Dark Matter

[Edgarcito]

Is anyone knowledgeable about dark matter.  Seems rather intriguing.  Just a random thought, but why would dark matter not be everywhere.  If the universe is 84% dark matter, than why would we not be missing more understanding of our physical world.  I guess I've never thought about it and am currently lost in the dark matter sea.  Thx.

 

 

[pantheory]

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Is anyone knowledgeable about dark matter.  Seems rather intriguing.  Just a random thought, but why would dark matter not be everywhere.  If the universe is 84% dark matter, than why would we not be missing more understanding of our physical world.  I guess I've never thought about it and am currently lost in the dark matter sea.  Thx.

 

 

I've written and published more than one scientific paper on the subject. Basically the paper tell all the problems with dark matter theory and explains how reality "really work," and where dark matter is just a fantasy and place holder for that which is not understood.

 

In the present Big Bang model, called the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model, as you said, dark matter supposedly makes up about 85% of the matter of the universe, but it has never been directly observed here on Earth and is implied to exist in galaxies and in the universe at large based upon its supposed gravitational influences. But there are a great many other explanations for these influences other than dark matter.  The most prominent of these alternative explanations are called modified gravity models. There models and formulations propose changes to the formulas of gravity via Newton and Einstein, to explain the velocities of stars within spiral galaxies such as our own Milky Way galaxy. The problem is that these changes of formula do not adequately explain the observed velocities of galaxies in a cluster and other related observation anomalies. So the mainstream still believes in dark matter, even if dark matter and dark energy are simply BS IMO and related research. Yes, dark matter is supposedly everywhere on the largest scales. Here is a link to one of my related scientific research papers:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337757736_Simple_but_exact_researchgate

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

I've written and published more than one scientific paper on the subject. Basically the paper tell all the problems with dark matter theory and explains how reality "really work," and where dark matter is just a fantasy and place holder for that which is not understood.

 

In the present Big Bang model, called the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model, as you said, dark matter supposedly makes up about 85% of the matter of the universe, but it has never been directly observed here on Earth and is implied to exist in galaxies and in the universe at large based upon its supposed gravitational influences. But there are a great many other explanations for these influences other than dark matter.  The most prominent of these alternative explanations are called modified gravity models. There models and formulations propose changes to the formulas of gravity via Newton and Einstein, to explain the velocities of stars within spiral galaxies such as our own Milky Way galaxy. The problem is that these changes of formula do not adequately explain the observed velocities of galaxies in a cluster and other related observation anomalies. So the mainstream still believes in dark matter, even if dark matter and dark energy are simply BS IMO and related research. Yes, dark matter is supposedly everywhere on the largest scales. Here is a link to one of my related scientific research papers:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337757736_Simple_but_exact_researchgate

Very much appreciated.  I will read. ty

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Melissa O'Neil is hot.

[WalterP]

Perhaps Bhim is knowledgeable about dark matter?

 

After all he's an astrophysicist.

 

If I was interested in how my reading glasses work I'd ask an optometrist.

 

[pantheory]

7 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Melissa O'Neil is hot.

 

Yes, I suspect she is a lot hotter and more beautiful than supposed dark matter. She looks more like Mellisa Gonzoles; maybe her dad is of Irish descent.

[pantheory]

Here are some links to mainstream theory concerning dark matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

https://www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html

https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/definition-what-is-dark-matter

As I said before, my own theory concerning dark matter is not mainstream.  The problem with mainstream theory is that accurate calculations cannot be made based upon dark matter theory. This is because dark matter cannot be observed, therefore its distribution within galaxies or galaxy clusters are both assumed and estimated . Even so observation often does not agree with theory. Some galaxies appear to have no dark matter at all, while others appear to have more than 95% dark matter based upon the velocity profile of the stars and matter within them.

In my own theory, as my linked paper above explains, very exact calculations can be made based upon this theory.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 hours ago, WalterP said:

Perhaps Bhim is knowledgeable about dark matter?

 

After all he's an astrophysicist.

 

If I was interested in how my reading glasses work I'd ask an optometrist.

 

@Bhim

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

Here are some links to mainstream theory concerning dark matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

https://www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html

https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/definition-what-is-dark-matter

As I said before, my own theory concerning dark matter is not mainstream.  The problem with mainstream theory is that accurate calculations cannot be made based upon dark matter theory. This is because dark matter cannot be observed, therefore its distribution within galaxies or galaxy clusters are both assumed and estimated . Even so observation often does not agree with theory. Some galaxies appear to have no dark matter at all, while others appear to have more than 95% dark matter based upon the velocity profile of the stars and matter within them.

In my own theory, as my linked paper above explains, very exact calculations can be made based upon this theory.

