Jump to content
BeAChooser

Dark Matter Even More Missing Now ...

Recommended Posts

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-dark-theories-mysterious-lack-sun.html

 

Serious blow to dark matter theories? New study finds mysterious lack of dark matter in Sun's neighborhood

 

(Phys.org) -- The most accurate study so far of the motions of stars in the Milky Way has found no evidence for dark matter in a large volume around the Sun. According to widely accepted theories, the solar neighbourhood was expected to be filled with dark matter, a mysterious invisible substance that can only be detected indirectly by the gravitational force it exerts. But a new study by a team of astronomers in Chile has found that these theories just do not fit the observational facts. This may mean that attempts to directly detect dark matter particles on Earth are unlikely to be successful.

 

A team using the MPG/ESO 2.2-metre telescope at ESO's La Silla Observatory, along with other telescopes, has mapped the motions of more than 400 stars up to 13 000 light-years from the Sun. From this new data they have calculated the mass of material in the vicinity of the Sun, in a volume four times larger than ever considered before.

 

"The amount of mass that we derive matches very well with what we see — stars, dust and gas — in the region around the Sun," says team leader Christian Moni Bidin (Departamento de Astronomia, Universidad de Concepcion, Chile). "But this leaves no room for the extra material — dark matter — that we were expecting. Our calculations show that it should have shown up very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not there!"

 

… snip …

 

"Despite the new results, the Milky Way certainly rotates much faster than the visible matter alone can account for. So, if dark matter is not present where we expected it, a new solution for the missing mass problem must be found.

 

… snip …

 

[3] Theories predict that the average amount of dark matter in the Sun's part of the galaxy should be in the range 0.4-1.0 kilograms of dark matter in a volume the size of the Earth. The new measurements find 0.00±0.07 kilograms of dark matter in a volume the size of the Earth.

Plasma cosmology anyone? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/milky-way-missing-dark-matter/

 

Has Our Galaxy’s Dark Matter Gone Missing?

 

If a new study is true, then the search for dark matter just got a lot weirder. Our little corner of the Milky Way contains no observable concentration of the mysterious stuff whose gravity binds the galaxy, claims one team of astronomers. That finding would present a major problem for models of how galaxies form and may undermine the whole notion of dark matter, the researchers claim. … snip ...

 

“This is not just some piddling little detail,” says Frederic Hessman, an astronomer at the University of Göttingen in Germany who was not involved in the work. “If this is right, it turns everything totally upside-down.” … snip …

 

According to standard cosmology, we should be swimming in dark matter. Measurements of the afterglow of the big bang—the so-called cosmic microwave background—and of the distribution of the galaxies suggest that 85% of all matter in the universe is dark matter. What’s more, decades of astronomical observations show that the stars within galaxies swirl about faster than they could if only the gravity of the others stars were holding them in. In fact, the speed with which the sun goes around the center of our galaxy suggests that dark matter ought to be about as abundant as ordinary matter at our distance from the galactic center, about 27,000 light-years.

 

But that’s not what Christian Moni Bidin, an astronomer at the University of Concepción in Chile, and colleagues find. Using data gathered with several telescopes, they studied old stars called red giants in a cylindrical region a couple of light-years wide and extending 13,000 light-years above the plane of the galaxy. Treating the stars a bit like atoms in a gas, researchers assumed that they were trapped in the gravitational “well” of the galaxy. So by studying distributions of the stars’ speeds in three dimensions, they could deduce the well’s shape and hence the total distribution of mass from both dark and ordinary matter along the cylinder. Subtracting the distribution of ordinary matter as determined from star counts would then reveal the distribution of dark matter.

 

When Moni Bidin and colleagues did the analysis, however, they found that no dark matter was needed to explain the stars’ speeds. The researchers had expected to detect a complicated mass distribution with a contribution from the galaxy’s disk of stars and gas and the presumably spherical “halo” of dark matter surrounding the disk. Instead, they found that the disk alone neatly explained their data, as they report in a paper in press at The Astrophysical Journal.

 

The data don’t disprove the existence of dark matter, Moni Bidin is quick to say. Astrophysicists still need the stuff to explain the speed of the stars in the galaxy. However, the data do suggest that there isn’t any dark matter in our neck of the woods. “We’re not saying that there isn’t any dark matter,” Moni Bidin says. “We’re just saying that there isn’t any dark matter here.”

 

But that could lead to a major problem with the whole idea of dark matter. For example, one way to explain why there is no dark matter 27,000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way would be to assume it’s all in one tall cigar-shaped lump that sticks through the center of the galaxy. But simulations show that such a shape for the halo is unlikely, Moni Bidin says.

 

Another possibility is that dark matter is made not of “cold,” massive particles moving very slowly, but rather of “warm,” lightweight particles moving much faster. In that case, the galactic halo would be larger and more uniform, producing an even and therefore undetectable background, Hessman says. But that inference would fly in the face of standard cosmology, which assumes that galaxies start to form as cold dark matter starts to condense in massive clumps. “Basically,” Hessman says, “the cosmologists should say, ‘Oh my God!’ because you’re taking away the one thing that makes everything work and they’re going to have to go back to square one.”

Plasma cosmology anyone? Because that has a way to explain the rotation curve of galaxies without the need for dark matter ... or anything that we don't already know exists for sure. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark matter isn't the same as antimatter right?

Thinking antimatter and matter cancel each other out.

 

As far as the solarsystems goes there are very few facts as to theorys. Thus saying going to be alot of debunking of theorys in the next hundred or so years.......remeber the world used to be flat.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that dark matter describes the volume of the universe that can't be seen by light bearing objects, is this true? So then, in the Universe, it was once observed that of the total volume within the universe is something around 80 % made up of dark matter which is something yet to be defined, which is astonishing.

 

I do not know or pretend to know physics much, astrophysics not at all. From what I've heard, gravity comes from large celestial objects, something in the fabric of space that holds large density, like our Sun, like our planet Earth, holding things down or close due to weight and or density, or actually both, in the fabric of time and space - are they relative, time and space? I know that sounds way off base to a scientist, but that's just me writing what my untrained eye and thought thinks from what it thinks it may have heard.

 

You talk about a galaxy, I'm thinking just of a solar system. I didn't even know that whole galaxies spun, or the idea that there was something in between that is part of this volumetric sizing issue when it comes down to understanding the universe. Oh, I can certainly appreciate that there must be a whole lot of math involved. It's amazingly beyond me and for those of us who don't understand how old the universe actually is, but I'm told that astrophysicist actually do know, and pretty precisely --- which is truly amazing.

 

Sorry for the jabber. What does 0.00±0.07 kilograms mean to a laymen? Is this from what you posted equal to the density of this Earth? Wouldn't that make sense that it was dark, since the Earth is small, microscopic really, in regards to the Universe. Is that a dumb question? It sounds like it, if what you say is true. Considering that --- I just read from your post that 85 percent of the universe is dark matter, it puts a huge foot in the mouth... I think I just made a joke.

