...where the dark matter particles?
>>16363073in the imagination of gullible low iq lackwits
If dark matter is indeed WIMPs there are probably zillions of them all around us.
>>16363086retard
>>16363073there's at least a few in your asshole right now.
>>16363073It appears that the dark matter universe and ours only share gravity.
>>16363073Where are all the credible alternative theories?
>>16363738DoneThe intriguing one.
>>16363539Found you
>>16363739Which one is that?
>>16363240ok, where?
>>16363738Ignored because already having the answers doesn't get you funding
>>16364231In my ass
I smell something stinky. Something MONDy. There are MONDtards in the thread right now....
>>16363738QI explains everything quite neatly but the inventor is a twitter chud so academia pretends it doesn't exist.
>>16364858QI does not "neatly explain everything". QI basically copies the equations of MOND, which are 40 years old. So it didn't really provide anything new. And like MOND, QI is very limited. MOND works on the scale of galaxies, but on the larger scales of clusters of galaxies and cosmology it falls apart. The Bullet Cluster is a famous example where the gravitational lensing is offset from most of the normal matter, something unthinkable in radial models like MOND. QI does exactly the same thing. But McCulloch waves his hands and says something magical happens, but he does not provide any substantial argument or quantitative analysis of these systems. It's "predictions" for galaxy dynamics have already been falsified, with wide binaries. People are still arguing about GR vs MOND, but QI is just way off.https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.4573B/abstracthttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.4740P/abstract>>16364364>>16364992Which theories specifically?
'dark matter' is just more jewish bullshit standing in the way scientific progress.
>>16363073it has to reproduce and merge with itselfhttps://www.bitchute.com/video/u5HcFyyAiKVe
>>16363738>credibleNone possible.Can't interact with things outside solar system = can't falsify = all current cosmological theories are fairy tales.Dark matter/energy is just the last nail in the coffin.
>>16366460Credible doesn't mean proven, it means plausible given current data. And you can falsify models by comparing them to observations. My model requires there are no blue stars. I observe the stars, there are blue ones. Model falsified. Compare predictions with observations.
>>16366488>And you can falsify models by comparing them to observationsSo why aren't current models falsified by dark matter/energy.In order for your models to explain 5% of the stuff you can observe you need to assume there are 95% of literal invisible spirits out there influencing them.The only reasonable and plausible conclusion to any honest thinking person is that at the present we don't actually know what is going on out there.
>>16366525>So why aren't current models falsified by dark matter/energy.If you reject the possibility of any dark matter you are saying that you are saying that current models of particle physics are definitely complete, and current estimates of the normal matter are perfect. Seems like a pretty big assumption.Similarly with dark energy, you are assuming that the cosmological constant is zero and general relativity is correct on large scales.>we don't actually know what is going on out there.So why assume that dark matter cannot possibly exist?
>>16366546>So why assume that dark matter cannot possibly exist?Nobody is assuming anything. I don't assume dark matter not existing the same way I don't assume inter-dimensional aliens not existing or God or any other thing coming out of /x/.Any schizo theories could turn out to be correct down the road, who knows.
>>16366582>Any schizo theories could turn out to be correct down the road, who knows.So then they clearly haven't been falsified, as you originally asserted. Simple logic.
>>16366595Sure, so long you agree the current cosmological models are schizo tier and belongs on /x/ we are in accord.
>>16366609No, that your comparison, not mine. How you personally feel about it is irrelevant to science.
>>16366615You are gay and dark matter is a grift. Saying the universe is made up of an overwhelming majority of invisible and undetectable particles that generate forces without interacting with anything is on the same tier as claiming God exists. Scientists haven't falsified God have they?
>>16366615>Invisible thing no one can detect nor predict constitutes 95% of my explanations.Pretty sure science is quite clear cut on this one.>>>/x/
I suspect its black holes. Possibly civilizations wind up constructing black holes to live in/use as power supplies/defense against other civs via light speed barrier.