 

Sorry Pantheory, but observation does agree with theory.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_Refsdal

 

Using highly accurate estimates of the amount of mass in a distant galactic cluster, three separate teams were able to accurately predict the appearance of a 'new' image of an even more distant supernova.

 

Their estimates incorporated dark matter as well as ordinary matter, even though they couldn't 'see' the dark matter.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.05953.pdf

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.05750

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.6443.pdf

 

If their estimates were wrong then their predictions of when and where the 'new' image of the supernova would have appeared wouldn't have been correct.

 

But they were.

 

 

Q.E.D. 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

21 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Sorry Pantheory, but observation does agree with theory.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_Refsdal

 

Using highly accurate estimates of the amount of mass in a distant galactic cluster, three separate teams were able to accurately predict the appearance of a 'new' image of an even more distant supernova.

 

Their estimates incorporated dark matter as well as ordinary matter, even though they couldn't 'see' the dark matter.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.05953.pdf

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.05750

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.6443.pdf

 

If their estimates were wrong then their predictions of when and where the 'new' image of the supernova would have appeared wouldn't have been correct.

 

But they were.

 

 

Q.E.D. 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Of course in theory one can make estimates that sometimes prove right, whether the theory is correct or not. 

Look online and see if you can find a single study of dark matter concerning spiral galaxies, where dark matter makes accurate predictions concerning their rotation profiles of many galaxies in the study. You will find none. But look online at studies for modified gravity models and you will find a great many such studies having some accuracy. There are no studies that show absolute accuracy concerning calculations of many spiral galaxies excepting for my own, shown and described in the above link including the calculations.

 

Here is a youtube link to a video explaining the mainstream theory of dark matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYH_nFwMXRM

 

 

 

[WalterP]

Take a look at this, Pantheory.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-between-the-predicted-and-the-actual-position-of-image-SX-of-SN-Refsdal_fig1_287250211

 

The circles are the areas where the three teams predicted the 'new' image of the supernova would appear.

 

The +  is where it actually appeared.

 

If you can't accept that these three separate studies showed absolute accuracy, then there's not much more we can discuss.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

Of course in theory one can make estimates that sometimes prove right, whether the theory is correct or not. 

Look online and see if you can find a single study of dark matter concerning spiral galaxies, where dark matter makes accurate predictions concerning their rotation profiles of many galaxies in the study. You will find none. But look online at studies for modified gravity models and you will find a great many such studies having some accuracy. There are no studies that show absolute accuracy concerning calculations of many spiral galaxies excepting for my own, shown and described in the above link including the calculations.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Just as an aside, Pantheory.

 

You claim to be able to make absolutely accurate calculations of the rotation profiles in spiral galaxies.

 

That would be retroactively, based upon past data.

 

 

But, can you do what the three Refsdal teams did?

 

That is, predict where and when an event will happen with absolute accuracy?

 

To within 2 arc seconds of position?

 

About an object 14.4 billion light years away?

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

Numerous examples of dark matter predictions have shown to be valid. But very few researchers ever publish the results of dark matter predictions that are contradicted, even though there are still many dozens of these that are still published.

 

I have several dozen links to examples of those research studies of dark matter that contradict theory. Here is the most recent one of those published in Sept. 2020.

 

The lead author of the paper concluded that:  "There's a feature of the real universe that we are simply not capturing in our current theoretical models," said Priyamvada Natarajan, senior theorist on the research team and theoretical astrophysicist at Yale University, in this statement

"This could signal a gap in our current understanding of the nature of dark matter and its properties, as these exquisite data have permitted us to probe the detailed distribution of dark matter on the smallest scales."

The paper concludes that there are unidentified problems with prevailing simulation methods or theory to enable accurate galaxy cluster modeling with dark matter, standard cosmology, or both.

“The observationally constrained lens models reproduce the shapes and sizes of the observed GGSL  (gravitationally lensed) events. For instance, the model predicted image positions match within∼0.5arc sec with what is seen (observable matter). The discrepancy between observations and (dark matter theory and) simulations may be due to issues with either the CDM (cold dark matter) paradigm or simulation methods.”

Excessive small-scale gravitational lenses were observed in many galaxy clusters contrary to dark matter theory.

https://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hvi/uploads/science_paper/file_attachment/602/complete_manuscript.pdf

https://www.wral.com/hubble-images-reveal-new-aspect-of-mysterious-dark-matter-in-the-universe/19281508/

 

 

 

[pantheory]

12 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Of course in theory one can make estimates that sometimes prove right, whether the theory is correct or not. 

Look online and see if you can find a single study of dark matter concerning spiral galaxies, where dark matter makes accurate predictions concerning their rotation profiles of many galaxies in the study. You will find none. But look online at studies for modified gravity models and you will find a great many such studies having some accuracy. There are no studies that show absolute accuracy concerning calculations of many spiral galaxies excepting for my own, shown and described in the above link including the calculations.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Just as an aside, Pantheory.