 

Great topic. Please go on.

 

Peace!

 

Peace!

Edited by TheOldBarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I come back thinking, well, if there was a big bang and an ever expanding universe, like when we look at galaxies through telescopes, we are actually looking back in time, and so what's in this this layer in between, that has a large amount of space to it - then, I went to wikipedia which is great and challenging for someone like me. I copied this part,

 

"According to observations of structures larger than solar systems, as well as Big Bang cosmology interpreted under the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric, dark matter accounts for 23% of the mass-energy content of the observable universe. In comparison, ordinary matter accounts for only 4.6% of the mass-energy content of the observable universe, with the remainder being attributable to dark energy.[6] From these figures, dark matter constitutes 83%, (23/(23+4.6)), of the matter in the universe, whereas ordinary matter makes up only 17%.

 

Dark matter plays a central role in state-of-the-art modeling of structure formation and galaxy evolution, and has measurable effects on the anisotropies observed in the cosmic microwave background. All these lines of evidence suggest that galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the universe as a whole contain far more matter than that which interacts with electromagnetic radiation. The largest part of dark matter, which by definition does not interact with electromagnetic radiation, is not only "dark" but also, by definition, utterly transparent.[7]

 

As important as dark matter is thought to be in the cosmos, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive. Though the theory of dark matter remains the most widely accepted theory to explain the anomalies in observed galactic rotation, some alternative theoretical approaches have been developed which broadly fall into the categories of modified gravitational laws and quantum gravitational laws.[8]" --- end of what I copied...

 

This is huge. First, you mentioned galactic rotation, which like I said before is not something I had ever considered. Why each galaxy rotates as though it is a body in a sea of space that remains in tact. Does the volume of a galaxy ever shrink? Sure, you might have a black hole, but that means things are sucked up into it, density itself stays equal within said galaxy, wouldn't it?

 

There's so much amazing stuff here. I'm so proud to be a human and yet, we can't figure out how to feed our planet and create jobs. I know, that's a different object of thought, but there has to be some irony for astrophysicists. You know laughable stuff they all joke about that makes zero sense to me.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice how in both the above articles the rotation of galaxies is cited as the reason dark matter is needed? If the mass in the galaxy follows the same pattern as the luminosity (i.e., visible mass), the rotation speeds in the outer reaches of the galaxy should drop off, but direct observation shows that's not the case. Instead, the rotation rate reaches a peak and then remains more or less constant as you move outward. They have what are called flat rotation curves.

 

Now I ask, how many here are aware of the work of a physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory named Anthony Peratt? Decades ago he created large scale super computer models of galaxies, based on known electromagnetic and plasma physics, that "evolved" galaxies of all the types that are observed (including spirals) which have flat rotation curves, negating the need for dark matter.

 

Here is a paper by Peratt (who was once a graduate student of another very famous physicist, Hannes Alfven, btw) entitled "Advances in the Mathematical modelling of Astrophysical and Space Phenomena". It has lot of interesting material in it. See Section 3.3 which focuses on Rotational velocities and the results from that modeling. Also check out Section 4.

 

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/AdvancesII.annotated.pdf

 

And here's another article by Dr Peratt on the subject:

 

http://www.cosmology.info/2005conference/wps/gallo_1.pdf

 

Here's a portion of what he says

 

"When Plasma Physicists add known ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects into the Gravitational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies, they obtain the observed rotational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies. For scientifically published references, see the very extensive list below. Although EM Plasma Physics is well known and experimentally tested, the detailed calculations are very complex and require supercomputers that operate for months. There is no question that EM Plasma effects dominate the early formation of a Spiral Galaxy from an ionized plasma. As time progresses, matter is accreted into star formation. Then gravitational effects become stronger, as EM plasma effects become weaker as the inter-stellar plasma density decreases with time evolution. These effects are sufficiently complex that I can not describe them with simple arguments or simple mathematics. Supercomputers are necessary. ... snip ... PRIMARY REFERENCES. (1) “Physics of the Plasma Universe” by Anthony Peratt. (Springer-Verlag, 1992). ... snip ... (3) “Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets”, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660, December 1986.(1.7M), (4) “Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies”, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778, December 1986 (1.9M). In the above references, the evolution of galaxies from plasma inhomogeneities (which yield electric fields, currents and magnetic fields) is simulated. These calculations indicate a time evolution from Elliptical to Irregular to Spiral Galaxies."

He goes on to state

 

"Following are the measured velocity profiles for four specific Spiral Galaxies from Ref 4, Fig 14. “Velocity Profile” means the rotational speed of the spiral galaxy as measured from the center of the spiral galaxy. The peculiarities are that the rotational speed is very low at the galactic center and rises quickly to an approximately constant rotational speed away from the center. This is completely different than expected from gravitational forces alone. For instance, in the simplest Solar System model, the planets closest to the center rotate at the very fastest speeds, and gradually decrease in speed at larger distances from the center. ... snip ... Above is another measured velocity profile for a specific Spiral Galaxy (Ref 4, Fig 14), again with behavior completely different than anticipated from gravitational forces alone. Following is a computer simulation of the velocity profile for a Spiral Galaxy from Ref 4, Fig 14 including ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects. Notice the similarity of the measured velocity profiles with the computer simulation including ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects for these Spiral Galaxies. “The plasma core rotates very nearly as a solid body, while the spiral arms grow in length as they trail out along the magnetic isobars.” See Ref 4 for explicit details. The measured behavior is all very different than that obtained from gravitational effects alone, but the inclusion of ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects mimic the observed behavior. That is, the rotational speed is very low at the galactic center and rises very quickly to an approximately constant rotational speed at distances away from the center."

In short, dark matter isn't needed to explain the rotation curves of galaxies. And we've known it isn't needed for 35 years. Ordinary electromagnetic physics combined with the gravity from ordinary matter can account for the observations. And many other observations. For example, do you know that even the inner and outer halos of the Milky Way galaxy appear to be rotating in different directions? http://www.space.com/4738-huge-newfound-part-milky-rotates.html I wonder if there isn't an electromagnetic explanation for that as well: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071009ngc4550.htm .

 

Inferring that dark matter exists based on the rotational velocity observations was not good science. Never was. Never will be. After 35 years of all attempts to identify what constitutes dark matter having utterly failed and after 35 years of all attempts to detect dark matter in the quantities needed having utterly failed, rational scientists would by now conclude that dark matter does not exist. But Big Bang proponents have obstinately ignored the above work and refuse to abandon the notion of dark matter … because they've too much invested in their dark matter gnome … too many careers are at stake … too many reputations to protect … too many expensive projects to promote.

