New research suggests that our universe has no dark matter

[Anonymous No.16128453]

Uh oh darkies.... shiee
>In standard cosmology, the accelerated expansion of the universe is said to be caused by dark energy but is in fact due to the weakening forces of nature as it expands, not due to dark energy."
embarassing
https://phys.org/news/2024-03-universe-dark.html

[Anonymous No.16128458]

> Scientist: Dark matter does not exist and the universe is 27 billion years old
>Dark matter, a term used in cosmology, refers to the elusive substance that does not interact with light or electromagnetic fields and is only identifiable through its gravitational effects.
>Despite its mysterious nature, dark matter has been a fundamental element in explaining the behavior of galaxies, stars, and planets.
>At the heart of this research is Rajendra Gupta, a distinguished physics professor at the Faculty of Science. Gupta’s innovative approach involves the integration of two theoretical models: the covarying coupling constants (CCC) and “tired light” (TL), known together as the CCC+TL model.
>This model explores the notion that the forces of nature diminish over cosmic time and that light loses energy over vast distances.
>This theory has been rigorously tested and aligns with various astronomical observations, including the distribution of galaxies and the evolution of light from the early universe.

MY INVISIBLE WEAKLY INTERACTING SPOOKY MATERIAL SISTERS..... IT'S OVER!

[Anonymous No.16128753]

[Anonymous No.16129337]

>dude I totally know everything about the entire universe!!!!
>I'm sooooo smart!!!!

[Anonymous No.16129340]

>>16129337
Dark matter is woke now?

[Anonymous No.16129397]

>>16129340
always was

[Anonymous No.16129468]

>>16129340
Why would you call them that?

[Anonymous No.16129496]

>>16129340
The dark matter meme was invented to protect the reputation of the infallible soience god of the atheists, St. Albert the Einstein. The mainstream press spent most of the early and mid 20th century creating the myth of Einstein the ashkenazi super genius and so when in the 1970s astronomers started to discover evidence which disproved Einstein's most important theory, that evidence had to be explained away to protect his reputation, which is why dark matter was invented.
It wasn't the first time that happened, Einstein's original cosmology was first disproved by Edwin Hubble, but Einstein was still alive back then so he revised his theory to fit Hubble's data. Once Einstein died that was no longer an option, any new theory would have to be devised by someone other than Einstein and the new theory would also have to be named after that person which would destroy the reputation of Einstein as the infallible super soience god and the mainstream press would be forced to admit that they century of Einstein hype was wildly overblown, completely wrong and off base.
Furthermore, during the century of Einstein hype, those who doubted the hype were all accused of antisemitism and as a result astronomers and physicists are cowardly about publicly casting doubt on the infallible soience god of the atheists, St. Albert the Einstein because they can lose their careers if accused of antisemitism. So instead of getting a new more accurate theory of how gravitation works, they invented dark matter, which is a variation on the cosmological constant.
(observed reality) - (reality as predicted by Einstein's version of physics) = dark matter
By doing this they created a version of physics in which Einstein is always right no matter what is observed. It might be completely irrational, fundamentally unscientific, dishonest and halt all progress in physics, but they don't care, protecting Einstein's reputation is more important than that.

[Anonymous No.16129500]

>>16129496
Its also worth noting that the mainstream press's movement to create a jewish deity for atheists to worship in place of God went so far that the statue of Albert Einstein in Washington DC is the largest statue of any man in the city, its even larger than the statue of Lincoln in the Lincoln memorial (but they gave Einstein a more reclining posture, so it isn't taller than Lincoln)

[Anonymous No.16129507]

>>16128453
What does it mean when you have a Headache only on one side of the head?

[Anonymous No.16129806]

>>16129500
What average atheist fails at is realizing that if you believe in nothing, you will fall for anything, that's why I explicitly BELIEVE that there's no god.

[Anonymous No.16129809]

>he still asserts the universe is expanding

[Anonymous No.16129813]

>>16129809
it's okay, they will eventually backpedal that instead of universe and big bang, it was just a single super duper giganova and instead of universe, it's just that one happening that caused our part of universe to be like this, and we cannot know anything more because speed of light limits our view

They will admit this in 2 more weeks, I believe in them.

[Anonymous No.16129868]

>>16129496
Just curious, how do you think most physicists accepting the copenhagen interpretation plays into this? Modern (mainstream) physics basically completely contradicts Einsteins views on QM, namelt "god does not play dice". Is there anything special about GR specifically?

[Anonymous No.16129878]

>>16128458
>>Dark matter
>You're not allowed to make shit up. that is bullshit.
>>Replace DM with time varying fundamental constants and tired light. Two new assumptions instead of one.
>Oh that's fine then. Add all the assumptions you want. Just don't call them dark X.
Top chud science.

