...where the dark matter particles?
Uncle Phuncle
>>17009336only gods chosen can see them
My mother died and decades later the connection to her finally left and I got a vision of a cloud of dark matter near Earth dissipating. They can use dark matter for connections to the past.
>>17009375So what you're saying is 80% of mass in the universe is made up of your mom?
>>17009352>>17009336Lol.
>>17009377The cloud was as small as a person and it looked like it was connection to her in an orbit above Earth, so when so took off into space there was still some resonance to past she could connect with us. She took off to another planet and I saw her in some basic housing with cats everywhere.
>>17009336Africa
>>17009439Not true, they don't matter.
Dark matter matters
>>17009336Inside scientists imaginations
Dark matter splatters
>>17009336>our model of gravity is wrong (GR)>but our core assumption is that the model HAS TO BE RIGHT because it was made by the smartest jew ever>therefore we propose extra mass and energy exactly in the places where we need them>no there are no real hints it exists but our model is working with it so our religion of relativity can stay
>>17009505Exactly. It's exotic matter.
>>17009644Bobobased
>>17009644>he doesn't know about zwickyngmi. fyi zwicky wasn't a jew.
>>17009644More evidence for the soul than there is dark energy lol
>>17009644>let's ignore all the overwhelming evidence for dark matter>now see? there is no evidence!
>>17009887>overwhelming evidence for dark matterKek show me one? You cant, its all "but it needs to be there for gravity to work like gr predicted">>17009697Ok i admit there are some real hints, i was exaggerating.
We are still arguing about it. I think CERN may know as they have decided to take a break from maybe destroying the universe or maybe not.
>>17010305They're upgrading the hard-on collier to look more frequently.
>>17009887>theres so much evidence bro>gives no evidenceKWABOOTY
>>17010351I imagine when they have the thing running, and something unexpected happens, they all shit themselves and start hoping they have destroyed the galaxy.
>>17009336OOOH AH OOH AH AHHHHHHH
>>17009336Where is garth merengi’s dark place?
>>17009644>>our model of gravity is wrong (GR)Can you be more specific?
>>17009336Do let us know when you find a job OP.
>>17012913that is his job and you are getting dumber every thread he makes
>>17009336if you could answer that, they'd stop being darkit's a trick you see
>>17009887Where are the dark matter particles?
>>17019837check ur butt after u wipe
>>17009887>overwhelming evidence for dark mattermay we see it?
>>17019973you don't see my penis yet you believe i have one.
It rules out the infinite possibilities of what universe we are in.... 20 minutes later, meh, it could have decreasing dark energy..
>>17009887>the evidence"this thing we can't see or detect, can only be inferred by this other thing that can't be seen or detected, only inferred"I mean come on. What's the inherent error for such an observation.I fully understand that non-baryonic matter exists. I have some problems with the classifications of certain things as non baryonic, but that's a different topic.How about we work on figuring out how to detect things that don't interact with photons instead of making broad generalizations.Are there "anti photons" that have no speed and only react gravitationally.The consensus should be to figure out the truth of what gravity is before bold fucking claims about everything.
>>17009336https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WHqUUE5arMI'll have to go home to watch it..
In a halo around the galaxy
>>17022103a "just so" story if I ever saw one
>>17021723take your SSRIs you fucking nerd and stop making pointlessly long videosDAMA was flawed, everyone knew it was flawed, nobody could prove it definitively without shittons of grant moneysnow it's been proven (again) that Italians are shit at experimentingthere, I've condensed your shit video into a few wordsFuck Italians btw, I'll never forgive them for the neutrino crap they pulled
>>17009336Who took the electrons?
Micro black-holes. This is also the source of virtual particles, the micro black holes are everywhere and emit hawking radiation (field theory is wrong and gay). This is also why gravity exists. The Garviton particles are just micro black holes that attract everything. Ez.