 

But with every passing day it becomes clearer and clearer that explanations of rotation curves in galaxies don't require immense halos of dark matter. It's a natural process resulting from the physics that scientists like Maxwell and Langmuir and Alfven formalized long ago. When Big Bang proponents can't even acknowledge that fact, one grows more than a little skeptical of their claims regarding what can and cannot happen at cosmological scales. One grows skeptical when to explain most of the observations that have been made since the notion of Big Bang became dogma, they've had to invoke countless invisible, untestable, bizarre particles, forces, interactions and events to explain those observations.

 

Comments? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

{crickets}? Oh come on, there must be one or two Dark Matter believers on this forum. :D

 

http://www.scilogs.eu/en/rss.php?blogId=20

 

Dark Matter gone missing in many places: a crisis of modern physics?

 

On The Dark Matter Crisis, we have already presented numerous problems that appear within the LCDM model of cosmology. Some of these have been given names, like the “Missing Satellites Problem”, where LCDM predicts more dark matter subhaloes around the Milky Way than there are observed satellite galaxies, which are expected to trace them. Or the “Missing Baryons Problem”: from cosmological predictions we expect a certain density in the baryonic, luminous and thus in principle observable matter. But when you add up all the visible matter you observed, you only get 10-40 per cent of what you expect. The larger fraction is missing.

 

Even the ongoing non-detection of the DM particle in direct-detection experiments might be seen by some as another of these problems. So, there are several cases in which the model predicts something which then is not observed, thus leading to the 'missing' of that particular entity or observation thereof.

 

This week, two additional studies report that even more seems to be missing (when your expectations are based on what LCDM predicts, that is). They both point at a serious lack in the amount of expected dark matter on two very different size-scales: the local universe and our immediate neighborhood within the Milky Way.

 

Dark Matter missing in ... the Local Universe

 

In the work titled “Missing Dark Matter in the Local Universe”, Igor D. Karachentsev has looked at a sample of 11,000 galaxies in the local Universe around the MW. He has summed up the masses of individual galaxies and galaxy-groups and used this to test a very fundamental prediction of LCDM.

 

The idea is as simple as it is brilliant: cosmology has precise predictions as to what is the content of our universe. In particular, it predicts the density of matter to be Ωm,glob = 0.28 +- 0.03 (83 per cent of this in dark, 17 per cent in luminous matter). Now, to test this, all you have to do is to sum up all the mass within a certain volume of space, and you can estimate the actual density of mass within that volume. To be sure that your volume is representative, it needs to be large. If you only sum over, say, a sphere of 100 kpc in diameter, the density strongly depends on whether you have a galaxy in this volume or not. Karachentsev chose to use a volume of 50 Mpc around the MW. On this size-scale, the density is expected to fluctuate by only 10 percent, a reasonably low value in astronomy. The scale can thus be assumed to be representative and you should observe the mass density predicted by LCDM.

 

Except that you do not.

 

Karachentsev reports that the average mass density is only Ωm,loc = 0.08 +- 0.02, a factor of 3-4 lower than predicted and can not be explained by the uncertainties in the data or prediction. As most of the mass-content in the Universe is supposed to be dark matter, this means that most dark matter is missing in this volume.

 

It is not straight-forward to interpret this result, except that it might be a serious problem for LCDM. In the paper three solutions within the framework of standard dark matter cosmology are suggested. First of all, we might resort to the unsatisfying claim that the local Universe is exceptionally non-representative of the Universe as a whole. We would then sit in a local void, a very large under-dense region of the Universe. Unfortunately, as Karachentsev states in his paper, this is in contradiction to observations. The other two suggested solutions are based on the idea that maybe not all mass is counted. Dark matter is defined to be an elusive thing, after all. Dark halos might be more extended than predicted in the models, pushing it outside the virial radius of a halo, the region in which observations can indirectly 'measure' it from the dynamics. However, taking this as a solution to the observed mass-deficit “clearly contradicts the existing observational data”, as Karachentsev states in his work. But maybe much of the dark matter is hiding somewhere else? Karachentsev suggests it to be in massive dark clumps not filled with galaxies (he calls them 'dark attractors'), and thus is invisible to us when looking for galaxies only. But how could these dark clumps, with masses of galaxy-clusters, remain dark? You would need to separate the baryonic, luminous matter from a large bunch of dark matter to make sure no galaxies from in the dark attractor.

 

In any case, these suggestions require modifications to the behavior of dark matter because their processes are not predicted in current models. None of these possibilities seem very attractive, leaving us with the conclusion that, assuming we live in a LCDM universe, a large fraction of the dark matter is gone missing.

 

Dark Matter missing in ... the Solar Neighborhood

 

The amount of dark matter in the solar neighborhood was investigated in the work “Kinematical and chemical vertical structure of the Galactic thick disk II. A lack of dark matter in the solar neighborhood” by Christian Moni Bidin and collaborators. For a short introduction, you can have a look at this proceedings paper, and yesterday, the ESO also issued a press release about this work, titled “Serious Blow to Dark Matter Theories?”.

 

In their work, Moni Bidin et al. have looked at a sample of 400 red giant stars close to the Sun at vertical distances of 1.5 to 4 kpc above the MW disc. In addition to the stellar 3D positions, they have derived three-dimensional kinematics for these stars. From this data, they estimate the dynamical surface mass density of the MW within this range in heights from the disc. This surface mass density should be the sum of all mass, visible and dark. But it turns out that the visible mass alone is already a perfect fit to the observed value. No more mass is needed (see their plot below).

 

… snip …

 

Dark Matter missing in ... well, it is simply not there at all

 

Indeed, a 50 page review of the observational tests of the standard model has been compiled by Pavel Kroupa in "The dark matter crisis: falsification of the current standard model of cosmology" and will appear in the Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia (PASA-CSIRO publishing). Using a huge number of different data, Pavel Kroupa performs a strict logical falsification of the currently standard cosmological model, which is based on Einstein's theory of general relativity, concluding that cold or warm dark matter cannot exist.

 

Not surprising then, that the above studies have found dark matter to be missing....

 

A crisis of modern physics

 

If there is no dynamically relevant cold or warm dark matter then we still need to explain the flat rotation curves of galaxies. This leads to a crisis in modern physics, as our very understanding of space-time and matter are now at stake.

So yet another scientific source that's apparently never heard of electromagnetism or Peratt's work, but who at least can see there is a real problem with mainstream thought on the topic of astrophysics and cosmology. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/22/update-dark-matter-recreations-part-one/

 

Dark Matter ‘Missing,’ but Will Astronomers See the Light?

 

On April 18, 2012, the European Southern Observatory issued a science release that has received international media attention, and has far reaching implications for the future of astronomy and the space sciences. The release discusses a recent study which has “mapped the motions of more than 400 stars up to 13 000 light-years from the Sun.” The report reads:

 

“The most accurate study so far of the motions of stars in the Milky Way has found no evidence for dark matter in a large volume around the Sun. According to widely accepted theories, the solar neighbourhood was expected to be filled with dark matter, a mysterious invisible substance that can only be detected indirectly by the gravitational force it exerts. But a new study by a team of astronomers in Chile has found that these theories just do not fit the observational facts. This may mean that attempts to directly detect dark matter particles on Earth are unlikely to be successful.”

