/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15872838

50% of observations can be explained by 13% of the matter.

>>15872838
sus

>>15872838
We should go for something non-niggerish for future of science, like calling it "unxeplained phenomena" would be much fancier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seNFB_A2YdA

take the electric pill

>>15872838
Give me your most schizophrenic explanation for what Dark matter and Dark energy are. Like >>15870800 if you're feeling inspired.

>>15873154
dark matter and dark energy are clumsy epicycles bolted onto the fundamentally deficient theory of general relativity which falls apart when attempting to explain the behavior of orbits beyond the solar system; physicists and astronomers have essentially been playing with themselves and scamming taxpayers for more than a century

>>15872838
LMAO, DM is most probably just primordial black holes, and there is evidence dark energy is generated by them.
There are good chances planet 9 is a primordial black hole, having one so close would be great for science.

>Dark
That's very dehumanising to BIPOC folks. We need to think of something that is more neutral and promotes inclusivity and diversity.

>>15872838
where my visible energy at?

>>15873021
'dark matter' is a technically precise term because the observations are transparent to electromagnetic interactions, hence 'dark', and they also behave like matter.

'dark energy' was a joke phrase a scientist came up with to take the piss and naturally it stuck.

>>15873154
The stars aren't something large really far away, they are something a lot smaller and a lot closer, operating in a medium that's possibly not empty space.
Dark matter/energy is not a "thing" but an excuse came up to justify the current model.
And when your model consists of 95% excuses it's time to go back to the drawing board.

>>15874690
>and they also behave like matter.
how do you know that if it can't be observed?
just because you're incapable of interpreting outside of the context of what little physics you understand about the tiny 5% of the universe thats visible doesn't mean that everything in the universe is subject to that physics. you'll never understand dark matter until you're willing to acknowledge the glaringly obvious fact that you're entirely ignorant about 95% of the universe as well as being mostly ignorant about the remaining 5%

>>15874690
>because the observations are transparent to electromagnetic interactions

>only check specific frequencies
>only check above a certain a certain luminosity
>lol it must be transparent, lets call it dark matter XD

>>15876696
We have deep enough imaging in a wide enough range of frequencies (a fucking lot of them, not just "specific frequencies") that its absurdly unlikely that we wouldn't have seen it, unless its hypothetical E&M interactions defy what we currently know about physics. So even if you're right, it still requires totally new physics.

>>15874767
>medium that's possibly not empty space.
You do realize that's basically what dark energy means, right? There's some kind of energy associated with "empty" space.

There certainly is inertia against new ideas, but dark matter and dark energy (which very few people think actually have anything to do with each other other than the similar names) aren't actually all that new of ideas. A lot of people would very much like to disprove them or find new, better theories. The person who does will win an automatic Nobel prize.

>>15876631
It's not really "5% of the universe," since it's the mass-energy content of the universe in the LCDM model. If lambda is just a cosmological constant (i.e. just a number that you need in the equations) and not per se energy, then you couldn't really call it stuff. And even if it is something like vacuum energy, counting it as part of the "stuff" in the universe might be misleading.

To your question, though. It interacts gravitationally, and many physicists suspect it interacts via the weak force as well (the WIMP model). I think a better way to say it is that we have good reason to think it's a particle.

>>15873626
MACHOs have long been deboonked.

>>15873204
Sure, but epicycles were still indicative of new physics. The new physics sure looks more like new matter more than MOND.

This is the thing that really gets me about dark matter "deniers." They call us frauds for saying we need something new to explain observations, and then propose something new to explain the observations. It's literally just tisming about the name.

>>15873021
You can constrain the properties of an unknown thing and rule out explanations of it without ever figuring out precisely what it is.

>>15876773
>So even if you're right, it still requires totally new physics.
Not new physics, just abandoning the nonsense of the gravity-only model.

>>15873154
Dark matter are the souls of the death
Dark energy is God

>>15876791
The only other long range forces are electric and magnetic fields. Galactic magnetic fields are tiny, tens of microGauss. Electric fields aren't long range in practice because of Debye Scree ning. They would also not explain why objects with different charge-mass ratios orbit at the same speed. So nope.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWW_mtihc1Q

>>15874690
>they also behave like matter.
how can you characterize the behavior of something you can't observe

>'dark matter' is a technically precise term because the observations are transparent
so wouldn't "transparent matter" be the precise term? if it was dark it would still block light from being transmitted though it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISi8hH-QC_Y

here it is claimed that JWST imaging of NGC 7319 demonstrates a high redshift quasar is in fact a foreground object to a low redshift galaxy, undermining the presumptions behind things like hubble's law

>>15872838
I don't care about your made up religion but don't force it onto me

>>15878718
It doesn't demonstrate that at all. There is nothing in the image that tells you it is in front of the low redshift galaxy. What we can say is that it is definitely not in the foreground, because the quasar spectrum shows absorbtion lines at the redshift of the galaxy. So it's not foreground.

>>15876773
> deboonked
That doesn't mean what you believe it means

>>15879206
Dark Energy Star Universe

Question for anyone who actually knows anything: how do we know gravitons themselves don't have mass? What if dark matter is really the gravitons making more gravity?

>>15879030
You don't think a dense dust lane would obscure the visible light?

>>15880434
Dust lanes are not totally opaque. And the quasar may be redder than typical, suggesting it may have been reddened by dust.

>>15872838
The only things humans directly experience and interact with is photons and their effect on electrons so all our phenomenology is really quantum electrodynamics. All our "particle detectors" infer particles through their effect on photon distributions. The higgs boson was "detected" through an anomolous bump in the otherwise expected photon statistics. We are basically confined electromagnetism so no surprise dark matter is difficult to detect directly

>>15881077
A dust lane that's a prominent feature of a whole galactic arm? Please. And even if dust were reddening light shining through, this mechanism would be a simple filter and not a redshift.

>>15881163
>A dust lane that's a prominent feature of a whole galactic arm?
Doesn't mean it's opaque. The fact it makes the galaxy brown there shows some visible light gets through. There would be no change in colour.
>would be a simple filter and not a redshift.
That's what reddening means. It preferentially scatters blue light, it has nothing to do with the redshift of the quasar.

>>15879661
gravitons don't exist, dark matter doesn't exist either

>>15878718
JWST disproving the big bang again
and yet again the """"scientists""" will ignore the evidence to protect the science dogma of their atheistic religion, once again demonstrating that atheists can't do science.

>>15882925
See:
>>15879030
What the data says =\= what you want it to say.

>>15872869

>>15872838
no

>>15882943
>nooooo, not much big bang religious cosmology!!!!
>you can't use observational evidence to contradict muh scientism religious dogma!!!!

>>15886664
Explain how the observational evidence proves the quasar is foreground.

>>15873154
Newtonian mechanics break down at large speeds.
General relativity breaks down at large scales.
There's a correction to it which has not been discovered. Dark matter is a red herring.
No, I never studied astrophysics or GR during my degree. I became a code monkey.

>>15887464
That's what's called "a hypothesis", the interesting part of science is validating it observationally.
Lots of modified gravity models have been tried, none of them work in all cases. Unlike the even simple models of dark matter.

>>15874663
when scientists say ''Dark'' something, it's because they have no fucking clue how it works. Same with archaeologists and ''used for ritualistic purposes''

>>15872838
there's no such thing as dark energy, and we know what dark matter is now

>>15887449
seethe and cope

>>15887994
I asked about the quasar. Can you really not defined anything? Back to spamming the same plot.

The plot assumes that galaxies have a fixed size at all redshifts. In standard cosmology galaxies evolve, and so there is absolutely no way you can make that assumption. The plot is meaningless for cosmologies like LCDM.

And before you say "galaxies aren't observed to evolve with redshift": JWST has shown many times that these galaxies have less heavy elements, less chemical enrichment than modern galaxies. And chemical abundance doesn't depend on cosmology, so the fact that galaxies evolve destroys the assumption behind the plot and tired light models (again).

https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.08516
https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.08255
https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5047

>>15888113
no one has posted that plot before in this thread, retard
>meaningless for cosmologies like LCDM
>literally disproves LCDM using hard and objective observational facts
BTFO
>JWST has shown many times that these galaxies have less heavy elements, less chemical enrichment than modern galaxies
tons of those galaxies have metallicity comparable to our own, so big bang is forever BTFO

>>15888137
>no one has posted that plot before in this thread, retard
You have posted it in multiple threads. You literally made a new thread with just the plot, no explanation or source and never came back to defend it.
>literally disproves LCDM using hard and objective observational facts
Lel no. The plot makes the assumption that galaxies are always the same size, not true in LCDM so not disproven.
>tons of those galaxies have metallicity comparable to our own
So why is the average lower?

