Dark matter is not real and there's not strong evidence found that is real after decades of experiments.Is as real as jehova and allah.
Is it casted out energy from atoms quantum properties?
>>17009944>Is as real as jehova and allah.The fine Tuning of The Universe is very strong proof of God but you are correct, jehova and allah are both fake and gay. God is the creator of The Universe, who sent his only son Jesus to die on the cross so you might be saved. And yes OP, Dark Matter is also fake and gay. Modern cosmology is trapped in a Sunk Cost Fallacy trap by where they can't admit they were wrong and thus must continue to waste time, money, and their lives chasing ghosts that never existed. Many such cases.
>>17009945FPBP TRVKE /THREAD
>>17009948>Is it casted out energy from atoms quantum properties?Light is energy casted out from atoms according to their quantum properties
>>17010018Light is made by the electrons, but if everything's tightly packed together in galaxies, then could it be a forceback? Maybe from the beginning when black holes floated out... from mother god,
>>17009944No it's real but what it is is currently a large misconception that is leading researchers into the wrong rabbit hole.
>>17009944From what I understand dark matter is just a placeholder for something that seems to be interacting with and affecting ordinary matter on a large scale. A lot of scientists seem to talk about it like it's literally matter though, which it could be, but maybe not
>>17009966There is no fine tuning in the universe and jesus did not rise from the dead. Jehovah is literally the god of the bible. You're retarded
>>17010045There are some words people like you should not be allowed to use
>>17009944You are not wrong. Quantized intertia explains most of the supposed evidence for dark matter, accounts for a lot of the experimental stuff observed. Mike McCulloch and his theories deserve most consideration from the mainstream
>>17010154>Quantized intertianyyooooo not my continuity that totally wasnt an artifact of scale variance all along you cannot do this to me
jesus herbert walker fucking christ. what the actual fuck happened to this board? we used to have literal physics professors posting here. now we have zoomer retards who would flunk out of intro physics like just about every other post in this thread.
>>17009944It is made up of the alternate timelines that form when your reality makes a choice that forces an outcome from quantum superposition.
>>17010122Not today satan, not everhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
>>17010157> Scale invarianceExplain
>>17010189>>17010154How does scale invariance account for what Mike McCulloch explains for galaxies rotation curves?Explain to me why Mike McCulloch is wrong is what i'm asking. Yep yep you are obviously so much smarter than me, i am begging you oh great one to please explain to me what I do not understand about it. Please.https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.06787
>>17010195>https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.06787check his papers. any time he mentions inertia it's a single author. he also published something like a dozen all of the same crap [can x be explained by inertia]? quantised inertia seems to be an idiosyncratic term invented by this guy at a mediocre university who is getting this garbage accepted in a garbage journal with barely a 2.0 impact factor. your sarcasm betrays your argument. some people here are quite a bite smarter than you are, understand physics to a much higher degree, and are capable of spotting fluff papers for one's pedigree that are worthy of rejection with extreme prejudice. protip: when it comes to physics (and science in general) consensus does not mean universal agreement. it means you will always find peer reviewed publications that are fringe. you need to know how to identify these. in other words, scientifically published paper does not necessarily imply that it is a notion accepted by the community at large.
>>17010215The same community that says that trans women are women, or that the covid "vaccine" was 100% safe and 100% effective?
>>17010293biology and physics are not the same sector, unless you are discussing biophysics. at which point this is not the population you are speaking about.
>>17010301Okay, string theory and dark matter then. Now what?
Cris is that you?
Explain this then chud: https://youtu.be/MhrkZNTfSAM
>>17010158they are using retards as sophons now and drown this place in shit.
>>17009944>Dark matter is not real and there's not strong evidence found that is real after decades of experiments.No. "Dark matter" fundamentally refers to experimental (astronomical) observations that are highly reproducible and impossible to ignore, unless you're a larping retard or dishonest shitposter of course. The fact is these observations can't be explained with existing theories, and the easiest way to "explain" them is that there are WIMPs. But the nature of these WIMPs (or perhaps an alternative explanation) remains an open question. Either way, what is entirely clear is the observations, and thinking otherwise is pure cope.
>>17011305>reproducible observationsThe method of measurement is incomplete and is making assumptions in lieu of truly accurate discretions.I mean aside from the fact that what data can be seen is so utterly limited in resolution and scale.Or do you really think the finer details of dots of light 20 million years out of date, are present enough to make hard claims?I'll wait for distributed sat scope constellations with 10,000x resolving power of the JWST before making bold claims about mere galactic phenomena, forget the rest.
>>17011389>The method of measurement is incomplete and is making assumptions in lieu of truly accurate discretions.Call it whatever you want, it doesn't make a difference. "Dark matter" is the fact/problem of those observations. They are given the name "dark matter" because they "look like" invisible matter that still has gravity, when interpreted with standard theories. It's possible there is something "wrong" with the observations, sure, but it's unlikely they are simply measurement errors since there is quite a variety of observations that show similar effects.
>>17011396It's obviously nothing but a diffraction effect, if you would be so broad minded to use a common term.Or do you think all the particles of light having travelled just a mere quadrillions of km has only non-interacted with zero energy, zero curvature space? That the effects no matter how minute don't add up? That light from another galaxy itself isn't being changed as it leaves one and entets another?Dark Wizardry ia just another nonce term that will plague maths for eons.
>>17011407>It's obviously nothing but a diffraction effect, if you would be so broad minded to use a common term.It's QUITE obviously not. I didn't read the rest of your post, sorry.
oooh whoa look at him tuck tail and run away
>>17009944Give a substitute for it, then. The universe still has other attributes/behaviors which are unexplained if you simply try to delete dark matter from the equation and ignore it.
>>17010076And the correct rabbit hole would be... what?
>>17010312We've never seen a tree evolve into a horse in one generation but Dark Matter is about that extreme so looks like evolution is more sound than physics. Atheism wins again.
>>17009944Modern physicists are all just making shit up based off of H.P. Lovecraft
>>17009966>Ok fine, it's wrong, but we're gonna keep this imaginary inventory on the asset ledger until you give me its imaginary cost of goods sold valur
>>17011789>Ok fine, it's wrong, but we're gonna keep this imaginary inventory on the asset ledger until you give me its imaginary cost of goods sold value to make my fraudulent balance sheet balanced
>>17010117>From what I understand dark matter is just a placeholder for something that seems to be interacting with and affecting ordinary matter on a large scale.Basically.>A lot of scientists seem to talk about it like it's literally matter though, which it could be, but maybe notMatter that's interacting gravitationally, but not (for whatever reason) electromagnetically is the simplest explanation that fits the observations with the fewest assumptions and modifications to existing models that seem to work (Newtonian and Relativistic models of gravitation). If you allow for there to be some extra, not-quite-homogeneously distributed matter in the background it fixes basically all of the existing discrepancies between theory and observations of intra and intergalactic dynamics. The trouble is we don't know what the fuck that missing matter could be. We've been able to fill in some gaps - we know there's more stellar mass black holes than were originally predicted, that interstellar dust is a bigger presence that was originally guessed, that there's lots of compact objects or cool brown dwarfs and shit like that out there... but even with all those other gaps that have been filled in, there's still a metric shitton of matter left unaccounted for. If it's a new particle (or even particles we already know exist but turn out to be more prevalent than previously thought) it also potentially answers questions in particle physics.It could, of course, turn out not to be missing matter, but some deficiency in the model, but if that's the case we need a new model that somehow manages to come up with ALL of the same results correctly predicted by General Relativity, but also somehow includes all the results currently attributed to dark matter. And that's a much taller order than finding a missing particle.
>>17011407Let's explore this idea. If your hypothesis were incorrect, then we would not expect to see any strong correlation between the measured discrepancies in galaxy rotation curves or cluster interactions and the number of massive objects between an observer and a target.You should be able to test this easily enough - make us a plot of estimated dark matter for distant galaxies and plot it versus an x-axis of number of galaxies within a particular arclength radius of the target. If there's no strong correlation, then your hypothesis is falsified. If there is a strong correlation, then there may be something to it.I don't expect you'll find anything, but will happily hope for you to prove me wrong. Well, what are you waiting for? Get to it. That Nobel Prize in Physics isn't going to win itself.
>>17017427Or you are the ones making the claim, so you must physically produce dark matter empirically. Tell you what, you can even pay Elon to send you out there to retrieve the dark matter.We will await your return, with your physical proof, not your errant math toy model; physical ontological proof.