>>16366621>nor predict But people can predict it on astrophysical scales to test the model. They have made numerous successful predictions, like fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. It's a model which is quite testable.>>16366620Undetected=/=undetectable. And gravity is an interaction.
>>16366683>Undetected=/=undetectableGod is undetected>And gravity is an interactionAn invisible succubus drains sentient beings of their nut energy and distributes it as gravitational force throughout the observable universe.
>>16366677black holes don't exist
>>16363073Goes right there, see I drew it with the magic marker.
This shit is such pseudoscience>oh we got a hit! We finally found this super rare particle!>oh how do we know we got a hit? Well our machine here says we got a hit.>No, you can't see the particle. Sorry.Fake and gay.
>>16363073RIGHT BEHIND YOU
>>16365483>Bullet Cluster is a famous example where the gravitational lensing is offset from most of the normal matter,It's just remnant gravitational/em waves from the collision causing a refractive effect, in billions of years after it has dispersed it won't be there anymore
>>16363073Right next to the proof of the holocaust
>>16367092ok so explain why there is mass where there is no visible matter everywhere we look?
>>16372006Have you personally measured this mass to confirm it's there?
>>16372055yes my eyes measured the light coming from a photograph of gravitational lensing with no objects in the middle lensing it.
>>16372061>my eyes measured the light coming from a photograph of gravitational lensing with no objects in the middle lensing it.Hey look, I can do the same thing in my living room, dark matter confirmed!
>turn off the lights>most of the matter in my room is now darkcheckmate atheists
Let's be real science isn't going to produce any breakthroughs. It all exists to validate society. Physical "laws" because society loves laws. There will be no change because society hates change. At least not by science. Science is dead. It's kind of sad I did love it for a while.
You can find dark matter on earth though
>>16363240I hope for WIMPs and then subsequently maybe finding a way to build a drive which harnesses them like a proposed drive I remember which used a big magnetic field to capture hydrogen in space and use it to accelerate.
>>16363073They're called BLACK particles, and BLACK particles MATTER.
>>16363240yeah but they aren't tho
>>16373437That's a cool idea.>>16373548So you know for sure that it's not WIMPs? How?
>>16373547This. Spacetime was builded for big black BBPs.
>>16364858If the random twitter retard wants his "theory" taken seriously then he should do some research and experiments, and then publish a paper, instead of declaring on twitter that he's solved a problem that tens of thousands of qualified physicists have failed to solve for almost a century.Until he does that, I will dismiss him as a Mandlbaur-tier narcissistic crackpot.
>they're "virtually" there
>>16366683>It's a model which is quite testable.Nothing in cosmology is testable.
>>16363073Inside white women
>>16372006Cloaked alien superstructures
>>16379509Nice quote. Ruled by coral
>>16379015>Predict observations >Observe real universe>Test predictions against model.Many cosmological models have been falsified.
>>16378949>observed galactic rotation curves disprove GRYou can only say that if you are absolutely certain you know the masses distribution of the galaxy.
>>16372118I don't understand your counterargument. Can you please explain?
>>16363073Um /sci/sisters... I'm scared. How do I know there isn't a spooky dark matter particle lurking behind me?
>>16379709>Posting fancy graph trying to woo the uninitiated>Imagine a vial of mystery chemical when observed under electron-microscope/spectrometer..etc. is behaving unlike anything that could be explained by current chemical models.>Imagine not be able to interact with said chemical using other chemicals>Imagine having to resort to explaining the observed behavior of this mystery chemical by postulating there are other never-documented chemicals 19x the mass of the vial floating undetected in the room with us>Imagine claiming the resulted model is "testable"The only thing that's astronomical is the cope coming out of Cosmology. The entire field is literal grifter central.
>>16380060How about discussing the real argument rather than inventing pointless analogies? Tell me how cosmological predictions (such as the cosmic microwave background power spectrum) are not testable.