>>15888141
>You have posted it in multiple threads. You literally made a new thread with just the plot, no explanation or source and never came back to defend it.
I've literally never posted it on this board ever before, dumbass
>no
yes
>The plot makes the assumption that galaxies are always the same size, not true in LCDM so not disproven.
we know from observational evidence that galaxies are exactly that
LCDM and big bang eternally BTFO
>why is the average lower?
we don't have nearly enough samples to conclude anything like that statistically
for all we know the average could actually be higher, or perhaps we're in a region that's higher than average, or maybe there are certain deep-rooted assumptions about the compositions themselves that are wrong (in the same way that most Solar physicists and astrophysicists in general are clueless about the Sun's composition due to completely flawed assumptions about what causes ionization there, see the work of the unparalleled genius P. M. Robitaille for more on this if you ever want to stop being an ignorant doofus)

>>15888153
>I've literally never posted it on this board ever before, dumbass
Survey says: Lie.
>we know from observational evidence that galaxies are exactly that
And how does the data show that? How do you know the real physical size independent of cosmology?
>we don't have nearly enough samples to conclude anything like that statistically
Hundreds of galaxies isn't enough suddenly. But your plot contains far fewer galaxies. If this were the case different papers would get wildly different results, they don't. A lame excuse.
So show me these normal metallicity galaxies above redshift 8.

>>15888153
>or maybe there are certain deep-rooted assumptions about the compositions themselves that are wrong
Doesn't work because the measurements are the same at low and high redshift. Even if the assumptions are wrong something is changing. That is not allowed in tired light. And unlike size it doesn't depend on what cosmology you chose.

>(in the same way that most Solar physicists and astrophysicists in general are clueless about the Sun's composition due to completely flawed assumptions about what causes ionization there, see the work of the unparalleled genius P. M. Robitaille for more on this if you ever want to stop being an ignorant doofus)
Robitaille is a fraud who doesn't understand basic physics. He consults no experiments. And he doesn't attempt to work with observational data himself, even though he says no one else can do it correctly. Snake oil salesman.

>>15873154
The observable Universe is just part of a larger and more complex cosmos that we can't fully observe or study for one reason or another. "Dark matter" and "dark energy" are phenomena that affect the observable universe but whose origin lies in the unobservable part of the cosmos.

>>15888192
>Robitaille is a fraud who doesn't understand basic physics.
imagine calling the scientific genius of the millennium a fraud or claim that he doesn't understand physics
man, thanks for the laugh, you really just made my day

>>15888197
>the scientific genius of the millennium
How many cranks are there on YouTube who think that is them?
Maybe he could pull his finger out of his ass and do some experiments then? Or make his own CMB measurements. Oh no, he's too busy making shitty videos.

>>15888221
>cranks are there on YouTube
imagine thinking Robitaille is somehow a "crank on YouTube" just because he decided to spend some years making extremely detailed and thorough YouTube videos long after he had already done groundbreaking work and research
it's funny when retards don't have any idea what they're talking about

>>15873154
It's the effect of gravity from beyond the observable horizon.

>>15888231
>"crank on YouTube" just because
Because he is a crank on YouTube. Don't care if he had a legitimate past, he is a crank now like many retired engineers and others. He has no expertise in cosmology or radio astronomy, and it shows. He doesn't understand basic physics like black bodies.
Does he submit his research to astronomers for peer review or refutation? No. Does he even write his claims up into preprints? No. Does he do experiments? No. He just makes YouTube videos now. That's all he his now, and you worship him like he's Gauss.

>>15888231
Also still waiting for you to return to the argument of actual substance, the galaxy data.
But of course you'd rather argue over what I call some YouTube crank. Just like past threads you post this stuff and then fuck off when it's clear you can't defend your claims.
You cry about the "objective observational facts" and then chose to focused on opinions instead.
>>15888183

>>15873626
>and there is evidence dark energy is generated by them
No there isn't lol.

>>15888252
>Because he is a crank on YouTube.
he is the greatest scientific genius we've seen in at least a thousand years, and probably longer
and yes, he's simultaneously on YouTube
apparently your brain melts down when attempting to reconcile those two facts
>He has no expertise in cosmology or radio astronomy, and it shows.
except knowing far more about it than the vast majority of people who actively study and work in those fields, not to mention constantly referencing experimental evidence from those specific fields
also, only a true retard has a hard time understanding how the knowledge from his own career would translate over to those areas for a man of his immense genius
>He doesn't understand basic physics like black bodies.
he understands that orders of magnitude better than you ever will
>Does he submit his research to astronomers for peer review or refutation?
what he's saying is too upsetting, that type of revolutionary new knowledge never gets accepted that way, no matter how correct it is
imagine not even knowing something that basic about the scientific process
>Does he even write his claims up into preprints?
yes, he's written numerous articles that would satisfy the criterion for being a preprint, but of course mainstream won't touch it due to what it says and how it totally destroys a model that's been clinged to for over a century
you see the exact same thing with the big bang stupidity, of course most astrophysicists aren't simply going to let it go, that's why they keep making up more and more ad hoc hotfixes for the patchwork quilt that is the current model
>He just makes YouTube videos now.
reaches a lot more people that way, but like I said, he also writes articles
>you worship him like he's Gauss
a man of Gauss' genius comes along every couple of centuries
a man of Robitaille's genius comes along every couple of millennia
>>15888265
we'll get back to the galaxy discussion when you acknowledge Robitaille as the unparalleled genius he is

>>15888327
>what he's saying is too upsetting, that type of revolutionary new knowledge never gets accepted that way, no matter how correct it is
And yet the paper you took that plot from was published. Lerner's papers have been published. This is a bullshit excuse.

>except knowing far more about it than the vast majority of people who actively study and work in those fields
The things he claims are literally incompatible with the data. But he doesn't care.

Nice of you to respond to all of the points, except the ones about experiments and observations. You know, the actual science. If he isn't sufficiently interested to test his own claims why should anyone else waste their time?

>>15888364
>And yet the paper you took that plot from was published.
because it doesn't say anything in no uncertain terms, it just suggests that tired light has been dismissed prematurely (even though for those who have been investigating these matters thoroughly, like Lerner, another incredible genius, although not quite on the level of Robitaille, know exactly what it means)
>Lerner's papers have been published.
Lerner's published papers on the subject are all like the paper the plot is from, they don't say anything outrageous, even if he does so personally outside of them
in contrast, there's no way for Robitaille to get around stating the clear fact that the Sun is made of liquid metallic hydrogen
>The things he claims are literally incompatible with the data.
literally everything he says is backed up by mountains of data, he's constantly referencing hundreds of different papers published in those fields over the past decades
>But he doesn't care.
he is the one who cares
it's clinging to a model where the Sun is somehow gaseous which is just wildly incompatible with all the data and even basic physics
>Nice of you to respond to all of the points, except the ones about experiments and observations. You know, the actual science.
doing completely new types of experiments for a given model is just one part of "actual science"
it's equally much "actual science" to find a model that explains what is observed and what we're finding in experiments that are already being done, something the current model does not do at all
in short: finding a better explanation (i.e. one that either requires less assumptions or that has more explanatory power) is just as much part of the scientific method as devising new experiments based on that model to see if it holds even under those conditions
by your own logic we should embrace his model even if he hasn't personally done such experiments, because the experiments we've already done falsifies the gaseous model completely, not his

>>15888396
>because it doesn't say anything in no uncertain terms
People making claims in "no uncertain terms" without doing a single original experiment or observation are not doing science.

>there's no way for Robitaille to get around stating the clear fact that the Sun is made of liquid metallic hydrogen
Does he know that for a fact? No.

>literally everything he says is backed up by mountains of data, he's constantly referencing hundreds of different papers published in those fields over the past decades
Citing a few random papers is not evidence the data agrees with you. For one he cites what he wants to and is aware of. The observation of the SZ effect is in conflict with his claims about the CMB.

>it's equally much "actual science" to find a model that explains what is observed
You certainly can't claim it is fact if all you have done is build the model based on existing data. You actually need to make new predictions and test them.

