Invisible Dark Matter: Scientists have come up empty-handed.
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I'm trying to see, but you're given us nothing "below" to see.
...
...so...is it, in any way, "generally problematic" that you somehow failed to see/read/understand/Grok the "contextual explanation" that I Posted : "...so..."Dark Matter"... "remains"..."elusive"...?"
...
Last edited:
Yes, the forum has been well aware of what you want to see for quite a while now.
Paddoboy,
You are being admonished time and again for finding fault with people.
You posted a link (although one is already there as stated by DMOE) which states that DM could not be detected despite 20 month long observations on a state of art equipment, despite DM share of around 27% as against Baryonic matter's 5%. So the conclusions are:
1. Experiment was bad.
2. DM does not exist. Fudge bluff is exposed.
3. Detector requires better precision.
Choose one or give a 4th option.
You are being admonished time and again for finding fault with people.
You posted a link (although one is already there as stated by DMOE) which states that DM could not be detected despite 20 month long observations on a state of art equipment, despite DM share of around 27% as against Baryonic matter's 5%. So the conclusions are:
1. Experiment was bad.
2. DM does not exist. Fudge bluff is exposed.
3. Detector requires better precision.
Choose one or give a 4th option.
Dark Matter so you cannot see...
Pot, kettle, black again.
[1]Experiment may be inadequate.
[2] Experiment may well be not precise enough...
[3]The Nature of DM makes it difficult to find.....
[4]It is probably still simply being missed...
And of course your usual snide little remark that the fudge factor is exposed does not really make any sense.
It was always known to be a fudge factor when first proposed, just as Einstein's CC [cosmological Constant] but evidence for its existence has grown.
It is though certainly there in at least one form...MACHO and also probable WIMP form . The unknown form is another form of MORE exotic WIMP, of which we are not familiar with.
You fail to understand that science is a discipline in continual progress.
Some advice my friend, you really need to study hard about what you are automatically without thought, going to summarily dismiss.
That's not very bright.
Last edited:
Another quick message to the god and expletive deleted and like minded individuals, even scientific failures, as this so far appears to be, is always a progress in science when looking at the big picture.
That's what I posted it for! Science has nothing to hide, unlike some.
The scientists learnt from BICEP2 , they learnt from LIGO, they learnt from the LHC, they learnt from COBE, and they learnt from WMAP......and what will always give them that unique advantage over internet trolls and cranks, is that they are always continuing to learn.
That's the name of the game, not withstanding the many agendas and conspiracies that some on forums like to throw about.
That's what I posted it for!
Science has nothing to hide, unlike some.The scientists learnt from BICEP2 , they learnt from LIGO, they learnt from the LHC, they learnt from COBE, and they learnt from WMAP......and what will always give them that unique advantage over internet trolls and cranks, is that they are always continuing to learn.
That's the name of the game, not withstanding the many agendas and conspiracies that some on forums like to throw about.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1006.2483v2.pdf
Dark Matter: A Primer
Katherine Garrett∗ and Gintaras D¯uda† Department of Physics, Creighton University, 2500 California Plaza, Omaha, NE 68178, USA
Dark matter is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in cosmology at the present time. About 80% of the universe’s gravitating matter is non-luminous, and its nature and distribution are for the most part unknown. In this paper, we will outline the history, astrophysical evidence, candidates, and detection methods of dark matter, with the goal to give the reader an accessible but rigorous introduction to the puzzle of dark matter. This review targets advanced students and researchers new to the field of dark matter, and includes an extensive list of references for further study.
. CONCLUSION AND CHALLENGES
The astrophysical and cosmological evidence for dark matter is both impressive and compelling. What is perhaps the most striking are the multiple lines of evidence which point to the need for dark matter. Elemental abundances from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and fundamental anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation both predict very similar baryon (ordinary matter) abundances, yet each describes a completely separate era in the history of the universe in which very different physical processes are occurring. Dark matter is necessary to both describe galaxies and clusters of galaxies, and is a necessary ingredient in the formation of large scale structure. It is this concordance of evidence that makes dark matter more than just a “fudge-factor”; although strange and unexpected, dark matter seems to be a fundamental and necessary component of our universe. Although the composition and nature of dark matter is still unknown, theories like Supersymmetry or Kaluza-Klein theories of extra dimensions provide solid frameworks for attempting to understand dark matter. Of all of the particle candidates for dark matter, perhaps the best motivated is the neutralino. It is a typical WIMP: electrically neutral, weakly interacting, and massive, and through statistical mechanics in the early universe we can calculate abundances for the neutralino today which are consistent with it acting as the dark matter. Other exotic candidates for dark matter exist from axions to Q-balls to WIMPzillas. However outlandish the candidate, the hunt for dark matter continues. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN will begin collisions at 3.5 TeV per beam in 2009-2010, ramping up to 7 TeV per beam most likely in 2011 and beyond, and will search for indications of supersymmetry and dark matter. Indirect searches continue to hunt for gamma rays and antimatter which might provide evidence for dark matter; the current controversy between PAMELA and ATIC and FERMI and HESS results demonstrate the advances and challenges in indirect detection. And finally, direct detection experiments continue to set more stringent limits on neutralino and WIMP scattering cross sections; these limits, as new technology is applied, are set to improve dramatically in the next decade with experiments like Super CDMS, GENIUS, and ZEPLIN IV. Dark matter, of course, is not completely understood and faces challenges. The primary challenge is that it remains undetected in the laboratory. Another tension for dark matter is that it seems to possess too much power on small scales (∼ 1 - 1000 kpc). Numerical simulations of the formation of dark matter halos were performed by Klypin et al. and