>>16380078That analogy is a perfect description of the situation cutting through all the bullshit with jargons.But since you need people to spell it out for you - Cosmological predictions are not actually testable because:>1. You are stuck just observing a never before interacted system that could be fundamentally different from anything ever known by humans. You are not able to interact with (to actually test) any parts of said system to confirm, or deny, that anything about it is similar, or different, to anything we know now.>2. You have only ever observed said system for a length of time that amounts to a cosmic eye blink.The "predictions" cosmology are making now is nothing more than spinning a better story on a higher resolution picture. For all we know every single claim could turn out to be bs top to bottom when interstellar travel comes around and the truth turns out to be stranger than fiction.The very fact you couldn't jam current physics into your photos without invoking the existence of some 95% /x/-tier fairy dust is the biggest red flag of this eventuality.
>>16380135>That analogy is a perfect description of the situation cutting through all the bullshit with jargons.But it's not because you lose all the context of the actual scenario. >You are not able to interactInteraction is not a requirement of something being testable. Newton and Kepler could predict the positions of the planets in the future, testing their models. GR surpassed classical gravitation and predicted new observational tests like lensing and Mercury's orbit. >You have only ever observed said system for a length of time that amounts to a cosmic eye blink.That is always true in any science. It applies equally to chemistry as to cosmology. Again, does not make it untestable.>spinning a better story on a higher resolution picture.Nope. Cosmologists not only predicted the existence of the cosmic microwave background they also predicted the statistics of its fluctuations.
>>16380176Mercury's orbit was a problem before. The lensing feature is not significant. This is just revisionism, a myth to uphold the current thing.
>>16380201>Mercury's orbit was a problem before. And GR was capable of explaining it, and predicting the future trajectory.>The lensing feature is not significant. It has been measured hundreds of times since then at much higher precision.
>>16380176>Newton and Kepler could predict the positions of the planets in the futureSo could astrologers from multiple civilizations thousands of years before modern science, what's your point? Mayans could predict celestial movement with pinpoint accuracy and claims they are spirits fundmentally different from physical stuff on Earth. Should I believe Kukulakan here or should I listen to you about dark matter?Cosomology are also making claims about things that happened before the first human and will happen after the last. You tell me how testable these predictions are.>muh predictable CMB fluctuationsCongratz you managed to find predictable patterns from your radio telescope output.Too bad no human could possibly interpret what it really means because no human have ever interacted with whatever object that is actually emitting said microwave.
>>16380250> Mayans could predict celestial movement with pinpoint accuracyNo they couldn't. What the ancients had was extremely complex curve fitting. But where this fails is it is not predictive. It cannot predict the orbits of new planets. It can only postdict planets which had already been studied for decades. So for example Neptune being found by Newtonian gravity was a huge validation of that. >Congratz you managed to find predictable patterns from your radio telescope output.They predicted something and went and tested it. Testing the predictions of the mode.
>>16380265Alright, where is the mayan model? Where is it written? What translation have you read?
>>16380265>What the ancients had was extremely complex curve fittingNews to me that we graduated from that. Tell me how math is applied exactly to physics again?>muh gravity predicted Neptune and is fundemental to the universeVery nice. You managed to predict one planet in the solar system but needs to invoke fairy dust for everything else in the night sky.>They predicted something and went and tested it. Testing the predictions of the mode.They did more than that. They started to write books on what it means when it's obvious they could have absolutely no idea what it means.
>>16380297>News to me that we graduated from that. Tell me how math is applied exactly to physics again?Neptune is proof of that it isn't simply curve fitting. You'll also note the lack of epicycle in these models. >>They predicted something and went and tested it. Testing the predictions of the mode.>They did more than that. They started to write books on what it means when it's obvious they could have absolutely no idea what it means.So you agree it was tested then? You seem to have forgotten the point of this discussion. There is nothing wrong with adopting a model as the current standard theory underpinning a field, literally all fields do this. >>16380269You tell me. My statement is a generic one about ancient astronomy. I don't particularly care about about different cultures.