>>17009336Bro what if they're just so huge we don't see themLike, planet sized but with diffuse boundaries so we don't even notice when one passes over us
>>17009336Dark Matter is God my nigga
>>17025491Why would God be dark when he's literally obsessed with light theming idort.
>>17022344Italians are good at making pasta and people you want to see without their clothes on, not much else these days.
>>17019975Penises exist and have been directly observed and manipulated. For example, mine by your mother.
>>17025779"dark" as in dark matter, ever present but undetected, filling the void of space and time out from and into which the universe expands
>>17025794God can be observed, it just kills you.
>>17012910Spacetime is mathematical construct, not a real thing, and it doesnt really curve. For one, time is and emergent property on events and causality.
How does the dark matter religion deal with dark matter exceeding expectations by a massive degree in some places, or being absent in others where predicted?
>>17026817by that logic nobody would want it
>>17027659this guy just replied to dark matter
>>17009336Not measurable. Dark matter is just "hawking radiation" of compressed space from gravity wells becoming expanded space in matter deserts. Neutrino's are probably just the bridges between the origin point and expression point that allow for faster then light travel.Potato threshold=1 graviton.
>>17009336Donde?
>>17027640> exceeding expectations by a massive degree in some places, or being absent in others where predicted?Exceeds what expectations? Having variation from galaxy to galaxy is not unpredictable. In fact, it's alternative models that cannot explain galaxies large variations.
>>17009644if relativity is wrong Earth is flatrelativity was invented because michelson-morley's experiment implied Earth isn't moving
>>17027858Impossible to verify any of this.
>>17029571>make prediction of how much fairy dust should exist in a given place>prediction is wrong by orders of magnitude with zero explanation
>>17027640that's considered proof that dark matter is in fact matter as opposed to an error in the theory
>>17029588>if relativity is wrong heliocentrism is wrongfixedthe earth is still trivially flat however
So how long until dark matter is proven? It's the most common form of matter in the universe, so it should be soon, right?
>>17031569Probably within the next year or so at the rate AI is advancing. GPT-7 or Claude 6 or maybe even Kimi 4 will prove or disprove its existence conclusively.
>>17031761How's an AI gonna observe dark matter?
>>17032101If I knew the exact method then I wouldn't need the AI to figure it out for me. All I know is that it will.
>>17031310So the pixie dust not even following the rules of pixie dust means pixie dust DEFINITELY exists?
>>17034019no, in this case it would be one of the only pieces of evidence that pixie dust is in fact acting by the rules of pixie dustfor dark matter to be matter, one of the most crucial observations would be that it's more dense in some areas and less dense in other areas, you know, like normal matterwithout that, you have no evidence that it's matter in the first place
>>17034019>not even following the rulesExactly. They're not following rules. If it were an adjustment to the laws of gravity, then this would mean sometimes those laws just don't work or change entirely in different regions of space. Matter, on the other hand is absolutely expected to be found in exceptional configurations from time to time within a large enough dataset.Now who knows, maybe the laws of physics do actually fundamentally change sometimes for unknown reasons for specific individual galaxies, but that is a much more radical theory that would need some strong evidence to be preferred over the one of dark matter.
I am a unique and special little snowflake in every way
>>17009336They live in Canada, you can't meet them.
>>17009336They don't existPlasma Cosmology likely fixes this problem
>>17027640>How do people who think it's matter deal with the fact that it apparently behaves like matter?I don't know anon. They probably just nod?
>>17009336>...where the dark matter particles?There are none... its just micro blackholes
>>17035386PC creates more problems that it solves. There is no evidence of anti-matter regions, and it doesn't explain the homogeneity of the universe on large scales. >likely Very scientific. No one has bothered to test it in 50 years. Because PC is dead.
>>17009336more like why physics so badjust fraud after fraud after fraud
>>17036461>it doesn't explain the homogeneity of the universe on large scales.that's fine since there's no evidence for homogeneity of the universe on larger scales
>>17036438They'd evaporate through Hawking radiation.
