Thread: A connection Between Space-time and Dark matter/Energy

With the discovery of dark matter and dark energy, it seems that space time may actually be substance. We know little of time and space other than how to measure it. It is very possible that our way of "accurately" measuring time could be wrong. we have yet to 100% measure accurate time other then days and years, and even there we are off.

Now could it be possible that dark matter is the physical form of space and that the pushing of dark energy on the dark matter could be what is forcing the flow of time on our universe? I tried asking this question on another forum and all i got was dismissal of the idea, no real thought process on it.

I had the same thought. Why should we assume that spacetime is somehow produced with no energy being expended? It seems to me that the 'missing' energy/matter is in fact contained in spacetime - the universal 'ether' that allows particles etc to propagate. The reason it is Dark (occult) is that we are IN it.

Fiddle. I polled the second option and my vote ended up in the third option.

There is no discovery of DM or DE. They are ideas put forwards to explain problems with the big bang.

Look at any spiral galaxy and it looks like light matter only. There are no signs of where the six times as much dark matter are, giving it a totally different shape. If the DM were in the halo as some claim, we would have ring donut shaped galaxies. Lots of them.

As to dark energy, totally ridiculous. It suddenly became more powerful, or is that appeared, several billion years ago so speeding up expansion. In an ever bigger universe, there would need to be ever more of it, edging towards 100% of everything, so that is coming from where?

I have debated "What is space?" on other science forums in the past and have yet to get a credible answer. Space only works if it is literally nothing, defined only by what occupies it.

Gravity, like magnetism works through literally nothing. Space does not conduct it like electricity. It does not bend or warp or anything else a metal ball rolling around a rubber sheet does.

Time is a man-made measure of how long physical processes take. Dr Who fans may claim it is a dimension.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Look at any spiral galaxy and it looks like light matter only. There are no signs of where the six times as much dark matter are, giving it a totally different shape. If the DM were in the halo as some claim, we would have ring donut shaped galaxies. Lots of them.

Show us the math.

As to dark energy, totally ridiculous. It suddenly became more powerful, or is that appeared, several billion years ago so speeding up expansion. In an ever bigger universe, there would need to be ever more of it, edging towards 100% of everything, so that is coming from where?

That's not how it works. It appears to have always been there.

PhysBang. Can you show me the maths which supports 11 dimensional superstrings? There's quite a lot of it to choose from, from a field where many left several years back because they saw it as a scientific dead end?

Or for 11 dimensions?

Or the maths for a Higg's boson, which increasingly is looking like nonsense? But good maths though.

How about the maths supporting supersymmetry? Nice maths but silly idea.

The thing is that there is no need for "the maths" in the first point so a nonsensical objection.

I said that galaxies appear to be made of light matter only. No sign of six times as much dark matter, which reacts gravitationally so would overwhelmingly control the shape of the light matter that we see..

So where is the need for maths?



No, dark energy is just an idea that there is no evidence for. It would be good for the big bang if it is true, but no evidence for what is said to be 72% of the universe, so just an idea, so never there at all.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

PhysBang. Can you show me the maths which supports 11 dimensional superstrings? There's quite a lot of it to choose from, from a field where many left several years back because they saw it as a scientific dead end? Or for 11 dimensions? Or the maths for a Higg's boson, which increasingly is looking like nonsense? But good maths though. How about the maths supporting supersymmetry? Nice maths but silly idea. The thing is that there is no need for "the maths" in the first point so a nonsensical objection.

I could show you all these things, but you seem more interested in your own personal aesthetic judgment.

I said that galaxies appear to be made of light matter only. No sign of six times as much dark matter, which reacts gravitationally so would overwhelmingly control the shape of the light matter that we see..

Actually, the shape and behavior of galaxies is exactly why galaxies do appear to have dark matter. If they did not have dark matter, they would appear to move very differently. This is something that one can read about in papers on dark matter in galaxies. There are systematic relationships between dark matter and the movement of matter that we can see that is expressed in mathematics. If you want to claim that dark matter should make all galaxies look a certain way, then you should be able to demonstrate the systematic relationships that support this claim.

No, dark energy is just an idea that there is no evidence for. It would be good for the big bang if it is true, but no evidence for what is said to be 72% of the universe, so just an idea, so never there at all.

The many scientists working for decades on developing the systematic relationships between mass, energy, and gravity, specifically on the kind of relationships involving what we now call dark energy, would disagree that dark energy is merely an idea. The many scientists who used these relationships to turn observations of supernovae and the cosmic background radiation into evidence about the dynamics of the universe would also disagree that there is no evidence for dark energy. Do you have anything, aside from your own aesthetic judgment, to count against their papers?

PhysBang. What can you show me? That maths proves true what does not exist?

DM supposedly outmasses light matter by six times. All galaxies look like LM only.

As I have already pointed out, if DM were in a galaxy's halo as claimed, we would have mostly donut shaped galaxies.

As to movement of stars, no. That is redshift of stars so believed movement based on one interpretation of a star's redshift.

Just a few months ago had you asked the right person, they would have been able to give you proof (actually circumstantial evidence) for the existence of the Higg's boson. But increasingly now the same people are saying that it probably does not exist after yet another failure to find it.

There is no proof of DM on a planet which should contain some DM. Just circumstantial evidence which may be proved wrong.

Some tend to talk of DE and DM as though all scientists do every day is prove that it exists. But they are just an IDEA that there is no evidence for. Some now see other viable ways that the universe might work without the need for magic stuff:

Dark Energy and Dark Matter Might Not Exist, Scientists Allege | Space.com

Just one of many sites on the matter.

Supernovae as in time dilation is not observed over six billion light years away?

CMB as in 85 years ago Eddington said that starlight alone would heat space to 3.K?

Perhaps you would like to explain to me how space can expand from quantum size to infinite size? This is something people take for granted and do not think about. In a number of "What is space?" on various science forums, I have exposed their lack of thought on the most basic components of the BB idea.

I have also shown elsewhere that the force acting on a photon, as in space stretching maybe an atom's width over one light second is so small that if that could affect a photon, then going into a gravity well of a planet like Earth would almost rip it apart. What would happen with the gravity well of a neutron star does not bear thinking about.

I have common sense on my side so when someone talks a load of BS (bad science), even if it is couched in scientific jargon, I know they are talking nonsense. I do not just keep on nodding my head while saying "Yup! Yup! Yup!" like some do.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

DM supposedly outmasses light matter by six times. All galaxies look like LM only.

What do you mean by "look like"? If you mean that all galaxies emit electromagnetic radiation only from those particles that emit electromagnetic radiation, then this is true but trivial. If you mean that when we look at galaxies, we see that they have the dynamics that we expect given how much matter they appear to have given the amount of electromagnetic radiation emitting particles they have, then this is false. Galaxies appear to have much more mass in them than that associated with particles that emit electromagnetic radiation. If we are very careful with our measurements, we can demonstrate this.

As I have already pointed out, if DM were in a galaxy's halo as claimed, we would have mostly donut shaped galaxies.

But this is just a claim. You have given us no reason to believe this claim. This may be how you would prefer the universe to be, but not everyone shares your aesthetic preference.

Just a few months ago had you asked the right person, they would have been able to give you proof (actually circumstantial evidence) for the existence of the Higg's boson. But increasingly now the same people are saying that it probably does not exist after yet another failure to find it.

Really? Who would these people be? There remain good reasons to suspect that there is a Higgs boson, but there has never been any proof. There is no proof of DM on a planet which should contain some DM. Just circumstantial evidence which may be proved wrong.

Some tend to talk of DE and DM as though all scientists do every day is prove that it exists. But they are just an IDEA that there is no evidence for.

You cannot simply wish away all the very detailed evidence that we find in many different places. Again, I recommend beginners to Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial .

PhysBang. I mean what I said. If you look at a spiral galaxy, everything looks as it should be. There are no strange out of place areas and shapes that you can point to and say; "That is where the dark matter is."

It is said that stars move too fast to stay in galaxies but that is dogma based on redshift, based on the idea of a train whistle going past us.

As photons are endemic to the universe, so gravity is endemic to the universe. We know gravity can redshift photons in a way that mimics recessional velocity and photons are forever travelling through a field of gravity.

Of course we can ignore (for this purpose) emission and arrival, as we can ignore pull in direction of travel and in direction from. But we cannot ignore the side pulls on a photon.

If you have a cylindrical magnet and drop a small steel ball bearing through it, the magnetism will slow the ball down. However a photon cannot be slowed down when travelling through the gravitational equivalent so it loses energy as in redshifts.

This means that stars are not travelling as fast as thought once you take the gravitational component of the redshift into account so they do not need any dark matter to hold them inside a galaxy.

A more rational explanation than the DM fairy dust one.

You cannot demonstrate what you claim because we live such short lives that even close up stars barely move in our life times. To prove what you say, you'd have to live maybe a million years and show actual movement within galaxies and of galaxies. You are just using one interpretation of the redshift and going no further because you have the answer you want.

When I say DM is in the halo, I am quoting people who believe in DM and then showing what would happen if it were true. Which even a child should be able to see it is not, let alone someone who claims to be a scientist. Why don't you tell me where the DM is then and I'll tell you why you are wrong. Deal?

If you bother reading the articles, you'll find that there is a general depression in the physics field, that yet again the Higg's boson has not been found, so like Jehovah's Witnesses, the "experts" are having to go back to their "bible" and decide on some new and even more unlikely mass and energy for the Higg's Boson in the vain hope of finding it next time. Or the time after. At some point they have to admit they are wrong.

If DM reacts gravitationally, then it reacts gravitationally. It should be part of every large mass in the universe, and black holes should soak it up like a vacuum tube in a room full of gas as the large structures collapse in on themselves.

There is no detailed evidence. There is hearsay and castles built on clouds. An alien from a religious planet could say the fact that we do not float away is proof that there are invisible demons holding us down. You are using the same type of logic since we have no actual proofs. Just assumptions.

You remind me of creationists who point me at the bible when I do not believe them. The BB is full of holes. I have mentioned some of them on this site but Dishmaster gets really upset when I show that the BB idea is wrong so I cannot give all the details I'd like to. Only some in response to direct questions here.

I suspect he;s in a bit of a huff at the moment because he can hardly whine about me posting "pseudoscience" on the pseudoscience forum.

me posting "pseudoscience" on the pseudoscience forum.

That is exactly what you are doing and true to form, you have no justification for your claims apart from "that's what I think".

When I say DM is in the halo, I am quoting people who believe in DM and then showing what would happen if it were true. Which even a child should be able to see it is not, let alone someone who claims to be a scientist. Why don't you tell me where the DM is then and I'll tell you why you are wrong. Deal?

That's why he is asking for the math.

The halo shape you are talking about come from two directions:

1) Calculated from the known properties of dark matter, i.e. what would a huge mass of matter do that does not react to other matter, except for gravitationally. What you get is a halo shape.
2) Calculated from the rotation curves of galaxies. Your redshift idea is utter nonsense and simply does not fit with, again, the math. Guess what happens when you add a halo of dark matter to a galaxy? The rotation curves we are seeing.

just read through THIS and then come back with your nonsense.

If you have a cylindrical magnet and drop a small steel ball bearing through it, the magnetism will slow the ball down. However a photon cannot be slowed down when travelling through the gravitational equivalent so it loses energy as in redshifts.

This means that stars are not travelling as fast as thought once you take the gravitational component of the redshift into account so they do not need any dark matter to hold them inside a galaxy.

You forget that the light gets blue shifted again as it enters our galaxy. All you are left with is the resultant red shift and blue shift due to motion and red shift due to expansion.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

PhysBang. I mean what I said. If you look at a spiral galaxy, everything looks as it should be. There are no strange out of place areas and shapes that you can point to and say; "That is where the dark matter is."

Sure, except where there is. As mentioned previously, there are a couple of galaxy clusters where we can actually point to where the dark matter is where there isn't matter detectable through electromagnetic radiation. You steadfastly refused to actually consider those and tried to shift attention away from them. Hopefully, your attempt at obfuscation did not confuse readers of this thread. Dark matter interacts only very rarely with the matter we normally consider, except through gravity, so it does not displace the matter that we ordinarily consider.

It is said that stars move too fast to stay in galaxies but that is dogma based on redshift, based on the idea of a train whistle going past us.

Well, you are free to imagine a new physics entirely different from the physics that we have and have tested. Since you don't believe in mathematics, your fantasy physics probably won't be able to gain more than a few converts, but there are cults of all kinds.

As photons are endemic to the universe, so gravity is endemic to the universe. We know gravity can redshift photons in a way that mimics recessional velocity and photons are forever travelling through a field of gravity.

Well, yeah, but the rotation of galaxies creates a relative redshift on one side of a galaxy and a relative blueshift on the other side, so you're going to have to explain why every galaxy in the universe has gravity pulling one way on one side perpendicular to us and gravity pulling the other way on the other side. And please note that the sides are not all going the same way for every galaxy.

This means that stars are not travelling as fast as thought once you take the gravitational component of the redshift into account so they do not need any dark matter to hold them inside a galaxy.

Can you demonstrate that this effect you imagine creates serious and significant systematic error in existing studies of galaxy rotation that has not been taken into account? Or is this more fantasy physics?

If DM reacts gravitationally, then it reacts gravitationally. It should be part of every large mass in the universe, and black holes should soak it up like a vacuum tube in a room full of gas as the large structures collapse in on themselves.

You seem to have an exaggerated concept of black holes. The gravity in black holes does not work differently from the same amount of gravity in a certain amount of space. If something is 1 million km from a black hole, it behaves just like it would if it were 1 million km from the same amount of mass in a sphere of stars.