>>16380664>I got lucky once with Neptune, therefore my understanding of the universe is unquestionable despite overwhelming evidence by the rest of the universe pointing to the fact I'm probably wrong.It's curve fitting with extra words. That's science and empiricism in a nutshell. Always was, always will be. That aren't the problem. The problem is your curves aren't fitting right now by a 95% margin yet people still pretend they know what's going on.>So you agree it was tested then? You seem to have forgotten the point of this discussion.Sure if you pick isolated segements of astronomy, those are tested, but that has nothing to do with the discussion which is cosmology as a whole.You picking on the mechanical CMB prediction accuracy to justify every other cosmological claims is no different from a Mayan priest accurately predicting eclipse to justify his sacrificial rites.Like I said before, managing to find trend to CMB is one thing, interpreting what said pattern means is something else entirely.It aren't grifter central because people were just doing the former. It is because they pretend to know the latter.
>>16380732>Sure if you pick isolated segements of astronomy, those are tested, but that has nothing to do with the discussion which is cosmology as a whole.What was the original claim? >Nothing in cosmology is testable.The CMB is a part of cosmology. The model which predicted it is the hot big bang, a group of cosmological models. That prediction was tested, so at least some of cosmology is testable. Your claim is falsified. And the CMB is just one example of how cosmological models can be tested against the real universe, it's not the only one.>You picking on the mechanical CMB prediction accuracy to justify every other cosmological claims...Bullshit. I never made any such claim. But the distribution was predicted only by models which include dark matter. Attempts to fit it with only normal matter fail. >Like I said before, managing to find trend to CMB is one thing, interpreting what said pattern means is something else entirely.It's not a trend. The statistics of fluctuations were predicted decades in advance. And how 2 decades after they were first measured there are no serious alternatives which explains any of it. It's quite reasonable to adopt the successful model as the current standard.
>>16380808>What was the original claim?Cosmological theories are not testable. That is the claim, and still is.Big Bang predicted CMB? So could any "theory" anybody can come up with. I can say advanced aliens did it, with the aid of dark matter. You got a way to falsify which is which?In actual science you reproduce results, that's how something is testable. Short of you somehow able to reproduce a big-bang and create a universe for all to observe these cosmological theories are all flimsy smokes.
>>16363073here's a photo, anon
>In the standard lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the mass–energy content of the universe is 5% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter, and 68.2% a form of energy known as dark energy. Thus, dark matter constitutes 85% of the total mass, while dark energy and dark matter constitute 95% of the total mass–energy contentSo this is the power of science… fucking schizophrenia
>>16363738>inb4Universe is 4+1D dimensions in more of a Toroid shape made of multiple spheres of real space in side a fold of hypervoidal areas of whatever the fuck“Dark matter” is just obscuredThat’s why there are galaxies with a lot and probably galaxies with noneUS10144532B2The strange effects induced by the pais effect is mass displacement not mass reduction Amongus
>>16381174a Before chemistry we had the phlogiston theory, because we couldn’t see we couldn’t understand and tried to warp reality against what we knew when we knew wrongWhat if the universe is different in ways we can’t perceive A pyramid with a square base on its size is an infinite amount of squares compiled together
>>16381174Plasma is Omni dimensional, by coating oneself in an “shell” of plasma shaped like an egg shell around your ship with a charged barrier use a large amount of energy to push it through a dimensional “cherry” like popping the sound barrier Imagine a world of water shaped like a donut, except the water is VERY thick and dense, difficult to swim through, you realize one day everything outside the water is the vacuum of space. You cover your body in plasma and dip your body outside of the water on the edge of this water donut, the only part that has to “swim” is your pinky still under water, if 100% of you leaves the water you get lost but if 99% of you is out of the water your mass is reduced to 1%Now this kind of ship is only capable of basic realivistic speeds. If you want FTL you have the basics but have to add a bit to it, like going from a horse drawn carriage to a super car, they both have wheels