>one that either requires less assumptions or that has more explanatory power
Can he calculate a model solar spectrum from his model? No. Can he calculate the neutrino rate? No. How about the helioseismology data, which matches the solar standard model to sub-percent accuracy? No. It has no explanatory power.

>the experiments we've already done falsifies the gaseous model completely
What experiment? Don't post a youtube link.

>>15888589
>People making claims in "no uncertain terms" without doing a single original experiment or observation are not doing science.
yes, they absolutely are, because today we have such enormous amounts of scientific data from experiments we've already done that "doing science" also includes using them to falsify current models and provide better explanations, which is exactly what he's doing
already explained that in the last post
>Does he know that for a fact? No.
yes, absolutely
>Citing a few random papers is not evidence the data agrees with you.
he's not "citing a few random papers", he's citing hundreds and hundreds, and they're not "random" either, what a meaningless word to try to throw in there in order to dismiss it
>You certainly can't claim it is fact if all you have done is build the model based on existing data. You actually need to make new predictions and test them.
not true at all, as explained above and previously
new predictions and testing them will certainly be a great next step, but what he's done already has led to huge scientific strides
>Can he calculate a model solar spectrum from his model? No. Can he calculate the neutrino rate? No. How about the helioseismology data, which matches the solar standard model to sub-percent accuracy? No.
he provides plenty of models like these in the articles he writes, and he also shows tons of calculations in his videos
you are apparently trying to dismiss him without even having the first clue about his work, so it's obvious at this point that you're not arguing in good faith at all, you've just blindly labeled him as a "crank" because he says something that isn't mainstream, and now you will do literally anything except acknowledge that you were totally wrong to do so, and certainly not actually check out his work at all
embarrassing if you ask me
>What experiment?
the hundreds and hundreds he's referring to that have already been done
the gaseous model is a literal physical impossibility

>>15888589
>>15888616
>Don't post a youtube link.
this pretty much sums up your attitude, you apparently can't comprehend how a YouTube video where he explicitly references scientific studies and experiments could possibly be as informative as an actual article
it's literally the equivalent of burying your head in the sand or plugging your ears and screaming
also known as: willful ignorance
as mentioned in the previous post, it's clear that you're not arguing in good faith at all and that you are totally clueless about Robitaille's work, so I guess we're done here
enjoy clinging to mainstream nonsense and remaining delusional and ignorant, meanwhile I'll be enjoying the work of the greatest genius of the past millennium and actually being able to understand what's going on on the Sun
oh, and I'm closing this tab right after posting this, because I know your type, right after I announce I won't participate with an obvious troll anymore you'll try to get in some snarky comeback
luckily I've already preemptively destroyed all your talking points, and won't personally ever see any further troll posts you make
adieu

>>15888628
>you apparently can't comprehend how a YouTube video
How dreadful, I want you to make your own argument rather than pointing at him. There is no discussion to be had with a link.
I'm not wasting any more of my time watching his shit, if you're incapable of explaining it in your own words then there's nothing to discuss.

>>15888616
>he provides plenty of models like these in the articles he writes
[citation needed]
>the hundreds and hundreds he's referring to that have already been done
Then you can cite your favourte.

>>15873154
The entire solar system is already inside a supermassive black hole’s event horizon.

>>15872838
Dark matter dosen't exist

Scientist just aren't legally allowed to disprove or criticize the "accepted" theory unless they want to lose their job.

>>15881088

>>15873154
I like to think it's proof of a 4th dimension, all the fuckery around galaxies acting weirdly is the equivalent to a 2d person observing a sphere as a circle floating in the air

>>15889178
>Scientist just aren't legally allowed to disprove or criticize the "accepted" theory unless they want to lose their job.
Either dark matter exists or the infallible soience god St. Einstein's nondisprovable theory of relativity is wrong, so saying
>Dark matter dosen't exist
is akin to antisemitism and thats why the dark matter theory can't be criticized.

>>15889178
>Scientist just aren't legally allowed to disprove or criticize the "accepted" theory unless they want to lose their job.
Either dark matter exists or the infallible soience god St. Einstein's nondisprovable theory of relativity is wrong, so saying
>Dark matter dosen't exist
is akin to antisemitism and thats why the dark matter theory can't be criticized.

If dark matter interacts with light via refraction then the Milky Way's own dark matter halo distorts our view of everything outside of our own galaxy in ways that cannot be deconvoluted rendering all extragalactic observations of the universe completely invalid, including those that are supposedly evidence of dark matter. Quite a conundrum

>>15891327
Does gravitational lensing count as refraction? The medium is the same, it's just spacetime itself curving. Iirc it doesn't split up different frequencies.

Space is fake and gay tho

>>15891327
And how much is this deflection? Show as you calculation.

>>15891947
No lensing is not refraction. There is no reason to assume DM should refract light.

>>15888286
LMAO

Oy... cool it with the antisemitism

>>15872838
Dark energy/matter is unironically peak reddit tier of concept ever existed in physics

Niggas literally struggle to even define it and nobody can come up with consensus of what the fuck that shit even is

>>15892536
Dark matter is just shit that doesn't interact with electromagnetism (and presumably the strong/weak forces), but does interact with gravity. It's just a catch-all term for matter we haven't been able to identify yet.
Dark energy is the same for energy that we can't identify, despite having observable effects.

>>15893194
>doesn't interact with electromagnetism
except for light

>>15893311
It doesn't have any interaction with light. It's mass does cause spacetime to curve which can bend light's path, but that's not exactly an interaction. At least not a direct one.

>>15872838
>Dark Matter
Compound effect of plasma electromagnetically binding bodies like galaxies and clusters together in addition to the usual gravity attraction.
>Dark Energy
Red shift created by plasma in intergalactic space.

>>15893631
>electromagnetically binding
Do you know what Debye Shielding is?
>Red shift created by plasma in intergalactic space.
Tired light fails to match observations of redshift, such as cosmological time dilation. There is also no known rocess which can cause redshift without having wavelength deendence or scattering the light in angle.

>>15878094
> how can you characterize the behavior of something you can't observe
because it interacts with the visible universe through gravity you fucking retard cunt
not interacting with light doesn't mean it doesn't interact with anything
read up before posting stupid shit

>>15893912
>reeeeeeee you fucking retard cunt
why so emotional? get a grip, spaz

>>15873204
>fundamentally deficient theory of general relativity
Name one superior alternative, jackass. People who say this bullshit don't realize they have to read through thousands of pages of experimentally-verified predictions and proofs in order to even hope to achieve the level of knowledge necessary to understand where the mathematics of GR and QFT FINALLY fail to describe natural observations... Number one surefire way to spot a retard crackpot who has never studied the subject: "lol this shit is fucking cringe because muh dark matter and singularities"

>>15895322
Mostly normal EM force; Birkeland currents exhibit a 1/sqrt(r) plasma velocity from their center and describe counter-rotation rings observed in systems from galaxies to solar orbits to polar winds on Earth and other planets in our system like Jupiter and Saturn. And within the solar system or other heliopause zones a dipolar EM nuclear force dominates.

>>15895968
>exhibit a 1/sqrt(r) plasma velocity from their center and describe counter-rotation rings observed in systems from galaxies to solar orbits
Nope. Sqrt(r) is the also what is expected from Keplerian orbits, it doesn't match flat galaxy rotation curves at all.
>And within the solar system or other heliopause zones a dipolar EM nuclear force dominates.
Dipole gravity is the stupidest hypothesis ever. Even the EU chuds saw through that. Any slightly charged body would experience forces much larger than gravity, either toward or away from the Earth

>>15895322
schizophasia

>>15881088
literally me

>>15873154
magnetism induced by lots of moving charged particles?

>>15896026
the extra term despicted doesn't explain the diffraction like wave pattern around the red line

>>15897358
That extra term is the Hubble "constant"

>>15897358
It's not diffraction. The wiggles are from structure in the galaxy's disk. The simple model assumes a smooth central mass, but disks are not entirely smooth. One can fit the wiggles with a better model of the normal matter content.

>>15897715
Nope.

