Astronomy / Space What drives my Star Ship

=[Straight copy paste from my long time webfav TPOD]=

Dark Matter in the Light


Dark-Matter-fractal-550x341.jpg

“Dark Matter Detection” by Sal Hunter

Mar 25, 2015
Undetectable, unseen, and unknown.
In previous Picture of the Day articles about the existence of “dark matter,” it was noted that it is an add-on, or ad-hoc, theory because the lack of luminous matter in the Universe is a problem for “Big Bang cosmology.” The Big Bang is supposed to be what brought all matter and energy, including gravity, into existence. All modern cosmologists, with few exceptions, accept the theory without question.

NASA launched the Planck Mission on May 14, 2009. The instruments onboard the satellite were designed to measure temperature fluctuations theorized to exist in lower mass density regions of the Universe. Since the Big Bang theory does not account for such regions—matter and energy should be evenly distributed—Planck was sent to confirm their existence, supporting the dubious results from the WMAP mission.

According to conventional physics, dark matter is a necessary addition to their models since there is not enough gravity in the Universe to account for galaxy formation, or those galaxies assembling themselves into clusters. Galaxy clusters should have slowed down considerably over the last few billion years and not maintained such wild recessional velocities, some of which are said to approach the speed of light.

Astronomers came up with a dark (or undetectable) form of matter when they noticed stars on the edge of a spiral galaxy orbiting its nucleus with the same angular speed as stars closer to its center. As Newtonian mechanics insists, stars farther away from the center should be moving more slowly, so astronomers assumed dark matter was imparting extra velocity to them.

Studies from Case Western Reserve University in Great Britain cast doubt on the theories of dark matter, saying that they are most likely based on incorrect assumptions about WMAP observational analysis. Stacy McGaugh, an astrophysicist there wrote: “Until both known and un-anticipated astrophysical sources are excluded as reasons for the observed signal, claims about it being due to dark matter are exaggerated at best.”

Electric Universe theory, on the other hand, adopts a far different approach regarding the nature of the cosmos. Astrophysicist Hannes Alfvén elucidated his “electric galaxies” theory in 1981. Alfvén (a Nobel laureate) noticed that galaxies and their motions resemble a homopolar motor. A homopolar motor operates because electric currents create magnetic fields, causing a metal disc to spin at a rate directly proportional to the supplied current.

Galactic discs act like the conductive plates in said homopolar, or Faraday, motors, named for their inventor, Michael Faraday. Gigantic Birkeland currents flow into galaxies, so stars in their discs are powered by those currents. Galaxies, in turn, receive their power from intergalactic Birkeland currents that are visible in space as filamentary structures traceable by their magnetic fields.

Birkeland currents are drawn toward each other with long-range attraction greater than the force of gravity. Dark matter (and dark energy) influences can be dismissed when electric currents flowing through dusty plasma are recognized as that which energizes and sustains clusters, galaxies, and stars.

------------------

Just sharing in case you've never see it
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I believe though that there is a good bit of evidence against Alfven's plasma centric cosmology. There is also a fair few problems with dark matter and dark energy as well. Always interesting to read this stuff though. Some rep for you.
 
Studies from Case Western Reserve University in Great Britain
Ummm.... what? Where?

cast doubt on the theories of dark matter, saying that they are most likely based on incorrect assumptions about WMAP observational analysis. Stacy McGaugh, an astrophysicist there wrote: “Until both known and un-anticipated astrophysical sources are excluded as reasons for the observed signal, claims about it being due to dark matter are exaggerated at best.”
Well there's some proponents of other theories still, and those theories can be pretty respectable even if they're not popular. That said

Electric Universe theory, on the other hand, adopts a far different approach regarding the nature of the cosmos.
This one isn't respectable. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe

edit to add: Oh and this bit is confused at best -
Galaxy clusters should have slowed down considerably over the last few billion years and not maintained such wild recessional velocities, some of which are said to approach the speed of light.
 
Last edited:
Ummm.... what? Where?


Well there's some proponents of other theories still, and those theories can be pretty respectable even if they're not popular. That said


This one isn't respectable. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe

edit to add: Oh and this bit is confused at best -

It's is unfortunate that the best contribution you seem capable of making is to ridicule.

But then ridicule is the resort of fools.

I suggest the popularity of the Dark Matter theory is that it is open to analogy and hypothesis.

Other, equally important theories are available, but rather less tangible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergravity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_field_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry

Ultimately, there is no certainty. All theories fall down eventually.
 
It's is unfortunate that the best contribution you seem capable of making is to ridicule.

I don't think I ridiculed anything. I linked to one page critical of the Electric Universe ideas, which also links to further critical pages.

I think dark matter as an idea provides an explanation for a lot of observations, and it has some competitors which offer interesting but currently to me uncompelling alternatives. Although I didn't actually ridicule EU in my post - I simply said it wasn't respectable - I do think it is unsupportable and essentially crackpot. And that is why it hasn't got any respect to speak of in the astronomical community.
 