[Anonymous No.16129879]

>Doesn't explain rotation curves or the bullet cluster
>Adds just as many new assumptions as DM and DE.
Into the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.16129882]

>>16129496
>(observed reality) - (reality as predicted by Einstein's version of physics) = dark matter
Nope. Not how cosmology works.
>>16124234
CDM is a predictive model. It predicted the fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background decades before measurements confirmed these. CDM can be simulated producing detailed models of structure and galaxy formation, which have been tested in hundreds of ways. This would not be possible if what you say was true.
>they invented dark matter, which is a variation on the cosmological constant.
Nope. Total ignorance.

[Anonymous No.16129885]

I don't blame polfags for being retarded, but why are they so invested in dark matter and cosmology. Can't you guys just fuck off back to iq/haplogroup/economics thread #15873

[Anonymous No.16129887]

>>16129885
Calling every single piece of scientific work basedence and cringe is the new atheism vs religion thread.
it's a so-called troll thread. there used to be lots of these back in 2011, but they used to be funnier and had more effort put into them.
they also made it clearer that they were troll threads, whereas nowadays it's hard to tell, because there's a non-zero chance that someone is actually this retarded.

[Anonymous No.16129898]

>>16129887
everything post 1945 is propaganda in all fields and nobody here has opened scihub and read anything directly from the source before

[Anonymous No.16129900]

>>16129813
Maybe they will. It really depends on how much you keep poking and annoying them for change. But this is something that only advanced psychologists would understand.

>>16128453
I am made out of grey matter (and white matter, for that matter).

[Anonymous No.16130582]

https://www.savoir-sans-frontieres.com/JPP/telechargeables/English/janus-model-livre-Zejli/Janus_Cosmological_Model_Hicham_Zejli.pdf

Dark matter is just negative mass.
We can't see it because we can't see neative energy photons.

[DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk No.16130631]

>>16128458
>Gupta’s innovative approach involves the integration of two theoretical models: the covarying coupling constants (CCC) and “tired light” (TL), known together as the CCC+TL model.
>>This model explores the notion that the forces of nature diminish over cosmic time and that light loses energy over vast distances.
>>This theory has been rigorously tested and aligns with various astronomical observations, including the distribution of galaxies and the evolution of light from the early universe.
Nice
Dark Matter fags insists their stuff is the only theory that explains the formation (implying formations are a thing :v) and thus it is correct

[Anonymous No.16130638]

>>16129885
>I'm obsessed with politics
>everything is political
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.16131189]

>>16129496
>(observed reality) - (reality as predicted by Einstein's version of physics) = dark matter
The dark matter meme sets up a scenario in which Einstein's theories are nondisprovable, but that only makes those theories outside the boundaries of science. If a theory isn't scientific then its just a superstition or a religious belief, which is exactly what dark matter reduces GR to.

[Anonymous No.16131200]

>>16130631
No it doesn't. This paper literally only considered one test, one which isn't really sensitive to dark matter. The scale of the baryon acoustic oscillations in in the distribution of galaxies. It's a test of geometry, not structure formation.
This hypothesis does not explain away all the major evidence for DM: CMB, light elements, rotation curves, galaxy clustering, structure formation.

>>16131189
That is complete nonsense though:
>>16129882

[Anonymous No.16131244]

>>16130582
There are a lot of gaps in the proposal.

He simulates a galaxy but doesn't show the rotation curve, the most basic requirement must be to flatten it. He shows a flat plot but it's not a rotation curve. He also doesn't describe what the initial conditions are. A real cosmological model should be able to form galaxies through structure formation, on the other hand if the galaxy disk was initialised pre-formed then there is nothing interesting in these simulations.

He doesn't show that his model can actually form realistic structures (clusters, voids, filaments) as a starting point for the density fluctuations. Not all models produce structures which are consistent with what we observe today. MOND for example cannot explain structure formation.

Simulations whit negative mass particles have been run by other people and show big problems. Like the fact that galaxies can begin accelerating randomly as negative-positive particle pairs can self accelerate together. These simulations also showed that negative mass cosmologies slow structure formation greatly, and don't flatten rotation curves.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A%26A...626A...5S/abstract

He has only looked at one single cosmological dataset in quantitative detail, the Hubble diagram of supernovea. But there are many more: weak gravitational lensing, BAO, clusters... He has no quantitative model for the structure in the cosmic microwave background fluctuations. Standard dark matter models predicted the CMB power spectrum, and yet he hasn't demonstrated his model can even be made to match the data.

There's just very little substance.

[Anonymous No.16131260]

>>16128453
>has no dark matter
>dark energy
Which one is it?

[Anonymous No.16131266]

>>16129885
They have trouble adjusting to the idea that science changes when new evidence proves old theories wrong. They are invested in status quo.

[Anonymous No.16132353]

>>16131189
Dark matter is made out of unicorns
prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.16132584]

>>16129496
You clearly didn't examine relativity too well. You have no idea how on point it is, that's why it doesn't need to agree with dark matter, that's why its ok to have singularity in black hole, because deep down everyone knows relativity is correct and we are just missing certain details.