show that, to explain the average velocity dispersions for the Milky Way and Andromeda, there should be five times more dark matter satellites (dwarf galaxies with a very small ordinary matter content) with circular velocity > 10-20 km/s and mass > 3×108 M within a 570 kpc radius than have been detected.92 In other words, although dark matter is crucial in forming structure, current models form too much structure. Another study, from B. Moore et al., shows that dark matter models produce more steeply rising rotation curves than we see in many low surface brightness galaxies, again suggesting that simulations produce an overabundance of dark matter.93 Of course, discrepancies on small scales may be entirely due to astrophysical processes; for example, photo-heating during reionization and/or supernova feedback particularly affect dwarf galaxies94,95. Although important to consider, these challenges faced by dark matter are dwarfed by the compelling evidence for the necessity of dark matter along with its successes in explaining our universe. What makes this field so rich and vibrant is that work and research continue, and these challenges will lead to deeper understanding in the future. Dark matter is an opportunity to learn more about the fundamental order of the universe. Dark matter provides a tantalizing glimpse beyond the highly successful Standard Model of particle physics. The discovery of neutralinos would prove the validity of supersymmetry and help bridge the “desert” between the electroweak and the Planck scales. But ultimately, we look at dark matter as a mystery, one which will hopefully inspire physics and astronomy students in and out of the classroom. As Einstein said, “The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science.”
Dark Matter: A Primer
Katherine Garrett∗ and Gintaras D¯uda† Department of Physics, Creighton University, 2500 California Plaza, Omaha, NE 68178, USA
Dark matter is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in cosmology at the present time. About 80% of the universe’s gravitating matter is non-luminous, and its nature and distribution are for the most part unknown. In this paper, we will outline the history, astrophysical evidence, candidates, and detection methods of dark matter, with the goal to give the reader an accessible but rigorous introduction to the puzzle of dark matter. This review targets advanced students and researchers new to the field of dark matter, and includes an extensive list of references for further study.
. CONCLUSION AND CHALLENGES
The astrophysical and cosmological evidence for dark matter is both impressive and compelling. What is perhaps the most striking are the multiple lines of evidence which point to the need for dark matter. Elemental abundances from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and fundamental anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation both predict very similar baryon (ordinary matter) abundances, yet each describes a completely separate era in the history of the universe in which very different physical processes are occurring. Dark matter is necessary to both describe galaxies and clusters of galaxies, and is a necessary ingredient in the formation of large scale structure. It is this concordance of evidence that makes dark matter more than just a “fudge-factor”; although strange and unexpected, dark matter seems to be a fundamental and necessary component of our universe. Although the composition and nature of dark matter is still unknown, theories like Supersymmetry or Kaluza-Klein theories of extra dimensions provide solid frameworks for attempting to understand dark matter. Of all of the particle candidates for dark matter, perhaps the best motivated is the neutralino. It is a typical WIMP: electrically neutral, weakly interacting, and massive, and through statistical mechanics in the early universe we can calculate abundances for the neutralino today which are consistent with it acting as the dark matter. Other exotic candidates for dark matter exist from axions to Q-balls to WIMPzillas. However outlandish the candidate, the hunt for dark matter continues. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN will begin collisions at 3.5 TeV per beam in 2009-2010, ramping up to 7 TeV per beam most likely in 2011 and beyond, and will search for indications of supersymmetry and dark matter. Indirect searches continue to hunt for gamma rays and antimatter which might provide evidence for dark matter; the current controversy between PAMELA and ATIC and FERMI and HESS results demonstrate the advances and challenges in indirect detection. And finally, direct detection experiments continue to set more stringent limits on neutralino and WIMP scattering cross sections; these limits, as new technology is applied, are set to improve dramatically in the next decade with experiments like Super CDMS, GENIUS, and ZEPLIN IV. Dark matter, of course, is not completely understood and faces challenges. The primary challenge is that it remains undetected in the laboratory. Another tension for dark matter is that it seems to possess too much power on small scales (∼ 1 - 1000 kpc). Numerical simulations of the formation of dark matter halos were performed by Klypin et al. and show that, to explain the average velocity dispersions for the Milky Way and Andromeda, there should be five times more dark matter satellites (dwarf galaxies with a very small ordinary matter content) with circular velocity > 10-20 km/s and mass > 3×108 M within a 570 kpc radius than have been detected.92 In other words, although dark matter is crucial in forming structure, current models form too much structure. Another study, from B. Moore et al., shows that dark matter models produce more steeply rising rotation curves than we see in many low surface brightness galaxies, again suggesting that simulations produce an overabundance of dark matter.93 Of course, discrepancies on small scales may be entirely due to astrophysical processes; for example, photo-heating during reionization and/or supernova feedback particularly affect dwarf galaxies94,95. Although important to consider, these challenges faced by dark matter are dwarfed by the compelling evidence for the necessity of dark matter along with its successes in explaining our universe. What makes this field so rich and vibrant is that work and research continue, and these challenges will lead to deeper understanding in the future. Dark matter is an opportunity to learn more about the fundamental order of the universe. Dark matter provides a tantalizing glimpse beyond the highly successful Standard Model of particle physics. The discovery of neutralinos would prove the validity of supersymmetry and help bridge the “desert” between the electroweak and the Planck scales. But ultimately, we look at dark matter as a mystery, one which will hopefully inspire physics and astronomy students in and out of the classroom. As Einstein said, “The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science.”
