A Genuine Question For The Budding Posters Here

[Dubbelosix]

Nearly every third or fourth posts, always involve posters here taking dark matter as a matter of fact. Worse yet, there is a lot of discussion in conjunction with dark energy.

 

What worries me, is that neither probably exist. We only understand dark matter as a correction term based on an archaic model which requires the universe to be consumed with about 37% of this ''mysterious'' stuff, without any real evidence (ie. no halo's have actually been detected) and gravitational lensing is not a proof of its existence.

 

Question - why is this such a fascination with posters here and why when I have said time and time again, it is more logical to assert these gravitational effects come from inside the galaxy itself?

 

I have given excellent references to uncanny relationships to the black hole size and the rotation curves?

 

I have given references to show dark matter doesn't even exist until the universe got to 4 billion years old... dark matter didn't just appear after 4 billion years, as a non-detectable matter around galaxies, because where was it during those first 4 billion years?

 

I also explained how galaxies tend to fall apart due to centrifugal forces when supermassive black holes have been ejected from their centers?

 

I am very confused with these obsessions here... I expect it from scientists who have spent a lifetime trying to prove their own habits, but not as evidence that gives enough reason for multiple forums to have budding scientists believe that somehow it ''has to exist.''

 

I feel very disappointed that the simplicity of the results I obtained have been largely ignored here. Dark energy... is merely a double effect, involving how the systems are driven apart and gravitational binding becomes weaker as it expands - this means it will accelerate so long as the driving force separating them remains constant.

 

And finally, there have been no dark matter particles found, aside from a reasonable explanation of black holes.... other than that, there is absolutely no evidence for dark matter. And gravitational lensing is not sufficient as an evidence to call it an Incontrovertible proof since there are many large black holes orbiting the galaxy that could easily be mistaken as some ''outside force'' associated to the standard definition of dark matter.

 

The age of dark matter will fall first - and only the observable, measurable evidence of internal dynamics of a galaxy can only explain the rotation curves, especially when dark matter should have been present at all times, even during the early phases of galaxy formation, but as explained, it didn't appear until the universe got quite old, four billion years again, to be precise.

 

The only way a black hole size affects the rotation curves (backed by real evidence) as a galaxy gets older, can only be explained by a dynamic change inside of the galaxy itself, again, linked to a critical mass relationship to the supermassive black holes at the center of these galaxies, I have never been so sure that physics has made such a terrible mistake in terms of cosmology.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[GAHD]

...why when I have said time and time again...

 

I have given excellent references...

 

I have given references to show...

 

I also explained...

I am very confused...

 

I feel ...

All other things aside, you are making some faulty cognition here.

Self evident point 1: Other people are not you.

Self evident point 2: Other people do not always see what you see, either objectively or subjectively.

Self evident point 3: Time is limited, other people don't have time to stalk every word you breath or type. Prime example: Have you read though every single one of MY posts? Wondering why some offhand comments buried elsewhere are not attributed and linked is thus counter-productive.

Less evident point 4: People probably don't really care how you feel unless it affects them directly. Prime example of why empathy is bad. ;)

And finally, there have been no dark matter particles found, aside from a reasonable explanation of black holes.... other than that, there is absolutely no evidence for dark matter. And gravitational lensing is not sufficient as an evidence to call it an Incontrovertible proof since there are many large black holes orbiting the galaxy that could easily be mistaken as some ''outside force'' associated to the standard definition of dark matter.

Less evident point 5: Lensing isn't the only proof. Acceleration is often used to infer distribution and quantity. This assumes of course galactic motion is around a barycenter and not a byproduct of some other force. Either bifurcation of that thought process seems to add "a wizard did it" in one way or another; magic dark matter, or magic extra forces. Standard model DOES have particles that fit the "dark" part though. Didn't we probe for the slosh a couple decades ago? That kinda dataset points to a specific wizard, doesn't it? 'Course, there's easily 5 other contenders that have their own magic to explain that sort of thing...