[Anonymous No.16132586]

>>16129340
the term is black holes

[Anonymous No.16132616]

Most of this stuff goes over my head. Anyone got a QRD? Dark matter's existence is extremely important spiritually. For me, it's what connects corporeal forms and spiritual forms.

From what I gathered, some guys are upholding the status quo while others are calling it BS which may be a result of some sciencefags trying to make a name for themselves.

[Anonymous No.16133558]

>>16132586
black holes don't exist, the only people who believe in them are popsci psueds who have never studied physics

[Anonymous No.16134173]

>>16133558
GR predicts that black holes don't exist. The one special case where they could be theorized to possibly exist requires several circumstances that don't exist in this universe. For example they require that neutrons to be a fundamental particle.

[Anonymous No.16135238]

>>16129496

[Anonymous No.16136419]

>>16129496
>(observed reality) - (reality as predicted by Einstein's version of physics) = dark matter
Einstein used that same equation in GR when he invented the cosmological constant

[Anonymous No.16136445]

okay and what is future of universe in that case? I hope are not living in shrinking universe

[Anonymous No.16136526]

>>16128453
Dark matter is just modern-day phlogiston.

[Anonymous No.16137911]

>>16136419
GR is just talmudic circular logic

[Anonymous No.16138158]

>>16137911
talmudic?

[Anonymous No.16138708]

>>16138158
familiarize yourself with that book a little bit and you'll start to recognize it as the origin of a lot of 20th century so-called science.

[Anonymous No.16138721]

>>16131260
The terms "dark matter" and "dark energy" can both be collectively categorized as "shadow physics" which, similar to a "shadow biology", might objectively exist but due to differences with regular physics cannot be normally detected due to weak interactions and little resemblance to ordinary physics. Dark matter would be a material example in shadow physics, while dark energy would be "energy which interacts weakly with most matter".

[Anonymous No.16139672]

>>16138721
how do you categorize unicorns? what about ghosts?

[Anonymous No.16141203]

>>16139672
they're both made out of dark matter

[Anonymous No.16141706]

>>16136419
right, GR is just a complicated circular logic game

[Anonymous No.16141847]

>>16128453
This is unlikely as the evidence for dark matter is enormous. It is likely they are using one very narrow finding which is not yet understood to make broad claims. In order to claim dark matter doesn't exist you need to come up with an alternative explanation for all the evidence for it.

>covarying coupling constants (CCC) and "tired light" (TL) theories
And there you go. These people have an uphill battle to prove themselves and I doubt many take them seriously.

[Anonymous No.16143016]

>>16141706
no matter what evidence is discovered, GR will always be morphed to fit the evidence, its fundamentally nondisprovable and therefore not a scientific theory.

[Anonymous No.16144467]

>>16143016
>GR will always be…not a scientific theory.
Correct, its a religious belief thats taken on faith by scientism brainlets rather than being a valid scientific theory

[Anonymous No.16144471]

>>16139672
>Unicorn
Can be categorized as "a horse with a horn". The problem isn't the Unicorn's description, it's that unicorns don't exist.
>Ghost
Phenomenal consciousness existing after death.

[Anonymous No.16144478]

it's literally just a mathematical model that the cosmologists keep adding parameters to fit the data.
they deliberately keep conflating the mathematical model and reality itself. there isn't really anyway to check for dark matter because by their own definition it doesn't interact with anything.
it's a convinient and marketing term they use to keep fishing funding from the public.

[Anonymous No.16144483]

>>16128458
>the universe is 27 billion years old
do this a couple of times and we'll come to the "finding" that the universe is practically infinite in age.
steady state chads can't keep winning.

[Anonymous No.16144490]

>>16128453
Dark matter and dark energy were always just lame attempts at justifying bad math.

[Anonymous No.16145791]

>>16144490

[Anonymous No.16146475]

>>16144490
They were invented to preserve the false reputation of Albert Einstein as an important scientist

[Anonymous No.16147630]

>>16146475
Thats why nobody is allowed to figure out the real reason why GR fails at large scales, because doing that would be an embarrassment to the reputation of St. Einstein, the infallible jew god of the soience atheists.

[Anonymous No.16148301]

>>16143016
Its actually the reverse of that, the evidence will always be morphed to fit the Einstein theories

[Anonymous No.16149177]

>>16148301
GR was altered by Einstein to fit Hubble's observations, but when the galactic rotation curves issue cropped up Einstein was already dead, so they have to alter the interpretation of the data to fit Einstein's theory in order to Einstein's false legacy alive.

[Anonymous No.16150670]

>>16149177
Right, if GR was altered to fit the new observations then it would no longer be Einstein's theory and the soience universe would no longer be ruled by the jew god of the soience atheists

[Anonymous No.16152220]

>my dick is actually 16 inches, but 85% of it is invisible

[Anonymous No.16152812]

>>16152220
This is what soiyence sissies actually believe