 

For more than eight years on this website, Electric Universe proponents have argued for an alternative view of the cosmos, in which dark matter is neither real nor “necessary.” Astronomers believe that galaxy formation, galaxy clusters, and the motions of spiral galaxies require dark matter based on the amount of gravitational energy available in the Universe. But decades ago, Hannes Alfven, the father of Plasma Cosmology, proposed an electric galaxy theory based on a homopolar motor. Alfven’s successor, Anthony Perratt of Los Alamos Laboratories, using particle-in-cell computer simulations, has demonstrated the evolution of galactic structures under the influence of electric currents. Through the “pinch effect”, parallel currents converge to produce spiraling structures. No dark matter needed.

 

The article below by Thunderbolts contributor Tom Wilson – originally posted as a two-part TPOD in 2009 – offers the reader a digestible outline comparing the competing models. As the picture becomes clearer, the reader will understand why “missing” dark matter is a major surprise to mainstream astronomers, but not to Electric Universe proponents.

Then the above link reprints the article that was written in 2009 on the issue of dark matter. It's well worth a read and very timely in light of this latest study. I highly recommend it to everyone with any interest at all in understanding the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another recent study that looked for evidence of Dark Matter … and didn't find it.

 

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-fermi-dwarf-galaxies-insights-dark.html

 

The team examined two years of LAT-detected gamma rays with energies in the range from 200 million to 100 billion electron volts (GeV) from 10 of the roughly two dozen dwarf galaxies known to orbit the Milky Way. Instead of analyzing the results for each galaxy separately, the scientists developed a statistical technique -- they call it a "joint likelihood analysis" -- that evaluates all of the galaxies at once without merging the data together. No gamma-ray signal consistent with the annihilations expected from four different types of commonly considered WIMP particles was found.

But that didn't deter the faithful from holding firm to their belief it exists. :rolleyes:

 

Also, here is a NASA Goddard presentation by Dr. Donald E. Scott on plasma/electric *cosmology*:

 

 

It's a viable alternative to Dark Matter and all the other invisible gnomes that astrophysicists and Big Bang proponents have dreamed up to explain what they don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.universetoday.com/94808/newly-discovered-satellite-galaxies-another-blow-against-dark-matter/

 

A group of astronomers have discovered a vast structure of satellite galaxies and clusters of stars surrounding our Milky Way galaxy, stretching out across a million light years. The team says their findings may signal a “catastrophic failure of the standard cosmological model,” challenging the existence of dark matter. This joins another study released last week, where scientists said they found no evidence for dark matter.

… snip …

 

Pawlowski, Kroupa and their team say they have found a huge structure of galaxies and star clusters that extends as close as 33,000 light years to as far away as one million light years from the center of the galaxy, existing in right angles to the Millky Way, or in a polar structure both ‘north’ and ‘south’ of the plane of our galaxy.

 

… snip …

 

The team wrote in their paper: “If all the satellite galaxies and young halo clusters have been formed in an encounter between the young Milky Way and another gas-rich galaxy about 10-11 Gyr ago, then the Milky Way does not have any luminous dark-matter substructures and the missing satellites problem becomes a catastrophic failure of the standard cosmological model.”

 

“We were baffled by how well the distributions of the different types of objects agreed with each other,” said Kroupa. “Our model appears to rule out the presence of dark matter in the universe, threatening a central pillar of current cosmological theory. We see this as the beginning of a paradigm shift, one that will ultimately lead us to a new understanding of the universe we inhabit.”

Now surely at least one Big Bang proponent wants to step up and defend the Dark Matter hypothesis. :D

Edited by BeAChooser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47118181/ns/technology_and_science-science/

 

The question is: If not dark matter, then what?

As it's called into question, other theories to account for rotation of galaxies studied

 

... snip ...

 

But in the meantime, by calling dark matter into question, the new ESO finding invites discussion of a topic that hasn't gotten much airtime in recent years: What other theories could account for the rotation of galaxies, as well as other observations explained by dark matter? If not dark matter — or, at least, not the dark matter we expected — then what? Experts have a few other options, though they're not nearly as satisfying.

And what alternatives do they mention?  Is electromagnetic effects on plasma one of them? NO.  Only modified gravity of one form or another is mentioned in the article ... and the possibility that dark matter is even stranger than it was before.  In short, these scientists are ignorant of anything outside their own very narrow field of *expertise* (if one should even call what they have that), blinded by their own pre-conceived notions.  

 

How blinded?  Well even the astronomer/astrophysicist who concluded there is no dark matter in the OP article, Moni Bidin, is quoted saying:

 

To date, a comprehensive relativistic theory alternative to the dark matter paradigm, able to explain the observations on all scales, from galactic rotation to the clusters of galaxies, is not known

:rolleyes:  My suggestion to these eggheads is look beyond the end of your nose and learn some real physics.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to say it but many people are predicting that this problem with Dark Matter will be swept under the rug. Because in 30 years they haven't really been interested in the failed predictions of their model. They always just tack on another absurd particle or unseen force to make the problem seem to disappear. And ignore the ways in which electromagnetic effects on plasma might fix the problem. They don't seem even remotely interested in falsifying the mountain of nonsensical beliefs they've created. Because if they did that, the money and prestige they've acquired would just dry up. So is the broom is about to come out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another article on this that never mentions plasma or electromagnetism.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/03/13/148495234/science-follows-a-dark-path-as-it-tries-to-explain-the-observed-universe

 

Is it because journalists are no longer real journalists … they are incapable of doing even minimal research?

 

Is it because the *experts* the journalists choose to consult are too narrow minded or poorly educated to even be aware of what was learned about the effect of electromagnetism on plasma about half a century ago?

 

Or perhaps it's both? :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.space.com/15435-dark-matter-particles-collide-human-body.html

 

Invisible dark matter particles may regularly pass through our bodies, and dozens to thousands of these particles may be colliding with atoms inside us every year, according to a new calculation.

A calculation says this? :rolleyes:

 

The only problem is that WITH OBSERVATIONS they can't find much of it anywhere in the galaxy.

 

Is it all hiding in human bodies? Is that going to be the new theory?

 

When is this insanity going to end? When their government funding ends?

 

Now that's a thought worthy of consideration. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark matter isn't the same as antimatter right?

Thinking antimatter and matter cancel each other out.

 

As far as the solarsystems goes there are very few facts as to theorys. Thus saying going to be alot of debunking of theorys in the next hundred or so years.......remeber the world used to be flat.......

 

It still is in philosophical existential comparisons generated by comparing hypotheticals against hypotheses? How many corners exist to the surface of this planet's spherical shape? 8 on the inside to six pole positions outside that never move as the substance of this planet passes by.