 

Less evident point 6: The universe is of course strange and doesn't need to make sense to some insignificant chains of carbon. :D

[fahrquad]

I agree that it is all too easy to attribute what we don't know or don't understand to "Dark Matter" or even "Dark Energy" when everyone knows that the unknown can best be explained by angels dancing on the head of a pin.   :angel:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F

[Dubbelosix]

But why do people talk about phenomenon, genuinely mysterious phenomenon, as a fact? We are not questioning that the effects of a dark matter is there, we are questioning whether dark matter as given through its definition actually exists. I feel like people have been wasting their brain energy on statements by physicists which have been erroneously taken as a fact of the standard model. Nothing can be more annoying than a group of people thinking they have it all worked out, when they don't even understand the facts. I am not a dark matter expert, but I know enough to know, that dark matter particles is a hypothesis and we should be looking for more heuristic idea's.

[Dubbelosix]

I agree that it is all too easy to attribute what we don't know or don't understand to "Dark Matter" or even "Dark Energy" when everyone knows that the unknown can best be explained by angels dancing on the head of a pin.   :angel:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F

 

Strangely, I seem to agree with this statement. The ability to say ''we know dark matter is there'' seems to be a jump, from hypothesis to something else, which is not backed experimentally properly.

[Dubbelosix]

Less evident point 5: Lensing isn't the only proof. Acceleration is often used to infer distribution and quantity. This assumes of course galactic motion is around a barycenter and not a byproduct of some other force. Either bifurcation of that thought process seems to add "a wizard did it" in one way or another; magic dark matter, or magic extra forces. Standard model DOES have particles that fit the "dark" part though. Didn't we probe for the slosh a couple decades ago? That kinda dataset points to a specific wizard, doesn't it? 'Course, there's easily 5 other contenders that have their own magic to explain that sort of thing...

 

Less evident point 6: The universe is of course strange and doesn't need to make sense to some insignificant chains of carbon. :D

 

See... I want to break this way of thinking. Indirect evidence is not good enough, which is why for instance, I am very careful about statements concerning a rotating universe because it relies on indirect evidence -  in a way, indirect evidence is just as a good as a hypothesis and nothing more.

[sanctus]

But the reply to your question is very simple: DM and DE models have not been falsified and are taught in school so that is why :-)

[Dubbelosix]

But the reply to your question is very simple: DM and DE models have not been falsified and are taught in school so that is why :-)

 

Indeed, but falsification requires you have evidence first, and I don't mean wish-washy indirect evidence.

[sanctus]

Indeed, but falsification requires you have evidence first, and I don't mean wish-washy indirect evidence.

Disagreed, a conjecture which agrees with experiments better than stuff without the the conjecture makes the former the better model.

[Vmedvil2]

Disagreed, a conjecture which agrees with experiments better than stuff without the the conjecture makes the former the better model.

She is right Dubbel, a hypothesis with evidence is a theory despite the amount of supporting evidence possibly making it a "Fragile Theory".

Edited May 23, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

Disagreed, a conjecture which agrees with experiments better than stuff without the the conjecture makes the former the better model.

 

 

In which ways?

 

For instance, does the statement that there are no dark matter effects anything up till the universe was four billions years old, not a problem for you?

[Dubbelosix]

She is right Dubbel, a hypothesis with evidence is a theory despite the amount of supporting evidence possibly making it a "Fragile Theory".

 

The ''evidence'' needs to be consistent first.

[Dubbelosix]

I have to agree again, the ''shut up and calculate'' era is not real science - In my experience of studying alternative formula's, a sort of, alternative theory expert, there are many approaches in science which can crush out the same answers. The issue here is applying the philosophy of science correctly, just because you get a result right by a hypothesis, does not make the hypothesis true since it requires consistent evidence. Dark matter, and the so-called ''evidence'' pertaining to it, is almost definitely not consistent enough to be a true theory - with additional problems in which observation is inherently not predicting this standard model view.

[Dubbelosix]

I realized, after posting my last post, I agreed with the main denominator of Flummoxed post, except I disagree on one point - we are actually concerned about the theoretical details... It's just that, and what I think Flummoxed really means, is that it has came to a point, where calculations seem to be over-ruling empirical evidence... in which case I agree 100%. If a theory was such, dark matter no longer is, because it cannot answer all the discrepancies found over the years consistently. If a theory of my own, had so much weight against it, I would begin to naturally think of alternatives... but that's just me.