>>16381195This allows the ship to become truly transmedian, allowing air space water and possibly underground travel with ease at extreme speeds with almost no g forces on its occupantsI have a design somewhere in my bedroom that I can post a shizoid picture of if you would like, it has a living quarters design with janky artificial gravity (it stores necessary water inside the core of the ship, due to physics it has to be wheel, saucer, or elongated because of the obvious stuff everyone already knows
>>16363073working on it ....since 1884- Lord Kelvin
>>16363073In uranus
>>16363073>dark>matterThis board sucks
>>16380867>Big Bang predicted CMB? So could any "theory" anybody can come up with.You say that but there were many models at the time. And none of them predicted the CMB. > I can say advanced aliens did it, with the aid of dark matter. You got a way to falsify which is which?That is post hoc reasoning, coming up with an explanation after the fact. That it is not the same as a true prediction. Many ad hoc explanations for the CMB were put forward (like Alfven saying it was Galactic synchrotron). But these could be tested in new ways, like the fact that none of the alternatives predicted a blackbody spectrum with the fluctuations predicted by standard cosmology.Magical aliens are equivalent to invoking "god did it". They are I unfalsifiable and make no real predictions. If you want to talk about science don't propose an alternative which is unfalsifiable.>In actual science you reproduce results, that's how something is testable.And the CMB has been measured multiple times by better and better telescopes and missions. There is no requirement to repeat the big bang, geologists cannot repeat the formation of the earth but geology is still science.
>>16363073>where the dark matter particles?All around you. By the way we use the word Aether for that.
>>16363073well it's this or the "ether" pick your poison.
>>16381446>You say that but there were many models at the time. And none of them predicted the CMB.And this fact is supposed to help your case, how? You sprayed and prayed and one of the shot managed to hit the target when you zoom in.>That is post hoc reasoning, coming up with an explanation after the fact. That it is not the same as a true prediction.Nor is some one-off spray-and-pray.In fact, I can do the same. I can submit my theories of (((aliens_did_it #1 - #9999))) of which every variation is some probable mathematical progression from current data. Next time one of the telescope gets an upgrade I'm sure the higher res will prove that in fact, aliens did do it.>but geologyGeology don't postulate that earth is made up of 95% fairy dust.Also geology can make testable predictions on where to find what minerals, of which you can interact and confirm those are indeed physical objects like we know. Things covered in cosmology have never been interacted with a human nor could they be at the present.
>>16381593>of which every variation is some probable mathematical progression from current dataA model which is consistent with every possible observation has zero predictive power. This is formalised in Bayesian logic, where models which have large freedom are penalised. Hence why I said aliens are a useless hypothesis, because it's untestable and unscientific. And no, no one is wasting their time doing this people cosmologists aren't children.>And this fact is supposed to help your case, how? You sprayed and prayed and one of the shot managed to hit the target when you zoom in.You said "So could any "theory" anybody can come up with." That is demonstrably false.Note that the dozen or so cosmological models is not nearly enough to cover all possible observations. If that were the case you would have many which also predicted the CMB but with different properties. Didn't happen because you're talking shit.>Also geology can make testable predictions on where to find what mineralsJust as cosmologists predict testable observations, like the CMB. And we do in fact interact with several cosmological elements, hydrogen and the CMB are around us all the time. Again clinging to this notion of "interaction", which you have never justified or defended.
>>16381636>aliens did it is useless, untestable, and unscientificIn case you are not catching the obvious sarcasm, every cosmological theory is in the same boat, wheather it be Big Bang or anything else cosmology can come up with now and in the future.>You said "So could any "theory" anybody can come up with." That is demonstrably false.Yes I said "theory", not "model", which is demonstrably true. Model is sensory data mapping and pattern prediction; this is objective and scientific. Theory is the interpretation you paste onto said model, of which in cosmology is completely untestable.>muh CMB and hydrogenReally, you time travelled and observed it was hydrogen that produced all the CMB a few billion years back? You sure it wasn't dark matter?
>>16381721> every cosmological theory is in the same boatNo it isn't. You accepted that the CMB was tested and verified, therefore a cosmological model was tested. Others were rejected. >Yes I said "theory", not "model", which is demonstrably true. Model is sensory data mapping and pattern prediction; this is objective and scientific. Theory is the interpretation you paste onto said modelThat is not how it works in physics. In most cases, models and theories are the same thing. The equations of a physical model is derived from it's physical logic, it is not simply a fit to the data which is then "explained". Physical models are not just splines fit to data, they meaning and logic. You cannot "paste" a new explanation onto an old model because then the physical logic behind the model would be wrong.
>>16382090>You accepted that the CMB was tested and verified, therefore a cosmological model was testedWhat's this pseud gaslighting logic you are trying to push across? CMB is just detected microwaves. Were you there to record what produced them? Just because I accept the fact there are indeed microwaves coming in from everywhere doesn't automatically verify whatever stories you spun on how they came to being.>That is not how it works in physics>The equations of a physical model is derived from it's physical logic, it is not simply a fit to the data which is then "explained"It's not how it's done but nonethless it is how it works. Yes people generally pick starting hypothesis based on some imagined "logics" to help them conjure up geometry to see if it can fit and predict experimental data points. But the "logics" of it isn't at all fundamental; it's a human convenience. At the end of the day the only thing that matter in science is reproducible data predictions, the math model.In normal sciences these "logics" gets a pass because they are not too egregious to everyday experiences. If you are a rigorous philosopher then nothing gets a pass. If you are doing cutting edge stuff like QM then you shut up and calculate because possible interpretations are too bonkers and goes straight into /x/ tier.But you know who's just as bonkers if not more? Cosmology. You know who doesn't shut and calculate but spins more tall tales than everybody else combined? Cosmology.
>>16382170>Just because I accept the fact there are indeed microwaves coming in from everywhere doesn't automatically verify whatever stories you spun on how they came to being.Not the point I was making, at all. Maybe in future you could read what I actually fucking wrote, and that might help as a clue instead of your rabid guesses. My point was that real cosmological models are testable, and have been tested (e.g. the CMB). They are therefore nothing like your aliens. >You know who doesn't shut and calculate but spins more tall tales than everybody else combined? Cosmology.What are you even trying to say? That cosmology is not mathematical enough?
>>16382234>Not the point I was making, at all.It's exactly the point you were making. I actually gave the benefit of the doubt before and assumed you were talking about some mechanical CMB model predicting its intensity from one region of the universe to another or some such. But no, you were talking about CMB as definite proof of spuned cosmological stories ie Big Bang.>What are you even trying to say? That cosmology is not mathematical enough?That cosmology need to shut up more.
>>16382248>It's exactly the point you were making. No it isn't. You either can't read or this is just a blatant strawman.>What are you even trying to say? That cosmology is not mathematical enough?>That cosmology need to shut up more. Are you a literal child? Science isn't about YouTube or popsci, it goes on regardless of your feelings. We've reached the bottom of the barrel, you started saying it's untestable and now we're left with "I don't like it". Very rational argument.
>>16382262>Cosmology needs to shut up more because I don't like itCosmology needs to shut up more because none of the theories are actually testable. You don't have a time machine, you don't have a starship, you got nothing but telescopes and your best current model is running on a 95% variance unsuccessfully trying to jam in known physics. On top of all these pillar of sands you are spinning tales about the beginning and ending of the universe, blackholes, quasars..etc. You want to talk about Youtube and popsci? Your field is single handedly responsible for 90% of the popsci that's out there. Why do you think people call science a religion? It's because of Cosmology.