>>15873154
>>15873154
>phd with 35 years of ego: uhhh the math isn't adding up!!
>phd with 30 years of ego: what if we... umm... suggest there's like... invisible matter?
>undergrad: isn't that just like how some guys invented an invisible planet called vulcan to correct mathematical inconsistencies in 'modern' predictive models?

welcome to Science(TM) undergrad... welcome to Science(TM)
what's insane to me is that nobody notices how hilariously similiar dark matter is to vulcan. there's obviously a problem with the models, but who's going to stick their neck out and try to claim einstein was wrong?

>>15897847
>but who's going to stick their neck out and try to claim einstein was wrong?
Someone with a mean streak of antisemitism.

>>15897847
>who's going to stick their neck out and try to claim einstein was wrong?
People have been looking for a better model or experimental evidence violating GR for literally a century. Somehow just saying "maybe GR is wrong" doesn't magically solve anything.

>undergrad: isn't that just like how some guys invented an invisible planet called vulcan to correct mathematical inconsistencies in 'modern' predictive models?
Also how Le Verrier predicted Neptune. Which turned out to be quite real.

>>15895238
Like I said yesterday, you get off of your ability to manipulate others.

>>15872838
>make /sci/fags mad
Yes because that shit aren't fucking /sci/.
Since cosmofags can't travel to the stars and conduct experiments to make actual discoveries their entire field is doomed to forever coat tail whatever is the flavour-of-the-era physics paradigm.
When people thought stuffs were moved by spirits cosmofags spinned stories about what kind of spirits the stars are.
When people thought stuffs were moved by God cosmofags spinned stories about how God moved the stars.
Now that people think stuffs are moved by physical forces cosmofags is on the case spinning stories about how gravity is moving the stars.
There's just one problem, nobody actually knows what the stars are or what is moving them.

>>15873154
Space and gravity are fake and scientists tried to make make their model make sense with math and failed, so they lie and make up dark matter so their equations work.

>>15895322
>theory falls apart on a fundamental level and is easy to point out
>"b-b-but you have to read all of the fan-fiction I pulled out of my ass in order to refute me!
No.

>>15897833
every single one of those graphs has the same wave pattern, even S0 galaxies

>>15898880
Diffraction only affects light, chud. It doesn't affect anything else with the same wavelike, r squared law governed behaviors.

>>15898880

>>15873154
Math errors based on faulty "science" predicated on jewish fairy tales.

>>15898880
I could explain that to you, but I'd rather not. What I would say can't be memorized out of a textbook and its not in wikipedia so inevitably I'd get shouted down by a bunch of wet behind the ears know-it-all children who can't do math and get upset when the factoids they learned from the Neil Tyson TV show get contradicted and I'd rather not bother with that unleasantness, but you're right that it has nothing to do with "muh spiral arms" which you already noticed because you mentioned lenticular galaxies.

>>15898880
Show us these plots.

>>15902180
kek

>>15889178
>Scientist just aren't legally allowed to disprove or criticize the "accepted" theory unless they want to lose their job.
Either dark matter exists or the infallible soience god St. Einstein's nondisprovable theory of relativity is wrong, so saying
>Dark matter dosen't exist
is akin to antisemitism and thats why the dark matter theory can't be criticized.

>>15872838
>The image that make /sci/fags mad
>mad
No, it makes us curious

>>15903987
really? does it? is that why 50 years after it's discovery, nobody knows anything about dark matter and nobody is bothering to investigate the topic?

>>15905095
oy vey, stop questioning the narrative, goy

>>15905095
>nobody is bothering to investigate the topic?
Is /sci/ really this ignorant?

>>15905869
you are, nobody is doing any serious investigations of how dark matter works, what it is etc.
all of the astronomy and physics research is still overwhelmingly focused on the tiny unimportant minority of matter than is visible and tangible

>>15906918
That is complete bullshit. Astronomers are testing models of dark matter based on galaxies and large scale structure. It was this that pointed to DM being cold. The largest simulations of the universe only simulate dark matter. There are particle physicists studying it, and dozens of direct detection experiments. It is an entire field.

>>15906949
the overwhelming majority of resources are devoted to studying visible matter, nobody is serious about dark matter. nasa spent $88 billion for jwst to study the unimportant 5% of the universe made of visible matter and $0 on dark matter. cern has a similar breakdown in their resource distribution.
>models
how do they expect to model something they have no concept of? all they'll do is model what they know about visible matter, its a useless solution, its only true merit is that its inexpensive.

>>15907726
>how do they expect to model something they have no concept of?
What is a model if not a concept?
>all they'll do is model what they know about visible matter
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_dark_matter

>>15873154
Dark Matter is on-disk DLC that God hasn't unlocked yet.

>>15873154
Normal matter: core is positively charged, and negative charged objects revolves around

CounterNormal matter: core is negatively charged, and positive charged objects revolves around

>>15872838
Did somebody tried to explain it yet with following?: Probably even fundamental particles can differ far away from us.

>>15907911
Do you know it's not just positive and negative, and that charge doesn't appear out of nowhere?

Do you understand you certainly never get positive in orbitals?

Meow, feed me,
Meow neutron's are anihhilated anti-particles combined.
Meow.

>>15873154
I actually enjoy Dark Fluid aka Negative Mass theories. Believe it or not, it's not actual shizo stuff and the guy who found this is atypical
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fluid

>>15907835
>wikipedia
looooooooooooooool

>>15873154
Some of it is the spirit world, some of it is layers of reality sitting on top and below this one, it all exists in the same place but at different frequencies

Base reality is consciousness, not the physical realm, what they call dark energy is God's consciousness dreaming the universe into existence. God is the dreamer and you are the dreamed, you won't be able to see what lies beyond the veil until you die

>>15908726
https://web.archive.org/web/20060710015655/http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/justice/article.jsp?content=20050530_106573_106573

>The Star Trek connection

>A surprising number of child sex abusers appear to be Trekkies. Trying to figure out what that means, however, shows how little we really know about pedophiles

The first thing detectives from the Toronto police sex crimes unit saw when they entered Roderick Cowan's apartment was an autographed picture of William Shatner. Along with the photos on the computer of Scott Faichnie, also busted for possessing child porn, they found a snapshot of the pediatric nurse and Boy Scout leader wearing a dress "Federation" uniform. Another suspect had a TV remote control shaped like a phaser. Yet another had a Star Trek credit card in his wallet. One was using "Picard" as his screen name. In the 3 1/2 years since police in Canada's biggest city established a special unit to tackle child pornography, investigators have been through so many dwellings packed with sci-fi books, DVDs, toys and collectibles like Klingon swords and sashes that it's become a dark squadroom joke. "We always say there are two types of pedophiles: Star Trek and Star Wars," says Det. Ian Lamond, the unit's second-in-command. "But it's mostly Star Trek."

>>15908036
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen

>>15911116
what happens if you drink antiwater? does it dehydrate you?

>>15908726
This is actually very close to the true metaphysics of it all.

>>15873154
>Ether gets done away with by mainstream scientists/atomistic materialist NPC's
>The ensuing gap is then filled with ""dark energy""

It's shrimple really

Image also makes me mad, and I don't like "/sci/" at all.

>>15912809
One of my favorite JWT photos.

>>15912214
you have to anti-pee after drinking antiwater

>>15873154
Dark matter constitutes a direct measurement of the gap between what soiyence faggots presume they know about the universe and what they really know. Dark matter is made out of intellectual overreach

>>15873154
It's normal matter shifted along another dimension adjacent to us but still affecting our matter gravitationally

>>15914369
you missed your megachurch meeting today sweetie??

>>15914924
>I self identify as a soiyence faggot and get offended when soiyence faggots get criticized
ok soiyence faggot, thanks for letting us know

>>15879661
First of all, gravitons are purely hypothetical and probably don't exist.

But setting that aside, we know that if they did exist they'd have to be massless because they would have to propagate at the speed of light, just like photons.

>>15914369
lol
its funny because its true

>>15914369
>Dark matter is made out of intellectual overreach
Pure poetry.

>>15873154
>schizophrenic
no one saying aliens
and you call this a science board? aliens is the most schizo explanation there is:
>theorize that life might exist elsewhere
>but we don't see any aliens
>ignore the fact that we can't account for 95% of what "should" be there, it's probably just physics we don't understand
>what if it's aliens?
>never seen an alien have you? well they don't exist
>what if "dark matter" is just aliens that don't want us to see them?
>never seen any evidence for aliens and until then won't believe in them
I'm betting it's aliens. All of it. Just big-ass aliens that hide themselves in every way but can't manage to make themselves invisible to gravity.