KALSTER. You miss the points.

Most of the big bang idea is just ideas and some impossibilities. It has also a number of serious failures. Like the idea of a flat Earth at one time, it is not true because many believe it is right. The big bang as I have shown elsewhere is just pseudoscience.

1. Mass goes where the gravity is and when there is six times as much DM as LM, then we can expect to see a galaxy modeled solely on DM, as in halo galaxies instead of spiral galaxies. How does "knowing the maths" change this?

2. The redshift idea is nonsense as in gravity does not affect photons? Go read a book.

As to the halo, I refer you to answer 1. again. Show me a zillion donut shaped galaxies and I'll admit DM exists. How about I show you a zillion spiral galaxies and you admit it does not?

Read these:


Superstring theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Higgs boson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Supersymmetry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Some nice articles packed with information on what many now accept as not existing. Castles on clouds may look nice but don't try to live in one.

As I said, we ignore pull in the direction of travel,as we ignore pull from emission, allowing for this that both cancel out. So we have photons travelling for billions of years through a field of gravity which drags at them so redshifts them, so redshift is still a measure of distance. Inside galaxies, lots more gravity about so they get redshifted sooner over smaller distances.

A galaxy is full of mostly redshifted stars but people don't connect that to a universe full of mostly redshifted galaxies.

The big bang as I have shown elsewhere is just pseudoscience.

That you seem to honestly think that you have done this is nothing short of laughable.

1. Mass goes where the gravity is and when there is six times as much DM as LM, then we can expect to see a galaxy modeled solely on DM, as in halo galaxies instead of spiral galaxies. How does "knowing the maths" change this?

Because when you actually do the maths instead of arrogantly thinking you can just decide what is what by making ideas up out of thin air, you see the model fits with observations.

2. The redshift idea is nonsense as in gravity does not affect photons? Go read a book.

Your redshift idea is nonsense. And please, follow your own advice and actually bother to learn what all the theories are about before spouting nonsense.

As I said, we ignore pull in the direction of travel,as we ignore pull from emission, allowing for this that both cancel out. So we have photons travelling for billions of years through a field of gravity which drags at them so redshifts them, so redshift is still a measure of distance. Inside galaxies, lots more gravity about so they get redshifted sooner over smaller distances.

Goodness gracious. I cannot for the life of me understand why you can't get this. The light gets red shifted as it leaves the galaxy of origin, but gets blue shifted again as it enters ours, so it cancels out. Why don't you get this? As for red shift during travel, the resultant gravitational pull of the light is effectively zero for the vast majority of the trip. The result is that we see red and blue shift from actual motion relative to us and only red shift due to the expansion of space.

Your incredible ignorance/arrogance is flabbergasting.

PhysBang. From the wiki:

Furthermore, the dark matter clump, revealed by the weak lensing map, is coincident with the collisionless galaxies, but lies ahead of the collisional gas.

So we have unseen matter that has not yet been heated up by the collision, so it is cold and so unseen.

An exception does not prove a rule.

If dark matter reacts gravitationally as claimed, then it ill be everywhere, in every large structure in the universe. That is gravity 101.

The only "evidence" we have that stars are moving as fast as claimed is their redshifts. We have no actual physical evidence that we can point to as being proof. Since we know that gravity can cause redshifts and that we live in a galaxy full of gravitational sources and full of gravitational fields, you and others are blatantly ignoring these facts and saying that gravity does not matter because it does not affect photons. So not a new kind of physics but not a biased physics either which gets only the answer you like.

Where a blueshift is exhibited, it just means that it is sufficient to overcome the redshift. Example: A rocket leaving Earth will still leave Earth despite the pull of gravity on it. That does not mean that the pull of gravity does not exist.

Show me photographic proof that stars are moving as fast as is believed. You claim this is "science" so there should be hard evidence to back it up rather than just some speculations, based on an idea.

It is said that DM forms large structures. Let's liken it to a huge building. Something comes along and starts sucking lumps out of the building. It is not going to stay as it is but at some point will start to collapse. As other material falls towards the suction, it too will be sucked in and so on. So with DM. The large structures will collapse in on themselves and be sucked into a black hole in the area. And of course black holes move around the galaxy, so passing through DM structures all the time. In the lifetime of our galaxy, if DM had existed, most of it would long ago have been swallowed up, not just by black holes but stars and even planets and moons. That is the weakness of large structures.

KALSTER. As you have not seen what I have written elsewhere, this is just a jibe, so can be ignored.

The maths. We have one part light matter and we have six parts dark matter. Which is largest, 1 or 6? Will you work this out for me as you can do the maths and decide which dominates the shape of a galaxy.

I have learned all the theories, a nice word for ideas in the case of cosmology. However you do not seem to believe that gravity can redfshift photons so maybe you should "read the theories".

I will write this slower so you can understand it this time. I have twice now pointed out that we can ignore for these purposes the gravitational effects of the origin and destination as they cancel out. And still you go on about it. If you cannot grasp something this easy, how can you claim to have a knowledge of science?

So we have a photon pulled from a zillion different gravitational sources as it travels through space and you say we can ignore it?

A photon travels at a set speed so as far as expansion is concerned, it cannot by definition expand in the direction of travel or in the direction it has come from since this would mean parts of it going faster and slower than light speed. That means it can only expand sideways. And sideways we have endless sources of gravity pulling on it, and like the ball bearing travelling past magnets, there will be an effort to try and slow it down, causing it to lose energy and so redshift. Check this short video out:


Magnetism Trick Looks Like Anti-Gravity [Video] - How-To Geek ETC


You don't understand something so you insult me. That's your idea of science?

Originally Posted by Cyberia

PhysBang. From the wiki:

Furthermore, the dark matter clump, revealed by the weak lensing map, is coincident with the collisionless galaxies, but lies ahead of the collisional gas.

So we have unseen matter that has not yet been heated up by the collision, so it is cold and so unseen.

If you have an alternative theory about how that collision occurred, write it up and publish it. You have some very fanciful ideas about how that collision occurred that do not coincide with the physicists that studied the collision so far, so you may have a valuable contribution.

An exception does not prove a rule.

Of course not. But some exceptional circumstances allow us to make observations that we would not have access to otherwise.

The only "evidence" we have that stars are moving as fast as claimed is their redshifts. We have no actual physical evidence that we can point to as being proof.

I find it odd that you say that measurable effects are not "actual physical evidence". How, exactly, are your aesthetic preferences "actual physical evidence"? What is your "actual physical evidence" about the shape of galaxies if there were dark matter? But, again you try to obfuscate the facts by omitting to refer to important relevant facts. We know about the rotation of galaxies because of both redshifts and blueshifts. If deception is the only way that you can make your case, you don't really have a very good case.

Since we know that gravity can cause redshifts and that we live in a galaxy full of gravitational sources and full of gravitational fields, you and others are blatantly ignoring these facts and saying that gravity does not matter because it does not affect photons. So not a new kind of physics but not a biased physics either which gets only the answer you like.

I'm not sure who you have imagined has taken these positions, but it might make for a fascinating novel or short story.

Where a blueshift is exhibited, it just means that it is sufficient to overcome the redshift. Example: A rocket leaving Earth will still leave Earth despite the pull of gravity on it. That does not mean that the pull of gravity does not exist.

Of course not. It does mean that the rocket left a location with a given speed, though. Why you should want to admit this in the case of a rocket and not in the case of the stars in a galaxy is peculiar.

Show me photographic proof that stars are moving as fast as is believed. You claim this is "science" so there should be hard evidence to back it up rather than just some speculations, based on an idea.

H I rotation curves of spiral galaxies. I - NGC 3198 is a good start. One can search the ADS database for many relevant papers that present data on rotation curves.

It is said that DM forms large structures. Let's liken it to a huge building. Something comes along and starts sucking lumps out of the building. It is not going to stay as it is but at some point will start to collapse. As other material falls towards the suction, it too will be sucked in and so on. So with DM. The large structures will collapse in on themselves and be sucked into a black hole in the area. And of course black holes move around the galaxy, so passing through DM structures all the time. In the lifetime of our galaxy, if DM had existed, most of it would long ago have been swallowed up, not just by black holes but stars and even planets and moons. That is the weakness of large structures.

If you have a theory of how structure formation works, then please publish it. So far, you seem to have given us your fantasies about gravity that seem to have little with how physics works.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

KALSTER. As you have not seen what I have written elsewhere, this is just a jibe, so can be ignored.

You mean there are still lower depths of unexplored claptrap that you have not yet brought up on this forum in over three years? That is a disheartening prospect indeed.

The maths. We have one part light matter and we have six parts dark matter. Which is largest, 1 or 6? Will you work this out for me as you can do the maths and decide which dominates the shape of a galaxy.

I don't need to do the maths. Legions of qualified professionals have been doing so for decades. What in the world makes you think you can dismiss all of it based on nothing more than an ignorant glance? I can't think of any other explanation than profound arrogance.

I have learned all the theories, a nice word for ideas in the case of cosmology. However you do not seem to believe that gravity can redfshift photons so maybe you should "read the theories".

That must be a blatant lie, or you would not be posting the crap that you have been posting. I never said gravity does not redshift light. I said it does not work like you think it does, but despite being corrected by both laymen like myself and qualified scientists on this and probably all the other forums you post, you for some reason have not admitted even once that you have been wrong that I can remember. And on top of that, you have the gall to accuse us of the very things you have been guilty of since day one.

I will write this slower so you can understand it this time. I have twice now pointed out that we can ignore for these purposes the gravitational effects of the origin and destination as they cancel out. And still you go on about it. If you cannot grasp something this easy, how can you claim to have a knowledge of science?

See below.

So we have a photon pulled from a zillion different gravitational sources as it travels through space and you say we can ignore it?

Yes! See below.

A photon travels at a set speed so as far as expansion is concerned, it cannot by definition expand in the direction of travel or in the direction it has come from since this would mean parts of it going faster and slower than light speed. That means it can only expand sideways. And sideways we have endless sources of gravity pulling on it, and like the ball bearing travelling past magnets, there will be an effort to try and slow it down, causing it to lose energy and so redshift.

I suspect just reading that passage is giving me brain damage for its sheer stupidity.

1) We have dealt with this before. No part of the photon violates SR, just as galaxies past 13.7 BLY don't violate it by receding at speeds faster than C. This is because those galaxies are not moving away from us through space, but with it. That is also why inflation was able to reach such high rates during the early universe. The same goes for the photons. They travel through expanding space, so even if one part is marginally moving faster than another (which I don't think even makes sense theoretically), it presents no problem whatsoever.

2) So by thinking that the gravitational pull on light makes it stretch to the sides, you are also saying that a person floating around in inter-galactic space, or a person floating at the centre of the earth will be ripped to bits? What nonsense. The gravity acts on every zero-dimensional point, where it cancels out. You don't have two points, each being pulled by opposing gravitational forces. Two equal, but opposing gravitational forces acting on any single point cancels out to zero, i.e. it is exactly as if there is no gravity present. Really, this is very basic stuff and I almost feel bad for you that you can so stubbornly hold on to such a fundamentally flawed premise, despite numerous corrections.

Check this short video out:
Magnetism Trick Looks Like Anti-Gravity [Video] - How-To Geek ETC

What does that have to do with anything? That trick works due to Lenz's Law, involving induced EMF in the copper pipe etc., none of which having anything to do with what we are talking about.

You don't understand something so you insult me. That's your idea of science?

I am afraid it is you who display a putrid cocktail of profound ignorance, blatant arrogance and severe stubbornness. This means you are pretty much beyond redemption IMO, which is sad.

PhysBang. It's just a collision. They happen all the time. This has lots of free gases about so lots of heat generated where the collision has happened.

Early cavemen were all thought to be troglodytes, little bent-up people. This is because the ones they chose had died of vitamin A poisoning (too much soft parts of dead animals). It taught archaeologists that they cannot judge all by some examples.

Galaxies can be the shape they are if you allow that stars are travelling at reasonable speeds. The only idea to contradict this is redshifts which has then necessitated the use of something unlikely to cause a galaxy to stay together. We have no physical evidence as in long time lapse photos, to back up the redshift idea.

Obfuscate? Deception? You do know what "no flaming" means don't you?

You deny that gravity can affect photons, in a universe full of gravitational sources? That big thing in the corner of your bedroom is an elephant.

You do not believe that there can be more than one component to a vector?

Rotation curve? What would that be based on? Time lapse photos as in proof or redshifts as in speculation?

I am criticising accepted idea about DM. If a structure is formed by something that only reacts gravitationally, as in DM, then we can expect a gravitationally efficient shape, perhaps something approaching a sphere? So something comes along and takes a bite out of it and the shape is no longer gravitationally efficient. What is going to happen next?

You are just reacting to what I say rather than thinking about it.

KALSTER. I suppose when you call something claptrap, you think it means that you are particularly brilliant so you do not need to explain in any way where I am wrong. Not science.

Paragraph 2 is the same. You refused to answer the points I made as have "some learned professionals" when I have written to them and pointed out very basic mistakes in their work. It is known as the "Emperor's New Clothes". When you go out, watch for that cheeky kid.

Paragraph 3. More of the same. I can see why you are posting on pseudoscience since you do not include any science in your posts but just proclaim you are right and all who dare oppose you are idiots, etc. Not science.

I really think you should buy a mirror and look in it sometime, after reading what passes for your posts.

Inflation is just an idea that there is not a shred of evidence for. It is along with fairy dust in the scheme of things.