>>17036576>that's fine since there's no evidence for homogeneity of the universe on larger scalesWrong. Galaxy surveys are very smooth on large scales, and observations of radio galaxies are also very smooth across the sky.
>>17009336They are exposed via non photonic bosons and via gravitation influence. Check out NuStar satellite that exposed dark matter objects that are only seen by x-ray. It's a good place to start.
stars slowly lose they protons via cosmic rays and turn into neutron stars. If you squint really really hard you can see them. kek.
>>17036673they used to just be conveniently assumed to be smooth without anyone actually checking, but now they keep coming up with a new cosmology crisis every month because new data from newer telescopes keeps saying the universe isn't smooth on any level
>>17036709Incorrect. There are dozens of papers on homogeneity stretching back decades.https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ASIC..565..131L/abstracthttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994MNRAS.267..323B/abstracthttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.297..545B/abstracthttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...473....7C/abstractNot to mention the CMB. Which was predicted by big bang cosmology, which also predicted it's tiny fluctuations and high isotropy.>because new data from newer telescopes keeps saying the universe isn't smooth on any levelAlso wrong. The sensational claim from a few months ago about about large scale homogeneity was debunked after 24 hours. Turns out the original authors made a schoolboy error in their coordinates, which messed everything up. But of the initial claim is repeated in the media, where people like you hear about it. But the sudden retraction is not widely reported, not clickbait enough. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.01172
>>17009336It's because we have not found the graviton. I'm willing to bet in the same way there is spin and color they are going to discover some new fuck ass property and will call it "twist" or some shit, and there are going to be like 8 gravitons that have different combinations.
>>17036588>They'd evaporate through Hawking radiation.Primordial Black Holes, the small black holes must fall into a very specific narrow range known as the "Asteroid Mass Window," which spans from 10^17 grams to 10^22 grams.. too small for our instruments to detect.Dark matter is an idiotic theory that has ZERO... ZERO... ZERO documented proof... they do not even have an example of ONE particle of dark matter... EVER even detected
>>17036727there are dozens of papers because they all just assume that the universe must tend closer towards isotropy the larger the scale grows without any real argument for it
>>17036727>>17036774like, literally in its preface, the first link you give is going like "we assume the cosmological principle" as one of its most basic factsoh we assume it do we?
>>17025783source?
>>17025821which god?
>>17036774They don't assume it. These are testing isotropy.>>17036775Funny you completely ignored the title, and the first sentence "We review observational tests for the homogeneity of the Universe on large scales." So they are in fact testing it. The sentence you are referring to is about particular calculations, ones which can then be compared to data. In order to test the principle you need model expectations.
>>17029588You might want to look up the Lorentzian aether. It easily explains Michelson Morley and it came before relativity
>>17036869there are too many structural and directional anomalies in current data to treat the assumption of isotropy as anything other than a baseless assumption and the cosmological principle as anything other than wishful thinkingwhether your papers reassure themselves that their models are superior to observational data is irrelevant to me
>>17037076[citation needed]
>>17037078https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10702-5https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.20769https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.21585https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.13765
>>17037314>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10702-5Lel. That is the one that got debunked a day later. They fucked up their coordinates. Do you not listen?https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicist-says-splashy-new-cosmology-study-made-elemental-mistake/>https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.21585>https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.13765Same author who doesn't check his work.>https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.20769>could imply a violation of the cosmological principleDoesn't calculate a statistical significance. And it's always a weak argument because it's based on a postriori statistics.
>>17037324not as weak as arguments based on a priori assumptions
>>17032101Simple: it just gonna hallucinate some
>>17009336Just 15 more years, provided you fund our study.
>>17029622Just look at the bullet galaxy. Its dark matter halo is stolen from the cluster its impacting and is projected 700,000 light years along its vector ahead of it.
>>17032101This has nothing to do with dark matter.
>>17009336Dark matter is bunk. Gravity is a form of quantum entanglement. On very large scales it bends spacetime more than GR predicts.