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
4. option.
First, the experiment was ok. Unfortunately, there is not "the" dark matter one can search for. What one can search for are for evidence of particular models for dark matter. If you have a model, you can look at what this model predicts, and, in this case, what possibilities would exist to detect dark matter if it would be of this particular form. Say, one possibility would be something similar to an atomic kernel but without electric charge. But with some strong interaction. This model would give some possibility to detect this type of dark matter, because this dark matter could hit some atomic kernels, which would lead to some, in principle visible, results. So, even if the experiment would have been ideal, this would be the death penalty only for this particular model of dark matter, not of dark matter in general.
Second, in some sense we can see dark matter already today. Roughly, we can measure the gravitational field $g_{mn}(x,t)$. This defines $G_{mn}(x,t)$. We can also measure, for all the visible matter, $T_{mn}(x,t)$. Their difference is dark matter. In this sense, "dark matter" can be interpreted as a name for something we can see, what we can measure.
Think about this as how such a thing develops. We start with the Einstein equations $G_{mn}(x,t)-T_{mn}(x,t)=0$. They are fine for the Solar system, for the perihelion of the Mercury, the deflection of light rays near the Sun, GPS and so on, fine - enough to see that GR is much better than Newtonian gravity.
The next step is to see that $G_{mn}(x,t)-T_{mn}(x,t)=0$ fails for galaxies. Once this was established, there are two solutions: a) GR is wrong, b) matter theory is wrong, there is some other matter we don't see. Above possibilities are a priori reasonable, one has to see what happens. But, once it has been established, once and forever, that $G_{mn}(x,t)-T_{mn}(x,t)\neq 0$, the job of the observers shifts. Their job is now to observe this difference $G_{mn}(x,t)-T_{mn}(x,t)$. Once at the moment this shift has happened variant (b) was more popular than (a), this difference $G_{mn}(x,t)-T_{mn}(x,t)$ as not been named "GR error" but "dark matter". One may object that this is a value-laden term which is prejudiced in favor of GR. Ok, but so what. So what we have now are observations of $G_{mn}(x,t)-T_{mn}(x,t)$, and this difference is named "dark matter" $T_{mn}^{dark}(x,t)$.
After this, one can simply try the following straightforward theories: 1.) The "dark matter" (whatever it is) behaves like massive particles with some mass, which does not interact with anything else, would behave. This is what is named "CDM" or "cold dark matter". It appears that it does not really matter how large these particles are, and what is their mass. What matters is that they have a mass, thus, do not have to fly around with speed of light but may exist in rest and with small velocities. What also matters is that they do not interact with usual matter. Once these two simple properties are fixed, the only thing which is unknown is essentially the density of dark matter. So, a pure CDM model adds one additional function to GR with visible matter only, namely the density of CDM. The equation for this type of dark matter is the same as for dust.
The distinguishable alternative is "hot dark matter", HDM, which is essentially the same, except that the dark matter is massless and therefore moves around with the speed of light. Once it (also) does, by construction, not interact with everything else, it essentially moves around freely. like light. This part of dark matter seems ignorable. Even if I have seen claims that some amount of it is necessary for explaining some globular clusters.
The point which matters is that the simple CDM model explains quite a lot of what is visible, if not all. Even if the accepted mainstream model is $\Lambda$CDM, which adds also Einstein's cosmological constant into the picture, there is Wiltshire's timescape cosmology which is pure CDM and yet seems viable.
So, the actual situation is that there is a model - CDM - which explains with sufficient accuracy almost everything, but, by construction, does not give us any idea other than observing $G_{mn}(x,t)-T_{mn}(x,t)$, to observe it. All what one actually can hope for is to invent models where this CDM is not exactly CDM, but in some way interacts with usual matter - and then to use this hypothetical interaction with usual matter to find it. These attempts up to now have failed. The CDM theory itself is unimpressed completely.
Look pal I don't now how old you are. I have worked On surfaces analysis for over 10 years and I have seen and worked wit different electron microscopes, so don't try to impress me with your fancy stabbing words , and you can take your dolphin - sex to your home , which is vulgar ,
I am pro science , but I don't buy all kind of BS and then pad my self on the back and say I am a scientist .
Can you tell me what is your background ?
You need a bigger Helium tank to bring down the temperature of your sensor s , but be careful we are exhausting Helium on this planet , so we will need to find Helium on some exoplanets.Pot, kettle, black again.
[1]Experiment may be inadequate.
[2] Experiment may well be not precise enough...
[3]The Nature of DM makes it difficult to find.....
[4]It is probably still simply being missed...
And of course your usual snide little remark that the fudge factor is exposed does not really make any sense.
It was always known to be a fudge factor when first proposed, just as Einstein's CC [cosmological Constant] but evidence for its existence has grown.