Photons move at a set speed. Rule number one in physics. Parts of them do not move faster than other parts or that would violate that rule.

If expanding space allowed them to violate that rule, as you claim, then we can throw that rule out of the window since you believe all space is expanding.

How does a person compare to a photon? it's like talking about the elephant in your bedroom and then saying there might be a galaxy there too.

I know it's a chore but if you had looked through that very short video I linked to, you would see that equal magnetism on all sides does not cancel out but slows a steel ball down. So too with gravity and photons, except that they cannot be slowed down so redshift. This cancelling out stuff is for mathsworld so not a lot of use in the real world.

Lenz's Law. Are you saying it is electricity rather than magnetism which is slowing the steel ball down? Surely the equal field all round should cancel out according to you so the ball should not be slowed down?

Last paragraph. Just more of the same insults.

Disclaimer. Obviously not true as your post proves since you will not even consider something you do not believe in.

No, gullibility just makes bad scientists, like believing in the BB which has so many holes in it and which it has failed on a number of very basic points. Even Dishmaster (like Hawking) doesn't believe in the silly singularity idea any more. Do you?

"How we choose (two o's) to distort truth?" Does anyone do that other than lawyers and politicians? Even creationists believe they are talking 100% truth.

Aristotle obviously never met a rigid mind like yours.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

PhysBang. It's just a collision. They happen all the time. This has lots of free gases about so lots of heat generated where the collision has happened.

What are you talking about? Why do you think that this bizarre, vague way of referring to things (perhaps you are talking about the Bullet Cluster) is in any way comparable to the very detailed observations and discussion of those who have published on the topic?

Galaxies can be the shape they are if you allow that stars are travelling at reasonable speeds. The only idea to contradict this is redshifts which has then necessitated the use of something unlikely to cause a galaxy to stay together. We have no physical evidence as in long time lapse photos, to back up the redshift idea.

You don't seem to understand the relevant observations. The stars at the exterior of most galaxies are traveling faster than they should be if there was only the matter that we observe and if gravity works like Newton says that it does. This is observable in the plotted curve of these galaxies as a demonstrable deviation from Newtonian prediction. You seem to want to deny the relevant redshift and blueshift observations on no basis other than you don't like the conclusion. If that's the way you want to do physics, that's fine.

Obfuscate? Deception? You do know what "no flaming" means don't you?

That you fail to address difficult questions or problems for your positions is simply the case. If you want to avoid these obvious perceptions of others, then you need only address the relevant issues. Attempting to start an argument over the wording of this perception only reinforces the perception that you are dodging the relevant issues.

You deny that gravity can affect photons, in a universe full of gravitational sources? That big thing in the corner of your bedroom is an elephant.

Nobody makes this denial, except perhaps you: while responsible scientists take the predictable amount of gravitational redshift into account, you merely say that they do not yet do not offer an account of how such gravitational redshift should work.

I am criticising accepted idea about DM. If a structure is formed by something that only reacts gravitationally, as in DM, then we can expect a gravitationally efficient shape, perhaps something approaching a sphere?

As standard DM structure formation predicts.

So something comes along and takes a bite out of it and the shape is no longer gravitationally efficient. What is going to happen next?

You have created a fantasy where "something comes along and takes a bite out of it" but you have given us no reason to enter your fantasy world. Again, if you want to merely accept physics because you like it, that's fine. Most people will probably look for a demonstration.

physBang. People are published in creationism. So? It doesn't make them right. It's the Reverse Strawman argument. Even Hawking admits he gets it wrong occasionally. That is the point about cosmology. It is not hard science like chemistry. It contains a lot of speculation which cannot be proved.

This is just assumptions on the part of the bullet cluster, something they would like to be right as they desperately search for some, any evidence of dark matter which is supposed to make up nearly a quarter of the universe but still remains as elusive as ever.

The stars are travelling faster as in their redshifts are greater? It still relies on that speculation about the redshift.

As I pointed out elsewhere for our orbit around the galaxy:

[QUOTE}One arc second on what to us at sea level seems like a flat Earth is just 101 feet.

For our orbit of our galaxy, one arc second comes out to 740,000,000 miles and takes our sun 62 days to travel it.[/QUOTE]

The time it takes to travel one arc second at the edge of the galaxy is much longer.

Our trip around the galaxy is curved only over a very long time line. Essentially we are travelling in what we would measure as a straight line for years at a time. To believe that we would fly out of the galaxy without more matter than light matter is nonsense. In space a body continues to travel on it's path unless acted upon and the smallest of curves like the Earth's orbit of the galaxy is an example of that.

Over a number of revolutions around the galaxy the Earth may indeed be creeping outwards and even the galaxy itself expanding ever outwards from something originally much smaller, as the Moon is gradually moving away from the Earth, but to suddenly expect the Earth to fly off in a straight line is mathsworld gaga.

You are denying that gravity can redshift photons so that in a galaxy full of gravitational sources, all photons would naturally be redshifted, or contain a redshift component even when blueshifted.

I repeat that there is no hard evidence that very distant redshifted bodies are moving as fast as claimed. Only speculation. I also repeat that cosmology is not a hard science like chemistry so claiming you and others are infallibly right is just a belief.

I could call you names too for all the things you fail to address while just pointing to the wiki or whatever but that is not how debate works. That is two kids in a school playground.

The only gravitational redshift scientists take into account is at emission and at target, so in many cases it can be ignored. They do not take into account a universe where gravity is endemic, and that gravity does not just die out but continues on forever, where a photon travelling billions of light years would be affected by the zillions of sources it travels past. The wall of galaxies is pulling our whole galaxy from 147 million light years away so what happens to single photons in such a universe?

Again you ignore what I say. I have pointed out that black holes would tear apart any part of a DM structure they come close to and you call this fact "a fantasy".

I think you are lost here without a text book to quote from. Go outside the box and you and many others are lost because it involves thinking for yourself. Many scientists merely have good memories so can do mundane work but few like Hawking can do original work.

I have given ample reasons why the big bang idea is wrong here and elsewhere in the past and got no intelligible answers to the points I raised. Dishmaster could answer none of the points I PM'ed him so banned me twice before over them rather than admit he was wrong. That is intellectual cowardice.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

I have common sense on my side .

And that alone is what totally discredits you. Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that what seems intutively correct, is correct, should be ignored.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

physBang. People are published in creationism. So? It doesn't make them right. It's the Reverse Strawman argument.

No, the problem here is that you spout off half-thought through vague references to scientific claims that are often incorrect. You do not engage the actual content of the relevant papers, you merely imagine what they say and in turn imagine some other sort of physics from which you base your responses.

Even Hawking admits he gets it wrong occasionally. That is the point about cosmology. It is not hard science like chemistry. It contains a lot of speculation which cannot be proved.

It is not enough to discredit a scientific position merely because it has speculation that cannot be proven. If that were the case, we should never have believed Newton's theory of universal gravitation.

This is just assumptions on the part of the bullet cluster, something they would like to be right as they desperately search for some, any evidence of dark matter which is supposed to make up nearly a quarter of the universe but still remains as elusive as ever.

The assumptions at play in the Bullet Cluster observations are that the gravitational lensing that is observed around the cluster tracks its mass and that if there were gas associated with that mass, that gas would be visible. Do you have any reason to discount these assumptions or just more fantasy physics?

The stars are travelling faster as in their redshifts are greater? It still relies on that speculation about the redshift.

No doubt. So why don't you pick an example paper where they make this assumption and show why it is wrong.

One arc second on what to us at sea level seems like a flat Earth is just 101 feet. For our orbit of our galaxy, one arc second comes out to 740,000,000 miles and takes our sun 62 days to travel it.

The time it takes to travel one arc second at the edge of the galaxy is much longer. Our trip around the galaxy is curved only over a very long time line. Essentially we are travelling in what we would measure as a straight line for years at a time. To believe that we would fly out of the galaxy without more matter than light matter is nonsense. In space a body continues to travel on it's path unless acted upon and the smallest of curves like the Earth's orbit of the galaxy is an example of that. Over a number of revolutions around the galaxy the Earth may indeed be creeping outwards and even the galaxy itself expanding ever outwards from something originally much smaller, as the Moon is gradually moving away from the Earth, but to suddenly expect the Earth to fly off in a straight line is mathsworld gaga.

When you say this sort of stuff, your ignorance of the subject really shines through. In the actual papers used to support dark matter, they actually determine what the orbits of the stars they observe appear to be. Newtonian gravity makes predictions about what the speed those orbits should be given where the stars are located---i.e., how far those stars are away from the center of their host galaxy---and the apparent mass of the galaxy. It is not the outward motion of the stars that is important, it is the orbit that the stars are in.

You are denying that gravity can redshift photons so that in a galaxy full of gravitational sources, all photons would naturally be redshifted, or contain a redshift component even when blueshifted.

Again you simply lie about what I say and what other say. This is actually a lie because I have consistently said that gravity causes redshifts. For most galaxies, the amount of redshift due to gravity is insignificant. If you have an alternative theory with support rather than your fantasy, please show us. In any event, stop lying about me and about others who study these things.

I could call you names too for all the things you fail to address while just pointing to the wiki or whatever but that is not how debate works. That is two kids in a school playground.

Physics does not work as you have practiced: merely imagining how you want the world to work. I have not referenced wikipedia, rather I have referenced an actual scientist providing scientific explanations with his own supporting references. That is how science works. If you want to remain ignorant, that's fine, but the rest of us will go on with actually learning.

The only gravitational redshift scientists take into account is at emission and at target, so in many cases it can be ignored. They do not take into account a universe where gravity is endemic, and that gravity does not just die out but continues on forever, where a photon travelling billions of light years would be affected by the zillions of sources it travels past. The wall of galaxies is pulling our whole galaxy from 147 million light years away so what happens to single photons in such a universe?

If you have an alternative theory that is more than simply fantasy, please show us.

Again you ignore what I say. I have pointed out that black holes would tear apart any part of a DM structure they come close to and you call this fact "a fantasy".

It is a fantasy; you have imagined how black holed work in a manner inconsistent with physical theory. If you would like to show us your theory about how black holes work, please do so.

I think you are lost here without a text book to quote from. Go outside the box and you and many others are lost because it involves thinking for yourself.

Again, if you simply want to imagine the way the world is, that's fine. The rest of us will learn instead.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Cyberia

I have common sense on my side .

And that alone is what totally discredits you. Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that what seems intutively correct, is correct, should be ignored.

Like what controls the shape of a galaxy? 14% light matter or 86% dark matter?

Maybe you left your common sense in another time period?

PhysBang. You say my claims are often incorrect yet you do not prove this. Am I supposed to believe your empty claims?

Again you have this difficulty with basic comprehension where I point out something is wrong in papers or elsewhere and you go lalalala. That is not an answer.

A scientific position that only has speculation on it's side is worth no more than my speculation or (if it is possible) your speculation. As I pointed out, Hawking has admitted being wrong in the past. If we cannot be sure of his speculation in cosmology which is a field full of speculation, who can we trust?

I thought gas became visible when heated but here we may have gas little warmer than space itself.

As I keep pointing out, to link redshift solely to recessional velocity is speculation and nothing more since we have no home movies of galaxies an even stars moving about to match said recession. As I tell christians, I do not need to prove god does not exist.

I'm surprised a troll bot like you knows big words like "ignorance".

Our view of the galaxy is little more than a photograph because in our lifetimes, nothing will move on that scale. To point to an orbit and claim that this is what it was ten billion years ago and what it will be ten billion years from now is speculation of the worst kind.

We have seen stars leaving our galaxy, and I don't mean from it's rim. How can this happen? Surely the miraculous DM should hold them all in place?

Exiled Stars: Milky Way Boots Members | Space.com

Let me repeat what I said some posts ago. There are papers to back up supersymmetry, singularities, other dimensions, inflation, a multiverse, superstrings, the Higg's boson, and so on and they're all speculation which some serious scientists believe is wrong. How is DM different? It's a CLAIM, not evidence.

You accept that this substance you call space which can stretch infinitely without changing in any way can stretch a photon with expansion being an atom's width over 186,282 miles. Does it come any less than that?

Yet in a universe full of gravitational sources, some of which drag whole galaxies about you refuse to accept that gravity can affect a photon in any way. It is there in your posts for all to see, so who's lying?

Unlike fairy dust expansion, we have proof that gravity is a real thing but you prefer to go with the fairies here.

Which scientist (sound of Halleljuh chorus and 1812 overture) have you referenced? I have written to some who have made some really embarrassing mistakes or pointed out some possibilities about their work and it has been a waste of time as they do not answer. In superstrings, there is plenty of referenced works and plenty of maths (sound of trumpets) but it's a dead field.

Cosmology is 99% speculation. I have used speculation the same as others. What don't you get about that?

Now you are even denying that black holes suck in anything within their range, be it light matter or dark matter, calling it fantasy. You're not very good at quoting text books, are you?

As to DM:

Galaxy study hints at cracks in dark matter theories - space - 30 September 2009 - New Scientist

You're not learning. Like so many others, you're parroting. In science, 1% do the thinking while the other 99% parrot what they say. Also like many others, you will believe what some say based on reputation rather than the reality of what they claim.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

KALSTER. You miss the points.

Most of the big bang idea is just ideas and some impossibilities. It has also a number of serious failures. Like the idea of a flat Earth at one time, it is not true because many believe it is right. The big bang as I have shown elsewhere is just pseudoscience.