 

Creating 12 outside limits with 24 inside angles having 8 separate zones of contracting triangulation compounding gaseous, liquid, and mineral elements to details never duplicated twice functioning the same way every generation lifetimes remain male and female whole results of added ancestry and half the next generation of ancestors to occupy now with in the likeness of that specific ancestry randomly selected in every species including the human fraction of the food chain..

 

Care to name the 6 halves of this planet's 8 corners?

 

Day, night, northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere, eastern hemisphere, and western hemisphere. What are the dividing poles of expanding and contracting polarities of results balancing while never staying the same details between being a conceived fertilized cell and a dead grandparent whom's grandchildren had three more besides themselves as an ancestor of ancestry being a sole lifetime like no other before or since being part of now's total sum compounding results here.

 

Reality is dark matter making sure character counts metaphorically that the functions of functioning the substance working as usual. It's three states of elements are subjectivity, objectivity, and relativing in comparing ideas of theory against theology making sure genders adopt a social identitiy in governed societal evolution denying the real moment is always now universally.

 

Dark matter cannot be missing because it never existed other than in oral arguments edcuating lifetimes to ignore the self evident functions working the same way all the time regardless what institutions teach genders to perform as the world is but a theater of staged events religiously, politically, and economically forcing sole results of ancestry to adopt a social collective ideology.

 

The substance in orchesrating self fulfilling prophecies while everyone honoring their role never understands the total sum of their actions.

 

Let us devote our lifetimes to saving the greater good intentions of humanity's societal evolutionists tipping the scales of natural balance to favor one ideology over another each generation nobody knows how to stop human self extinction because time exists beyond the moment in theory and spirituality.

Edited by sole result

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/04/120424-dark-matter-collisions-humans-wimps-physics-space-science/

 

The average human body gets hit by a particle of dark matter about once a minute, according to new calculations based on several dark matter detection efforts.

Calculations based on detection efforts that haven't found anything?  :rolleyes:

 

The only people these jokers masquerading as scientists are fooling are themselves ... and the people stupid enough to go on funding them.

 

And the *journalists* who report their nonsense without doing any research or questioning any of it. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2113093,00.html?iid=tsmodule

 

Dark-Matter Mystery: Why Are 400 Stars Moving as if There's Nothing There?

Don't worry. Just another article where neither interviewed scientist or journalist ever mention electromagnetic effects on plasmas. Where they are working diligently to sweep the lastest study under the rug … like I predicted. I quote:

 

The catch is that not everyone is convinced, or even that dark-matter theorists should be very concerned about the new findings. "It's very difficult to measure the local density of dark matter," says David Spergel, head of the Astrophysics Department at Princeton. "[The technique the Chileans used] is a method that has historically been plagued with problems." Beyond that, he says, several different, independent techniques have all come up with different results from those of the recent study, and all are more or less consistent in terms of how much dark matter there is and how it's spread around.

 

That's pretty convincing evidence that the current consensus is close to being right and that this one discordant measurement is wrong. "I suspect," Spergel says, "that the problem lies with either the analysis of local data or with models that predict the local (as opposed to the global) dark-matter density."

 

Or as scientists often say when confronted with data like these: important if true. But probably not true.

Of course, what *expert* Spergel fails to mention is that all those other independent "techniques" are based on calculations that assume from the start there is dark matter and that totally ignore the influence of electromagnetism on plasma. And they call this *science*. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/10

 

Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in Hubble Image

 

MARCH 2, 2012: Astronomers observed what appeared to be a clump of dark matter left behind during a bizarre wreck between massive clusters of galaxies. The dark matter collected into a "dark core" containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies hung together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. This result could present a challenge to basic theories of dark matter, which predict that galaxies should be anchored to the invisible substance, even during the shock of a collision.

 

The initial observations, made in 2007, were so unusual that astronomers shrugged them off as unreal, due to poor data. However, new results obtained in 2008 from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope confirm that dark matter and galaxies parted ways in the gigantic merging galaxy cluster called Abell 520, located 2.4 billion light-years away. Now, astronomers are left with the challenge of trying to explain dark matter's seemingly oddball behavior in this cluster.

LOL!  You'd think that given all the observations that defy explanation astronomers would eventually begin to question their underlying assumption.  But they don't ... because they are more like dogmatic priests now than scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another DarkMatterTruther, masquerading as a scientist …

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2141963/Do-giant-bubbles-radiation-heart-Milky-Way-hold-smoking-gun-proves-dark-matter-exists.html

 

High energy collisions around the black hole at the heart of our galaxy, the Milky Way, may be ‘smoking gun’ evidence of dark matter, the elusive substance which makes up two thirds of the galaxy.

 

… snip …

 

Christoph Weniger of the Max Planck Institute for Physics in Munich now believes he may have found the first concrete evidence.

 

ooFermi_bubble_art.jpg

 

Researchers say a pair of enormous gamma-ray-emitting bubbles extending outwards from the plane of the Milky Way could hold the key to the discovery.

 

By carrying out statistical analysis of three and a half years worth of publicly available data from NASA’s Fermi Space Telescope, he believes he may have spotted a tell-tale sign of exotic particles within the Milky Way.

 

If proved to be real, this 'gamma-ray line' would, he claims, be a 'smoking-gun signature' of dark matter.

 

Experts agree that supermassive black holes, like the one at the center of the Milky Way, release jets that interact with surrounding dark matter.

 

This interaction is thought to be the source of high-energy gamma rays that satellites like Fermi can detect. What the satellites can see are the photons produced when these jets interact with dark matter.

 

After analysing three years of data, Weniger claims to have found a provisional result which shows a peak in energy, which shows up as a line in the gamma ray spectrum.

 

This, he claims, could be proof of dark matter interacting with the jets.

 

However, scientists admit more work is needed to prove the theory.

 

… snip …

 

Even Weniger admits it is a provisional result, and said his data points come from just 50 photons, leaving open the possibility that some other phenomenon caused the line.

Wow! He sure sounds certain. :) And there could be another explanation … :D

 

But before we get to that possibility, from a earlier article or two …

 

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-11/astronomers-find-massive-previously-undetected-gamma-ray-bubbles-adorning-milky-way

 

Astronomers Find Massive, Previously Undetected Gamma Radiation Bubbles Adorning the Milky Way

And the video in that link states that within the bubbles extremely energetic electrons are interacting with light to produce gamma rays. Electrons. Hmmmmm … could that be a clue? ;)

 

But mainstream scientists remain baffled …

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/1110/Milky-Way-bubbles-baffle-astronomers-searching-for-dark-matter

 

Milky Way 'bubbles' baffle astronomers searching for dark matter

 

… snip …

 

For the moment, the discovery marks a "Hey, Martha!" moment in the annals of astrophysics. Researchers don't know why the bubbles are there. Nor have they identified the violent processes involved in generating the gamma rays that betray the bubbles' presence.

 

… snip …

 

Models predicted that a fuzzy fog of gamma rays surrounding the Milky Way's center would be the tip-off to dark matter's presence.