It is though certainly there in at least one form...MACHO and also probable WIMP form . The unknown form is another form of MORE exotic WIMP, of which we are not familiar with.
You fail to understand that science is a discipline in continual progress.
Some advice my friend, you really need to study hard about what you are automatically without thought, going to summarily dismiss.
That's not very bright.
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
paddoboy:
Why do you keep bombing appeals to authority which merely regurgitate the claims and assumptions which have been the subject of serious challenge from logical basis and recent observational basis. Even the author is merely regurgitating the orthodoxy which is now under challenge on all fronts; the author does not even seem to realize that recent astronomical discoveries of Ordinary Matter in space, which was previously 'Dark', now forms a great proportion of the 'Dark' component of the mass to explain the major component of the 'gravitational and motional anomalies' which had been assumed to be due to 'Extraordinary' Matter.
For example there are huge quantities of plasma and dust in nebulae and streams and filaments previously 'unseen'. Also thousands of 'now visible' low-brightness globular clusters, galaxies and galaxy clusters representing many times the 'previously visible' Ordinary Matter content in those regions involved.
And the infinite eternal matter and energy recycling universe can account for all the CMB and Baryon genesis and proportional elementary Hydrogen, Helium and other abundances observed in regions which may vary over recycling evolutionary epochs.
Please stop bombing known claims which are themselves the subject of challenge and discussion using latest information from astro discoveries and reviews of Big Bang assumptions and inconsistencies. Thanks.
Yes, that's what science does: change according to new challenges from all comers which are found to be valid (despite initially labeled "nonsense" due to "experts" kneejerking and avoiding and so delaying self-correction (as in the bicep2 case where non-mainstream observers warned of the problems and mainstream scrutiny was expedited accordingly, and proved the non-mainstream challenges were NOT "nonsense").
Science advances and self-corrects more expeditiously when mainstream scientists address valid challenges properly and not kneejerk from arrogance to label challenges "nonsense" without properly addressing the logically and scientifically valid challenge issues being questioned.
The Irony is palpable, paddoboy. Do you still evade the lesson to be learned by Penrose's regret and caution about not kneejerking to label challenges "nonsense" just because you don't want to properly address that challenge in case your answer may make less sense than that which you label "nonsense" so hastily?
Padoboy, maybe you (and the author of your linked "Dark Matter" introductory "Primer") should actually acquaint yourselves of all those alternative explanations and valid logical and scientific challenges whose validity has been greatly reinforced lately by astronomical discoveries which increasingly obviate the need for "Extraordinary" dark matter because most of the anomalies have been obviated when taking into account all the previously dark but now visible Ordinary Matter.
That way you as well as they, and science discussion in cosmology generally, can advance even quicker towards more correct theory and understanding. Best.
Why do you keep bombing appeals to authority which merely regurgitate the claims and assumptions which have been the subject of serious challenge from logical basis and recent observational basis. Even the author is merely regurgitating the orthodoxy which is now under challenge on all fronts; the author does not even seem to realize that recent astronomical discoveries of Ordinary Matter in space, which was previously 'Dark', now forms a great proportion of the 'Dark' component of the mass to explain the major component of the 'gravitational and motional anomalies' which had been assumed to be due to 'Extraordinary' Matter.
For example there are huge quantities of plasma and dust in nebulae and streams and filaments previously 'unseen'. Also thousands of 'now visible' low-brightness globular clusters, galaxies and galaxy clusters representing many times the 'previously visible' Ordinary Matter content in those regions involved.
And the infinite eternal matter and energy recycling universe can account for all the CMB and Baryon genesis and proportional elementary Hydrogen, Helium and other abundances observed in regions which may vary over recycling evolutionary epochs.
Please stop bombing known claims which are themselves the subject of challenge and discussion using latest information from astro discoveries and reviews of Big Bang assumptions and inconsistencies. Thanks.
Another quick message to the god and expletive deleted and like minded individuals, even scientific failures, as this so far appears to be, is always a progress in science when looking at the big picture.
That's what I posted it for!
The scientists learnt from BICEP2 , they learnt from LIGO, they learnt from the LHC, they learnt from COBE, and they learnt from WMAP......and what will always give them that unique advantage over internet trolls and cranks, is that they are always continuing to learn.
That's the name of the game, not withstanding the many agendas and conspiracies that some on forums like to throw about.
Yes, that's what science does: change according to new challenges from all comers which are found to be valid (despite initially labeled "nonsense" due to "experts" kneejerking and avoiding and so delaying self-correction (as in the bicep2 case where non-mainstream observers warned of the problems and mainstream scrutiny was expedited accordingly, and proved the non-mainstream challenges were NOT "nonsense").
Science advances and self-corrects more expeditiously when mainstream scientists address valid challenges properly and not kneejerk from arrogance to label challenges "nonsense" without properly addressing the logically and scientifically valid challenge issues being questioned.
The Irony is palpable, paddoboy. Do you still evade the lesson to be learned by Penrose's regret and caution about not kneejerking to label challenges "nonsense" just because you don't want to properly address that challenge in case your answer may make less sense than that which you label "nonsense" so hastily?
Padoboy, maybe you (and the author of your linked "Dark Matter" introductory "Primer") should actually acquaint yourselves of all those alternative explanations and valid logical and scientific challenges whose validity has been greatly reinforced lately by astronomical discoveries which increasingly obviate the need for "Extraordinary" dark matter because most of the anomalies have been obviated when taking into account all the previously dark but now visible Ordinary Matter.