I'm sure the BBT is not the last word on anything, but the "overwhelming consensus" in the scientific community today supports the theory.
What exactly do you mean when you state "the big bang as I have shown elsewhere is just pseudoscience"? Do you mean you are able to offer a clear proof this is the case? If I felt I could "show" the BBT was not true I would be looking to publish my findings in a reputable scientific journal, in order to convince other astronomers/scientists, and not simply sending posts to an Internet general science forum where a significant number, if not a majority, of members are not technical experts but laypersons with some interest in science.
If you really could show what you claim the award of a major scientific prize would be almost a certainty. Or perhaps you have tried to put your ideas forward, and also publish, and there is some kind of conspiracy, led by the scientific establishment, against you and your findings?

Originally Posted by Cyberia

PhysBang. You say my claims are often incorrect yet you do not prove this. Am I supposed to believe your empty claims?

No, you are supposed to look at the links that we have been provided that demonstrate that you are incorrect about your claims. Though really, since you have refused to actually learn about this subject and you are pontificating about it anyway, my comments are really for those who see your comments and shouldn't be left to imagine that they have anything to do with reality. You have made it clear that you would rather imagine things about me, the physics community, and this subject. Given the flat out lies that you continue to make, you are doing a good job at dismissing yourself.

A scientific position that only has speculation on it's side is worth no more than my speculation

Sure. Which is why people respond to your posts with references that demonstrate more than mere speculation. This is also why you refuse to look at those references, since if you addressed these references you would be forced to learn. In the meantime, you tell falsehoods.

I thought gas became visible when heated but here we may have gas little warmer than space itself.

OK. let's see your theory of the dynamics of these clusters. So far, all you have given us is speculation.

As I keep pointing out, to link redshift solely to recessional velocity is speculation and nothing more since we have no home movies of galaxies an even stars moving about to match said recession. As I tell christians, I do not need to prove god does not exist.

So you have speculation that something else might be causing redshift. So you have a theory that can match the data as well as the current one?

Our view of the galaxy is little more than a photograph because in our lifetimes, nothing will move on that scale. To point to an orbit and claim that this is what it was ten billion years ago and what it will be ten billion years from now is speculation of the worst kind.

And this is worse than your speculation about the content of all these scientific papers that you haven't read?

We have seen stars leaving our galaxy, and I don't mean from it's rim. How can this happen? Surely the miraculous DM should hold them all in place?

That's not how dark matter works. You seem to be speculating about how dark matter works. Can we see the details of your speculation?

Let me repeat what I said some posts ago. There are papers to back up supersymmetry, singularities, other dimensions, inflation, a multiverse, superstrings, the Higg's boson, and so on and they're all speculation which some serious scientists believe is wrong. How is DM different? It's a CLAIM, not evidence.

Dark matter is different because we have measurements about how much dark matter there is from multiple sources.

You accept that this substance you call space which can stretch infinitely without changing in any way can stretch a photon with expansion being an atom's width over 186,282 miles. Does it come any less than that?

Please do not lie about me again. I have never made such claims. Leave me out of your speculations.

Yet in a universe full of gravitational sources, some of which drag whole galaxies about you refuse to accept that gravity can affect a photon in any way. It is there in your posts for all to see, so who's lying?

Again, you are a liar, since I have said many times that gravity effects photons.

Now you are even denying that black holes suck in anything within their range, be it light matter or dark matter, calling it fantasy. You're not very good at quoting text books, are you?

Yes, black holes do not suck things in, since they do not act through a differential of pressure. They do have gravitational pull, You have speculations about how they work, can you support these speculations?

Halliday. The big bang starts off from an impossibility, whether you call it a singularity or something else. We next have inflation for which there is no evidence for. Yet how can this happen when we have a density trillions of times that necessary for a black hole? No evidence of other dimensions, branes or multiverses. And so on. It's a mixture of ideas and impossibilities.

The BB failed the afterglow test.

We have a two billion solar mass black hole forming just 770 million years after the BB and we have voids upto 3.5 billion light years across. And walls of hundreds of millions of galaxies. So much for homogeneity, but as the PG Tips chimps say, it's all down to perturbations.

The dark flow spread over a billion light years shows the opposite of expansion where stars are headed towards a central point, but not due to gravity since their speed is constant.

And so on. What's to believe about a defeated idea like the BB? Most just parrot failed ideas about it, as we see here.

Time dilation in quasars fails over 6billion light years.

I have shown elsewhere that space is literally nothing, defined only by what occupies it, so cannot stretch or warp. No BB-er could show otherwise.

In 2004, 33 scientists sent an open letter to New Scientist explaining why the BB did not work and said that alternative theories should be considered. Nothing has changed.

85 years ago, Eddington calculated that starlight alone could give space a temperature of 3K. It is said that the CMB was created at 3000K but the highest temperature that has been detected there is less than 10.K.

And so on.

PhysBang.

No, you are supposed to look at the links that we have been provided that demonstrate that you are incorrect about your claims. Though really, since you have refused to actually learn about this subject and you are pontificating about it anyway, my comments are really for those who see your comments and shouldn't be left to imagine that they have anything to do with reality.

I have had similar silly empty claims from creationists who also had no arguments. They are meaningless so can be ignored.

You fail to answer any of my points and just point to what you are parroting. I know the ideas and for reasons I give do not believe them, so do not parrot them as you do.

I have made no lies as my posts show. You however still claim that gravity does not affect photons so are telling porkies by claiming you don't say this. Your posts prove you wrong.

Sure. Which is why people respond to your posts with references that demonstrate more than mere speculation. This is also why you refuse to look at those references, since if you addressed these references you would be forced to learn. In the meantime, you tell falsehoods.

More vague arm waving which actually says nothing, so can be ignored.

References based on speculations are generally worthless, as in much of cosmology. Perhaos you should try a field like chemistry where when you make a claim, it can be proved to be factual rather than claiming speculation is true?

If I tell falsehoods, why don't you give some examples, to show that you are not telling falsehoods? Or is this just more arm waving to distract from the fact that you do not answer my points? See your "answers" for proof.

Again you avoid giving an answer by arm waving about dynamics of clusters. Is gas and matter at a few degrees kelvin visible or not? Answer!

My "theory" also allows for redshifts giving us the distance of an object. But expansion is wrong for so many basic reasons.

Yet again you avoid answering a question on orbits where I showed you wrong by arm waving about papers.

How does DM work if not to keep stars from flying out of our galaxy? Again you have not answered my point but just waved those by now tired arms of yours.

Some scientists are now saying that the theory of gravity over long distances may be wrong, which would mean that DM is not needed. Google it.

As to "measurements of DM", what you actually mean is that in that tiny blob where a ten billion solar mass black hole would be the size of a proton on that scale, it must be DM causing it, though we cannot see it, because every other possible cause is automatically wrong, so not even worth considering.

If you accept expansion, then you accept that space can be infinitely elastic, without losing any of it's properties, without more space "appearing" from somewhere, etc. You have this thing about calling me a liar. Is it a guilty conscience on your part since what we both posted is there for all to see, and it makes you look bad when you make such false claims.

You are playing semantics now to weasel out of being wrong yet again. Suck in as in being pulled in by gravity. OK? More waving of those arms. I am surprised that you don't fly away. You have not answered my point about black holes pulling DM structures to pieces so they collapse in on themselves, and are also swallowed, causing other DM structures next to them to take their place and the same happens till there are no more DM structures anywhere near a black hole.

0 out of 10. Must try.

I guess that you can lie all you want about physics here.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

I guess that you can lie all you want about physics here.

Another statement without foundation. I would like to say your standards are slipping but reading through your recent posts which have no answers and just have a go at me, I think you're already at rock bottom. Do you have some Freudian thing about claiming people who dare to disagree with you are liars?

When cosmology can deal in hard facts, then to say it is wrong is bad science. While cosmology deals mainly in ideas, concepts and speculation, to say it is wrong on some points means little more than disagreeing with a weather prediction. That is what you and others here do not understand.

Cyberia. If you are saying there is no solid evidence for Dark Matter, then you are indeed lying, since there is a substantial amount.

MeteorWayne. What you are saying is that there is circumstantial evidence for dark matter.

The same way there is circumstantial evidence for demons holding us down as we do not float off into space.

The "evidence" is mainly based on one interpretation of redshift and takes into account no other possibilities. So not really science.

MeteorWayne. What you are saying is that there is circumstantial evidence for dark matter.

What do you mean by that? If a kind of matter exists that only reacts gravitationally with other matter, what would you expect see other than the gravitational influence? Again, you saying it should be doing this or that does not mean anything without doing the maths to prove it. Real scientists have done the math and they are getting very good confirmation that way, nothing close to what you are predicting. How can you say they are wrong, when you have not done this yourself?

The "evidence" is mainly based on one interpretation of redshift and takes into account no other possibilities. So not really science.

This is just bollocks. Why do you think they would do such a thing? Despite what you think, dark matter and expansion is the best fit to what is seen out there at the moment. Alternatives like MOND, tired light, etc simply don't have as much observational support. Other possibilities are not excluded, but they are not as well supported. Simple as that. The ideas you present here do not even register on anyone's radar. You are suffering from delusions of grandeur.

You may think that your kind of armchair, uneducated guesswork version of "science" is on par with that of actual scientists, but it is only you who think that. You say: "I have written to some who have made some really embarrassing mistakes or pointed out some possibilities about their work and it has been a waste of time as they do not answer.", which is ridiculously arrogant. I submit that they did not answer, because you were talking utter tripe.

I must say, it is weird to see you appear completely rational on things like religion, but then appear completely delusional and ignorant when it comes to cosmology.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

The "evidence" is mainly based on one interpretation of redshift and takes into account no other possibilities. So not really science.

Except that you are lying. Either you haven't looked at any of the science, so you are lying there. Or you have looked at the science, and you are lying because you know that many other interpretations of redshift have been considered. I suspect the former, given that you hate the idea of reading a reference.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Cyberia

I have common sense on my side .

And that alone is what totally discredits you. Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that what seems intutively correct, is correct, should be ignored.

Like what controls the shape of a galaxy? 14% light matter or 86% dark matter?

Maybe you left your common sense in another time period?

You seem quite to have missed the point. This does not surprise me. You seem skilled as misunderstanding the significance of facts and observations.

Common sense, if it even exists, consists of intuitive conclusions formed on the basis of our primate heritage. It is, perhaps, well suited to give useful explanations when swinging through the tress, or driving on the freeway. It is not suited for understanding more complex, or quite different scenarious. the beauty of science is that it does not require common sense, or intuition, but instead uses objective observation, hypothesis formation and independent testing. It is a much more powerful and effective tool than common sense. Your belief in the efficacy of common sense simply reveals that you do not actually understand science and that any statements you make about the nature of the universe are likely to be flawed from the outset.

(Frankly, it is painful to watch someone like yourself who is obviously intelligent and well read, display such a warped pathology. I do wish you would wise up.)

KALSTER. So where is this dark matter which makes up six times as much matter as light matter and exactly what is dark matter?

As to gravitational influence within a galaxy, it is not needed as MOND performs better than DM on that scale (so your ideas are somewhat out of date, or is it just dated?):


Gas rich galaxies confirm prediction of modified gravity theory


Real scientists? Why don't you use them and their maths to show where I am wrong instead of appealing to strawmen and answering no questions.


Your post is mostly rant and actually answers no points I made. Come back to me when you have a clue.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by Cyberia

The "evidence" is mainly based on one interpretation of redshift and takes into account no other possibilities. So not really science.

Except that you are lying. Either you haven't looked at any of the science, so you are lying there. Or you have looked at the science, and you are lying because you know that many other interpretations of redshift have been considered. I suspect the former, given that you hate the idea of reading a reference.

A sad and wandering post that again avoids answering anything and again makes vague and unsubstantiated allegations of lying.

A new low.

Ophiolite.

You seem quite to have missed the point. This does not surprise me. You seem skilled as misunderstanding the significance of facts and observations.

Vague accusations but no answers. I just had to go to the second episode of MURDER SHE WROTE (ep 45) which I am watching as I type this. It's not as though any post here needs any concentration of my part, being so unsubstantial.

Common sense, if it even exists, consists of intuitive conclusions formed on the basis of our primate heritage. It is, perhaps, well suited to give useful explanations when swinging through the tress, or driving on the freeway. It is not suited for understanding more complex, or quite different scenarious. the beauty of science is that it does not require common sense, or intuition, but instead uses objective observation, hypothesis formation and independent testing. It is a much more powerful and effective tool than common sense. Your belief in the efficacy of common sense simply reveals that you do not actually understand science and that any statements you make about the nature of the universe are likely to be flawed from the outset.

An appeal to believe the people you believe, even if they are doing nothing more than using maths to build castles on clouds, like some other all but abandoned fields of science (superstrings, supersymmetry, etc.)

Like the others here you are just shouting lalalala while refusing to answer my points here about dark matter, etc.

(Frankly, it is painful to watch someone like yourself who is obviously intelligent and well read, display such a warped pathology. I do wish you would wise up.)

I could have said exactly the same thing about you.

Now about all those unanswered questions......

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Vague accusations but no answers.

This would describe your posts if only we appended the words, "... and no questions."

You are so muddled on this issue that you haven't even asked a well-formed question. It's almost as if you can't speak English!

You cherry-pick one popular science article that shows that MOND works very well at one specific scale. Yet we know that MOND cannot work, because it is not a relativistic theory. And when we test relativistic theories that try to recapture the action of MOND, we find that they fail at greater scales (see the work of Constantin Skordis) and at objects like the Bullet Cluster.

