Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Just. let. it. die!

Journal by Gaaark

More evidence that dark matter DOESN'T BLOODY EXIST, and they should look behind the curtain!

https://phys.org/news/2019-03-dark-evidence-axions.html

Just. let. it. die! | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 21 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Comment Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Friday March 29 2019, @03:58PM (8 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Friday March 29 2019, @03:58PM (#821858) Homepage
    We don't have enough evidence to say that it's either proved or disproved[*]. It's as valid a field of study, both as mathematical physics and experimental physics, as anything else was in physics 100-150 years ago. When amazing strides foward were made. I'm very dark-matter-skeptic, but I recognise that if pure mathematical physics makes a prediction that agrees with a result that a completely independent group of experimental physicists measured then there's something worth further study. Add to that otherwise-inexplicable lensing, and otherwise-inexplicable rotation curves, and not only do you have a theoretical transparency-time snapshot of theoretical existence, but right-here-right-now evidence for something that has the same properties. That's defnitely grounds for further scientific study. And if that's like Michelson and Morley's demonstration of the existence of the aether - a nice healthy disproof (until negated by LIGO), then great, that's science moving forward. Anyone who looks at the "science of the gaps" (as per "god of the gaps") and says "don't do science on it" rather than "do more science on it" is not scientifically minded, they're irrational.

    [* Can we say we've proved protons exist? Now we know they're just tightly bound bags of quarks, don't we have to admit that "proton" is just shorthand for a particular arrangement of other things - the things that actually exist (to the best of our models). There's no "proton" field, for example (and although there never was in those terms, our views from 70 years ago were expressible in quite similar terms (e.g. conservation of baryon number)), so there's no *thing* /the proton/.]
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   4  

  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday March 30 2019, @04:21AM (7 children)

    by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 30 2019, @04:21AM (#822220) Journal

    But where IS the mathematical prediction? Show me the formula for how much dark matter each galaxy needs for it to stay 'together'. From what I've seen there is no formula, just random guesses until the correct amount is arrived at for EACH galaxy looked at.

    McCullough HAS that formula, with QI
    http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
    that predicts much more than dark matter does (even the emdrive that NASA and others says IS real)...what does dark matter predict?

    Dark matter was invented out of the blue just to save GR, and they had to come up with all these rules for it to follow because there was nothing else they could do.

    At least QI follows the scientific method, and has a formula to follow and use and is predicting things that ARE known....

    ...I dunno: I'd rather put my all my marbles into QI than dark matter ANY day. It may not be correct either, but it's a HELL of alot more scientific.

    Look at QI, look at the predictions, look at how closely the math fits what is observed: it left me much happier mentally than the garbage that is DM.

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday March 30 2019, @11:57AM (2 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Saturday March 30 2019, @11:57AM (#822303) Homepage
      Sean Carrol has a 5-part lecture series available for download. I think the relevant mathematical predictions are both in first lecture. It's been a long time since I've seen it, I'm planning a rewatch with my g/f real soon now, as it is literally everything you need to know about cosmology in X short hours (X ~ 8-ish). Sean's honest enough to present current best guesses as current best guesses, he's not forcing things down your throat as fact. There's one thing where he literally says "it's just a model, not everyone likes it at all, and I'm about 50/50 on the issue".
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves

      • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday March 30 2019, @01:21PM (1 child)

        by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 30 2019, @01:21PM (#822329) Journal

        Can't afford to buy it: if you see the formula can you post it?

        --
        --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 30 2019, @12:00PM (3 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 30 2019, @12:00PM (#822305) Journal

      But where IS the mathematical prediction? Show me the formula for how much dark matter each galaxy needs for it to stay 'together'. From what I've seen there is no formula, just random guesses until the correct amount is arrived at for EACH galaxy looked at.

      That inconsistency is actually an indication that there is something like that rather than an alternate theory of gravity. MONDO and quantized inertia, for example, can't vary from galaxy to galaxy.

      • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday March 30 2019, @01:12PM (2 children)

        by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 30 2019, @01:12PM (#822325) Journal

        No, it DOES vary, just within the mathematical formula: dark matter varies in a non-formulaic way, as in you have to guess.

        Not very scientific.

        --
        --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 31 2019, @04:08AM (1 child)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 31 2019, @04:08AM (#822628) Journal

          No, it DOES vary, just within the mathematical formula

          You just said the opposite:

          Show me the formula for how much dark matter each galaxy needs for it to stay 'together'. From what I've seen there is no formula, just random guesses until the correct amount is arrived at for EACH galaxy looked at.

          • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday March 31 2019, @07:43PM

            by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 31 2019, @07:43PM (#822803) Journal

            Ummmm, you were talking about QI not varying:

            MONDO and quantized inertia, for example, can't vary from galaxy to galaxy.

            I was saying the RESULTS from the QI formula DO vary as in by what is inputted into the formula. The formula does NOT change as in MOND which has 'fudge' factors (can't come up with the correct word).
            Dark matter numbers vary as by the results of the GUESSES, because there is no formula to use for dark matter.

            --
            --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---