That way you as well as they, and science discussion in cosmology generally, can advance even quicker towards more correct theory and understanding. Best.
Last edited:
MFG!! Talk about fire and brimstone!!
Oh, OK, you read it in a reputable cosmology article/paper! Good stuff!
The fact remains that DM is still needed.
But if you have evidence otherwise, instead of wasting your time here, write up a paper and get it professionally peer reviewed.
Any inconsistencies or challenges that exist re DM or any other part of cosmology, is being attended to professionally in scientific ranks, undesturbed by irrelevant discussions/claims/pseudoscience that pollutes public forums such as this.
Yep, that's what I said. Mainstream science addresses all appropriate challenges but at the same time weeds out the pseudoscience and crank nonsense which sadly even at times can appear from within scientific circles.
Oh, and again, your knee problems and/or jerking needs attending to.
And of course our professional scientists are and always have been looking at many alternatives....
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Particle Dark Matter: Evidence, Candidates and Constraints
abstract:
In this review article, we discuss the current status of particle dark matter, including experimental evidence and theoretical motivations. We discuss a wide array of candidates for particle dark matter, but focus on neutralinos in models of supersymmetry and Kaluza-Klein dark matter in models of universal extra dimensions. We devote much of our attention to direct and indirect detection techniques, the constraints placed by these experiments and the reach of future experimental efforts.
or this paper on the history of DM.....
https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04909
Although dark matter is a central element of modern cosmology, the history of how it became accepted as part of the dominant paradigm is often ignored or condensed into a brief anecdotical account focused around the work of a few pioneering scientists. The aim of this review is to provide the reader with a broader historical persp
ective on the observational discoveries and the theoretical arguments that led the scientific community to adopt dark matter as an essential part of the standard cosmological model.
To show the cranks, trolls and fools for what they are.
How do you know all this?
Oh, OK, you read it in a reputable cosmology article/paper! Good stuff!
The fact remains that DM is still needed.
But if you have evidence otherwise, instead of wasting your time here, write up a paper and get it professionally peer reviewed.
Would you like to spray that again?
Scientific papers will of course be linked to whenever appropriate.
Any inconsistencies or challenges that exist re DM or any other part of cosmology, is being attended to professionally in scientific ranks, undesturbed by irrelevant discussions/claims/pseudoscience that pollutes public forums such as this.
Those changes occur in professional scientific circles where sadly the claims of amateurs like you and me are irrelevant.
[You seem to have a knee problem or jerking problem: Medical attention is advised]
Yep, that's what I said. Mainstream science addresses all appropriate challenges but at the same time weeds out the pseudoscience and crank nonsense which sadly even at times can appear from within scientific circles.
Off topic, but as I told you in the proper thread, all you need is a reputable link to support your nonsensical claim.
Oh, and again, your knee problems and/or jerking needs attending to.
You need some reputable verification of that claim, otherwise it is just another run-of-the-mill crank nonsense.
And of course our professional scientists are and always have been looking at many alternatives....
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Particle Dark Matter: Evidence, Candidates and Constraints
abstract:
In this review article, we discuss the current status of particle dark matter, including experimental evidence and theoretical motivations. We discuss a wide array of candidates for particle dark matter, but focus on neutralinos in models of supersymmetry and Kaluza-Klein dark matter in models of universal extra dimensions. We devote much of our attention to direct and indirect detection techniques, the constraints placed by these experiments and the reach of future experimental efforts.
or this paper on the history of DM.....
https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04909
Although dark matter is a central element of modern cosmology, the history of how it became accepted as part of the dominant paradigm is often ignored or condensed into a brief anecdotical account focused around the work of a few pioneering scientists. The aim of this review is to provide the reader with a broader historical persp
ective on the observational discoveries and the theoretical arguments that led the scientific community to adopt dark matter as an essential part of the standard cosmological model.
I'm sure that is being done at this very moment, while you and I dither and dather on a public forum answering questions, and posting science articles [on my part] and promoting pseudoscience and other rubbish, on the part of others.
Here's another paper.......
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.00400.pdf
Abstract
Searches for dark matter (DM) constituents are presently mainly focused on axions and WIMPs despite the fact that far higher mass constituents are viable. We discuss and dispute whether axions exist and those arguments for WIMPs which arise from weak scale supersymmetry. We focus on the highest possible masses and argue that, since if they constitute all DM they cannot be baryonic, they must uniquely be primordial black holes. Observational constraints require them to be of intermediate masses mostly between a hundred and a hundred thousand solar masses. Known search strategies for such PIMBHs include wide binaries, CMB distortion and, most promisingly, extended microlensing experiments.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.00400.pdf
Abstract
Searches for dark matter (DM) constituents are presently mainly focused on axions and WIMPs despite the fact that far higher mass constituents are viable. We discuss and dispute whether axions exist and those arguments for WIMPs which arise from weak scale supersymmetry. We focus on the highest possible masses and argue that, since if they constitute all DM they cannot be baryonic, they must uniquely be primordial black holes. Observational constraints require them to be of intermediate masses mostly between a hundred and a hundred thousand solar masses. Known search strategies for such PIMBHs include wide binaries, CMB distortion and, most promisingly, extended microlensing experiments.