>>15916218
>hi, i'm neil too

>>15879206
desu

>>15872838
this is in your head the eather pressure is at its lowest estimated minimum 42*10^28 terrapascall.
thats more likely beeeing 0,0001% real matter.

>>15872838
>Dark Matter make the galaxies go all "VROOOOOM!" and the Dark Energy make space go all "STRETCHY STRETCHY!"
Sounds legit.

>>15897896
every time evidence comes out disproving GR, the theory has a new epicycle added to it in order to account for the evidence. just give it up already, its wrong, its a disproved theory.

>>15919241
>disproving GR
Only if you assume you completely and accurately know the matter content and distribution in galaxies. It's not much of a disproof if it requires a huge, baseless assumption.

And Lambda was a part of GR from the start.

>>15919298
GR was a static universe theory from the start

>>15919371
No it wasn't. You can have static solutions, but expanding and contracting universes are equally valid solutions. As are dozens of others.

>>15919401
GR was a static universe theory from the start, thats what the cosmological constant was originally about

>>15920835
Nope. The cosmological constant is a constant of integration. Einstein used it to try and get a static solution, which turned out to be unstable. Again there are many solutions.

>>15907911
>CounterNormal matter: core is negatively charged, and positive charged objects revolves around
that's literally just anti-matter

>>15920835
Right, he only changed his theory from a static universe theory after the distance-redshift relationship in galaxies was discovered

>>15920835
>GR was an atheist marxist communist propaganda operation from the start

>>15872838
>>15872871
Ain't that just place-holder terminology for unknown shit, like how X-Ray was once just a term for a type of unidentified radiation? Motherfuckers should be mad at the idiots who think that shit is actually a thing, not the term itself for simply being nebulous bullshit

>>15923524
>be me, the cosmological constant
>change

>>15873154
I give you a non-schizophrenic one - there is nothing to explain, because galaxies don't gave stable orbits. It's just the black hole that pressures the gas until it gets thick enough to coalesce into stars, which then spread around on unstable orbits, with only dim red/brown dwarfs extending beyond the seeming "edges". Or it gets so dense that the gas burns all like a star, which is a quasar.

>>15873154
I give you a non-schizophrenic one - there is nothing to explain, because galaxies don't have stable orbits. It's just the black hole that pressures the gas until it gets thick enough to coalesce into stars, which then spread around on unstable orbits, with only dim red/brown dwarfs extending beyond the seeming "edges". Or it gets so dense that the gas burns all like a star, which is a quasar.

>>15873204
90% of general relativity still runs on Einstein's reputation rather than factual evidence but in all seriousness you're acting like if physicists didn't consider that option and no, there simply wasn't a single model thus far that would do it better

>>15924531
I don't see where Einstein's reputation as such a super genius even comes from, its not like he ever did anything of meaningful value to justify the reputation, he just published gay articles in soiyence magazines. There were scientists in his era that had major accomplishments that had real tangible benefits for humanity, picrel is a fine example, without him most of use reading this board would have died in childhood but the majority of the people reading this board can't even name the guy in the pic, so why is Einstein so famous?

>>15873154
The models are wrong and scientists are too lazy to admit that and develop new ones.

>>15925684
Dude's got a hell of a booger hanging out of his nose

>>15873154
Math errors based on faulty "science" predicated on jewish fairy tales.

https://structuredatom.org/sa-sam

this seems like a major development in the state of the art of describing the atom, but it has been barely discussed outside of schizo forums like electric universe or cold fusion
it is a drastic departure from the standard model, but successfully predicts various fission products from the very simple principle of dense packing leading to stable configuration of an atom as an array of platonic solids

>>15926970
>barely discussed outside of schizo forums
Golly, I wonder why. Like most crank ideas there is more sophistry than substance. It's quite easy to see the gaps if you look at the quantitative part.
The only calculations are the binding energies of different nuclei, which they get wrong. For example the measured binding energy of He4 is 28295.673 +- 0.005 keV. Not 26700 keV. Their only quantitative test of their model doesn't work.
They claim that they do better than the standard model, which is bollocks. They don't actually bother comparing to real data.
Beyond this failure there is nothing quantitative to actually demonstrate their model has potential. A modern nuclear theory should also be able to calculate nuclei lifetimes, nuclear excitation level energies and lifetimes. But they can't because they just have some drawings, and not a real physical model. Their calculations simply define some base binding energy and multiply it by integers, there is no calculation of forces or any actual physics.
Also measuring the structure of nuclei experimentally is an entire field, and they don't discuss that at all.

>>15927098
https://www.writingtoiq.com/ says your IQ is only 115 so I didn't bother reading your unnecessarily lengthy, self indulgent wall of text

>>15873154
Dark matter and energy are matter and energy from another universe interacting with ours. We can't see or touch it because it is a part of our reality.

>>15907847
Best answer ITT

It's just black holes. Honestly I don't get how "dark matter" even started, we fucking KNOW what kind of matter is invisible since before the gravitational "paradox" was realized

>>15927777
It's unlikely to be black holes, it certainly isn't all stellar mass black holes. Black holes and other compact bodies were a popular idea in the 80s, so much so that huge observing programs were undertaken to detect the objects as the occasionally lens background stars. By monitoring millions of stars over years they should detect them. These projects revealed a handful of events, but all of them were just normal stars. Dark matter cannot just be brown dwarfs or stellar mass black holes. More modern programs have widened this mass constraint, now it is basically ruled out that dark matter could be black holes over most possible mass ranges. Furthermore these cannot be normal black holes, they have to be created in the early universe as otherwise there just isn't enough matter to form them. There are strong constraints on the possible contribution of primordial black holes to dark matter.

>>15873154
some unknown mass, but the modern scientists are a bunch of sissy boys and don't want to admit it
>dude, the universe is made 95% of dark energy and dark matter, but also the universe somehow is expanding faster than the speed of light, but nothing can go faster than light
haha

Too bad it didn't make them madder.

>>15928019
Citing from same work, I just thing calculation doesn't work because we have little bit different particles in different location in universe.

Like slight change of mass of proton or it's interactive properties.

Like crack changes from dealer to dealer.

>>15890656
>>15903985
Uh oh, the script broke

>>15927777

The entire solar system is already inside a black hole.
This black hole is many light years across. Potentially thousands.
Our entire solar system is within the event horizon of the black hole. We are already past the point of no return.
>What would we experience inside a supermassive black hole?
Not much! If the black hole is big enough, it would be like we’re a ball on a very gentle hill. We would notice nothing ourselves with our senses.
What we would notice, is that objects far away from us would seem to become more and more difficult to reach. They would appear to flee from us faster than the speed of light, as no amount of acceleration would allow us to escape.
This is exactly what we observe, this phenomon is attributed to dark energy accelerating the expansion of the universe everywhere. In reality, we are simply unable to travel to them.
>What about dark matter?
Dark matter is the perceived difference between the motion of objects and their apparent mass. Our observations seem to show that objects must be significantly more massive to account for their motion.
This is due to time dilation we are experiencing within the black hole. Objects we are observing in the distant universe are moving on a different time scale than we are due to the gravitational field. What we observe as dark matter is actually the effect of the black holes gravitation on the light coming toward us.

>>15929711
>When did this happen?
Unknown and difficult to say. We could have been enveloped within a rogue black hole traveling near the speed of light relatively recently. It could have been millions of years ago.
>What will happen from here?
Given the size of the event horizon we are inside of, it will take an extremely long time for the solar system to travel deeper in. We are almost certainly orbiting the center of the black hole and will continue to do so for quite a while.
As we approach the center, the difference in our time compared to what we observe will continue to diverge. Eventually we will begin to see the distant stars move in fast motion and we may even survive to see the stars die out and darkness take over. The billions of years left on our sun will be stretched into trillions as our solar timeline stretches further and further.
Our next step should be locating the center of the black hole, and attempting to determine if other star systems are within the event horizon as well. It’s possible that other intelligent life is in here with us.

>>15929712
according to https://www.writingtoiq.com/ your IQ is 102

>>15930820

>>15930830
Thats right, you're over 20 IQ points dumber than Ricky & Morty copypasta

>>15873154
Fifth and sixth fundamental forces that only act at great distances.

>>15931909
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick & Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existential catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them.

And yes, by the way, i DO have a Rick & Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid

>>15912214
Anti water is just water you already drank that has incorporated its physical essence to your body. Maybe sweat?