Yet with this cherry-picking of your own, you have the temerity to accuse legitimate scientists of ignoring features of the universe that they do not, all without ever reading anything by these scientists.

You want to do science by remaining as ignorant as possible. Really a great approach.

There is an interesting credibility issue with dark matter models, that limits them from getting perfect results.
It is like modeling the visible universe using only one type of barionic matter hydrogen and no other elements.

I am sure if you assumed there was 100 different types of dark matter, and some galaxies had more of one type than others you could get great results.

Why do we think dark matter is a single simple particle?


Personally, I have my doubts about dark matter and dark energy, when you play with alternate cosmologies enough, they both do smell of error correction terms.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

MeteorWayne. What you are saying is that there is circumstantial evidence for dark matter.

The same way there is circumstantial evidence for demons holding us down as we do not float off into space.

The "evidence" is mainly based on one interpretation of redshift and takes into account no other possibilities. So not really science.

That is complete Bull, and shows you have not looked at or made the slightest effort to understand the evidence. It has NOTHING to do with redshift. And I won't tell you what it actually is, so you might do some actual research in order to make the smallest effort to have a freakin' clue as to what the hell you are talking about.

You credibility as a scientist/thinker has now fallen below zero. You spout "facts" that don't exist without understanding what you are arguing against.

PhysBang. I have made a number of points which you have not answered and despite your wriggling, they are still there for all to see.

I used that article because it was the latest news. It admits that MOND fails over larger scales, but with a little of the fudge used for BB ideas, I'm sure it could be made to work.

Is "cherry picking" the word for the day? Did you get fed up with "lying"?

I used the article because it was relevant and because MOND was said not to work, so I think you need to look up the definition of "cherry picking".

The last line is not so much a throwaway as thrown away so I will ignore it.

PetTastic. Yes, the biggest issue on the credibility of dark matter is that no one knows what it is. It just does whatever is required of it, so computer models on it work.

There is also the problem of where it is as if it is in the halo, then we would have ring donut shaped galaxies since DM is where most of the mass is by a long way. (This is where some waffle on about maths though they still cannot say which is the greater, 1 or 6?).

Indeed there could be more than one type of DM as well as the conventional unseen matter. A quiet SMBH of ten billion solar masses, one atom sized on this scale, would not be detected but would create huge gravitational effects in the area.

The problem as I have stated here a few times is that we are working with fuzzy images where our whole solar system would be atom sized on the same scale so we have no detail to work from.

MeteorWayne. Was that fact-free outburst supposed to convince people you know what you are talking about and I don't?

Sure there is gravitational lensing too in just a few out of trillions of cases but as we cannot see any other possible causes of this because of the incredibly low quality of the images produced, then it is speculation that it is DM that is causing it.

Remember, we have no actual images of DM or any idea of what it is. Just speculation on where it is acting. to say that is proof of DM is not science.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

PetTastic. Yes, the biggest issue on the credibility of dark matter is that no one knows what it is. It just does whatever is required of it, so computer models on it work.

It sounds a sensible place to start.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

There is also the problem of where it is as if it is in the halo, then we would have ring donut shaped galaxies since DM is where most of the mass is by a long way. (This is where some waffle on about maths though they still cannot say which is the greater, 1 or 6?).

In my spare time I have played witha few back bedroom models for dark matter, you can create all kinds of strange galaxies if you play with its properties.
So I am sure someone has a version that does produce rings, not seen it myself.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Indeed there could be more than one type of DM as well as the conventional unseen matter. A quiet SMBH of ten billion solar masses, one atom sized on this scale, would not be detected but would create huge gravitational effects in the area.

I personaly like the idea of lots of iron floating around in space, as cold asteroids.
http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-hypotheses-ideas/23172-star-forming-regions-eject-most-their-iron.htm
I don't like the lots of black holes ideas, as the gravitational lensing effects would be noticeable.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

The problem as I have stated here a few times is that we are working with fuzzy images where our whole solar system would be atom sized on the same scale so we have no detail to work from.

I don't agree with this fuzzy images statement.
I think we have got some very good data on what is out there. I just think we need to work a bit on the interpretation.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

I used the article because it was relevant and because MOND was said not to work, so I think you need to look up the definition of "cherry picking".

OK, So now you are back to lying. Nobody in this thread said that MOND didn't work. Though the fact is that MOND cannot work, because it is not a relativistic theory. We have to use something like TeVeS.

PetTastic. The donut shaped galaxies is where DM is in the halo as claimed by the people in the know so with six times as much DM as LM, the LM has to go where the DM is, so the halo.

There are an awful lot of free floating black holes about. The problem with any kind conventional "dark matter" is that it would be difficult to produce enough of it. However if you take it that a star system like ours (heavy elements) is formed from super-nova remnants, then we are just a very tiny bit of a super-nova (not much over one solar mass) so what happened to the rest?

The interpretation is the problem. The present idea is:
"See that there. That's caused by DM."
"How do you know?"
"Don't you know nothing. DM exists so it must be DM doing that."

Too many people in science are just running on "automatic".

Physbang October 4th 2011

OK, So now you are back to lying. Nobody in this thread said that MOND didn't work. Though the fact is that MOND cannot work, because it is not a relativistic theory. We have to use something like TeVeS.

I refer you to KALSTER October 3rd 2011 11:29am

Why do you think they would do such a thing? Despite what you think, dark matter and expansion is the best fit to what is seen out there at the moment. Alternatives like MOND, tired light, etc simply don't have as much observational support.

And my post you are talking about is where I answered him at 8:46PM, later that day.


So we see here clear proof that you are lying while trying to pretend that I am the one who is lying.

The proof is there for all to see. You can only get away with lying about other people so many times.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Physbang October 4th 2011

OK, So now you are back to lying. Nobody in this thread said that MOND didn't work. Though the fact is that MOND cannot work, because it is not a relativistic theory. We have to use something like TeVeS.

I refer you to KALSTER October 3rd 2011 11:29am

Why do you think they would do such a thing? Despite what you think, dark matter and expansion is the best fit to what is seen out there at the moment. Alternatives like MOND, tired light, etc simply don't have as much observational support.

And my post you are talking about is where I answered him at 8:46PM, later that day.

So we see here clear proof that you are lying while trying to pretend that I am the one who is lying.[/quote]
You just pointed out that you were lying! KALSTER said that MOND didn't have as much observational support, not that it didn't work! At the very least, you demonstrate incredibly poor comprehension of what is put right in front of you.

This is your problem: you don't read the science, you don't read what other posters write, you merely imagine what the scientific content is. You are fighting shadows that do not exist!

PhysBang. Let's try again:

PhysBang Oct 3rd 2011. 10:59PM

You cherry-pick one popular science article that shows that MOND works very well at one specific scale. Yet we know that MOND cannot work, because it is not a relativistic theory.

Physbang Oct 4th 2011. 11:26AM

OK, So now you are back to lying. Nobody in this thread said that MOND didn't work.

To quote your own words back at you:

This is your problem: you don't read the science, you don't read what other posters write, you merely imagine what the scientific content is. You are fighting shadows that do not exist!

Will you now call me a liar for quoting your own words?

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Will you now call me a liar for quoting your own words?

Well, yeah. You are quoting something that was posted after your initial claim.

Look, we know that you have nothing to offer us in the way of serious criticisms of contemporary physics. You are showing a common pattern for cranks:

1. Make a baseless claim.
2. When someone corrects the claim, make a wilder claim and attack those making corrections.
3. When someone points out that you are attacking, turn the conversation into a discussion of attacks rather than the science.

Until you can show us how dark matter is supposed to create the structure of a galaxy and until you can show us how a black hole is, unlike every other source of gravity, supposed to vacuum up particles, you haven't got a case.

Cyberia,
two things:
1. You continually assert that no one is answering your questions. Please repost the questions we are not answering, they are certainly not clear to me.
2. If you lost your arrogant dismissal of conventional science and asked questions based on seeming limitations of the current consensus view, or openly played devil's advocate, then you might well find your thoughts had a better reception. Continue with your petulant rejection of current theory with its implicit sneering and you will rightly be treated with contempt.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Will you now call me a liar for quoting your own words?

Well, yeah. You are quoting something that was posted after your initial claim.

Look, we know that you have nothing to offer us in the way of serious criticisms of contemporary physics. You are showing a common pattern for cranks:

I see that you again conveniently forget calling me a liar many times.

1. Make a baseless claim.

Let's try this one more time since you seem to have no ability of comprehension which explains all your posts on this forum, and notably on this thread:

Cosmology is mostly speculation and ideas, along with some impossibilities. I am giving my own ideas as others have given theirs. Also I show what I believe is wrong with their ideas. In case you did not notice, this is the Pseudoscience forum, and not the hard facts forum.

You might say they are all baseless claims but that is pretty much all we have for cosmology at present since we have almost nothing that can be proved to be true in a laboratory.

2. When someone corrects the claim, make a wilder claim and attack those making corrections.

Yet another lie from the person who calls everyone else liars. How about some examples to show that you are not lying again. except yet again you don't give examples? You make baseless claims and as shown on this thread, when disproved, you make even wilder claims.

3. When someone points out that you are attacking, turn the conversation into a discussion of attacks rather than the science.

I am merely defending myself from your endless baseless claims. Your own posts here show you constantly attacking with lies about me being a liar.

You have yet to answer a single point I have made on this thread so you fit your own definition of a "crank" as the above shows. You are also a troll, by the definition of most people since you have brought nothing positive to this thread but endlessly tried to derail it.

Until you can show us how dark matter is supposed to create the structure of a galaxy

Again you seem to be confused to say the least. That is for believers in DM to do. Not someone who criticises it.

and until you can show us how a black hole is

Like everyone else, I use the facts produced by astronomers that black holes move as does everything in the universe, and that anything that comes close enough will be pulled into them. You use semantics to try and wriggle out of being wrong, like below.

unlike every other source of gravity, supposed to vacuum up particles, you haven't got a case.

You have a very confused mind.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Cyberia,
two things:
1. You continually assert that no one is answering your questions. Please repost the questions we are not answering, they are certainly not clear to me.

How about you answer the points raised in my September 23rd post? Or my September 24th post? Or my September 26th post? etc.

No ready made answers from the wikipedia? That's the trouble with thinking outside of the box. You leave behind those who cannot think but just parrot what they have learned.

As Physbang put it, you are making a baseless claim so a third of the way to being a crank, by his definition.

2. If you lost your arrogant dismissal of conventional science and asked questions based on seeming limitations of the current consensus view, or openly played devil's advocate, then you might well find your thoughts had a better reception. Continue with your petulant rejection of current theory with its implicit sneering and you will rightly be treated with contempt.

My "arrogant dismissal" is merely pointing out what is so obviously wrong with cosmology which only technically qualifies as science since it is mostly speculation and ideas. The big bang itself is just one step above creationism. As said, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

You have posted three times on this thread and they have been appeals for me to "follow science" in the same tones that christians ask me to follow Jesus, along with assorted insults if I do not do as you demand.

You are a troll, as your three posts here prove.

Come back when you have something to add to this thread.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Cosmology is mostly speculation and ideas, along with some impossibilities. I am giving my own ideas as others have given theirs. Also I show what I believe is wrong with their ideas. In case you did not notice, this is the Pseudoscience forum, and not the hard facts forum.

Are you admitting that your ideas are pseudoscience?

You might say they are all baseless claims but that is pretty much all we have for cosmology at present since we have almost nothing that can be proved to be true in a laboratory.

So you are denying Newton's universal gravity?

Until you can show us how dark matter is supposed to create the structure of a galaxy

Again you seem to be confused to say the least. That is for believers in DM to do. Not someone who criticises it.[/quote]
But they have done this in some detail. I even provided a link to a paper that discusses some of this. Yet you pretend that these things do not exist.

Like everyone else, I use the facts produced by astronomers that black holes move as does everything in the universe, and that anything that comes close enough will be pulled into them. You use semantics to try and wriggle out of being wrong, like below.

No, you don't use facts provided by astronomers. You refuse to use anything that is not "proved to be true in a laboratory." You make bizarre claims about black holes sucking holes in dark matter that are wildly divergent from ordinary physics and that you make no attempt to explain.

If you can explain any of your claims, then do so.

As the recent Nobel prize in chemistry demonstrates, those who produce ideaswith details and evidence that are contrary to the scientific community get rewarded.

PhysBang.

Are you admitting that your ideas are pseudoscience?

Anything that cannot be proved by hard facts in science is pseudoscience. Like cosmology.

[QUOTE]So you are denying Newton's universal gravity?[/QUOTE}

We both know that when I am talking about cosmology being wrong, I am not talking about gravity being wrong.

Having said that, there are some that believe that gravity acts differently over major distances, which would then get rid of the DM idea.

But they have done this in some detail. I even provided a link to a paper that discusses some of this. Yet you pretend that these things do not exist.

DM is still an idea. No one knows what it is or where it is. All they "know" about it is that it does exactly what is asked of it. A bit like god.

I have referred you to superstrings, supersymmetry, other dimensions, Higg's boson, etc which do not exist but of which endless numbers of papers have been written. Your point is?

No, you don't use facts provided by astronomers.

Liar without evidence of this baseless claim.

You refuse to use anything that is not "proved to be true in a laboratory."

If something is based on speculation, as in cosmology, it may be true, it may not. But what it is not is fact, as in proven.

You make bizarre claims about black holes sucking holes in dark matter that are wildly divergent from ordinary physics and that you make no attempt to explain.