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
paddoboy:
No one was "talking of fire and brimstone". I am ATHEIST. You are the only one that just made that gratuitous insertion into our exchange. Please stop that childish and dishonest tactic, paddoboy. Thanks.
But you are not doing anything of the kind by doing that. How many times has James R, others, and I, pointed out that in a serious science discussion it is not fair engagement to just bomb with your unargued appeals to authority and your own beliefs based in faith in those appeals to authority without actually scientifically addressing and arguing the points made on its merits? How many times will it take to get that subtle but important point through to you?
Do you realize how absurd your above sophistry is? First you admit that I am fully familiar with current astronomical discoveries of normal matter previously 'dark'. I just told you that that newly discovered ordinary matter is many times that of previously visible ordinary matter in the regions involved. And then you still come back with your own uncomprehending faith based belief in the now obsolete claim denying the new discoveries! And then to top it off, you merely re-iterate your own stubborn opinion that "The fact remains that DM is still needed"!
But can't you see? The NON-normal DM is now no longer needed to explain things. The newly discovered Ordinary matter is sufficient to account for much of the anomalous motions etc; and the rest is just fine tuning of observed quantities and forces etc in play locally in the observed features/regions.
So, paddoboy, you can now put an end to your repeated opinions and bombings which are now obsolete due to new astronomical discoveries which mainstream cosmologists (and pop-sci writers whom you read) have yet to fully encompass as to its total implications for previously "accepted" and "awarded" assumptions, interpretations and hypotheses and claims.
That is a denial tactic, and childish, paddoboy. Not seriously engaging in or properly reading and acknowledging the points made. If you don't know how all that is also explicable just as well (if not more so scientifically and logically without the problems of big bangs and DM fudges etc) by the infinite eternal universe recycling process, then just admit it and stay silent on the matter.
"Appropriate" would be where you argue properly for their claims and assertions.
"Inappropriate" would be where you just bomb appeal to authority links without any understanding of either case being made by orthodoxy or challenging perspective.
James R, others, and I, have already pointed that subtlety out for you many times. Let it sink in before attempting your unargued bombing again. Thanks.
And "professionals" may be "expedited" in "attending to inconsistencies" by anyone, mainstream or not, who brings a legitimate scrutiny and challenge which should be addressed without kneejerking to "nonsense" calls (learn from Penrose's regret and advice in that area).
Your faith based opinions and unargued appeals to authority are certainly irrelevant anywhere and everywhere serious science discussion is held.
Whereas my and others' points made in scientific logical valid case argued on merits are certainly relevant anywhere and everywhere serious science and logic discussion is held.
Can you now (after James R etc have pointed out those many subtleties to you) tell why your opinions etc are not relevant, while mine and certain others argued and valid science and logic based points are relevant, in a serious science discussions here and anywhere, paddoboy? Think about it a while; let it all sink in enough to prevent you from kneejerking again.
And any and all valid challenges and scrutiny helps science advance quicker and better towards more correct and complete explanations. The elitist attitude implicit in your 'exclusivity' for actual scientific scrutiny and challenge and correction is what allowed disasters like bicep2 to happen, and continue for so long despite non-mainstream already correcting them. Avoid jumping on the bandwagon of an elitism that is a trap for believers without external reference and grounding checks and balance that is timely and not delayed too long by said elitism "kneejerking", paddoboy.
I merely posted based on known science re extreme magnetic fields and extreme bodies dyniamics in question. It is you that claims that extreme magnetic etc forces and energy losses do not explain the observed orbital decay rates.
So, paddoboy, have you found any references which properly quantified and considered such extreme E-M forces and losses as possible explanation instead of going to GW GR interpretations of observations? You haven't. So what is you point in this discussion? None.
Please refer above where the need for non-ordinary dm is no longer indicated based on new astronomical discoveries of ordinary matter which can explain much of the anomalous motions etc. Then please stop bombing with the claims that are effectively being falsified as I have pointed out to you while you keep kneejerking to unargued appeals to authority and your own science ignorant faith in same.
Take time out, paddoboy. Think what James R, others, and I, have pointed out for your benefit. Then come back as an objective scientist and not the blind faith driven believer you currently demonstrate yourself to be so far. Best.
MFG!! Talk about fire and brimstone!!
No one was "talking of fire and brimstone". I am ATHEIST. You are the only one that just made that gratuitous insertion into our exchange. Please stop that childish and dishonest tactic, paddoboy. Thanks.
To show the cranks, trolls and fools for what they are.
But you are not doing anything of the kind by doing that. How many times has James R, others, and I, pointed out that in a serious science discussion it is not fair engagement to just bomb with your unargued appeals to authority and your own beliefs based in faith in those appeals to authority without actually scientifically addressing and arguing the points made on its merits? How many times will it take to get that subtle but important point through to you?
Do you realize how absurd your above sophistry is? First you admit that I am fully familiar with current astronomical discoveries of normal matter previously 'dark'. I just told you that that newly discovered ordinary matter is many times that of previously visible ordinary matter in the regions involved. And then you still come back with your own uncomprehending faith based belief in the now obsolete claim denying the new discoveries! And then to top it off, you merely re-iterate your own stubborn opinion that "The fact remains that DM is still needed"!