 

You claim to be able to make absolutely accurate calculations of the rotation profiles in spiral galaxies.

 

That would be retroactively, based upon past data.

 

 

But, can you do what the three Refsdal teams did?

 

That is, predict where and when an event will happen with absolute accuracy?

 

To within 2 arc seconds of position?

 

About an object 14.4 billion light years away?

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

No. Predictions for all models are based upon observations of the actual observed velocity profiles compared to their predictions based upon the theoretical model. Dark matter is a very poor predictor of these velocity profiles. This is why you can never see any such studies published.  According to the BB model the universe is only 13.8 billion years old. So that would be the farthest back we could possibly look. According to BB theory this is the age of the microwave background radiation.  So don't know where this 14.4 billion light years away in your quote comes from.

[WalterP]

You seem to be barking up the wrong tree, Pantheory.

 

You seem to think that I'm promoting and defending the concept of dark matter.

 

All I am saying in this thread is that the three Refsdal teams got it right.  Nothing more.

 

A while back I declared that my position on such things as dark matter, dark energy and inflation was one of wait-and-see.

 

That's still my position.

 

 

If I were to draw a parallel with another field of science I'd point to palaeontology, with Charles Darwin's declaration in his books about intermediate fossils.

 

He was quite frank in admitting that there were very few intermediate fossils to back up his theories.

 

But, over time, an increasing number of these were discovered, validating his ideas.

 

 

Dark matter research is still in its early days and the evidence for it is still very sparse.

 

But, if the pattern of discovery follows that of the intermediate fossils, then new technologies should yield more and more evidence for us to work with.

 

The EELT, the JWST and the Vera Rubin telescope should do that.

 

If they don't, then I'll accept that outcome too.

 

 

But to return to the case of supernova Refsdal Pantheory, do we agree that they got it right?

 

And in this particular case, do you agree that the accuracy of their dark matter-based prediction wasn't bs?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[LogicalFallacy]

8 hours ago, pantheory said:

According to the BB model the universe is only 13.8 billion years old. So that would be the farthest back we could possibly look.

According to BB theory this is the age of the microwave background radiation.  So don't know where this 14.4 billion light years away in your quote comes from.

 

The age of the universe is a measure of time, 14.4 billion light years away  is a measure of distance. Because the universe has expanded over 13.8 billion years its observable radius is 46 billion light years. I think that's what Walter was getting at.

https://www.space.com/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.html

[WalterP]

8 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

No. Predictions for all models are based upon observations of the actual observed velocity profiles compared to their predictions based upon the theoretical model. Dark matter is a very poor predictor of these velocity profiles. This is why you can never see any such studies published.  According to the BB model the universe is only 13.8 billion years old. So that would be the farthest back we could possibly look. According to BB theory this is the age of the microwave background radiation.  So don't know where this 14.4 billion light years away in your quote comes from.

 

Here...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_Refsdal

 

The host galaxy of SN Refsdal is at a redshift of 1.49, corresponding to a comoving distance of 14.4 billion light-years and a lookback time of 9.34 billion years.

 

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=redshift+z%3D1.49&a=FSelect_**LookbackTimeFromRedshift--

 

 

 

[pantheory]

9 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

The age of the universe is a measure of time, 14.4 billion light years away  is a measure of distance. Because the universe has expanded over 13.8 billion years its observable radius is 46 billion light years. I think that's what Walter was getting at.

https://www.space.com/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.html

 

Both are distances. Light years is the measure of the length of time that it took that light to get to us. Comoving distance is a calculation concerning how far away from us they believe that galaxy is at present.

[pantheory]

9 hours ago, WalterP said:

You seem to be barking up the wrong tree, Pantheory.

 

You seem to think that I'm promoting and defending the concept of dark matter.

 

All I am saying in this thread is that the three Refsdal teams got it right.  Nothing more.

 

A while back I declared that my position on such things as dark matter, dark energy and inflation was one of wait-and-see.

 

That's still my position.

 

 

If I were to draw a parallel with another field of science I'd point to palaeontology, with Charles Darwin's declaration in his books about intermediate fossils.

 

He was quite frank in admitting that there were very few intermediate fossils to back up his theories.

 

But, over time, an increasing number of these were discovered, validating his ideas.

 

 

Dark matter research is still in its early days and the evidence for it is still very sparse.

 

But, if the pattern of discovery follows that of the intermediate fossils, then new technologies should yield more and more evidence for us to work with.

 

The EELT, the JWST and the Vera Rubin telescope should do that.

 

If they don't, then I'll accept that outcome too.

 

 

But to return to the case of supernova Refsdal Pantheory, do we agree that they got it right?