>>16382284>Cosmology needs to shut up more because none of the theories are actually testable.Already debunked in this thread. See the CMB. >You don't have a time machine, you don't have a starship, You can literally see the universe as it was in the past just by looking far away. The finite speed of light preserves a record of the past. >Your field is single handedly responsible for 90% of the popsci that's out thereBecause it's something people are actually interested in. >Why do you think people call science a religion?Because retards like you confuse your own ignorant opinions about models with real scientific flaws. And then assume everyone actually educated on the subject is biased or dogmatic, when you know nothing about the substance of the field (e.g. the plot of power spectrum). You are classic Dunning–Kruger, standing a top mount stupid. Anyone less deranged might be tempted to actually learn the basics of observational cosmology before trying to tell everyone they're wrong.
>>16382306>gravity don't add up to known physics by a 95% variance>but light must have behaved unmolested reaching us here on Earth showing me everything as they really are>never interacted with anything outside the solar system, don't even know for sure if things out there are made of the same matter as we are familiar with here on Earth>yet claims to know almost everythingThere is so much unknown, assumptions, and down right asspulls burried in Cosmology it's absolutely mindboggling for anyone not chugging the koolaid by the barrel.I'm done here, there's far more productive things to be done than going in circles. You have fun swindling the midwits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rYYMf6Cndk&pp=ygUSYmVuIHN0ZWJlciBzZW1pbmFy
>>16379710PSSST. IT'S TOROIDAL.
>>16363073They're totally at this specific energy and interact with real matter via this one specific mechanism. Just give me 10 bil for a detector and I'll prove it to you
>>16363073no such thing, but we need it to keep our seats on the brainiac board
>>16363738Electric universe?
>>16379015I can’t believe how many smug looks this cat has.
>>16364231all around us
>>16380060If you don't know what a Fourier series is, shut the fuck up
>>16386376Bingo.
why cant we just admit that general relativity doesn't actually work for objects the size of galaxies and bigger?
>>16387051Everything gets based on drawing inferences from closer objects in order to understand observations of more distant objects. Things will be fine in our galactic neighborhood, but nobody can really be sure how much garbage assumption gets sucked into the models when we're looking billions of light years out.So GR could be just fine while we totally misinterpret the photons that are trading energy between distant galaxies and telescope sensors.
>>16387051It works for black holes which are bigger than galaxies
>>16364231impeccable reading comprehension
>>16381200>I have a design somewhere in my bedroom that I can post a shizoid picture ofPlease do.
>>16386191kek
>>16386191New age woo and empty sophistry brought to you on YouTube. Not even science.
>>16372061This is a lie, there is no proof of gravitational lensing in the areas where there supposed is DM, in the borders of galaxies, there are some isolated cases of lensing probably done by very old black holes or other intergalactic cold matter.
>>16393668>This is a lie, there is no proof of gravitational lensing in the areas where there supposed is DM, in the borders of galaxiesWrong on two counts. Firstly, there is lensing in the outskirts of galaxies. Pic related. It requires favourable geometry to get dramatic strong lensing like this, but stasticial weak lensing has also been used to measure the masses of more typical galaxies.Secondly the outskirts of galaxies is not the only place. The term was coined when dealing with clusters of galaxies. Clusters of galaxies are the best lenses, there are thousands of known strong lenses showing that there is more mass.>there are some isolated cases of lensing probably done by very old black holes or other intergalactic cold matterThis is cope. It's hardly isolated, with deep data every massive cluster shows lensing. Primordial black holes are a dark matter candidate, and there is no evidence for them over particle DM. And no it cannot be intergalactic matter, as it needs to be inside these galaxies and clusters.
>>16389803Serious question, Is your wife unvaxed?
there's a giant superstructure surrounding all observable universe
>>16397456So the dark matter is outside the universe?
WHERE ARE THEY THOUGH??? POINT ONE OUT FOR ME