But can't you see? The NON-normal DM is now no longer needed to explain things. The newly discovered Ordinary matter is sufficient to account for much of the anomalous motions etc; and the rest is just fine tuning of observed quantities and forces etc in play locally in the observed features/regions.
So, paddoboy, you can now put an end to your repeated opinions and bombings which are now obsolete due to new astronomical discoveries which mainstream cosmologists (and pop-sci writers whom you read) have yet to fully encompass as to its total implications for previously "accepted" and "awarded" assumptions, interpretations and hypotheses and claims.
Would you like to spray that again?
That is a denial tactic, and childish, paddoboy. Not seriously engaging in or properly reading and acknowledging the points made. If you don't know how all that is also explicable just as well (if not more so scientifically and logically without the problems of big bangs and DM fudges etc) by the infinite eternal universe recycling process, then just admit it and stay silent on the matter.
"Appropriate" would be where you argue properly for their claims and assertions.
"Inappropriate" would be where you just bomb appeal to authority links without any understanding of either case being made by orthodoxy or challenging perspective.
James R, others, and I, have already pointed that subtlety out for you many times. Let it sink in before attempting your unargued bombing again. Thanks.
And "professionals" may be "expedited" in "attending to inconsistencies" by anyone, mainstream or not, who brings a legitimate scrutiny and challenge which should be addressed without kneejerking to "nonsense" calls (learn from Penrose's regret and advice in that area).
Your faith based opinions and unargued appeals to authority are certainly irrelevant anywhere and everywhere serious science discussion is held.
Whereas my and others' points made in scientific logical valid case argued on merits are certainly relevant anywhere and everywhere serious science and logic discussion is held.
Can you now (after James R etc have pointed out those many subtleties to you) tell why your opinions etc are not relevant, while mine and certain others argued and valid science and logic based points are relevant, in a serious science discussions here and anywhere, paddoboy? Think about it a while; let it all sink in enough to prevent you from kneejerking again.
And any and all valid challenges and scrutiny helps science advance quicker and better towards more correct and complete explanations. The elitist attitude implicit in your 'exclusivity' for actual scientific scrutiny and challenge and correction is what allowed disasters like bicep2 to happen, and continue for so long despite non-mainstream already correcting them. Avoid jumping on the bandwagon of an elitism that is a trap for believers without external reference and grounding checks and balance that is timely and not delayed too long by said elitism "kneejerking", paddoboy.
I merely posted based on known science re extreme magnetic fields and extreme bodies dyniamics in question. It is you that claims that extreme magnetic etc forces and energy losses do not explain the observed orbital decay rates.
So, paddoboy, have you found any references which properly quantified and considered such extreme E-M forces and losses as possible explanation instead of going to GW GR interpretations of observations? You haven't. So what is you point in this discussion? None.
You need some reputable verification of that claim, otherwise it is just another run-of-the-mill crank nonsense.
And of course our professional scientists are and always have been looking at many alternatives....
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Particle Dark Matter: Evidence, Candidates and Constraints
abstract:
In this review article, we discuss the current status of particle dark matter, including experimental evidence and theoretical motivations. We discuss a wide array of candidates for particle dark matter, but focus on neutralinos in models of supersymmetry and Kaluza-Klein dark matter in models of universal extra dimensions. We devote much of our attention to direct and indirect detection techniques, the constraints placed by these experiments and the reach of future experimental efforts.
or this paper on the history of DM.....
https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04909
Although dark matter is a central element of modern cosmology, the history of how it became accepted as part of the dominant paradigm is often ignored or condensed into a brief anecdotical account focused around the work of a few pioneering scientists. The aim of this review is to provide the reader with a broader historical persp
ective on the observational discoveries and the theoretical arguments that led the scientific community to adopt dark matter as an essential part of the standard cosmological model.
I'm sure that is being done at this very moment, while you and I dither and dather on a public forum answering questions, and posting science articles [on my part] and promoting pseudoscience and other rubbish, on the part of others.
Please refer above where the need for non-ordinary dm is no longer indicated based on new astronomical discoveries of ordinary matter which can explain much of the anomalous motions etc. Then please stop bombing with the claims that are effectively being falsified as I have pointed out to you while you keep kneejerking to unargued appeals to authority and your own science ignorant faith in same.
Take time out, paddoboy. Think what James R, others, and I, have pointed out for your benefit. Then come back as an objective scientist and not the blind faith driven believer you currently demonstrate yourself to be so far. Best.
Last edited:
So you say....
I have good reason to doubt you and your sincerity.
My reputable links refuting your nonsense will certainly continue when appropriate.
Obviously they totally refute what you as a lay person has to say, hence your hysterics on that issue.
On your continued misunderstandings re "appeals to authority".....
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=appeals to authority
What is argument from authority?
The argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common argument form which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise, or when the authority cited is not a true expert.
What does it mean to appeal to a higher authority?
In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism. The appeal to authorityrelies on an argument of the form: A is an authority on a particular topic. A says something about that topic.
What is the fallacy of appeal to unqualified authority?
DEFINITION: The arguer appeals to an inappropriate or unqualified authority (expert) as the basis for accepting a conclusion. The viewpoint of such an individual is logically irrelevant. However, an appeal to a legitimate expert (i.e., Einstein in physics; eye-witness in court case) is a type of inductive argument.