>>17011791I can't tell you that without ruining the surprise
>>17017427>you should be able to answer this question by assuming the premise being questioned is true to begin with>assume something that can't be proven to exist by any known method of measurement is real, not that the measuring itself is incomplete, or wrongly interpretedNo.
>>17019191>you should be able to answer this question by assuming the premise being questioned is true to begin withI mean, that is the general approach.>X can be explained by Y>If Y were true, it implies Z, which can be tested>If Z is false, Y is false>the measuring itself is incomplete, or wrongly interpretedYes, scientific inquiry does get a lot simpler if you just dismiss measurements you disagree with as wrong.Whether the deviations in radial velocity distributions attributed to dark matter are actually caused by dark matter or are caused by some other effect isn't the point I was making:If I hypothesize that the size of a plasma filament in some experiment correlates to pressure, and develop a diagnostic technique to estimate pressure from filament size, and you come along and say>No, the filament size should only depends on the type of working gasThen you should be able to show that my estimates of pressure have a strong correlation with gas type, because regardless of whether my diagnostic was correct, I based it on measurement of filament size, which means taking my data and showing a correlation between pressure and gas type means you're actually showing a correlation between filament size and gas type without having to go and repeat every measurement I made.Astronomers assume the deviations in radial velocity distributions are due to the presence of some additional mass, and use them as a diagnostic to estimate that mass. If there's a correlation between estimates of mass and number of objects along a path to the target, then it really implies a correlation between the deviation in the radial velocity distribution and the path of the light - exactly what i>>17011407 asserts as an alternate hypothesis. So there you go, I just laid out a straightforward way you could disprove the existence of dark matter using mostly available data. If it's important to you, I encourage you to pursue it. If not, maybe find something else to gripe about.
>>17019322>>17017427The problem is the lack of effort put into the hypothesis, something vague is untestable.>It's obviously nothing but a diffraction effect, if you would be so broad minded to use a common term.Firstly, the poster doesn't specify what he means by "diffraction effect". So the hypothesis isn't even defined.And nor does he he attempt any physical calculation to show that such an effect could explain dark matter. You say people should just go and make some plots for you, which could mean anything. No detail.But you haven't said what this model actually predicts. "A correlation" can mean anything. Why should people take your hypothesis seriously, when it isn't even defined?How can you falsify a model when you have not calculated what it predicts? You can't. And there is nothing scientific about declaring something is "obviously X", and then refusing to expand or give any justification.
>>17019336For you
>>17019336By 'diffraction effect', I'm assuming anon meant some kind of dispersive or interference effect caused by light passing through or by other massive objects (that 'somehow' exactly replicates the effect of their being more matter). At least that seems to be the gist of what they're implying. By correlation, I just mean a clear trend in the data that could indicate a causal connection (ex. estimated missing mass is proportional to number of foreground objects squared or something). If there were some correlation between the two measurements, it might indicate there is more going on.But, to be clear - I fully expect that if anon put this data together they would see absolutely nothing; just a bunch of randomly distributed data points. I've heard of no observations that could support their idea that the effects attributed to dark matter are some kind of 'diffraction effect' and this seems like one of those obvious things someone would have tested and reported already if there was anything to report.
>what if our model is... le wrong? heh. I bet you never thought of this before, huh?Why do retards online think they are being revolutionary by babbling the most basic shit ever? No shit our model might be wrong, this possibility was already explored by thousand of scientists decades before you even heard about the topic
>>17019345This isn't even true though, the dark matter theory is only posited through interactions with masses. It already has a residue. Plus model divergence is already purely circular demand for something that is out of bounds.>i have a novel plasma model which invalidate your models of the universe>but then how does it correlate with divergence characteristics according to those same models
>>17009944>Dark matter is not realMay I see your paper?>there's not strong evidence found that is real after decades of experimentsThis disagrees with what I've heard from people with credentials. What are your credentials?
>>17009966>The fine Tuning of The Universe is very strong proof of God but you are correct, jehova and allah are both fake and gay. God is the creator of The Universe, who sent his only son Jesus to die on the cross so you might be saved. Do you know how you recognize a smart 'murican christian? He keeps his mouth shut about things he has no fucking clue about.