 

"To our surprise, we saw this big dumbbell-shaped feature that we've called the Fermi bubbles," he says. Far from fuzzy, the features have sharp boundaries.

So, again the models for dark matter predicted something different than what was found. And apparently not everyone is convinced the gamma rays coming from the bubbles signal dark matter ...

 

Ironically, while one could posit that the gamma-ray bubbles the team detected in fact signal the presence of dark matter, the bubbles appear to complicate the dark-matter search, Bookbeiner says.

 

"I don't think this is dark matter. In fact, it makes it harder to find dark matter, because now we have this other thing in the way. It just confuses everything," he says.

Darn. The universe just isn't cooperating with these fellows. :D

 

If only these mainstream *scientists* could think outside the box they've created for themselves …

 

If only they could look at things in a different way … then the presence of energetic electrons, gamma rays, jets and dipolar structures, ubiquitous magnetic fields, filamentary plasma structures and so much else would make perfect sense ...

 

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100628hourglass.htm

 

The Hourglass Milky Way


Jun 28, 2010

 

Recent observations reveal a dipolar "bubble" of gamma radiation from the galactic nucleus.

 

… snip …

 

Plasma physicists are familiar with hourglass shapes. Rather than "bubbles" of radiation, the funicular formations are the unmistakable signature of Birkeland currents squeezing plasma and charged dust into a z-pinch compression zone. The intense magnetic fields associated with Birkeland current filaments cause electrons to accelerate with velocities close to light speed. Those excited electrons emit synchrotron radiation, the principle source for gamma rays in space.

 

Electric Universe advocates have long known that "radio lobes" far above the poles of active galaxies are the signature of Birkeland currents. Almost every body in the Universe displays some kind of filamentation. For example, the jets from energetic galaxies, such as M87, resolve into braided filaments, while the spiral arms of some galaxies exhibit twisted strands of material extending from their cores.

 

All those filaments are Birkeland currents, but they only represent the visible portion of an entire circuit. Every element in a galactic circuit radiates energy, and it must be powered by its coupling with larger circuits. The extent of those larger circuits is unknown, but since galaxies occur in strings, they must traverse millions of light-years.

 

As more data accumulates from an ever-increasing array of telescopes, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the Milky Way shares characteristics with the rest of its galactic family. A halo of stars, filamentary structures, lobes of radiation, a microwave "haze," and other observed phenomena point to its electrical nature.

Yes, there is an alternate explanation … one involving more mundane, proven physics rather than mythical entities such as dark matter, dark matter, black holes, etc. Here's a short summary of that alternative, written by Stephen Smith:

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100409electromagnetic.htm

 

E l e c t r o m a g n e t i c   G  a l a x  i e s

 

Apr 09, 2010

 

Galactic magnetic fields were discovered more than 50 years ago.

 

Astronomers continue to ask basic questions about the stars: what generates their magnetic fields? What gives those fields their shape and their strength?

 

According to a recent press release, a team of astronomers using an updated analytical model of galaxy formation think they have found the answers. Cool gas falling into the galaxy, supernovae explosions, the birth of new stars, and the rotational energy of the galaxy itself are what create the fields. However, they are missing other factors in their equations since the models are not able to predict the fields observed in several spiral galaxies.

 

How do scientists observe extrasolar magnetic fields? George Ellery Hale first plotted the Sun's magnetic field using the "Zeeman effect," or the change in position of Fraunhofer lines found in spectrograms of the Sun. Optical spectra indicate which chemicals can be found in the Sun, as well as other stars. By spreading starlight into its components like a prism does to white light, dark lines at specific places provide a way to determine a star's constituent elements.

 

In the presence of a magnetic field, elements produce spectral lines that split and occupy different positions. Those changes in position are called the Zeeman effect. However, as a paper written by the investigation team states: "Such fields are important in star formation and the physics of cosmic rays, and could also have an effect on galaxy evolution, yet, despite their importance, questions about their origin, evolution and structure remain largely unsolved."

 

It is not surprising that the magnetic field contours surrounding the stars that have been mapped, as well as those seen around galaxies, remain unexplained in the minds of those who hold to a consensus viewpoint. In the theoretical pool of knowledge from which they draw, there are no electrical entities to provide the source for that magnetism.

 

Instead, "star formation reducing turbulent energy," "gas ejection," and "how fast ordered magnetic fields arise from random ones" are discussed. No electromagnetism, no e-fields, and no motor-generator effects are included in their calculations.

 

Magnetic fields in space can be detected more easily than electric currents, so modern astronomers think that the fields are "primordial" fragments left over from the Big Bang. They rely on that conclusion to explain how the structures that make up the Universe were formed.

 

The fact that moving charges constitute an electric current that can generate magnetic fields has been known since the days of Michael Faraday. However, a lack of knowledge often means a lack of vision. As previously stated, moving charged particles constitute an electric current, and that current is wrapped in a magnetic field. When more charged particles accelerate in the same direction, the field gets stronger. That is a familiar idea to electrical engineers, but when astronomers find moving charges in space they are mystified and refer to them as "winds," or "shock waves."

 

Something else not considered when researchers attempt to explain structure in the Universe is that for charged particles to move, they must move in a circuit. Energetic events cannot be explained by local conditions, alone. The effects of an entire circuit must be considered. For that reason, while the consensus scientific worldview only permits isolated "islands" in space, the Electric Universe emphasizes connectivity with an electrically active network of "transmission lines" composed of Birkeland current filaments.

 

Filaments expand and explode, throwing off plasma that can accelerate to near light-speed. Jets from opposite poles of a galaxy end in energetic clouds emitting X-ray frequencies. These phenomena are based in plasma science and not gas kinetics, gravity, or particle physics. Astrophysicists see magnetic fields but not the underlying electricity, so they are at a loss to explain them.

 

Astronomers maintain that galaxies are clouds of hydrogen gas and intergalactic dust that were assembled by gravity until they coalesced into glowing thermonuclear fires. The conventional community also proposes that most galaxies contain black holes of unbelievable magnitude. It is those “gravitational point sources” that cause the galaxies to spin, jets of gamma and X-rays that span thousands of light-years to appear, as well as “radio lobes” sometimes larger than the parent galaxy to form.

 

The Electric Universe theory does not adhere to the idea of galaxies condensing out of cold, inert hydrogen and specks of zircon no bigger than a molecule. So, what are galaxies?

 

In 1981, Hannes Alfvén said that galaxies are much like one of Michael Faraday's inventions, the homopolar motor. A homopolar motor is driven by magnetic fields induced in a circular conducting plate. The plate is mounted between the poles of an electromagnet, causing it to spin at a rate proportional to the input current.

 

Galaxies move within a filamentary circuit of electricity that flows through the cosmos from beginning to end. We see the effects of those electromagnetic fields that permeate space. Electricity organizes itself within masses of plasma sometimes larger than galaxy clusters. That plasma is primarily composed of neutral atoms, but free electrons, protons and other charged particles are also present.