I am just using what is currently thought of DM, that it forms large structures, and what astronomers know about black holes. If DM reacts gravitationally, then it will if close enough be sucked into a black hole and remain there. If DM forms large structures as claimed, then they will collapse when this happens and part of their structure is removed, and probably follow it into a black hole. That is basic physics, something you do not seem to understand as you waffle on and on with your wandering mind.

[QUOTE]If you can explain any of your claims, then do so.[/QUOTE[

I have done so. You have avoided answering any of my points, preferring to pour scorn on me for not parroting science like you do, Mr Yup Yup.

As the recent Nobel prize in chemistry demonstrates, those who produce ideaswith details and evidence that are contrary to the scientific community get rewarded.

As I have pointed out to you before, chemistry is hard science which can be proven. Cosmology is ideas which cannot.

Reading through your posts here, I have to ask if you have started secondary school yet?

Originally Posted by Cyberia

We both know that when I am talking about cosmology being wrong, I am not talking about gravity being wrong.

But gravity is not proven in a lab. Newton did not extend gravity to celestial motions because he did lab experiments on planets. Do you want us to throw away Newtonian gravity?

Having said that, there are some that believe that gravity acts differently over major distances, which would then get rid of the DM idea.

But not on the largest scales. What reason do you ave for throwing away all our evidence at these scales?

I have referred you to superstrings, supersymmetry, other dimensions, Higg's boson, etc which do not exist but of which endless numbers of papers have been written. Your point is?

There is a difference in these papers. The dark matter papers explicitly deal with observations and measurements. You have studiously avoided any of these measurements.

No, you don't use facts provided by astronomers.

Liar without evidence of this baseless claim.

All of your posts are evidence.

You make bizarre claims about black holes sucking holes in dark matter that are wildly divergent from ordinary physics and that you make no attempt to explain.

I am just using what is currently thought of DM, that it forms large structures, and what astronomers know about black holes.

No, you are using your fantasy version of these things.

If DM reacts gravitationally, then it will if close enough be sucked into a black hole and remain there.

Please show us the math about what you mean by "close enough" and "sucked into". This is what "explaining your claims requires.

Reading through your posts here, I have to ask if you have started secondary school yet?

I've actually finished two graduate degrees, which is why I know that your claims are truly bizarre.

PhysBang. I see we are back to semantics to defend the indefensible. I did not mean a literal tiny room crammed with electronic apparatus and people wandering around in lab coats as in:

Chinese Proverb All the world is a laboratory to the inquiring mind.

Martin H. Fischer (1879-1962), a German-born U.S. physician and author, quoted “All the world is a laboratory to the inquiring mind.”

Although gravity can be demonstrated in a literal lab by measuring the speed something falls at.

However I am not the one who denied gravity. You did saying that it does not affect photons, which I claimed it did. It's there above in your posts before you call me a liar again.

It is precisely on the largest scales that they do believe that gravity may be different. I don't know what to believe about this but how would we prove that gravity is the same on all scales when we have no examples to work from on extreme scales?

We live in a solar system where everything works without any need for DM. No planet travels around the sun or moon around a planet too fast to explain.

It's all maths and as we have seen in other fields, maths can be shown to be wrong if it is based on conjecture. What they are saying is that we cannot explain this, so it must be dark matter, without saying what DM is, what it's properties are or where it is. They are using it as a god explanation.

No examples as usual. Just another baseless claim that my posts are evidence. That's like christians saying that the universe is evidence for god.

Fantasy version as in you cannot show it is wrong but you instinctively know it is wrong by some miraculous and unknown process.

Again you fall back on the old show us your maths fallacy. Stars, be they like our sun or black holes have extensive gravitational fields and will pull in anything that comes too close. Do you think we need maths before we can know that? Apparently so.

Since DM reacts gravitationally (and does nothing else it seems) then it too will be pulled into a black hole, a sun, even planets like Earth. Every LM body in the universe moves so eventually will cross the path of all DM, so little should survive in a universe 13.7 billion years old.

Not the degree claim again. Why not claim to be a scientist or have a doctorate? I have creationists claim this when they are clearly uneducated. Your posts show us the limits of your education, and your posts here are mostly denial, empty claims and avoiding answers. A smart ten year old could do the same. You want me to believe you have even been to school, you are going to have to do better and start answering points I have raised.

BTW, if you look at the thread I started last night, the programme (which I downloaded overnight) explains that the maths was wrong so that it was needed to add unproven ideas like inflation (Alan Guth appears on the programme talking about it) are needed to make the maths work and match up with "the real world".

Originally Posted by Cyberia

However I am not the one who denied gravity. You did saying that it does not affect photons, which I claimed it did. It's there above in your posts before you call me a liar again.

I called you a liar initially because you claimed that I denied that photons were influenced by gravity. You are simply back to your original lie.

Let's see your theory of how gravity influences photons to see how you explain the rotation curves of galaxies. Let's see how your precise numerical predictions match up with those of the scientists who measure the amount of dark matter in given galaxies.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Cyberia,
two things:
1. You continually assert that no one is answering your questions. Please repost the questions we are not answering, they are certainly not clear to me.

How about you answer the points raised in my September 23rd post? Or my September 24th post? Or my September 26th post? etc.

I asked if you would repost the questions. It would have been polite of you to do so.

I asked you to do the repost because I sensed that others were also at a loss as to exactly what you felt was left unanswered. My interest in this thread has been in promoting clarity of communication. It is my belief that your communication style, deliberately or accidentally, obfuscates rather than clarifies. You think that raising this matter amounts to trolling. I concede that it is evidence of my agenda - lets promote clear and honest expression. But I disagree that seeking to enhance clarity in any thread is off-topic and this is most certainly not off-topic when the lack of clarity contributes to much of the dispute, as seems to be the case here.

You can seek to sidestep the issue by indulging in ad hominem attacks, but neither the issue, nor myself, will go away.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

No ready made answers from the wikipedia? That's the trouble with thinking outside of the box. You leave behind those who cannot think but just parrot what they have learned.

I challenge you to find a single example where I have used wikipedia as a primary source, or implied that it was other than a very good starting point for learning about a phenomenon. I further challenge you to demonstrate that I do not think outside the box, or that I simply parrot what I have learned. These are easy accusations to make, not so easy to demonstrate, especially when they are false. One might almost say such statements have the texture of a lie. What would that make you?

Originally Posted by Cyberia

[]My "arrogant dismissal" is merely pointing out what is so obviously wrong with cosmology which only technically qualifies as science since it is mostly speculation and ideas. The big bang itself is just one step above creationism. As said, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

How interesting. I do not subscribe to Big Bang theory. My objections, however, are philosophical. In a forum such as this I defend the consensus view for a simple reason: despite your protestations, there is abundant evidence to support it. There is more evidence to support it than to support any alternative model. I yearn for an alternative to be found. So far none has emerged that explain the data as well as the Big Bang. You can only dismiss that evidence through ignorance or arrogance. You tell me you are not ignorant. I am left to conclude you are arrogant.

PhysBang. I pointed out that photons travelling through a universe full of (old) gravitational sources must be influenced by them.

You denied this, so saying gravity does not affect photons.

That is there for all to see.

I have already explained how I think gravity influences photons on their very long journeys. If I repeat it, how are you suddenly going to understand it the second time?

Perhaps you might read my post a second time and so gain understanding?

Scientists do not measure how much DM is in galaxies. They say the redshift, blessed be it's infallible name, says that stars are travelling too fast according to the almighty redshift so there must be something holding them in place which we'll call dark matter. It's an idea.

Since nothing is known about DM and it is speculation that it works by gravity only, it would be better to call it a second force of gravity which works differently from the known force of gravity. That way there is no trash about what the particles are, where they are, etc.

Ophiolite. You have again failed the Turing test.

Get your creator to make you more human like and see if he can make you answer some questions instead of just insulting people and denying what they say.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

PhysBang. I pointed out that photons travelling through a universe full of (old) gravitational sources must be influenced by them.

You denied this, so saying gravity does not affect photons.

That is there for all to see.

Really, liar? Then please provide us with a direct quotation.

While you're actually providing content, show us your prediction about how much galaxies influence the redshift (and blueshift) of their stars and show us how your prediction matches what we actually observe.

I have already explained how I think gravity influences photons on their very long journeys. If I repeat it, how are you suddenly going to understand it the second time?

You have done nothing but give vague references. Please give us exact figures that we can compare to observation in the same manner that the scientists that you do not read but criticize do.

It's all on you. If you think that there is something wrong with the way redshift is used, show us the right way.

Physbang. You claim that only the expansion of space (excuse me while I laugh) and recession causes photons to redshift when travelling and refuse to accept that gravity can cause them to redshift in any way.

When I provided direct quotations before twice showing you were lying, you ignored them. I think it's a Freudian thing with you, lying, yet calling others liars.

Since there is no actual evidence for DM in galaxies except pointing to high redshifts and saying these stars should fly out of galaxies, my "evidence" is these ridiculous redshifts because no one can show what DM is, where it is or anything else about it. It is speculation and nothing more, with DM doing whatever is asked of it.

Like the scientists who believe in the big bang pseudoscience and back it up with maths? That just shows that maths produces a better class of idiot. The thread I started the other day shows that the math of the big bang does not work out and that the BB does not fit with observations unless you include unfounded ideas and speculation, as in inflation, etc.

I have had a look through your posts here and you have answered nothing. Your posts are denial, insults, demands to see evidence when what you offer in turn is just ideas, lies, etc.

I would have expected better of someone with two graduate degrees. Then again, I think your two degrees are probably high up on this list:


Top 10 Useless College Degrees & Classes | Top 10 Lists | TopTenz.net


Which would explain the content of your posts here.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Physbang. You claim that only the expansion of space (excuse me while I laugh) and recession causes photons to redshift when travelling and refuse to accept that gravity can cause them to redshift in any way.

No, I don't. Again, you return to your lie rather than try to back up any of your claims. Like anyone who had the benefit of taking a course in general relativity, I am well aware that there are many sources of redshift and to what degree one can expect this redshift to occur and how this redshift can introduce systematic error.

So, please, show us your theory of redshift that explains why we see redshift (and blueshift) in galaxies to the degree that we do.

PhysBang. I have shown my theory, which has as much evidence as the big bang (ie: speculation, since the maths does not work unless you introduce unproven ideas).

I have pointed out that there is some natural red and blue shifting due to movement, and in some cases enough blueshift to overcome the redshifting of photons due to gravity in travelling.

I have pointed out that DM is still an unproven idea and no one knows what it is or where it is but merely point to anomalies and claim that is DM. That is not science.

Your degree of comprehension is so poor that you cannot understand that and like a child way out of it's depth you keep asking me to prove what is already there for all to see.

And of course you go on about lying, even when I even proved using your own words that I did not. A contemptible admission of failure in any debate. You lost this debate long ago and have since been locked into a cycle of failure.

Australia is in sight. Stop digging.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

PhysBang. I have shown my theory, which has as much evidence as the big bang (ie: speculation, since the maths does not work unless you introduce unproven ideas).

All of science fails to work unless one introduces unproven ideas. All ideas in science are unproven.

The difference between science and what you do is that in science, people do investigation based on their ideas while you merely actively ignore any contrary information.

You obviously have no real understanding of redshift and nothing that we can take seriously as a serious challenge to the astronomy of the last fifty years.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Ophiolite. You have again failed the Turing test.

Whereas you have simply failed.

PhysBang. You still fail to answer any of the many points I have made.

Yet again you fail to understand that the unproven ideas in cosmology are still unproven ideas.

As I said gravity affects photons when travelling, so cosmologists have said that inflation can happen so that a failed theory can suddenly work again.

There is no evidence for inflation. What do you not understand about that statement?



There is no proof that space can expand as there is no proof that this causes photons to redshift as there is no proof that the universe is expanding. It is a set of ideas that cannot physically be proved. What do you not understand about that statement?

Yet you and many others accept these silly ideas, while you will not accept my idea. I suspect that if Stephen Hawking said that pigs could fly, you would not go out without an industrial strength umbrella.

As I have shown here and elsewhere there is ample evidence that the big bang idea is wrong. How can you challenge an idea where the goal posts are permanently on rollers so that they can be moved at any time?

You are gullible. Full stop.

Now about all the points you have not answered......

Lalalalala is not an answer.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Ophiolite. You have again failed the Turing test.

Whereas you have simply failed.

Another non-post.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Another non-post.

From an expert at the process of non-posts...

I move we stop feeding the troll.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

There is no evidence for inflation. What do you not understand about that statement?

That like any crank, when you are asked to provide some details on your criticism, you run away to an entirely different topic.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

That like any crank, when you are asked to provide some details on your criticism, you run away to an entirely different topic.

My posts from September 23rd to 28th provide ample points, all of which you have totally failed to answer, preferring to insult me instead to try and avoid that fact.

You accuse me of running away when it is you running away as those posts prove, as you accuse me of lying, even when your own posts prove that you are the one who is lying (see above).


Opheolite. I call you a troll so you call me a troll back. How original.


MeteorWayne. Well that's another one on your post count using a post a five year old could have made.


Three losers without a clue.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

My posts from September 23rd to 28th provide ample points, all of which you have totally failed to answer, preferring to insult me instead to try and avoid that fact.

Well, let's see, since you steadfastly refuse to actually identify a point:

"Point "1: There is no discovery of DM or DE. They are ideas put forwards to explain problems with the big bang.

Simply not true. DM has been measured in contexts that are not cosmological. Dark energy has its origins outside of any particular observation and it was discovered to be at work when detailed long-distance observations were performed.