>>15872838
Prove to me that the "observable universe" is more than 1% of the actual size of the universe, pro-tip....you can't. No one knows how big the universe is and modern astrophysics is defined by the insane amount of things they don't know and will likely never know.

Like blind retards in a cave chasing shadows on the walls. You'll never learn.

>>15925777
How has nobody appreciated this man's numbers?

None of you retards have read picrel and it fucking hurts me

>>15873154
Dark Energy is Neutrino Oscillations

>>15933432
no one have ever said this to has ever cared though

>>15931936
143 IQ

>>15931951
>Maybe sweat?
thats just salty water

>>15930820
soience fiction faggots are all low IQ

>>15936412
I don't see how those people are unable to realize that they're idiots. All they ever do is repeat ideas that they saw on TV or in a sci-fi movie, it should be obvious to them that they're so stupid they can't do more than repeat other people's ideas

>>15937096
I both agree and disagree with you, but you would surely disagree with me.

>>15873154
Consciousness and willpower

>>15873154
it's a bleed-through from other worlds being multiplexed in the same space as we are. it's a sort of ghosting, the space which is common to all multiplexed world is being affected by all of them. we have no other way of perceiving those worlds as whenever they are "rendered in" we aren't. this could happen between every two planck-seconds, we wouldn't know. they wouldn't either. that's my most schizo take

>>15937096
They're incapable of recognizing how dumb they are because of how dumb they are

>>15873021
glownigger detected
opnion discarded

>>15873154
>Give me your most schizophrenic explanation for what Dark matter and Dark energy are.

Really? Ok.
It's the remnants/interference of vacuum metastability events / false vacuum bubbles collapsing. It's false vacuum bubbles all the way down (and the way down is also simultaneously the way up, behind, inside, outside, blue, red, cake, sleepy, chair, noun, proverb, running etc.)

>>15874767
You realize we don’t measure the e distance of the stars based on how big they are, right?

>>15873154
Emanation theory with some sort of metaphysical reality imparting itself onto the physical plane is what is causing dark matter/energy.

NO MERCY

>>15938829
>the rules don't apply to me!
>i'm a special snowflake!
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662

>>15873154
There's some guy at the inertial reference frame with long golden threads and he holds the universe together.

>>15938366
Thats how stellar distances are measured.

>>15941063
Nope, parallax.

>>15941068
wrong, that technique only works for a vanishingly small number of very nearby stars

>>15941577
It works out to moderate Galactic distances. With Gaia there are millions of stars with parallax measurements. It works to much greater distances than measuring sizes.

>>15941592
no it doesn't

>>15942607
this the cepheid technique will always be better and more potent than astrometry

>>15942607
It does.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/Gaia_overview
>This is allowing the nearest stars to have their distances measured to the extraordinary accuracy of 0.001%. Even stars near the Galactic centre, some 30 000 light-years away, will have their distances measured to within an accuracy of 20%.

>>15943541
Cephids are not about "measuring how big the star is", whatever the fuck you meant by that. Just how bright it appears to be and it's period.

>>15943571
the brightness changes are the result of changes in size

>>15872838
why are we posting axolotl anuses?

>>15944903
Irrelevant. You're not measuring the size.
And for the original claim:
>The stars aren't something large really far away, they are something a lot smaller and a lot closer
Cepheids are a secondary distance indicator, the period luminosity relationship cannot be calculated from first principles. It has to be calibrated, by parallax. Parallax is the observation that tells us stars are large and far away, not Cepheids.

>>15944942
the cepheids method works out to greater distances

>>15873154
God

>>15872838
I'm telling you that every star has it's own particle physics atleast to certain degree for the last time, remember it goddamn. It's final time I'll be telling you this.

>>15873154
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iynrV-3I9CY
Is like the giant wave absorbs the sea from the shores before the tsunami.

>>15932000
There must be a way to learn, you guys keep shitting on astronomy so much its like tradition here

>>15946965
cosmology is a shit tier field of study, it isn't real science. real science has disprovable theories and repeatable experiments. cosmology has
>sample size = 1
cosmology is a subset of religion, not science

>>15873154
>Give me your most schizophrenic explanation
They're fudge variables. GR is incorrect. Simple as.

>>15879030
Your post is textbook circular reasoning.

>>15947346
Explain what you think is circular.

>>15947352
>the burden of proof is on you
no it isn't, you're the one making up absurd fairy tales and claiming they're true

>>15872838
That's racist.

>>15948435
Where is the circular reasoning?
The fact you avoid this simple question tells me you're full of shit, as usual.

>>15948435
>burden
You said that something was circular...

I think it's far more likely that our ability to estimate distance of very distant objects is absolutely trash, and thus our ability to determine luminosity is also trash, and mass also trash. It perplexes me that someone will say, the luminosity of this galaxy 3MPC away is too low for its apparent mass, there must be some invisible mass there, when we can't even give am accurate distance to, for example VY Canis Major, one of the largest stars ever observed and it's in our own galaxy!

Tldr: all of these theories are relying on observational evidence that is highly likely to be total horseshit because we can't actually accurately determine distance to most objects in the universe

>>15950555
Too high. Luminosity is too high for the measured mass. Both of which are dependent on distance. It all comes apart if you can't accurately tell distance and we absolutely cannot, more so the further away an object is

>>15950555
Why is voyager speeding up?

>>15950555
>the luminosity of this galaxy 3MPC away is too low for its apparent mass,
It's much more than that. From rotation curves one can see that the inner dynamics of a galaxy is easily explained by the stars we see. But as one looks to greater distances there is very little visible matter and yet the rotation curves do not decline. There is some mass component which is much more defuse and has negligible luminosity.
>>15950556
Distance errors cannot cause or explain flat rotation curves. You're just looking at the difference between the inner and outer regions, it doesn't matter what distance you assume.
And it's too low.

>>15950604
dark matter

>>15947304
>cosmology is a subset of religion, not science
Thats why it appeals so strongly to the god complex crowd who want to claim that they know everything about the entire universe from beginning to end
Ernest Jones, in 1913, was the first to construe extreme narcissism, which he called the "God-complex", as a character flaw. He described people with God-complex as being aloof, self-important, overconfident, auto-erotic, inaccessible, self-admiring, and exhibitionistic, with fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience. He observed that these people had a high need for uniqueness.

>>15952069
>"This isn't real science"
>Proceeds to spout pop-psychology unironically

>2024
>still have no idea what dark matter is after over half a century of studying it
how dumb are the scientists working on this issue?
they must be worthless dolts if no progress in half a century is their result

>>15873154
probably evidence of higher spatial dimensions, shits leaking downwards and we can't see where it's coming from but we can see it's effects on us

>>15926315
that's just a smelling aid

>>15937285
and if this model is true, then the "leak" can be used to communicate with other parallel universes, as long as there's intelligent life that can decode them. two-way communication via "the leak" can allow us to literally teleport there, via information. and come back "here". weird as shit

>>15953908 me
I mean, depending on the technicalities of it, if comms is possible via gravitational disturbances you could have something similar to picrel, more or less. just that not to other places in the universe, but rather in the same place but out of sync with this universe. a sort of sync-gate

>>15953629
That's science....you throw yourself at the wall forever if you have to. What else is there to do?

>>15949245
>you don't agree with my lies therefore you're wrong
more circular reasoning

>>15891327
dark matter conveniently stops being real in the case of extragalactic astronomy

>>15891327
The refraction is significant on the scale of galaxy clisters, not individual galaxies.

>>15951265
It's not the "cytoplasm" or space, even distributed? There is some density or Voyager is past some larange point past the bow shock?

Dark Matter isn't real, it's all just Quantized Inertia. Stop falling for bullshit circular reasoning pop science theories and pay attention to research that actually follows the scientific method.

>>15957553
It's not just missing numbers?

>>15957553
"Quantized inertia"
>Bullet cluster
>rotation curves of UDG
>galaxies with very little dark matter
>indication of dark matter in power spectrum of the CMB

Quantized inertia is literally a meme that only explains regular galaxies' rotation curves. you'll have to come up with 15 new variables for every observation that dark matter explains with 2.

The gash they cut into my forehead tonight points to the new mole they implanted in the top of my head.