 

Primal electrical energy is orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity. The “plasma ropes” that comprise Birkeland currents attract one another over distance in a linear relationship, so Birkeland currents are the most powerful long-range attractors in the Universe. Electric currents flowing through dusty plasma sustain the magnetic fields detected in stars and galaxies.

Now if only mainstream scientists will wake up from the dream/nightmare they've been having the past 80 years? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Failure to find dark matter in the solar system is but the latest symptom of a fundamental problem with the theories of modern astrophysicists and astronomers.

 

Here's another interesting bit of news …

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2142886/The-outer-limits-Nasa-probe-sees-edge-solar-time--completely-different-thought.html

 

Nasa's probes have seen the 'edge' of our solar system for the first time - and it's completely different from what scientists thought.

 

Our solar system is flying through space more slowly than we thought - and Nasa's IBEX - Interstellar Boundary Explorer - has found it doesn't have a 'bow shock', an area of gas or plasma that shields our solar system as it hurtles though space.

So again, they encounter the unexpected. And they'll have to revise all their models full of gravity and mechanical effects. But they will insist on clinging to physics that don't treat what they see as charged plasma … even though plasma is 99% of what we actually see out there.

 

Instead, they will continue to speak of "wind" and the sort of waves analogous to those produced by a boat traveling through water.

 

But as has been pointed out repeatedly the last 50 years, this is not terminology appropriate to a highly ionized and magnetized solar environmnent.

 

How can mainstream scientists ever hope to understand what they see, if they refuse to account for the effect of electric currents and if they refuse to acknowledge that only electric currents generate magnetic fields.

 

Instead, they ignore electric currents and they've created another false gnome (as bad as Dark Matter) … the belief that magnetic fields can be "frozen" into plasma.

 

But Hannes Alfvén, the father of plasma physics, pointed out why this is a false gnome in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech in 1970. Apparently no one was listening.

 

The truth is that there is an alternative hypothesis regarding the Sun's domain. One that has had plenty of time to find it's way into mainstream astrophysicist ears but has just been ignored.

 

And why is that?

 

The answer might lie in a study that Alfvén did of the most used textbooks on astrophysics. He found that students using these textbooks remained essentially ignorant of physics like double layers, critical velocity, pinch effect and circuits. His conclusion was that "astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of astrophysicists who have gotten their main knowledge from these textbooks. Earthbound and space telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory." But, no one listened. And as a result, the mainstream can't see the obvious alternative to their current gnome filled theories. As a result, they dismiss it out of hand.

 

And that alternative is given in a paper, supported in part by NASA, that Alfvén wrote where he said: "Since the time of Langmuir, we know that a double layer is a plasma formation by which a plasma–in the physical meaning of the word–protects itself from the environment. … snip … If a plasma is inhomogeneous so that the chemical composition, density, and/or electron temperature differs in different parts of the plasma, the plasma may set up double layers which split the plasma into two or more regions, each of which becomes more homogeneous." The Electric Universe alternative is to view the solar plasma and that of interstellar space as two different plasmas, which MUST therefore have a "double layer" or Langmuir plasma sheath between them. Which has observable consequences.

 

As far back as 2006, electric universe proponents (like Wallace Thornhill) were warning that “The expectations of NASA scientists are not being met because their shock front model is incorrect. The boundary that Voyager has reached is more complex and structured than a mechanical impact.” Thornhill noted that data shows the heliosheath is dominated not by the Sun but by the Galaxy’s magnetic field and suggested that, “since the galaxy’s magnetic field traces the direction of interstellar electric current flow in space near the Sun, it is a result that conforms to the proposed electric universe model of galaxies and stars." And, sure enough, observational scientists have now discovered the solar system lacks a bow shock and all that they thought they explained with a bow shock must be explained by something else. Perhaps another gnome or two? :rolleyes:

 

I guess we can just add that to the mountain of other mysteries that confound mainstream astrophysicists but which electric universe proponents seem to better understand. Indeed, the mainstream's theories failure to match bow shock observations in astral objects is quite common.

 

Take comets, for instance. When the US International Cometary Explorer (ICE) spacecraft flew by the comet Giacobini-Zinner, John C. Brandt, comet scientist for the ICE mission, said, "The extremely fine structure is a surprise, the lack of a traditional bow shock is a surprise and the richness of the high-energy phenomenon is a surprise." But not to electric universe proponents. Indeed, they predicted such phenomena. How many people here are aware that there is an electrical model for comets, one which posits that a charged comet nucleus moving through the solar plasma will form a number of plasma sheaths or double layers?

 

Mainstream scientists associated with the Giotto mission to comets Halley and Grigg-Skjellerup were surprised by their sharp plasma boundaries and even one "mystery" boundary. But there is no mystery when they are considered as electrical plasma sheaths and not simply mechanical "bow shocks." The strong electric field that was observed and the x-rays produced in that region puzzled the mainstream but hold no mystery to electric universe proponents. The cometary x-rays simply didn't conform to the mainstream's simple hydrodynamic collision calculations. It was remarked that it was like finding the shockwave from a supersonic aircraft several kilometres to one side of the aircraft.

 

Or consider Saturn. The spacecraft Cassini observed all sorts of electrical phenomena around Saturn that surprised the mainstream, but which electric universe proponents either predicted or explained. Furthermore, NASA noted that the spacecraft encountered the "bow shock" much earlier than expected, based on Pioneer and Voyager data. Their report said "It was as if Saturn's county line had been redrawn, and that was a surprise." But that wasn't a surprise to electric universe proponents because instead of treating Saturn’s magnetosphere like an inert windsock flapping in the solar wind, their model views a magnetosphere as a Langmuir plasma sheath that expands and contracts in response to the electric stress imposed on the planet. Saturn, at solar minimum, was under less electrical stress than when the Voyager spacecraft whizzed by it so naturally Saturn's magnetosphere was larger and naturally electrical phenomena like lightning shifted to higher latitudes and reduced in intensity.

 

Remember the first "shocking" discovery of IBEX, announced last year … that there was a gigantic magnetic bubble right outside the solar system? The mainsteam media quoted mainstream scientists (like David McComas, the principle IBEX investigator) saying it's a “ribbon” that is 10 times more intense than anticipated "gusts" in the solar "wind" "blowing" against the boundary being observed. McComas said “Charged particles have apparently become bunched along the ribbon near the boundary, but how they got there is still a big mystery.” He said “This is a shocking new result. We had no idea this ribbon existed–or what has created it. Our previous ideas about the outer heliosphere are going to have to be revised.

 

Mainstream scientists were also surprised by the ribbon's fine filamentary structure and that structure was as much a mystery as the ribbon itself. Noting that the ribbon runs perpendicular to the direction of the galactic magnetic field. McComas said "That cannot be a coincidence." But he didn't understand what it means. Instead, he remarked "We're missing some fundamental aspect of the interaction between the heliosphere and the rest of the galaxy."