 

And in this particular case, do you agree that the accuracy of their dark matter-based prediction wasn't bs?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

OK, great!! I do know that they get some things right otherwise they would not continue to believe in dark matter. IMO the main reason they still believe in dark matter is because all of the known alternatives are thought to have even more problems associated with their predictions.

[WalterP]

According to the BB model the universe is only 13.8 billion years old. So that would be the farthest back we could possibly look. According to BB theory this is the age of the microwave background radiation.  So don't know where this 14.4 billion light years away in your quote comes from.

 

Pantheory,

 

I've re-read your comments about the age of the universe (see above) and I was wondering what your position is re the expansion of the universe.

 

 

A naïve misunderstanding of BB cosmology is that, because the universe itself is no more 13.8 billion years old, that is the distance in light years that we can see and no further.

 

Such a model would place us, unmoving, in the exact centre of the universe, with all other galactic clusters moving away from us.

 

Which, of course, violates the Copernican Principle, making our central location a special one and all other locations less special than ours.

 

Furthermore, this is not what BB cosmology is actually saying about the universe.

 

It says that no particular location is special and that all the galactic clusters are moving away from each other, not just from us.

 

Which is why the calculated radius of the universe is much larger than just 13.8 billion light years. 

 

 

So, perhaps you could clarify where you stand re how the universe expands?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter

 

[pantheory]

49 minutes ago, WalterP said:

According to the BB model the universe is only 13.8 billion years old. So that would be the farthest back we could possibly look. According to BB theory this is the age of the microwave background radiation.  So don't know where this 14.4 billion light years away in your quote comes from.

 

Pantheory,

 

I've re-read your comments about the age of the universe (see above) and I was wondering what your position is re the expansion of the universe.

 

 

A naïve misunderstanding of BB cosmology is that, because the universe itself is no more 13.8 billion years old, that is the distance in light years that we can see and no further.

 

Such a model would place us, unmoving, in the exact centre of the universe, with all other galactic clusters moving away from us.

 

Which, of course, violates the Copernican Principle, making our central location a special one and all other locations less special than ours.

 

Furthermore, this is not what BB cosmology is actually saying about the universe.

 

It says that no particular location is special and that all the galactic clusters are moving away from each other, not just from us.

 

Which is why the calculated radius of the universe is much larger than just 13.8 billion light years. 

 

 

So, perhaps you could clarify where you stand re how the universe expands?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter

 

 

My position on the expansion of the universe is that it is generally not expanding and that there is another reason for the observed redshift of galaxies. Instead of the hypothesis of the expansion of space, this alternative hypothesis is called the diminution of matter. My position on the accelerating expansion of the universe, aka dark energy, is that it is also is a fantasy just like dark matter. The problem there is that the Hubble distance formula is somewhat inaccurate. I also wrote a paper on this:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272692970_An_Alternative_Universe-Scale_Analytic_Metrology_and_Related_Cosmological_Model_An_Analysis_of_Type_1a_Supernovae_Data_With_Newly_Proposed_Distance_and_Brightness_Equations_Which_if_Valid_Would_Elimin

According to present day beliefs and calculations based upon the Big Bang model, “the current comoving distance—proper distance, which takes into account that the universe has expanded since the light was emitted—to particles from which the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) was emitted,

which represents the radius of the visible universe, is about 14.0 billion" (light years).

 

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk01Kp_h8m0P1m9JHO__sap60UPXYVw%3A1601746902885&source=hp&ei=1rd4X-ioMYms0PEPnqIE&q=farthest+distance+we+can+observe+based+upon+the+Big+Bang+model&oq=farthest+distance+we+can+observe+based+upon+the+Big+Bang+model&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQDDoICAAQsQMQgwE6AggAOgsILhCxAxDHARCjAjoFCAAQsQM6BQguELEDOgQIIxAnOggILhDHARCjAjoOCC4QsQMQgwEQxwEQowI6CAguELEDEIMBOgIILjoECAAQCjoKCC4QxwEQowIQCjoECC4QCjoECAAQDToGCAAQFhAeOggIIRAWEB0QHjoFCCEQqwI6BwghEAoQoAE6BQghEKABUM_VAVj1sANgnsADaAFwAHgAgAHLAYgBwj6SAQcxMC41NS4xmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjo66WZ_JjsAhUJFjQIHR4RAQAQ4dUDCAw

 

 

 

[WalterP]

Thank you.

[pantheory]

3 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Thank you.

 

Sorry. My edit function hasn't been working for the past week. My response should have been 14.0 billion parsecs instead of light years. This would be a radial distance of about 45.7 billion light years.

[WalterP]

Ok.  Thank you.

[Joshpantera]

Wasn't there some cross over here about dark matter or dark energy gravitational effects possibly being evidence of parallel universes? I remember that coming up before.