalactic space.

[Anonymous No.12269179]

>>12269148
>black holes have infinite mass
This is incorrect.
For example, a black hole formed from the collapse of a star, has a mass approximately equal to the mass of the star minus supernova shed, plus the mass of anything else it sucks in.
Black holes have infinite DENSITY, and therefore infinite gravity ONLY at the point of the singularity.
If black holes had infinite mass, galaxies wouldn't exist, because the entire galaxy would be sucked in.

>also most galaxies are spirals for a reason
What reason?
No theory of gravity predicts the spiral shape.

>there's probably a lot of rocks and planetoids just whizzing through intergalactic space
I agree with this.
However imagine winning the lottery a quadrillion times in a row.
I'd say that's a good approximation of the statistical probability that all that random intergalactic matter (ahem plasma), in entropy/chaos, just HAPPENING to locate itself in perfect halos around every single galaxy simultaneously, in such a way to perfectly fix the galactic rotation problem for relativity.

Does it contribute to the galactic rotation problem?
Of course it does.
Does it resolve the galactic rotation problem?
That's quite a stretch.

[Anonymous No.12269184]

>>12269125
>I said it requires the scientific method, which these people have botched.
Oh look, another totally unjustified claim.
>Why doesn't this test work with outer stars?
Still can't read then. See equation 1 of each paper. In the case of gravitational redshift the effect is most significant for closer pericentres, for precession it's smaller semimajor axes combined with seeing more orbits.
>Until then, don't sit here and prop up these papers as if they prove something new or different.
You've entirely forgotten the point of this discussion. I cited these papers as examples of predicted and confirmed phenomena around the Milky Way's supermassive black hole. You claimed a plasmoid would behave like a black hole but wouldn't require relativity, so it should also explain these data. But as we have learned you were just making shit up.
>I asked YOU to cite your claims, first even.
A blatant lie. In my first post in this thread I asked you to show a quantitative fit to the Sgr A* data including redshift and precision. I also cited the data I was talking about in that first post.
>You want to support GR
Where in this thread did I say anything about GR being correct or false? I did not. All I have posted is asking you to cite your claims. I didn't say anything about dark matter or whatever else, you're just trying to deflect.

[Anonymous No.12269188]

>>12269148
Everyone one of those statements is wrong. Black holes have finite masses, not infinite. Elliptical & irregularly shaped galaxies are at least as common as spiral ones. And while the idea that "dark" matter could just be cold regular matter has been considered, various studies have ruled it out; that much regular matter would be blocking enough light for astronomers to notice.

[Anonymous No.12269192]

>>12269184
This comment contradicts itself, like, 6 different ways ... and the rest is baseless strawman arguments.
At some point you're gonna have to suck it up and move into the bargaining phase.
>denial
>anger <- you are still here
>bargaining
>depression
>acceptance

[Anonymous No.12269203]

dark matter is obviously a placeholder

[Anonymous No.12269225]

>>12269125
>What are you getting at here?
If you don't know the mass distribution for certain then you cannot claim to have proven GR wrong.

[Anonymous No.12269230]

>>12269203
>dark matter is obviously a placeholder
Of course.
But it's considered definitive and empirical, neither of which is correct.
It's a placeholder because something must be there to exert this effect, in order for relativity to still appear consistent.
Occam's razor says this is probably a red herring, and relativity probably just needs to be sidelined for a little while so we can make actual progress in some other avenue for comparison.

[Anonymous No.12269234]

>>12268865
No, proposing things that we currently can't observe to explain what is happening, then looking for those potential missing pieces, has in the past yielded some very useful results. As mentioned before, that is exactly how Neptune & neutrinos were discovered.

[Anonymous No.12269241]

>>12269225
>GR doesn't claim to know the mass distribution
>I might accept that you have disproven GR, but only if you DO know the mass distribution
>(Haha my theory is now physically impossible to disprove! CHECKMATE)

Congratulations!
>denial
>anger
>bargaining <- you are now here
>depression
>acceptance

[Anonymous No.12269261]

>>12269241
>Haha my theory is now physically impossible to disprove
And yet it isn't. Had gravitational lensing not been observed, or with the wrong amplitude. Had Pound and Rebka found nothing. Had the Hulse-Taylor binary shown no orbital decay. Had Sgr A* shown no redshift or precision. Had cosmological tests shown evidence for deviations from GR on large scales...
Something is not unfalsifiable just because it cannot be falsified by some observations.

This is just basic logic. It's true whether or not you like it.

[Anonymous No.12269275]

>>12269192
>This comment contradicts itself, like, 6 different ways....
I'll add this to your growing list of claims that you never bothered to justify. What a cop out.

[Anonymous No.12269286]

>>12269230
Ah, but there are multiple, independent observations (not just the galactic rotational curve issue, but stuff like seeing gravitational lensing from areas with no visible matter) that make sense if dark matter is a thing, but requires all sorts of contortions & epicycles to make sense of with any sort of modified gravity theory yet proposed. At this point Occam's razor would say the dark matter hypothesis is the one with the least complications. Now, I am not saying that we should stop considering new theories/models, we just need to keep in mind that they will have to be able to explain more than simply the galactic rotational curve issue.

[Anonymous No.12269287]

>>12269261
>Had gravitational lensing not been observed
Prove this wasn't traditional non-gravitational lensing.
Nobody can.
>Had Pound and Rebka found nothing. Had the Hulse-Taylor binary shown no orbital decay. Had Sgr A* shown no redshift or precision.
Anecdotes
>Had cosmological tests shown evidence for deviations from GR on large scales...
What is dark matter.

I'm sure relativity doesn't need to explain these, or anything.
Just go ahead and ignore them, because those anecdotes should be plenty of "proof." (sarcasm)
>coronal heating problem
>space rocks (yes, rocks) generating lightweight gas comas out of nowhere
>colliding galaxies with completely different redshifts (i.e. data which shows blatant inconsistencies which cannot be ignored in good faith)
>stars commonly forming in filamentary structures, not predicted by evenly distributed gravitational models

It's true whether or not you like it.

>denial <- you have regressed back to here
>anger
>bargaining
>depression
>acceptance

[Anonymous No.12269304]

>>12269286
>seeing gravitational lensing from areas with no visible matter
This is just light lensing normally as it passes through a large plasma cloud.
No contortions or epicycles required.
Doesn't even require any modified gravity theories at all.
Lensing doesn't require gravity.

[Anonymous No.12269329]

>>12269287
>Prove this wasn't traditional non-gravitational lensing. Nobody can.
Correct, you can't prove negatives. This is not criticism of GR. Unless there is a model of this alternative lensing there is nothing to test. All that can be said is that GR predicted lensing and current data is consistent with those predictions.
>Anecdotes
Data. Tests. All of them have been repeated.
>What is dark matter.
Not a controlled test, as I explained. There are cosmological tests which are insensitive to small scale assumptions.

>I'm sure relativity doesn't need to explain these, or anything.
Correct. Most of those are not even related to GR (comets, the corona, star formation). The one about colliding galaxies having the different redshifts has been prove false. You're talking about the claims by Arp, who handpicked a few galaxies that he thought were interacting. That's not good science. A much better test is to take many thousands of galaxies and search for correlations between different redshifts. These tests found nothing.

https://arxiv.org/abs/0807.2641

[Anonymous No.12269333]

>>12269304
>Lensing doesn't require gravity.
Show how plasma generates lensing which is independent of frequency. Gravitational lensing doesn't depend on the wavelength of light and this has been tested extensively. Any competing explanation should have this feature.

[Anonymous No.12269366]

>>12269333
Well, maybe it is some sort of special plasma that effects light with its gravity, but otherwise doesn't interact with EM radiation. I am going to call this proposal "shadow plasma".

[Anonymous No.12269454]

>>12266424
>>Universities: "We saw what happened the last time a random 'independent scientist' was allowed to propose their own new pet theories."
>>Universities: "Let's rig the peer-review system to ensure there will never be another 'Einstein' to challenge the status quo."
>>Dark matter becomes unquestionable "settled science"
>Dark matter is not science.
>Dark matter is indefensible.

Based dabbing on jew peer reviews. It ensures science becomes a cult