There is a myth that these things were simply introduced when problems came up, but this is merely a myth. There are a host of detailed observations that must be addressed if one wants to criticize either dark matter or dark energy.

"Point "2: If the DM were in the halo as some claim, we would have ring donut shaped galaxies. Lots of them.

OK, what theory of galactic dynamics predicts this? If you cannot give us the details of your prediction of donut shaped galaxies, then you are simply doing fantasy physics.

"Point" 3: As to dark energy, totally ridiculous. It suddenly became more powerful, or is that appeared, several billion years ago so speeding up expansion.

Again, this is simply not true. What observations do you use to support your claim that dark energy suddenly appeared sever billion years ago?

Pretty much everything you've said afterwards is a repetition of these "points" with no support.

So, do you have any reasoning behind your donut theory?

There were so many points that are there for all to see that it would be a waste of time my identifying each of them.

DM is an idea used to explain something they don't understand. There is no physical proof of DM, as no one knows what it is, what it's properties are other than doing what is required of it, or where it is. So an idea.

DE is another idea, used to make the BB work when it became clear that it had failed yet again since it did not match observations or maths. It has no realistic origin and no explanation as to why there is ever more of it, so it suddenly becomes more powerful several billion years ago.

It is no myth that both were introduced to explain failures, but fact. Experts in that programme I linked to explain that.

I have explained this many times but what a little child who could count up to 10 can understand, you cannot.

If DM outmasses LM by a factor of 6, and DM reacts gravitationally, then it has 6 times as much gravitational pull as LM. Do you understand that, that 6 is a bigger number than 1, since you like maths so much?

If DM is in the halo, ie: outside and around our galaxy, then with 6 times as much gravitationl pull as LM, LM will go where the DM pulls it, as in going to the halo around our galaxy. Do you understand that, which is gravity 101?

That means that we will end up with donut shaped galaxies. What is fantasy about that? If I told this to a little child they would understand it, but perhaps you are shouting; "lalalala, I can't hear you" too loudly?

It is believed that the universe started expanding faster some 7.5 billion years ago so to make the BB work, the idea of DE was invented to explain this.

You don't seem to have any knowledge of cosmology at all.

What were your degrees in? David Beckham and knitting?

Originally Posted by Cyberia

It is no myth that both were introduced to explain failures, but fact. Experts in that programme I linked to explain that.

...........You don't seem to have any knowledge of cosmology at all.

Television documentaries are not a valid source of current scientific thinking. The content is dumbed down, the contributions of scientists edited, the 'theme' chosen by the programme producers, not the researchers. Perhaps you were offering the program as a shorhand way of representing the 'consensus view'. In a discussion wherein you claim other protagonists " don't seem to have any knowledge of cosmology", that is simply inadequate.


Here is a case in point. You apparently claimed that if DM existed in the halo we would have donought shaped galaxies. The explanation you gave is wholly inadequate. (For one thing there is no frigging maths in it.) Either present a full mathematical treatment of your claim, or - preferably at this stage -produce any peer reviewed research that makes this assertion. I mean, if its gravity 101, there must be at least one claim to that effect out there in the primary literature.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

DE is another idea, used to make the BB work when it became clear that it had failed yet again since it did not match observations or maths. It has no realistic origin and no explanation as to why there is ever more of it, so it suddenly becomes more powerful several billion years ago.

Why do you choose to simply stick to the same line of ignorance when there are so many sources of easy learning available?

Again: Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

It is no myth that both were introduced to explain failures, but fact. Experts in that programme I linked to explain that.

Sadly, I have found BBC's Horizons to be poor science journalism. At it's best, it is no substitute for the actual science.

If DM is in the halo, ie: outside and around our galaxy, then with 6 times as much gravitationl pull as LM, LM will go where the DM pulls it, as in going to the halo around our galaxy. Do you understand that, which is gravity 101?

Even if the dark matter were only in a halo around galaxies, then we still wouldn't have the structures you describe. That is gravity 101: Shell theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

That means that we will end up with donut shaped galaxies. What is fantasy about that? If I told this to a little child they would understand it, but perhaps you are shouting; "lalalala, I can't hear you" too loudly?

Perhaps a little child would just give up to your authority, but having actually studied some physics, I have a higher standard of argumentation on this subject.

It is believed that the universe started expanding faster some 7.5 billion years ago so to make the BB work, the idea of DE was invented to explain this.

Again, this is simply false. The idea of something like dark energy has been around since before general relativity. It was introduced into general relativity (without good empirical support) in 1917 and it was soon abandoned because nobody could measure it. It was only in 1998 that groups found good evidence, in the forms of measuring its effect, that it should be included. Now there are multiple ways of measuring its effect. One of the things that was measured is when the action of dark energy overcame the action of the attractiveness of mass. The action of dark energy is, as far as we can measure, constant and the action of mass becomes less as the density of the universe falls.

Just another observation here, but I think Cyberia's overarching point about the limits of current cosmology is absolutely correct, and the extremely hostile attitude and rude behavior in this thread is completely ridiculous. Where is the enlightenment ideal that the mind ought to be a temple of serene reason, coolly meeting every error with truth, ever patient, never annoyed?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

MeteorWayne. What you are saying is that there is circumstantial evidence for dark matter.

What do you mean by that? If a kind of matter exists that only reacts gravitationally with other matter, what would you expect see other than the gravitational influence?

Well, this is certainly quite the problem here. You can't be a good scientist if you're a lousy logician/philosopher. Here, for example, you make the fallacy of assuming the conclusion in your premises, which is the essence of Cyberia's just criticism of the theory. Dark Matter/Energy is invoked as a model (at best, currently) to describe the discrepancy in the facts. Now, this discrepancy may be the result of many problems, but the tentative solution adopted has been to fill in the gaps with an indetectable hypothetical material, and then assuming that material (which no one has directly experienced) exists in order to explain away the discrepancies. That is not the scientific method. That is merely a model, an attempt to get incomplete maths to fit an incomplete picture of the universe. And the maths depend upon the observations, so as to account as best we can for every possibility, every variable and constant. That is speculation based on and arising from current scientific problems, not solutions. It is a very common problem, but a lot of you seem to believe cosmology has more explanatory power than it really has, and worse, models and explanations have been conflated throughout this thread.

Conflating models with explanations results in nothing better than sheer superstition, and always ends with appeals to authority. But the issue isn't about authority or even evidence at this point. Nobody knows how to explain the initial discrepancies. So we have only speculation, and apparently speculation defended like dogma by some. Talking about "the consensus of the scientific community" in regard to a hypothesis is an abuse of the English language. An abuse of common sense follows: that thousands of brilliant scientists were polled - in reality, a few hundred illustrious fallible people still don't have the authority to make such determinations without direct evidence. Most scientists aren't even equipped to deal with cosmological problems; they are specialized in fields that don't require a comprehensive perspective of the universe. Thus, in cosmology, speculation regularly overtakes the scientific method, and thus the field opens itself up to undue influence by many competing philosophical, social, economic, and political forces, etc. Cosmology often improperly segues into the realm of philosophy or even fantasy, though ideally tempered with real data, owing to the confused atmosphere of the present. For example, Stephen Hawking regularly mixes some bad philosophy into his popular science books. I mention this to dispel the naive and unhistoric notion that the scientific world is a shining tower of vast unity and incorruptible judgement. Alternatively, a more sensible approach should allow anyone to easily agree with Cyberia when he reminds us that the invocation of an unobservable substance to explain away a discrepancy is quite possibly the least rational and least scientific way to hypothesize about a problem. We should also be able to easily agree that models are not explanations, especially not computer models, simply by remembering that science is an empirical endeavour about the real world, not a process of refining snapshots of what we thought we knew. The confirmation of math means nothing when the missing parts are literally fabricated as in this case and plugged into the equations. Of course they generally work out. Artificial systems are designed to work out. PetTastic provided a good example of the inherent ambiguity of such speculation.

Like Cyberia went on to say, any indirect support for or against the existence of dark matter/energy is bascially irrelevant to the issue at hand: that all speculation, even intelligent speculation, without the scientific method being grounded in the direct experience of real things, is not really science, by definition, and history consistently confirms this fact.

If an alien came to Earth and tried to piece together what science is according to us, only by reading the responses to Cyberia in this thread and some works of popular cosmology, he would no doubt come away thinking human science was a sort of mystical cult, and we've just made a series of very lucky guesses for two hundred years.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Common sense, if it even exists, consists of intuitive conclusions formed on the basis of our primate heritage. It is, perhaps, well suited to give useful explanations when swinging through the tress, or driving on the freeway. It is not suited for understanding more complex, or quite different scenarious. the beauty of science is that it does not require common sense, or intuition, but instead uses objective observation, hypothesis formation and independent testing. It is a much more powerful and effective tool than common sense. Your belief in the efficacy of common sense simply reveals that you do not actually understand science and that any statements you make about the nature of the universe are likely to be flawed from the outset.

Cyberia was obviously talking about the essence of common sense, which is just a purely logical approach to problems - the recognition of self-evident and evident facts and the first principles of thought that resolve discerning observations into universal knowledge. He is not talking about cultural or sociological "common sense" at all.

Originally Posted by JoeRand

Just another observation here, but I think Cyberia's overarching point about the limits of current cosmology is absolutely correct, and the extremely hostile attitude and rude behavior in this thread is completely ridiculous. Where is the enlightenment ideal that the mind ought to be a temple of serene reason, coolly meeting every error with truth, ever patient, never annoyed?

You raise some interesting points, with a minimum of words that merit a response.

Current cosmology is limited. This is true. Every science is currently limited. That is the nature of science. The interesting parts are at the boundary of the known and the unknown. Cyberia, however, makes specific claims as to those limitations. These claims, in more than one instance, either lack foundation, or are based on a misunderstanding of current theory, or attribute concepts to current theory that are not applicable. Do you feel any or all of Cyberia's specific claims are valid, rather than the general statement that there are gaps in our current understanding?

The hostile attitude has evolved from the intransigent, yet unsubstantiated position adopted by Cyberia, coupled by his own snide dismissal of objections. He has consistently failed to provide justification, either by demonstration, or by citation of certain of his claims. This is against the forum rules and is, on a personal level, rather dishonest. When faced by such behaviour it is quite easy, being human, to be rude. (Though that is also against forum rules.)

As to the Enlightenment ideal: it is an ideal. I freely confess than when faced by stubborn refusal to face facts, or by intransigent displays of self indulgent ignorance then I find it a challenge to remain calm, detached, almost ethereal. At times I elect to allow the frustration to express itself in rigorous and robust attacks. To avoid theseall it takes is for the other party to address points in a scientific manner, not an arm waving, word salad, ignore the facts, cherry pick to your heart's content, 'they condemned Galileo too, you know' kind of way. Cyberia is certainly not the worst offender of this kind on the forum, but that does not excuse him.

Cyberia was obviously talking about the essence of common sense, which is just a purely logical approach to problems - the recognition of self-evident and evident facts and the first principles of thought that resolve discerning observations into universal knowledge. He is not talking about cultural or sociological "common sense" at all.

We shall have to agree to differ. Cyberia's 'self evident facts' are anything but. They are what he considers self evident, but which the rest of us would rather require some evidence for, or for which there is already clear contrary evidence against. Appeals to common sense, of either kind, are frankly the resort of the charlatan. Let us have documented, verifiable facts and clearly stipulated, falsifiable hypotheses instead. These are sadly lacking in most if not all of Cyberia's contributions.

Originally Posted by JoeRand

Just another observation here, but I think Cyberia's overarching point about the limits of current cosmology is absolutely correct, and the extremely hostile attitude and rude behavior in this thread is completely ridiculous. Where is the enlightenment ideal that the mind ought to be a temple of serene reason, coolly meeting every error with truth, ever patient, never annoyed?

Are there no limits?

Do you understand his donut galaxy theory? Can you explain it?

Cyberia has written things that indicate an almost complete ignorance of the relevant physics and a desire to substitute in its stead whatever he feels like saying. Is that how one should do science? Should we simply write off all the work done by scientists and the data they collected because of some vague ideas that have never been compared to observations?

Dark Matter/Energy is invoked as a model (at best, currently) to describe the discrepancy in the facts. Now, this discrepancy may be the result of many problems, but the tentative solution adopted has been to fill in the gaps with an indetectable hypothetical material, and then assuming that material (which no one has directly experienced) exists in order to explain away the discrepancies. That is not the scientific method. That is merely a model, an attempt to get incomplete maths to fit an incomplete picture of the universe. And the maths depend upon the observations, so as to account as best we can for every possibility, every variable and constant. That is speculation based on and arising from current scientific problems, not solutions. It is a very common problem, but a lot of you seem to believe cosmology has more explanatory power than it really has, and worse, models and explanations have been conflated throughout this thread.

This would be the case if it were not for the many different measurements of mass throughout the literature that indicate measurement of matter that is not baryonic matter. It is not simply that there are things that do not work out, but that there are converging measurements of how much mass there is and on how much baryonic matter there is. Now the burden of proof is on those who would deny dark matter to explain why we get so many measurements about just how much dark matter that there is and how much baryonic matter that there is.

Like Cyberia went on to say, any indirect support for or against the existence of dark matter/energy is bascially irrelevant to the issue at hand: that all speculation, even intelligent speculation, without the scientific method being grounded in the direct experience of real things, is not really science, by definition, and history consistently confirms this fact.

OK, so what about all the measurements about how much dark matter there is? What about WMAP? The SDSS? The 2dF Survey? The High-z Supernova Search Team? The Supernova Cosmology Project? And others?