 

What he and they were/are missing are the physics that Alfven and the electric universe community have been trying to point out to them for 50 long years. But, like Democrats, they never learn.

 

They're still thinking in terms of neutral particles, mechanical effects and gravity. They just keep making the same mistake over and over.

 

When will they realize that plasma cosmologists and electric universe proponents might have a valid idea?

 

Over and over, mainstream scientists have called on gnomes (dark matter, dark energy, black holes, etc), none of which have ever been conclusively detected or observed, to explain the formation and structure of galaxies.

 

And to explain the structure and behavior of stars, and the existence of jets, they've invented electromagnetic physics that stand in stark contrast to what those outside the astrophysics community believe are correct.

 

More gnomes.

 

And even with all those gnomes, they still are continually "surprised" by new observations that they didn't predict and can't explain.

 

But instead of reexamining their basic assumptions, like they should, they choose to add yet more gnomes to the menagerie.

 

What they've really done is built a house of cards or a bus whose wheels are slowly coming off.

 

I'll say it once more. There is a possible alternative with known and proven physics that might explain most of the troublesome observations … without employing a single gnome. Because electric Universe proponents have no problem explaining the formation and observed structure of the stars and galaxies, the behavior of the sun and plants, and the forms of radiation they observe coming from and around them. They have no trouble explaining the jets and their behavior. And many other objects that continue to puzzle mainstream astronomers and astrophysicists.

 

Retired electrical engineering professor Donald Scott puts it this way in his book "Electric Sky":

 

A plasma universe and a gravitational universe have gross observational differences. A plasma universe should be filamentary - stringy - at all size scales (in the atmospheres of planets, in the Sun's corona, in groups of stars, in galaxies and in strings of galaxy clusters). It should be energetic, a source of electromagnetic radiation over the entire electromagnetic spectrum, and it should be endless in space. The gravitational universe - the "big bang" universe - is supposed to have produced all the elements originally, should now be quiescent in the absence of mass collisions, and should be increasingly smooth on the large scale. The filamentation, chaos, and radio-frequency radiation that we now observe were not expected in the original big bang model.

And the filamentation, chaos and radiation that we observe at the boundary of the solar system are also not what was expected by the mainstream. But it was anticipated by electric universe theorists. Isn't the ability to predict phenomena an importart part of science?

 

Here is a report on the largest computer model the mainstream had built for the universe up till 2007: http://www.physorg.com/news116170410.html. It illustrates the mainstream's underlying problem. While noting that "much of the gaseous mass of the universe is bound up in a tangled web of cosmic filaments that stretch for hundreds of millions of light-years", the report doesn't refer even once to the material in the filaments as being "plasma", nor does it recognize that electromagnetic effects naturally tend to organize plasmas into long filaments. The model doesn't include any of those effects ... only gravity. And THAT is the problem. The lastest surprise of finding no dark matter in the solar system and no bow shock are but the latest symptoms of THAT problem.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, oh, more trouble for dark matter theorists:

 

http://planetsave.com/2012/05/14/rogue-planets-may-invalidate-the-dark-matter-theory/

 

‘Rogue Planets’ May Invalidate the Dark Matter Theory

 

Free-floating extrasolar planets, those that are not gravitationally bound to anything, may be present in much larger numbers than originally thought. Thus explaining the ‘missing mass’ of galaxies, and making the dark matter theory unnecessary.

 

These rogue planets orbit the galaxy directly, and in large enough numbers could explain the discrepancy of the gravitational effects of ‘large astronomical objects’, and the estimates of their mass, made from their ‘luminous matter’, the stars, gas, and dust they contain.

 

In a new study from the University of Buckingham’s Centre for Astrobiology, the researchers argue that these rogue planets are present in large enough quantities that they do explain all of the ‘missing mass’ of galaxies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark matter is synonymous with matter. So the Universe is expanding. Rays, what have you, gamma, whatever, all the tea in China let's just say as an example. Say you held all the tea in China in one big tea bag, and say you heated the Pacific Ocean and dipped it in, long enough so that whatever stains there were in the tea bag would eventually equalize.

Say, if you were very far from Earth, and say you had some way to look at the chemical change in the Pacific Ocean from this Tea Bag experiment, would the Pacific Ocean have gotten bigger, expanded ever so slightly in mass? Forget all the herbal or whatever type of molecule, forget if it was a healthy or non-healthy kind of thing, and forget just trying to figure out what all the tea in china means.

Just think, man, that's a hell of a lot of tea, and stuff in a teabag will by natural effect try to expand outwards from its most concentrated solid state outwards.

 

Or, is that way off base?

 

 

I don't know.

 

You tell me/

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/07/dark-matter-no-show-hobbles-el.html

 

Dark matter no-show hobbles elegant particle theory

 

19 July 2012

 

Dark matter stubbornly refuses to come out of the shadows. The latest results from an underground detector show no sign of WIMPs, or weakly interacting massive particles, the still-theoretical particles thought to make up the invisible majority of the universe's mass.

 

The result puts the strictest limits yet on the particle's properties, and may squeeze out some favourite extensions to the standard model of particle physics.

 

Dark matter is the mysterious stuff dreamed up by cosmologists to explain why galaxies don't fly apart and why matter in the universe clusters the way it does. To explain the universe we see, dark matter must make up 83 per cent of all matter. But it doesn't emit light or speak to ordinary matter at all, except through gravity.

 

… snip …

 

The latest results, presented at the DarkAttack2012 conference in Ascona, Switzerland, on 18 July, were based on 225 days of new data. The team used an improved detector that was 3.5 times as sensitive to the skittish particles as before. Still, the result was the same: no WIMPs.

 

"We have essentially set the most stringent limits of any other experiment" for WIMPs with masses heavier than 8 gigaelectronvolts (GeV), says Antonio Melgarejo of the Xenon team.

 

That doesn't mean WIMPs aren't real - it just means they may be harder to find than we hoped. Either WIMPs are much lighter than theories originally predicted (Xenon100 was optimised for 100-GeV WIMPs), or they're even more shy of ordinary matter than thought.

 

This in turn tightens the noose around certain versions of the theory known as supersymmetry, which some hope will extend the standard model, removing its many insufficiencies. The standard model was completed by the discovery of the Higgs boson this month, but it still doesn't explain dark matter. In supersymmetry, every standard particle has a heavier "superpartner" particle, one of which could be a WIMP.

 

However, the new Xenon results rule out most of the region where some of the simpler supersymmetry models predicted a dark matter WIMP should be.

 

… snip …

 

If WIMPs don't show up soon, though, it may be a sign that physicists are simply on the wrong track.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nature.com

 

August 9, 2012 - An international research team led by astronomers from the University of Zurich has announced that they have detected the presence of dark matter near our own sun. Their findings have been published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Would that be germane to this argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×