>>15957599

>>15957529
nope

>>15873154
Dark Matter is normal matter that doesn't emit light. Dark Energy is the decay of Dark Matter, which is causing the expansion of spacetime as its stretching to accommodate for the dilution. And since one is directly tied to the other, and the source does not emit light, its impossible to detect across the EMR spectrum given that observational science is 100% dependent on the existence of light.

Even the gravitational lensing that we see in the picture, is a result of dark matter. The combined mass of the galaxies is insufficient to curve spacetime to allow for light to bend to such a degree. The only way this is possible is if there's dark matter between the galaxies that depresses spacetime sufficient to cause the lensing to become visible to us. We therefore see its effects, but cannot directly observe it.

Further, the reason galaxies in the early universe show a greater leve of maturity than predicted is because the density of dark matter was more significant back then, leading to a greater degree of expansion of spacetime. Since this expansion is accelerating over time, as the universe became visible from opaque, this acceleration caused the maturity of stars and galaxies to equally accelerate. Leading to the formation of barred spiral galaxies a few hundred million years after the "big bang".

Additionally, the "big bang" is more than likely a result of dark matter and dark energy getting concentrated (despite the expansion and dilution) when galactic clusters collide. At some point in the future, there will be a "super" galaxy multiples of billions of light years in size which will collapse into its central blackhole and the resultant "jet" will become a new "big bang". This new directional expansion will repeat this cycle anew, as it the directed matter cools from a single point to opaque to visible.

The universe size is of infinite quantity and dimension, and the 5% visible to us is our conical reference frame. There are many reference frames.

>>15891327
no only that, but our view of all external galaxies is distorted by their own dark matter halos

>>15959534
Right, its like you're looking at everything through multiple panes of warped glass, but nobody realizes it because nobody has ever seen what things look like without the warped glass in place

>>15960922
make a simulation of how the universe actually looks without the warping effect and then explain to me how it could possibly make sense, then.

>>15961202
That can't be done with only one set of data from one point of view. Even with multiple view angles, you'd still have to presume that you know everything about physics to make that model. Meanwhile 95% of the universe is unobservable dark matter and dark energy and nobody has any idea what laws govern them.

>>15961450
gravity, bozo, that's the whole point of dark matter. also as i said earlier, a single galaxy is not enough to cause significant gravitational lensing. even taking any fishbowl effect into account, we'd be able to see lensing around andromeda if that was the case.

>>15961530
saying that a single galaxy doesn't cause gravitation lensing is clearly just a lie you're making up, thats like saying pluto does have gravity because its too small. even the sun is big enough to cause gravitational lensing. you're telling lies about all that because you're mentally ill and have some insane ideas about astronomy that you're unwilling to give up on even if observable reality plainly disproves you preconceived notions

>>15873154
Dark matter should be called dark gravity because it's caused by gravity bleeding into our universe from another dimension.
>t. didn't even take HS physics

>>15962970
It's a simplification to help make the world make sense for retards like you. do you think andromeda is a u shape? an arrow? we know galaxies are flat, and they look flat, so what meaningful difference can a gravitational fishbowl effect make? write a paper yourself, literally anybody can write a paper if they want.

>>15962988
i can tell, lol. as silly as the idea might seem, they have done studies to determine whether a different invisible dimension could be causing dark energy, i think. can't find where i read it but they couldn't find any evidence that was the case.

>>15898617
Science isn't /co/ or /v/, if the universe was as basic as you try to make it seem we would not exist.
IQlets need to go back.

>>15874767
How do you explain the sun, retard? Thing's so massive we can see it with the naked eye, even if it's really far away.

>>15888195
This is actually pretty based.
I wouldn't be surprised if the information we currently have isn't even 0.00000000000000000000001% of all there is.

>>15888974
That would be freaky.
What would that entail?

>>15938283
I thought we would never be able to observe false vacuum bubbles as they move at the speed of light

>>15953664
I wouldn't be surprised if we find out this was reality I'm the future.
With that being said, wouldn't we be exposed to higher dimensional beings at all times?

>>15963331
How would a 2 dimensional man observe a three dimensional universe?

>>15963325
your assertion that individual galaxies can't cause gravitational lensing has been proved to be false, which means that all views of external galaxies are distorted both by the milky way's dark matter halo and by their own dark matter halos and that the universe outside of the milky way doesn't truly look how it appears to from our vantage point. clearly you find this disturbing on an emotional level as shown by the way you've been triggered into spewing invective language, but you are unable to dispute it on a rational basis.

>>15963394
Okay, sure. weite a paper though. make a simulation of what it looks like without a fishbowl effect. if you want to make claims, don't sit on your ass and complain about da joos controlling science or whatever. show your work.

>>15929712
Then we would see a a big black spot in certain part of the sky. Try harder

>>15873154
It's a kind of invisible matter, and dark energy is a kind of invisible antigravity energy.

>>15963522
There is a kernel of truth to it. if a black hole had suddenly appeared with us in the centre of it, we would have no clue.

>>15963598
Except it would shred us into paste as some parts would be closer to it than others?
And if we're talking about the solar system orbiting enormous black hole, part of the sky would be starless

>>15963633
oop, i got the idea wrong. not at the centre of it, but if a black hole appeared with us like a few light uears away from it, if the black hole was big enough, we'd have no clue. if you're inside a black hole, you can see the outside fine.

>>15963650
Okay. Gravity effects aside, explain how could there be no optical artifacts in the direction of the black hole itself

>>15963653
Because of light speed. the event horizon being far enough away means it would take several years for any knowledge of its effects to reach us. this compounds the larger the black hole is. I'm not saying this is the case, of course, it's just neat to think about.

>>15963716
Isn't light not escaping just a side effect of time warping? It's not that the speed of light has changed, but that a 1 at the event horizon equals a million years tidally. So from within, the sky would be "infinite" blackness or a "timeless" sky until the black hole evaporates.

>>15963507
>>>/pol/

>>15963522
There’s lots of those. The great attractor, the great cold spot, etc.

>>15964379
way too small and not even similar to a black hole

>>15964631
black holes don't exist, ignorance of physics is required to believe in black holes
stop watching gay comic book movies, they're making you into a moron

>>15964631
>way too small
what are you saying? the great attractor is estimated to be 10^16 solar masses. the bootes void is 330 million light years across. too small? seems like you aren’t actually informed on this topic and are just saying things you think sound right.

>>15965127
I mean small in terms of visible from earth size. That thing wasn't discovered before super-fancy telescopes.
And yes, I base my reasoning on common sense and since (as I'm inferring from your writing) you're an accredited physicist and astronomer possessing state-of-the-art knowledge of relevant disciplines, IQ that is at least 3 standard deviations above average, as well as a dong almost reaching your knees, I invite you to find flaws in my layman reasoning:
>This black hole would have to very strongly affect our planet
>it has to be very big, as well as close to us
>it has to be visible from Earth, as a spot of darkness on the night sky, and probably visual distortions around it

>>15964670
They took a photo of one, dumbass.

>>15965191
According to the text to iq website, my iq is 96
I think all of your reasoning is sound. I’m sorry for insulting you. Those distant objects could not be related to the object that is affecting us, you’re right.
By the way, I’m using black hole because it’s the easiest way to describe an object with an event horizon. It could be something else.
The closest stars are about 4ly away. The Heliopause is a scant 0.0025ly from the Sun, what could be called the edge of the solar system. The Oort Cloud is only theoretical and it would be an interstellar medium if it really did exist.
That’s a very large gap in which the black hole could fit. A black hole with a 0.02ly event horizon would be 32 billion solar masses. Well within theoretical and observational ranges. You don’t even need a crazy mega hole. It could very well be traveling along inside the Milky Way on the same path as us. At this distance, closer than the closest stars, with near zero volume emitting no light, it would be essentially invisible while blocking basically nothing from our view. All we would see are the gravitation effects in the measurement data.
What needs to be done is a large scale study attempting to ‘chart’ the density of dark matter relative to the visible mass of individual objects across the sky. Once this has been collected over a long period of time, hopefully a few years, the data can be compiled into a 3d map and from there we will see subtle differences in the movement of nearby stars and distant objects. Then we can figure out where we are.
I don’t find this idea particularly enjoyable, considering it’s implication for our future, but as a physical explanation for both dark matter and dark energy I do think it’s the most elegant explanation available.

>>15965413
I don't have much to say about your numbers and conjectures except that I just find it unintuitive that a black hole might affect us so strongly without being easily visible and/or obviously influencing our system/planet. Not that I know much about this.
Maybe I should have just said this in the first place
> I’m sorry for insulting you
Did you forgot where we are?

>>15965196
ignorance of physics is also required to believe that was a real photo

>>15964670
So then what are the stars at the center of the Milky Way orbiting?

>>15965850
how come the sun orbits around the center of the solar system? is it because there is a secret invisible black hole in the center of the solar system? how come you believe that the black hole in m87 was photographed, but you also believe that the black hole at the center of our galaxy is invisible? too dumb and lacking in self awareness to recognize your own inconsistency?

>>15966009
what

>>15966009
So it's just like the Solar system? Apply Kepler's laws in the solar system, you find the enclosed mass is 2x10^30 kg, one solar mass. Apply those same equations to Sgr A* and the enclosed mass is 4 million solar masses. What is going on?

> how come you believe that the black hole in m87 was photographed, but you also believe that the black hole at the center of our galaxy is invisible?
It's not invisible. Sgr A* has also been imaged, and flares periodically in the infrared and x-rays. Further proof it's not just the center of mass.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.01777

>>15966009
>is it because there is a secret invisible black hole in the center of the solar system
this is what black hole brainlets actually believe

>>15965760
How is it not a real photo? just because we took it with a really long exposure using a lens with a diameter of 2 AU doesn't mean it wasn't a real photo. do you know how photographs work?

>>15966821
>do you know how photographs work?
yes, thats why I can tell you its not a real photo

>>15967359
>it's not a real photograph unless it comes from the martian moon phobos, it's just a sparkling image
the image corresponds to a real, existing object that exists in an extremely distant galaxy. do you disagree?

>>15967608
that pic was created from a computer model of what they had expected to resolve, the data was then fed into the computer model.

>>15873154
Graviton interactions that we can't detect normally except through dark energy/matter?

>>15966009
Theres also a black hole between the Earth and the Moon, maybe thats what wreck'd Peregrine

>>15873154

The Evil God enjoys proving his best apologists wrong.

>>15872838
It's actually this one.
>>15873154
Doesn't exist. Your theories are mentally retarded.
FTL travel is possible.

If you were alone in a universe, with no other matter, what speed are you going? If you accelerate, what speed are you going? Would acceleration in such a universe produce the normal effects of inertia?

>>15872871
kek
underrated post

>>15872838
what percentage of the universe is made out of sausage?

Dark Matter = God

>>15873154
You're going to have to read Hinton and Ouspensky for that, I'm afraid.

>>15908726
Basically correct but too pessimistic

Dark matter and energy are the "shadows" of higher-dimensional realities that we are (probably for good reason) not able to see currently

>>15969716
every time anything orbits an unseen center of mass, that means theres a black hole there.

>>15872838
How can they tell the difference between dark matter and dark energy if they can only detect either gravitationally?

>>15873154
They're regions of space that were formerly 3D, but were struck with a dimensional-collapsing weapon which renders them unable to interact with anything other than 2D matter.

>>15973726
they can't detect either gravitationally, what they're detecting is their intellectual overreach, the gap between their estimation of their own intelligence and their true intelligence.
and that gap turns out to equal to about 19x the mass of the universe.

>>15975295
>when your head is so oversized that its 19 times bigger than the entire universe

>>15976701
Thats the same group of people who in 1995 presumed that they'd be able to build and launch JWST in 12 years for less than half a billion dollars. They ended up taking a quarter of a century to complete the task it it requires several thousand percent more money than they had initially estimated. And even for all that they ended up with a telescope which would need to be 50% large to be what had initially been promised.
So that group of people has a long pattern of behavior showing off their tendency towards massive intellectual overreach and overestimation of their own knowledge and abilities.

>>15973726
dark energy produces a negative pressure outside of gravitationally bound groups, whereas dark matter just acts like matter that we can't see.

>>15975295
>Bullet cluster
>rotation curves of UDG
>galaxies with very little dark matter
>indication of dark matter in power spectrum of the CMB

>>15873154
Cloaked alien superstructures

>>15978812
any way this could be ruled out? I thought about it as well but as a brainlet I'm asking if indeed would be possible

>>15976701
lol, scientists really do be like that

>>15873154
There is a wormhole in the center of every galaxy and gravity propagates through it. Every galaxy pulls on every galaxy from a much closer distance than they appear to.

>>15979025
a wormhole's and a black hole's gravitational effects are almost indistinguishable.

>>15979025
>>15979036
stop watching soience fiction movies, they're making you retarded

>>15873154
Dark energy is negative temperatures thermodynamics. Imagine the laws of thermodynamics in reverse, like negative entropy.

>>15980235
you've never studied thermodynamics

>>15980235
Negative temperature would be hotter than anything in the universe, since it's counting down from Absolute Hot, the heat of the entire universe confined into a pinpoint. Rumor has it that God used an unsigned variable when he designed temperature.
None of this has anything to do with dark energy.

>>15979025
What part of
>from a much closer distance than they appear to
you don't understand?
Do you even know what all these funny symbols in F = (G * m1 * m2) / d^2 stand for?
Dark matter is an assumption that we're counting the value of m1*m2 wrong, my point is we might as well be counting the value of d^2 wrong.
My actual point is that modern cosmology is an alchemy-tier meme that is centuries away from being real science.

>>15979036
What part of
>from a much closer distance than they appear to
you don't understand?
Do you even know what all these funny symbols in F = (G * m1 * m2) / d^2 stand for?
Dark matter is an assumption that we're counting the value of m1*m2 wrong, my point is we might as well be counting the value of d^2 wrong.
My actual point is that modern cosmology is an alchemy-tier meme that is centuries away from being real science.

>>15981355
Once again,
>Bullet cluster
>rotation curves of UDG
>galaxies with very little dark matter
>indication of dark matter in power spectrum of the CMB

>>15981355
>we might as well be counting the value of d^2 wrong.
or presuming wrongly that G is the same constant in all cases and conditions

>>15981983
none of that means anything

>>15982847
It clearly isn't, the local value of the hubble constant effectively modifies G in whatever location

>>15984394
it's evid3nce, dumbass. If you don't even know of the prevailing points of evidence in favour of dark matter being real, you can just shut up entirely about anything to do with it.

>>15981983
this reads like a list of talking points from a conspiracy theorist

>>15986631
So? I don't care how you think it looks. if you don't even know what the bullet cluster, is you may as well stop replying.

>>15873154
Fluid-like spacetime

>>15986664
>muh bullet cluster
>muh bullet cluster muffugguh
it doesn't even exist bro, you've never observed it, its just another soiyence fiction fairy tale, its as made up
and fake a black holes, time travel, aliens and exoplanets. you only believe in that junk because your tv soiyence priests said it was real

>>15987825
Ohhh, you were baiting me. Okay, you got me, good job on that one.

>>15873154
It's a psyop.

>DA BOOOOLLLIIITTTT CLUSTTHHHHDER!!!!

>>15872838
matter = matter
dark matter = matter
dark energy = cosmological constant

>>15873154
If supersymmetry is legit wouldn't there have to be just as many ... I dunno, particles that repel gravity as there would be particles that produce gravity?

>>15971305
Soience fangoys will believe whatever percentage you tell them as long as you attach a NASA watermark to the meme to make it look official

>>15989780
>>15989780
DA UNIIVERSEEE SO BIGG HECKIN TRILLIONS OF GALAXIES, TRILLION BILLION NIGGERILION AMOUNT OF STARS AND PLANETS! WOOWZER MAN WOWWZEEER MANS ALIEENSSS

>>15976701
Common occurrence amongst atheists. Once you presume that there is no intelligence in the universe greater than your own there is no limit to how big your head can swell

>>15993264
that is probably why francis bacon hated atheists so vehemently, when he codified the scientific method he specified that the scientific method was only valid in the hands of christians because science as he described it is a subset of christianity and cannot exist outside of the confines of christianity

>>15888195
>The observable Universe is just part of a larger and more complex cosmos that we can't fully observe or study for one reason or another.
and this means that proposing theories about the whole is fundamentally unscientific since those theories cannot be disproved via observation

>>15995694
Thats true however the types of losers who fixate on space crap have no interest in science beyond the strictly superficial

>>15995921
because your shit is fucking boring and gay, if i cant travel around the universe and fuck alien bitches, who gives a shit what you or science says? fuck this gay earth

>>15996053