Absurd?
Not at all. A mark of many trolls and cranks....by quoting or pasting knowledge they have learnt and picked up from reputable links such as I have given, then 5 minutes later deny or fabricate some other issue supposedly but mistakenly based on what they learnt from mainstream and reputable links such as I always give.
AND FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME THAT IS FALSE
Now all you need to do is post a reputable reference supporting what you say....easy peasy!
Except you can't and you wont.
Fairy tales my son, fairy tales. But again, if you can find anything [anything!] supporting your claim, be my guest.
The rest of your nonsensical often repeated diatribe is ignored and I am a busy little beaver today, so do not have the time to address such nonsense, just as our professionals [at least twice so far] do not have the time to address some of the other unsupported, unscientific claims that abound on public forums.
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
paddoboy:
Please tell what these "good reasons" are, paddoboy. Is it only your own need to mischaracterize in order to straw man and deny using irrelevant personal opinions of your own? Yes it is.
I am ATHEIST, paddoboy. That is why I can be an objective SCIENTIST without irrelevant personal beliefs getting in the way. What you keep insinuating in order to make blanket insults and dismissals is not my problem but your own incessant dishonest tactics, paddoboy. It is not seemly in a science discussion. Please leave it out. Thanks.
And appeals to authority which is itself in question in the discussion, is also inadmissible unless argued properly after it addresses those questions which brought it into question in the first instance. You and they have not argued on the actual matter raised. So, inadmissible (recall Penrose's case and warning about "experts" and "nonsense" kneejerk reaction). Is that too subtle for you, paddoboy?
What your personal opinions are, and whatever your imaginings may be, is not relevant to science, paddoboy.
What I have posted reflects known science based E-M arguments and mainstream astronomical recent discoveries.
My post content and inherent arguments trump your contrary personal opinion and unargued beliefs and appeals to authority anytime, paddoboy.
Take some time off to let it all sink in before you jump and kneejerk, paddoboy. Best.
So you say....
I have good reason to doubt you and your sincerity.
Please tell what these "good reasons" are, paddoboy. Is it only your own need to mischaracterize in order to straw man and deny using irrelevant personal opinions of your own? Yes it is.
I am ATHEIST, paddoboy. That is why I can be an objective SCIENTIST without irrelevant personal beliefs getting in the way. What you keep insinuating in order to make blanket insults and dismissals is not my problem but your own incessant dishonest tactics, paddoboy. It is not seemly in a science discussion. Please leave it out. Thanks.
My reputable links refuting your nonsense will certainly continue when appropriate.
Obviously they totally refute what you as a lay person has to say, hence your hysterics on that issue.
On your continued misunderstandings re "appeals to authority".....
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=appeals to authority
What is argument from authority?
The argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common argument form which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise, or when the authority cited is not a true expert.
What does it mean to appeal to a higher authority?
In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism. The appeal to authorityrelies on an argument of the form: A is an authority on a particular topic. A says something about that topic.
What is the fallacy of appeal to unqualified authority?
DEFINITION: The arguer appeals to an inappropriate or unqualified authority (expert) as the basis for accepting a conclusion. The viewpoint of such an individual is logically irrelevant. However, an appeal to a legitimate expert (i.e., Einstein in physics; eye-witness in court case) is a type of inductive argument.
Absurd?
Not at all. A mark of many trolls and cranks....by quoting or pasting knowledge they have learnt and picked up from reputable links such as I have given, then 5 minutes later deny or fabricate some other issue supposedly but mistakenly based on what they learnt from mainstream and reputable links such as I always give.
AND FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME THAT IS FALSE
Now all you need to do is post a reputable reference supporting what you say....easy peasy!
Except you can't and you wont.
Fairy tales my son, fairy tales. But again, if you can find anything [anything!] supporting your claim, be my guest.
The rest of your nonsensical often repeated diatribe is ignored and I am a busy little beaver today, so do not have the time to address such nonsense, just as our professionals [at least twice so far] do not have the time to address some of the other unsupported, unscientific claims that abound on public forums.
And appeals to authority which is itself in question in the discussion, is also inadmissible unless argued properly after it addresses those questions which brought it into question in the first instance. You and they have not argued on the actual matter raised. So, inadmissible (recall Penrose's case and warning about "experts" and "nonsense" kneejerk reaction). Is that too subtle for you, paddoboy?
What your personal opinions are, and whatever your imaginings may be, is not relevant to science, paddoboy.
What I have posted reflects known science based E-M arguments and mainstream astronomical recent discoveries.
My post content and inherent arguments trump your contrary personal opinion and unargued beliefs and appeals to authority anytime, paddoboy.
Take some time off to let it all sink in before you jump and kneejerk, paddoboy. Best.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Well, I thought the issue was settled, but since you ask, I do not think the failure is on my part.
In that one collection of words, you used four ellipses, three quoted words and one question mark.
Ellipses often mean thoughts unspoken but implied, but there are many other meanings.
Quoted words typically mean the word is meant to have some other meaning, but there are many other applications.
In act, the number of words that weren't in quotes is zero.
And the question mark means you're asking a question, except it wasn't a question.
So, in the space of five words, you included no less than eight ambiguous marks, each open to interpretation.
I would say that a request for clarification was warranted.