If we are not willing to accept anything from outside a lab, as Cyberia has actually suggested, then we have to throw away all of the gravitational theory about the solar system. Are you willing to throw away universal gravitation because all the evidence about the solar system is merely indirect?

Cyberia was obviously talking about the essence of common sense, which is just a purely logical approach to problems - the recognition of self-evident and evident facts and the first principles of thought that resolve discerning observations into universal knowledge. He is not talking about cultural or sociological "common sense" at all.

Cyberia is talking about his own fantasies. Again, do you understand his donut theory? Could you use it to plot the course of a planet in orbit?

Television documentaries are not a valid source of current scientific thinking. The content is dumbed down, the contributions of scientists edited, the 'theme' chosen by the programme producers, not the researchers. Perhaps you were offering the program as a shorhand way of representing the 'consensus view'. In a discussion wherein you claim other protagonists " don't seem to have any knowledge of cosmology", that is simply inadequate.[/QUOTE]

They interviewed a number of learned people including the guy who thought up the inflation idea, Alan Guth.

As you have clearly not seen the programme, your comment is uninformed.

Here is a case in point. You apparently claimed that if DM existed in the halo we would have donought shaped galaxies. The explanation you gave is wholly inadequate. (For one thing there is no frigging maths in it.) Either present a full mathematical treatment of your claim, or - preferably at this stage -produce any peer reviewed research that makes this assertion. I mean, if its gravity 101, there must be at least one claim to that effect out there in the primary literature.

I have given a full mathematical explanation a number of times but what would be simple for a ten year old is totally beyond your mathematical skills.

Let me make it easier for you.

Which is bigger?

1 or 6?

Take your time.

Answer. 6 is the biggest, being six times bigger than 1.

So now for the hard bit.

You have a set amount of gravity on one side, and six times as much gravity on the other side.

Which has the most attraction?

Answer. The side with six times as much gravity as the other.

As in DM has 6 times as much gravitational attraction as LM.

So the big question:

Will the DM go where the LM is or will the LM go where the DM is?

All the 10 years olds have their hands up with the right answer. How about you?

PhysBang. You make no attempt to answer my points but just point to Ned Wrong again.

Like a certain other poster you think you can comment on a TV programme you have not seen. So a waste of time.

If you read the three points of Shell Theorem, it disproves DM showing it would have no effect on LM.

Was that the physics of Beckham's football you mean as in your degree?

DE was proposed to balance gravity as in a static universe. How does that relate to the present explanation of a universe expanding faster in the last several billion years because of DE?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

[We shall have to agree to differ. Cyberia's 'self evident facts' are anything but. They are what he considers self evident, but which the rest of us would rather require some evidence for, or for which there is already clear contrary evidence against. Appeals to common sense, of either kind, are frankly the resort of the charlatan. Let us have documented, verifiable facts and clearly stipulated, falsifiable hypotheses instead. These are sadly lacking in most if not all of Cyberia's contributions.

Yes, deciding which is the biggest, 1 or 6 is very difficult maths and it would take a Stephen Hawking to work it out.

Nothing to do with common sense of course.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Do you feel any or all of Cyberia's specific claims are valid, rather than the general statement that there are gaps in our current understanding?

I refer only to the general statement that there is of yet no certain direct experience of dark matter, and therefore our current understanding is limited and we ought to be a little more skeptical and open to other reasonable ideas.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

This would be the case if it were not for the many different measurements of mass throughout the literature that indicate measurement of matter that is not baryonic matter. It is not simply that there are things that do not work out, but that there are converging measurements of how much mass there is and on how much baryonic matter there is. Now the burden of proof is on those who would deny dark matter to explain why we get so many measurements about just how much dark matter that there is and how much baryonic matter that there is.

I do not think a burden of proof rests on anyone in the earliest stages of finding solutions for problems. The scientific method needs time to work. Something else might account for the initial discrepancy, or there could be multiple causes.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

OK, so what about all the measurements about how much dark matter there is? What about WMAP? The SDSS? The 2dF Survey? The High-z Supernova Search Team? The Supernova Cosmology Project? And others?

If we are not willing to accept anything from outside a lab, as Cyberia has actually suggested, then we have to throw away all of the gravitational theory about the solar system. Are you willing to throw away universal gravitation because all the evidence about the solar system is merely indirect?

Well, I am not exactly sure what you mean. There is a lot of direct evidence about the solar system.

I am not saying everything should be thrown out here. People ought to see how far a model can predict accurately, but we should also be wary of ending up with a Ptolemaic astronomy.

Indirect measurements reiterate the problem; they do not immediately prove the existence of dark matter, which is why the scientific community is currently trying to detect dark matter directly on Earth, like the CRESTT groups' experiments, for example. However, current attempts to gather direct evidence are still inconclusive. Detected interference in particle collisions may be caused by unknown particles that do not account for the initial discrepancy in the motions of large bodies.

Seriously? Please give me an example of what you consider "direct evidence" of gravity in the solar system.

Apples falling, the Moon orbiting, planets orbiting, yes? But dark matter is a thing or things, not a force. I never meant to imply the existence of gravity requires laboratory confirmation.

Originally Posted by JoeRand

Apples falling, the Moon orbiting, planets orbiting, yes? But dark matter is a thing or things, not a force. I never meant to imply the existence of gravity requires laboratory confirmation.

If you are willing to accept the observations of the moon as "direct evidence" of how gravity works, then why not observations of galaxies and the stars within them?

Originally Posted by Cyberia

If you read the three points of Shell Theorem, it disproves DM showing it would have no effect on LM.

You mean the following point?

"Inside a solid sphere of constant density the gravitational force varies linearly with distance from the centre, becoming zero at the centre of mass."

The reason that dark matter is an explanation for overall galactic dynamics is that the rotation curves of the visible parts of galaxies behave as if they are encased in something.

In any case, the shell theorem is a good example of how your "common sense" doesn't really work out all that well in actual physics. What you would tell a ten year old is simply bad physics.

DE was proposed to balance gravity as in a static universe. How does that relate to the present explanation of a universe expanding faster in the last several billion years because of DE?

Because in working out the physical properties such energy would have, people were able to work out ways to measure this energy and specific predictions of what we should see if there was this energy. Even though most astronomers never expected to find it, they had a lot of information about what it should look like if they found it.

Cyberia.

As light is emitted from a galaxy, it is redshifted on the way out of that galaxy, by the gravity around the galaxy.

That light then travels through space. If it passes near anpother galaxy, it is blueshifted on its way into the gravity well and then redshifted on its way out again, by the same amount (the gravity gradient is the opposite, on the way out). So there is no net effect on light, in terms of spectral shift, due to the gravity of anything it encounters along its journey.

As the light reaches us here, it is blueshifted on it's way into the gravity well of our galaxy.

So, all we have to deal with, in terms of gravitational redshift, is the difference between the mass of the emitting galaxy, and the mass of our own galaxy. The difference between the redshift at source and the blueshift at detection.

There is no net redshift or blueshift due to gravity during the journey the light makes through the universe - there is no viable "tired light" scenario.

None of the knowledgeable posters in this thread are saying that there is no such thing as gravitational spectral shift, they are saying that it is only the gravity around the source and the detector that determine gravitational spectral shift, any intervening gravitational sources have no net effect.

SpeedFreak. No matter how many times I explain that point, that they can effectively be ignored, I still get people talking about emission and target sources.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

You mean the following point?

"Inside a solid sphere of constant density the gravitational force varies linearly with distance from the centre, becoming zero at the centre of mass."

The reason that dark matter is an explanation for overall galactic dynamics is that the rotation curves of the visible parts of galaxies behave as if they are encased in something.

But the theory states that the gravity gets ever less as you go towards the center where DM has no effect at all. So at some point, stars would start flying out of the galaxy, not being held by DM. However at a certain point, the gravity would be sufficient to hold them in place again. This would mean that stars would migrate away from the centre of a galaxy and when we see an image of a spiral galaxy, where are most of the stars?

In any case, the shell theorem is a good example of how your "common sense" doesn't really work out all that well in actual physics. What you would tell a ten year old is simply bad physics.

I have just shown you wrong again so I think you may be the one lacking common sense.

Because in working out the physical properties such energy would have, people were able to work out ways to measure this energy and specific predictions of what we should see if there was this energy. Even though most astronomers never expected to find it, they had a lot of information about what it should look like if they found it.

Rather than admitting that the redshifts may be wrong, as in having another partial cause, or even that gravity might work differently over different distances as some now believe, they thought up a fantasy idea to explain it.

Like DM it is an idea used to explain what we presently don't understand. Not something proven.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by JoeRand

Apples falling, the Moon orbiting, planets orbiting, yes? But dark matter is a thing or things, not a force. I never meant to imply the existence of gravity requires laboratory confirmation.

If you are willing to accept the observations of the moon as "direct evidence" of how gravity works, then why not observations of galaxies and the stars within them?

It is an unproven assumption that gravity is the same on all scales. We don't even have a clue as to what gravity really is.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

But the theory states that the gravity gets ever less as you go towards the center where DM has no effect at all. So at some point, stars would start flying out of the galaxy, not being held by DM. However at a certain point, the gravity would be sufficient to hold them in place again. This would mean that stars would migrate away from the centre of a galaxy and when we see an image of a spiral galaxy, where are most of the stars?

Why don't you try to work it out?

In any case, the shell theorem is a good example of how your "common sense" doesn't really work out all that well in actual physics. What you would tell a ten year old is simply bad physics.

I have just shown you wrong again so I think you may be the one lacking common sense.

Well, if you think a theorem that proves that gravitational attraction does not always follow the greater mass as you described it actually supports the idea that gravitational attraction always follows the greater mass as you describe it, then you have a bigger problem.

Because in working out the physical properties such energy would have, people were able to work out ways to measure this energy and specific predictions of what we should see if there was this energy. Even though most astronomers never expected to find it, they had a lot of information about what it should look like if they found it.

Rather than admitting that the redshifts may be wrong, as in having another partial cause, or even that gravity might work differently over different distances as some now believe, they thought up a fantasy idea to explain it.

The only people whop believe this are eihter cranks or people like you who really do not want to learn any physics. But I like how you tried to dodge the topic away from the direct answer. You clearly do this subconsciously in your own mind.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

It is an unproven assumption that gravity is the same on all scales. We don't even have a clue as to what gravity really is.

You are right. We shouldn't even believe that the sun will come up tomorrow or that sugar will make coffee taste sweeter.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Why don't you try to work it out?

What's to work out? It's like someone has fallen off of a building and you are asking me to work out if they will hit the ground or not?

Well, if you think a theorem that proves that gravitational attraction does not always follow the greater mass as you described it actually supports the idea that gravitational attraction always follows the greater mass as you describe it, then you have a bigger problem.

Yes, that's right. Jupiter is held in place by the Earth and not the sun as those crazy scientists think. Doh.

The only people whop believe this are eihter cranks or people like you who really do not want to learn any physics. But I like how you tried to dodge the topic away from the direct answer. You clearly do this subconsciously in your own mind.

Perhaps you would like to explain exactly what gravity is and show proof that it does indeed work exactly the same over all distances whether a solar system, a galaxy or intergalactic distances? Perhaps you can post some videos of galaxies actually seen moving away from us on YouTube as evidence so we can compare their movements with their redshifts?

Or you can continue to hurl childish insults at anyone who dares to disagree with your omniscience?

Originally Posted by PhysBang

You are right. We shouldn't even believe that the sun will come up tomorrow or that sugar will make coffee taste sweeter.

This is like you using what you see in your bedroom and then saying that it tells you everything you need to know about the whole world, and even the universe.

About a year ago we had a star go unexpectedly nova. It had been thought stable. While it is 99. lots of 9's probable that the sun will rise as usual tomorrow, it is not 100%.

The effects of sugar can be proved so does not relate to speculative fields of science.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Why don't you try to work it out?

What's to work out? It's like someone has fallen off of a building and you are asking me to work out if they will hit the ground or not?

You keep assuming that things in galactic dynamics are very simple. If you can work it out, then go to it. If not, then you will have to explain why we should trust your analysis.

Well, if you think a theorem that proves that gravitational attraction does not always follow the greater mass as you described it actually supports the idea that gravitational attraction always follows the greater mass as you describe it, then you have a bigger problem.

Yes, that's right. Jupiter is held in place by the Earth and not the sun as those crazy scientists think. Doh.

The conditions of the shell theorem do not hold between Jupiter, the Earth, and the Sun. Again, you tend to think that theings are simple but you ignore the relevant details.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

The effects of sugar can be proved so does not relate to speculative fields of science.

Really? How do we prove that sugar always makes coffee taste sweet?

Originally Posted by PhysBang

You keep assuming that things in galactic dynamics are very simple. If you can work it out, then go to it. If not, then you will have to explain why we should trust your analysis.

Despite all the talk of redshifts and recession, we actually have no moving pictures of stars against backgrounds to back them up, to show that they move exactly the speed the redshifts claim they do.

The conditions of the shell theorem do not hold between Jupiter, the Earth, and the Sun. Again, you tend to think that theings are simple but you ignore the relevant details.

Vague claims about I ignore the details. Another non-answer like your first one. We know how gravity works so if there is 6 times as much DM as LM, then DM holds sway, as in stopping the LM flying out of the galaxy. And going where the DM drags it.

Really? How do we prove that sugar always makes coffee taste sweet?

The tongue reacts to sugar, salt, acid and savory tastes. If you have a tongue, you will detect sugar as sweet and the more sugar, the more sweeter something will taste.