Well, apparently my overly clever play on words (crackpot, respect, community) was enough for an infraction of sorts. No worry.

I do think it is unsupportable and essentially crackpot

So what do you base this on. Because the same could be said for the ever changing big bang and dark things. Just look at the to and fro with their own theory. What magical particle invisible anti-force powers will the wizardly math science require next (read the side box). After all, if my equation says nothings there, then it has to be so.

Of course there are popular sects in the communities (however you can define that). It would be dishonest of the controlling faction to not admit that they despise ideas that challenge their foundation. More rare are the institutions willing to accept credible possibilities and undiscovered science.

Do you believe there is 'wind' in space? Of course you don't. That's too easy. I shouldn't toy you with such a little straw.

You would know that every time they mention 'gas' they are not talking about the state of matter that we know on earth as gas.
As if there is some giant million billion LY wave of anti-gravity smashing the puny galaxy clusters.
What it is, is plasma, the fourth state of matter.

Go ahead look it up.
 
Last edited:
So what do you base this on. Because the same could be said for the ever changing big bang and dark things. Just look at the to and fro with their own theory. What magical particle invisible anti-force powers will the wizardly math science require next (read the side box). After all, if my equation says nothings there, then it has to be so.

Of course there are popular sects in the communities (however you can define that). It would be dishonest of the controlling faction to not admit that they despise ideas that challenge their foundation. More rare are the institutions willing to accept credible possibilities and undiscovered science.
With both dark matter and dark energy we find they explain pretty well a lot of observations, and in some cases have issues. We haven't made a lab detection of dark matter yet, we have very little theoretical motivation for dark energy, and cold dark matter may have issues with the amount of small scale structure. They both have competitors with their own strengths and weaknesses (MOND, modified gravity theories). All need something fundamentally odd to be happening (perhaps least odd in the case of dark matter, since we already have detected particles that technically qualify as dark matter but not the kind we need astronomically). All are getting researched still. I think that you have a misguided idea of what is going on if you think there's a 'controlling faction' or that there are few institutions willing to accept 'credible possibilities and undiscovered science'.

Electric universe and plasma cosmology ideas in contrast make predictions that are bad, fail to make predictions of even astrophysics without the dark sector (EU has a completely different idea of what stars are, and have different ideas of planetary physics). It's not slightly wrong like dark matter might be, or very possibly wrong but still making predictions that line up with current observations as with dark energy, it's just plainly wrong in the sense that it doesn't match up with observations at all. It doesn't solve any problems.

The difference is that when you find an idea is wrong you should discard it - just like we discarded cosmologies without the dark sector. The EU and plasma cosmology are wrong and yet people cling to them and won't let go.

When you say 'After all, if my equation says nothings there, then it has to be so.' you do realise that's basically exactly the opposite of what we've been doing? We've been looking at our ideas which say 'nothing's there' and seeing they don't match what we see, so we have to find something to add in to our equations.

Do you believe there is 'wind' in space? Of course you don't. That's too easy. I shouldn't toy you with such a little straw.
Of course I do. Feedback mechanisms that generate gas outflows are absolutely vital in our understanding of galaxy evolution.

You would know that every time they mention 'gas' they are not talking about the state of matter that we know on earth as gas.
As if there is some giant million billion LY wave of anti-gravity smashing the puny galaxy clusters.
What it is, is plasma, the fourth state of matter.
And of course I know when what we're talking about is plasma. EU proponents have a strange idea that astrophysicists don't account for plasma physics, which isn't true, although admittedly we often neglect it when it doesn't have a significant impact on what we're doing.
 
What is all this 'we' business?

The universe is at war with those who propose that an egg should be broken on its smaller end and those who demand it must be broken on its bigger end.

Can you imagine what will happen if the wrong side wins?

Planes will fall out of the sky, the earth will stop rotating. People will be deafened by owls continual hooting.
 
Seriously, it is quite odd the way the we persona was used in this sense. Perhaps another manifest of dark interactions. The crackpot big bangers cling to the darkest of tendrils for it's very existence.

edd, did you really read the arsty you linked and the supporting 2006 report as well? I'm just not sure who your speaking for.
 
I used 'we' in the perfectly ordinary sense of 'myself and other people', here being myself as an astrophysicist and the overwhelming majority of the rest of that community.

I read both those and the 2006 report and the papers that it stemmed from.
 
I hope we don't get too wrapped up in this 'we', 'us' thing. It is a perfectly acceptable term and refers to oneself and the consensus of opinion.
I do though understand how people can be surprised by some of the terminology used in scientific circles. I remember being in a meeting with a certain standards organisation and heard people quoting me and using my surname only. I remember thinking how bloody rude, thankfully during a break a more experienced colleague put me right before I made a total fool of myself.
The Astronomy forum is an oasis of sanity in this otherwise mad collection of forums. Healthy debate here should be welcomed and it is fine to say someone is wrong or incorrect but provide a balanced counter argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom