Jump to content

Dark Matter Even More Missing Now ...


Recommended Posts

Oh no … still more trouble for Big Bang proponents …


https://www.sciencealert.com/even-when-hubble-looks-as-far-back-in-time-as-possible-it-still-can-t-find-the-first-stars

 

Quote

 

Hubble Has Looked Back in Time as Far as It Can And Still Can't Find The First Stars


by Nancy Atkinson


Astronomers don't know exactly when the first stars formed in the Universe because they haven't been observed yet. And now, new observations from the Hubble Space Telescope suggest the first stars and galaxies may have formed even earlier than previously estimated.


… snip ….


Rachana Bhatawdekar of the European Space Agency led this most recent study, probing the early Universe from about 500 million to 1 billion years after the Big Bang.


They studied the star cluster MACSJ0416 (see earlier comment about astronomers naming nomenclature) and the surrounding field with the Hubble Space Telescope, along with using supporting data from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope and the ground-based Very Large Telescope of the European Southern Observatory). 


… snip …


"We found no evidence of these first-generation Population III stars in this cosmic time interval," said Bhatawdekar.


"These results have profound astrophysical consequences as they show that galaxies must have formed much earlier than we thought."


Since these observations are at the limits of Hubble, it puts one more task on the to-do list for the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope.

 


What are they going to do when the JWST also produces observations completely contrary to expectations?  

 

Want an even better telescope ($$$$$$$$$) and ignore the obvious?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 874
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Is this now the "Science is the Devil" thread? How do you think all the astounding insights and discoveries so far, about the nature of the cosmos have been made. Since Galiepo, dedicated, gifted sc

ME make YOU pay to search for dark matter? You're living in a dark dream.

You're living in gnome land and you're the paranoid gnome in the family. Imposing right wing ideology on science is the driving theme in your harangues. You are about as pro-science as Merlin the m

Why do I suspect the Dark Matter gnome hunt is about to get even more expensive?

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/direct-proof-of-dark-matter-may-lurk-at-low-energy-frontiers/
 

Quote

 

Direct Proof of Dark Matter May Lurk at Low-Energy Frontiers


Even after decades of searching, scientists have never seen a particle of dark matter. Evidence for the substance’s existence is close to incontrovertible,

 

LOL!    Hold up a moment.   Even the most die hard proponent of DM has to see the incongruity in those two statements.   Don't you?

 

Continuing ...

 

Quote

but no one yet knows what it is made of. For decades physicists have hoped dark matter would prove to be heavy—consisting of so-called weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) that could be straightforwardly detected in the lab.


With no definitive sign of WIMPs emerging from years of careful searching, however, physicists have been broadening the scope of their quest. 


Ok.   Now let me interpret.   That means the search is now going to get *REALLY expensive*.   Because all the cheap (ha! ha!) ways of finding the stuff has been done … and failed.

 

Quote

As new, more precise experiments ramp up data collection

 

Again, "more precise" is just another way of saying *more expensive*.   Not that what they already tried hasn't been expensive.   It's cost BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND BILLIONS.

 

Quote

, researchers are reassessing theories about how dark matter particles lighter than a proton might appear in their detectors. Two papers posted on the preprint server arXiv.org earlier this year are emblematic of these shifting sensibilities. They are the first to propose that a detector could find plasmons—aggregates of electrons moving together in a material—produced by dark matter.


oooooooooo … a *plasmon detector*.    No wonder the Scientific American had to write a story about this!

 

Quote

 

… snip …


“We are screaming, ‘Plasmon, plasmon, plasmon!’ because that’s a compelling, existing phenomenon that we think might be relevant for interpreting dark matter experiments,” says Gordan Krnjaic, a dark matter theorist at Fermilab and the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago and a co-author of the first study. Particle physicists and astrophysicists have been speculating about how to detect low-mass dark matter for nearly a decade. But they had not previously considered seeking plasmons—which are more familiar to chemists and material scientists—as its signature.

 

 

Now they are trying to get you the public onboard ... since, after all, YOU are going to have to foot the bill.
 

Quote

 

… snip ….


The hunt for an invisible, nearly traceless substance usually goes something like this: To detect dark matter particles, physicists get a material, put it somewhere deep underground, hook it up to instruments and hope to see a signal. Specifically, they hope dark matter will strike the detector, producing electrons, photons or even heat that their instruments can observe.

 

… snip …


Until recently, the most sensitive dark matter detectors have used giant vats of liquid xenon. In the past few years, however, a new generation of smaller solid detectors have debuted. Known by clever acronyms such as EDELWEISS III, SENSEI and CRESST-III, they are made of materials such as germanium, silicon, and scheelite and are sensitive to dark matter collisions that would create just a single electron.


But all detectors, no matter how well-shielded, experience noise from sources such as background radiation. So over the past year or so, when scientists operating several dark matter detectors began seeing more signals at low energies than expected, they stayed rather quiet about it.


The paper by Kurinsky and his colleagues was the first to point out the remarkable similarity between the low-energy “excesses” seen across disparate dark matter experiments. Several excesses seem to cluster around a value of 10 hertz per kilogram of detector mass. Because the detectors are made of different materials, are located in different places and operate under different conditions, it is difficult to come up with a universal reason for this uncanny harmony—except, that is, for the subtle influence of dark matter. This discussion caught the attention of other physicists, such as Lin, who quickly jumped to work on plasmon calculations. But even she has doubts that what the experiments are currently seeing are the results of dark matter creating plasmons. “I'm not saying it couldn’t be dark matter,” Lin says. “But it doesn’t seem convincing to me so far.”


As more data come in from the latest generation of dark matter detectors, the hypothesis will be put to the test. But whether or not the detectors are currently seeing the mysterious substance may be beside the point. Researchers in the field are now thinking and talking about plasmons and other ways in which low-mass dark matter could behave. An exploration of the precision frontier is underway.


“There are many ways in which we can be wrong,” Krnjaic says. “And they’re all exciting.”

 


Wait!   Not only is this bound to be expensive, but that last part is pretty much an admission that it’s probably not going to work … but at least the hunt will be "exciting".    :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 6/8/2020 at 9:19 PM, BeAChooser said:

 

Oh no … still more trouble for Big Bang proponents …


https://www.sciencealert.com/even-when-hubble-looks-as-far-back-in-time-as-possible-it-still-can-t-find-the-first-stars

 

Quote

 

Distant starlight Interpreted and explained from a ‘young earth’ worldview and model.
Russell Humphreys. good stuff from 6min20sec point.

 

basically, As we now know gravity distorts time.....the ‘outer edge’ distant stars (like on a trampoline) time ticks faster cause they are further from gravity source. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-hidden-magnetic-universe-begins-to-come-into-view-20200702/

 

Quote

 

The Hidden Magnetic Universe Begins to Come Into View


Anytime astronomers figure out a new way of looking for magnetic fields in ever more remote regions of the cosmos, inexplicably, they find them.


These force fields — the same entities that emanate from fridge magnets — surround Earth, the sun and all galaxies. Twenty years ago, astronomers started to detect magnetism permeating entire galaxy clusters, including the space between one galaxy and the next. Invisible field lines swoop through intergalactic space like the grooves of a fingerprint.


Last year, astronomers finally managed to examine a far sparser region of space — the expanse between galaxy clusters. There, they discovered the largest magnetic field yet: 10 million light-years of magnetized space spanning the entire length of this “filament” of the cosmic web. A second magnetized filament has already been spotted elsewhere in the cosmos by means of the same techniques. “We are just looking at the tip of the iceberg, probably,” said Federica Govoni of the National Institute for Astrophysics in Cagliari, Italy, who led the first detection.


The question is: Where did these enormous magnetic fields come from?

 


Of course, the rest of that article talks about gnomes.


There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This regards "Tired light", a class of redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative to the redshift-distance relationship on which the Big Bang cosmology depends.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306569369_A_Relationship_between_Dispersion_Measure_and_Redshift_Derived_in_Terms_of_New_Tired_Light

 

Quote

Using data from five FRB's this is tested and a linear relation is seen of the form DM = 1830LN(1 + z). The gradient of the plot from the observed data is within 23% of that predicted by NTL (BAC - New Tired Light).   Recently the Tolman Surface Brightness test has been applied to the HUDF and the results support a static universe whilst the possibility of two differing types of SN Ia whose distribution changes with distances means that tired light models can no longer be ruled out. Using SDF we know the distance to the Atlia galaxy cluster as 1.26 × 10^24 m. With the average electron number density of n = 0.5 m^−3 found from the Dispersion Measures of the FRB's, from first principles, New Tired Light gives a calculated predicted L. Ashmore 513 redshift of 0.0086. This compares well with the value found spectroscopically of 0.0087—a difference of approximately 1%. It is shown that if the energy transferred to a recoiling electron when a UV photon of wavelength λ = 5 × 10^−8 m interacts with it is emitted as a secondary photon that photon will have a wavelength of 2.2 mm— the wavelength at which the CMB curve peaks.

 

Another card in the gnome believers house falls ...

 

falling_house_of_cards_Cinewide_0000.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

This regards "Tired light", a class of redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative to the redshift-distance relationship on which the Big Bang cosmology depends.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306569369_A_Relationship_between_Dispersion_Measure_and_Redshift_Derived_in_Terms_of_New_Tired_Light

 

 

Another card in the gnome believers house falls ...

 

falling_house_of_cards_Cinewide_0000.jpg

It's all fake bullshit.

 

Space is fake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/09/yes-stephen-hawking-lied-to-us-all-about-how-black-holes-decay/#f15f79d4e63a

 

Quote

 

Yes, Stephen Hawking Lied To Us All About How Black Holes Decay


by Ethan Siegal


The greatest idea of Stephen Hawking's scientific career truly revolutionized how we think about black holes. They're not completely black, after all, and it was indeed Hawking who first understood and predicted the radiation that they should emit: Hawking radiation. He derived the result in 1974, and it's one of the most profound links ever between the worlds of the quantum and our theory of gravitation, Einstein's General Relativity.


And  yet, in his landmark 1988 book, A Brief History Of Time, Hawking paints a picture of this radiation — of spontaneously created particle-antiparticle pairs where one member falls in and the other escapes — that's egregiously incorrect. For 32 years, it's misinformed physics students, laypersons, and even professionals alike. Black holes really do decay. Let's make today the day we find out how they actually do it.

 


Maybe Ethan Siegal is lying, too.   After all, I don’t see any mention of the electric universe alternatives to Big Bang’s zoo of gnomes in his writings.  No, he INSISTS the gnomes MUST exist.   It’s laughably hypocritical when he pontificates … “We do not do science in a vacuum, completely ignoring all the other pieces of evidence that our scientific foundation builds upon.”   I say to him ... like all the physics that forms the basis of “electric universe”/“plasma cosmology” theory, Ethan?   Just saying …

 

Oh and by the way, Ethan Siegal doesn’t like Trump.  He wants to waste more billions pursuing the gnomes he CLAIMS exist.    Go figure …

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Time for a new Big Bang gnome …


https://www.businessinsider.com/astrophysicists-largest-3d-map-of-the-universe-ever-2020-7
 

Quote

 

Astrophysicists published the largest 3D map of the universe ever made, filling in 11 billion years of history


… snip …


A key finding revealed in the map (and backed up by other recent research) is that the universe began to expand more quickly about 6 billion years ago. Its expansion has accelerated ever since. 


Researchers believe this acceleration is due to dark energy — a mysterious, unknown force that makes up about 68% of the universe — but they don't know for sure.


… snip …


The new map also revealed a discrepancy between the universe's previously accepted rate of expansion, called the Hubble constant, and the rate calculated based on how far Earth is from the closest nearby galaxies. One possible explanation for this, Bautista told Business Insider, is that a different type of dark energy was present in the very early universe, altering the rate of expansion.

 


Ah yes … a DIFFERENT type of dark energy is now needed.


And, yes, they don’t understand it any better than they do the first type of dark energy … which they’ve been trying to explain for decades and decades.


Just saying ... it's nothing but a fudge factor. B)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Great new video …

 

 

 

Quote

It’s important to note, as we’ve done i numerous past episodes, that mainstream cosmologists did not predict the so-called magnetic universe. In fact, a telling glimpse into the prevailing thoughts on cosmic magnetism can be found in the 1999 NASA web item entitled, 'Do magnetic fields exist throughout space?' It states, “On the cosmological scale, there is no data to suggest that magnetic fields are present. They certainly are not important in the dynamics of the universe for any reasonable range of field strengths consistent with present observational constraints.”


But plasma cosmologists predicted a magnetic universe.    And yes, cosmic magnetism is clearly very important.   Just saying …

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2012 at 5:38 PM, Southern indep said:

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 is a myth that educated people believed the world to be "flat".  The fact that Earth is round has been common knowledge, at least among the educated and powerful, for millennia.  This was evident to  Aristotle over 2,000 years ago when he reckoned:  "Again, our observations of the stars make it evident, not only that the Earth is circular, but also that it is a circle of no great size. For quite a small change of position to south or north causes a manifest alteration of the horizon."

 

As for "dark matter" (and dark energy) presently, it is nothing more than a mathematical place holder, an equation "stuffer" in effect, with regard to the math used to support the Big Bang theory and the expansion of the Universe.   On the other hand, anti-matter is real, has been manufactured in colliders, is observable and quantifiable. Anti-matter consists of positrons (positively charged electrons), anti-protons, andi-quarks and anti-neutrons.  I do know that positrons have been observed in nature; I believe the other anti-particles have only been observed in collider experiments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Skans said:

On the other hand, anti-matter is real, has been manufactured in colliders, is observable and quantifiable.

 

You might be interested to know that the late Nobel prize winning plasma cosmologist, Hannes Alfven, wrote a book back in 1966 titled "Worlds-Antiworlds: Antimatter in Cosmology".  He also offered various papers (for example, https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.37.652 "Antimatter and the Development of the Metagalaxy" ).  Then in 1971, Oskar Klein, a Swedish theoretical physicist, extended Alfven's work and developed the Alfvén–Klein model for the universe (see https://www.plasma-universe.com/klein-alfven-cosmology/ ).  It posits that the universe is made up of equal amounts of matter and antimatter with the boundaries between the regions of matter and antimatter being delineated by cosmic electromagnetic fields formed by double layers, thin regions comprising two parallel layers with opposite electrical charge.  Interaction between these boundary regions generates radiation, which forms the plasma.  Alfvén introduced the term ambiplasma for this plasma made up of matter and antimatter.  According to Alfvén, such an ambiplasma would be relatively long-lived as the component particles and antiparticles would be too hot and too low-density to annihilate each other rapidly. The double layers would act to repel clouds of opposite type, but combine clouds of the same type, creating ever-larger regions of matter and antimatter.  The Alfvén–Klein cosmology was proposed in part to explain the observed baryon asymmetry in the universe, starting from an initial condition of exact symmetry between matter and antimatter. According to Alfvén and Klein, ambiplasma would naturally form pockets of matter and pockets of antimatter that would expand outwards as annihilation between matter and antimatter occurred in the double layer at the boundaries. They concluded that we must just happen to live in one of the pockets that was mostly baryons rather than antibaryons, explaining the baryon asymmetry. The pockets of matter or antimatter would expand because of annihilations at the boundaries, which Alfvén considered as a possible explanation for the observed expansion of the universe, which would be merely a local phase of a much larger history. Alfvén postulated that the universe has always existed due to causality arguments and the rejected the Big Bang, as a stealth form of creationism. The exploding double layer was also suggested by Alfvén as a possible mechanism for the generation of cosmic rays, X-ray bursts and gamma-ray bursts.  All of this is based on physics that s observable and quantifiable, as you say.

 

There were, of course, arguments made by some Big Bangers against the model but truth be told, none of those arguments have faired well in light of the Big Bangers inability to find the particles, etc that they base their cosmology on.   Also, some of their arguments, for example that the Alfven-Klein model could not explain the CMB, are just plain wrong, showing no real understanding of plasma, antimatter or electromagnetic effects.   In any case, now some astrophysicists are finally beginning to reconsider the Alfven-Klein model.  For example, this article (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ab4ffa ) "The Klein-Alfvén cosmology revisited", by one of them, concludes that "If a comparable number of man-hours had been invested in the direction of the Klein-Alfvén model it is plausible that it would describe the real observed universe as good as, or even better than, the big bang-model—with much fewer speculative additions to known physics."   Just saying ...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

 

You might be interested to know that the late Nobel prize winning plasma cosmologist, Hannes Alfven, wrote a book back in 1966 titled "Worlds-Antiworlds: Antimatter in Cosmology".  He also offered various papers (for example, https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.37.652 "Antimatter and the Development of the Metagalaxy" ).  Then in 1971, Oskar Klein, a Swedish theoretical physicist, extended Alfven's work and developed the Alfvén–Klein model for the universe (see https://www.plasma-universe.com/klein-alfven-cosmology/ ).  It posits that the universe is made up of equal amounts of matter and antimatter with the boundaries between the regions of matter and antimatter being delineated by cosmic electromagnetic fields formed by double layers, thin regions comprising two parallel layers with opposite electrical charge.  Interaction between these boundary regions generates radiation, which forms the plasma.  Alfvén introduced the term ambiplasma for this plasma made up of matter and antimatter.  According to Alfvén, such an ambiplasma would be relatively long-lived as the component particles and antiparticles would be too hot and too low-density to annihilate each other rapidly. The double layers would act to repel clouds of opposite type, but combine clouds of the same type, creating ever-larger regions of matter and antimatter.  The Alfvén–Klein cosmology was proposed in part to explain the observed baryon asymmetry in the universe, starting from an initial condition of exact symmetry between matter and antimatter. According to Alfvén and Klein, ambiplasma would naturally form pockets of matter and pockets of antimatter that would expand outwards as annihilation between matter and antimatter occurred in the double layer at the boundaries. They concluded that we must just happen to live in one of the pockets that was mostly baryons rather than antibaryons, explaining the baryon asymmetry. The pockets of matter or antimatter would expand because of annihilations at the boundaries, which Alfvén considered as a possible explanation for the observed expansion of the universe, which would be merely a local phase of a much larger history. Alfvén postulated that the universe has always existed due to causality arguments and the rejected the Big Bang, as a stealth form of creationism. The exploding double layer was also suggested by Alfvén as a possible mechanism for the generation of cosmic rays, X-ray bursts and gamma-ray bursts.  All of this is based on physics that s observable and quantifiable, as you say.

 

There were, of course, arguments made by some Big Bangers against the model but truth be told, none of those arguments have faired well in light of the Big Bangers inability to find the particles, etc that they base their cosmology on.   Also, some of their arguments, for example that the Alfven-Klein model could not explain the CMB, are just plain wrong, showing no real understanding of plasma, antimatter or electromagnetic effects.   In any case, now some astrophysicists are finally beginning to reconsider the Alfven-Klein model.  For example, this article (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ab4ffa ) "The Klein-Alfvén cosmology revisited", by one of them, concludes that "If a comparable number of man-hours had been invested in the direction of the Klein-Alfvén model it is plausible that it would describe the real observed universe as good as, or even better than, the big bang-model—with much fewer speculative additions to known physics."   Just saying ...

 

Interesting read!  I'll have to look more into this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

 

You might be interested to know that the late Nobel prize winning plasma cosmologist, Hannes Alfven, wrote a book back in 1966 titled "Worlds-Antiworlds: Antimatter in Cosmology".  He also offered various papers (for example, https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.37.652 "Antimatter and the Development of the Metagalaxy" ).  Then in 1971, Oskar Klein, a Swedish theoretical physicist, extended Alfven's work and developed the Alfvén–Klein model for the universe (see https://www.plasma-universe.com/klein-alfven-cosmology/ ).  It posits that the universe is made up of equal amounts of matter and antimatter with the boundaries between the regions of matter and antimatter being delineated by cosmic electromagnetic fields formed by double layers, thin regions comprising two parallel layers with opposite electrical charge.  Interaction between these boundary regions generates radiation, which forms the plasma.  Alfvén introduced the term ambiplasma for this plasma made up of matter and antimatter.  According to Alfvén, such an ambiplasma would be relatively long-lived as the component particles and antiparticles would be too hot and too low-density to annihilate each other rapidly. The double layers would act to repel clouds of opposite type, but combine clouds of the same type, creating ever-larger regions of matter and antimatter.  The Alfvén–Klein cosmology was proposed in part to explain the observed baryon asymmetry in the universe, starting from an initial condition of exact symmetry between matter and antimatter. According to Alfvén and Klein, ambiplasma would naturally form pockets of matter and pockets of antimatter that would expand outwards as annihilation between matter and antimatter occurred in the double layer at the boundaries. They concluded that we must just happen to live in one of the pockets that was mostly baryons rather than antibaryons, explaining the baryon asymmetry. The pockets of matter or antimatter would expand because of annihilations at the boundaries, which Alfvén considered as a possible explanation for the observed expansion of the universe, which would be merely a local phase of a much larger history. Alfvén postulated that the universe has always existed due to causality arguments and the rejected the Big Bang, as a stealth form of creationism. The exploding double layer was also suggested by Alfvén as a possible mechanism for the generation of cosmic rays, X-ray bursts and gamma-ray bursts.  All of this is based on physics that s observable and quantifiable, as you say.

 

There were, of course, arguments made by some Big Bangers against the model but truth be told, none of those arguments have faired well in light of the Big Bangers inability to find the particles, etc that they base their cosmology on.   Also, some of their arguments, for example that the Alfven-Klein model could not explain the CMB, are just plain wrong, showing no real understanding of plasma, antimatter or electromagnetic effects.   In any case, now some astrophysicists are finally beginning to reconsider the Alfven-Klein model.  For example, this article (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ab4ffa ) "The Klein-Alfvén cosmology revisited", by one of them, concludes that "If a comparable number of man-hours had been invested in the direction of the Klein-Alfvén model it is plausible that it would describe the real observed universe as good as, or even better than, the big bang-model—with much fewer speculative additions to known physics."   Just saying ...

 

 

19 minutes ago, Skans said:

Interesting read!  I'll have to look more into this.

 
WOW... kind of a BLAST from the PAST... but. you know it's all pretty passe now...  right?
 
The big discussion today... once they discovered that the expansion of the universe is NOT slowing down.. but is EXPANDING FASTER !!... is the concept of "Dark ENERGY" !!  For YEARS, everyone assumed that after the big bang, everything that BLEW OUT... would eventually begin to slow, and then collapse back in on itself... they were SHOCKED to find that it's NOT, and actually appears to be expanding faster.  The CAUSE?  Dark ENERGY... they don't even know what it is, but appears to be something like anti-gravity... and is pushing all the galaxies AWAY from one another... and rather than everything ending in a big CRUNCH... that eventually the Dark Energy will rip apart EVERYTHING !!  Galaxies, Stars, planets... everything... until there is nothing remaining except protons, electrons, and neutrons...
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ConservativeVoice said:

The big discussion today... once they discovered that the expansion of the universe is NOT slowing down.. but is EXPANDING FASTER !!... is the concept of "Dark ENERGY" !!  For YEARS, everyone assumed that after the big bang, everything that BLEW OUT... would eventually begin to slow, and then collapse back in on itself... they were SHOCKED to find that it's NOT, and actually appears to be expanding faster.  The CAUSE?  Dark ENERGY... they don't even know what it is, but appears to be something like anti-gravity... and is pushing all the galaxies AWAY from one another... and rather than everything ending in a big CRUNCH... that eventually the Dark Energy will rip apart EVERYTHING !!  Galaxies, Stars, planets... everything... until there is nothing remaining except protons, electrons, and neutrons...

 

Hate to tell you, CV, but Dark Energy is just another gnome.   Invented to explain observations (that time is showing were either wrong or misintepreted).  

 

This is discussed at various points in this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Oh my …


https://bgr.com/2020/08/28/space-news-andromeda-halo/
 

Quote

 

Andromeda’s sphere of influence is much larger than anyone thought


… snip …


We hear a lot about the Milky Way and that makes sense since it’s the galaxy we happen to live in, but not far away is another galaxy that is just as interesting as our own. It’s the Andromeda galaxy, and despite being 2.5 million light-years away (“not far away” is relative when it comes to deep space), there’s a lot it could teach us about itself and perhaps even our own galaxy.

 

Now, in a new study published in The Astrophysical Journal, NASA scientists have spotted what they are calling a “halo” around Andromeda. The halo, which is more like a huge bloom of plasma, stretches 1.3 million light-years into space. That’s roughly halfway to our own galaxy, which is an impressive feat.


We often think of galaxies as self-contained collections of stars, planets, and gasses, but that’s simply not the case. The effects of a galaxy extend far beyond their outer edge. In fact, the line between the edge of a galaxy and empty space is so blurred that there’s hardly a real “edge” at all. In the case of Andromeda, the halo of plasma is so massive that it absolutely dwarfs the size of the galaxy itself.


Understanding the huge halos of gas surrounding galaxies is immensely important,” Samantha Berek of Yale University, co-author of the research, said in a statement. “This reservoir of gas contains fuel for future star formation within the galaxy, as well as outflows from events such as supernovae. It’s full of clues regarding the past and future evolution of the galaxy, and we’re finally able to study it in great detail in our closest galactic neighbor.”

 


Gee … Ya THINK?   And if you consider that plasma makes an excellent conductor ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://scitechdaily.com/zooming-in-tight-on-dark-matter-equivalent-of-being-able-to-see-a-flea-on-the-surface-of-the-moon/

 

Quote

 

Zooming In Tight on Dark Matter – Equivalent of Being Able to See a Flea on the Surface of the Moon

 

Cosmologists have zoomed in on the smallest clumps of dark matter in a virtual universe — which could help us to find the real thing in space.


An international team of researchers, including Durham University, UK, used supercomputers in Europe and China to focus on a typical region of a computer-generated universe.


The zoom they were able to achieve is the equivalent of being able to see a flea on the surface of the Moon.


This allowed them to make detailed pictures and analyses of hundreds of virtual dark matter clumps (or haloes) from the very largest to the tiniest.

 


These morons don’t even listen to themselves any more.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The gnome believers just get wackier and wackier.  


https://www.sciencealert.com/there-could-be-transparent-stars-made-of-bosons-masquerading-as-black-holes
 

Quote

 

Space Could Be Littered With Eerie Transparent Stars Made Entirely of Bosons


… snip …


Boson stars do not fuse nuclei, and they would not emit any radiation. They'd just sit there in space, being invisible. Much like black holes.


Unlike black holes, however, boson stars would be transparent - they lack an absorbing surface that would stop photons, nor do they have an event horizon. Photons can escape boson stars, although their path may be bent a little by the gravity.

 


Seriously, folks … do these idiots expect us to pay for this crap?
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/scientists-confounded-by-new-findings-on-universes-mysterious-dark-matter/articleshow/78076216.cms

 

Quote

 

Scientists confounded by new findings on universe's mysterious dark matter

 

… snip …


Research published this week revealed an unexpected discrepancy between observations of dark matter concentrations in three massive clusters of galaxies encompassing trillions of stars and theoretical computer simulations of how dark matter should be distributed.


“Either there is a missing ingredient in the simulations or we have made a fundamentally incorrect assumption about the nature of dark matter,” Yale University astrophysicist Priyamvada Natarajan, a co-author of the study published in the journal Science, said on Friday.


… snip …


The new observations showed that gravitational lensing effects produced by galaxies residing inside the huge galaxy clusters were far stronger than current dark matter theory envisioned, suggesting an unexpectedly large concentration of dark matter in these galaxies.


“This is quite surprising,” Meneghetti (BAC - Massimo Meneghetti, astrophysicist and study lead author) said.

 


Maybe both are true, Sherlock.


By the way, another source ( https://phys.org/news/2020-09-hubble-ingredient-current-dark-theories.html ) says the lensing effects are 10 TIMES stronger than expected.  I call that a FAIL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Here’s something big bang, dark matter, dark energy, inflation, black hole believing gnomists should read …


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/cosmology-has-some-big-problems/

 

Quote

 

Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

 

by Bjorn Ekenberg


on April 30, 2019


What do we really know about our universe?


Born out of a cosmic explosion 13.8 billion years ago, the universe rapidly inflated and then cooled, it is still expanding at an increasing rate and mostly made up of unknown dark matter and dark energy ... right?


This well-known story is usually taken as a self-evident scientific fact, despite the relative lack of empirical evidence—and despite a steady crop of discrepancies arising with observations of the distant universe.


In recent months, new measurements of the Hubble constant, the rate of universal expansion, suggested major differences between two independent methods of calculation. Discrepancies on the expansion rate have huge implications not simply for calculation but for the validity of cosmology's current standard model at the extreme scales of the cosmos.


Another recent probe found galaxies inconsistent with the theory of dark matter, which posits this hypothetical substance to be everywhere. But according to the latest measurements, it is not, suggesting the theory needs to be reexamined.


It's perhaps worth stopping to ask why astrophysicists hypothesize dark matter to be everywhere in the universe. The answer lies in a peculiar feature of cosmological physics that is not often remarked. A crucial function of theories such as dark matter, dark energy and inflation—each in its own way tied to the big bang paradigm—is not to describe known empirical phenomena but rather to maintain the mathematical coherence of the framework itself while accounting for discrepant observations. Fundamentally, they are names for something that must exist insofar as the framework is assumed to be universally valid.


Each new discrepancy between observation and theory can, of course, in and of itself be considered an exciting promise of more research, a progressive refinement toward the truth. But when they add up, they could also suggest a more confounding problem that is not resolved by tweaking parameters or adding new variables.


Consider the context of the problem and its history. As a mathematically driven science, cosmological physics is usually thought to be extremely precise. But the cosmos is unlike any scientific subject matter on earth. A theory of the entire universe, based on our own tiny neighborhood as the only known sample of it, requires a lot of simplifying assumptions. When these assumptions are multiplied and stretched across vast distances, the potential for error increases, and this is further compounded by our very limited means of testing.


Historically, Newton's physical laws made up a theoretical framework that worked for our own solar system with remarkable precision. Both Uranus and Neptune, for example, were discovered through predictions based on Newton's model. But as the scales grew larger, its validity proved limited. Einstein's general relativity framework provided an extended and more precise reach beyond the furthest reaches of our own galaxy. But just how far could it go?


The big bang paradigm that emerged in the mid-20th century effectively stretches the model's validity to a kind of infinity, defined either as the boundary of the radius of the universe (calculated at 46 billion light-years), or in terms of the beginning of time. This giant stretch is based on a few concrete discoveries, such as Edwin Hubble's observation that the universe appears to be expanding (in 1929) and the detection of the microwave background radiation (in 1964). But considering the scale involved, these limited observations have had an outsized influence on cosmological theory.


Compounding this problem, most observations of the universe occur experimentally and indirectly. Today's space telescopes provide no direct view of anything—they produce measurements through an interplay of theoretical predictions and pliable parameters, in which the model is involved every step of the way. The framework literally frames the problem; it determines where and how to observe. And so, despite the advanced technologies and methods involved, the profound limitations to the endeavor also increase the risk of being led astray by the kind of assumptions that cannot be calculated.


After spending many years researching the foundations of cosmological physics from a philosophy of science perspective, I have not been surprised to hear some scientists openly talking about a crisis in cosmology. In the big “inflation debate” in Scientific American a few years ago, a key piece of the big bang paradigm was criticized by one of the theory's original proponents for having become indefensible as a scientific theory.


Why? Because inflation theory relies on ad hoc contrivances to accommodate almost any data, and because its proposed physical field is not based on anything with empirical justification. This is probably because a crucial function of inflation is to bridge the transition from an unknowable big bang to a physics we can recognize today. So, is it science or a convenient invention?


A few astrophysicists, such as Michael J. Disney, have criticized the big bang paradigm for its lack of demonstrated certainties. In his analysis, the theoretical framework has far fewer certain observations than free parameters to tweak them—a so-called “negative significance” that would be an alarming sign for any science. As Disney writes in American Scientist: “A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations."


As I discuss in my new book, Metaphysical Experiments, there is a deeper history behind the current problems. The big bang hypothesis itself originally emerged as an indirect consequence of general relativity undergoing remodeling. Einstein had made a fundamental assumption about the universe, that it was static in both space and time, and to make his equations add up, he added a “cosmological constant,” for which he freely admitted there was no physical justification.


But when Hubble observed that the universe was expanding and Einstein's solution no longer seemed to make sense, some mathematical physicists tried to change a fundamental assumption of the model: that the universe was the same in all spatial directions but variant in time. Not insignificantly, this theory came with a very promising upside: a possible merger between cosmology and nuclear physics. Could the brave new model of the atom also explain our universe?


From the outset, the theory only spoke to the immediate aftermath of an explicitly hypothetical event, whose principal function was as a limit condition, the point at which the theory breaks down. Big bang theory says nothing about the big bang; it is rather a possible hypothetical premise for resolving general relativity.


On top of this undemonstrable but very productive hypothesis, floor upon floor has been added intact, with vastly extended scales and new discrepancies. To explain observations of galaxies inconsistent with general relativity, the existence of dark matter was posited as an unknown and invisible form of matter calculated to make up more than a quarter of all mass-energy content in the universe—assuming, of course, the framework is universally valid. In 1998, when a set of supernova measurements of accelerating galaxies seemed at odds with the framework, a new theory emerged of a mysterious force called dark energy, calculated to fill circa 70 percent of the mass-energy of the universe.


The crux of today's cosmological paradigm is that in order to maintain a mathematically unified theory valid for the entire universe, we must accept that 95 percent of our cosmos is furnished by completely unknown elements and forces for which we have no empirical evidence whatsoever. For a scientist to be confident of this picture requires an exceptional faith in the power of mathematical unification.


In the end, the conundrum for cosmology is its reliance on the framework as a necessary presupposition for conducting research. For lack of a clear alternative, as astrophysicist Disney also notes, it is in a sense stuck with the paradigm. It seems more pragmatic to add new theoretical floors than to rethink the fundamentals.


Contrary to the scientific ideal of getting progressively closer to the truth, it looks rather like cosmology, to borrow a term from technology studies, has become path-dependent: overdetermined by the implications of its past inventions.

 

 

Quote:

"In the end, the conundrum for cosmology is its reliance on the framework as a necessary presupposition for conducting research.  For lack of a clear alternative, as astrophysicist Disney also notes, it is in a sense stuck with the paradigm.  It seems more pragmatic to add new theoretical floors than to rethink the fundamentals.


Contrary to the scientific ideal of getting progressively closer to the truth, it looks rather like cosmology, to borrow a term from technology studies, has become path-dependent: overdetermined by the implications of its past inventions."

End Quote.

 

But you probably won’t.    You’re just as hide bound as AGWalarmists.


Just saying …
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-very-surprising-ultraviolet-aurora-has-been-detected-at-a-comet

 

Quote

 

A Strange, Glowing Ultraviolet Aurora Has Just Been Detected Around a Comet

 

by Michelle Starr


Aurora - the dancing glow of ionised particles in Earth's upper atmosphere - is not unique to our planet.


The phenomenon has been spotted shining in the atmospheres of every other planet except Mercury. Even Jupiter's moons Ganymede and Europa have auroras.


Never, until now, had an aurora been detected on a comet.


But, in a new analysis of data collected by the Rosetta spacecraft, the space around Comet 67P Churyumov-Gerasimenko (67P/C-G) has been observed glowing with far-ultraviolet auroral radiation.


… snip …


Comet 67P/C-G doesn't even have a borrowed magnetic field. But it does have an atmosphere, of sorts - the envelope of gas called a coma that surrounds the nucleus of an active comet when it draws close enough to the Sun for ices trapped therein to sublimate.


It was in this coma that the far-ultraviolet (FUV) spectrograph on the Alice instrument aboard the Rosetta spacecraft detected a glow in far ultraviolet light.


Alice's Ion and Electron Sensor (IES) detected an even bigger surprise - electrons from the solar wind.


"Initially, we thought the ultraviolet emissions at comet 67P were phenomena known as 'dayglow,' a process caused by solar photons interacting with cometary gas," said astronomer Joel Parker of the Southwest Research Institute.


"We were amazed to discover that the UV emissions are aurora, driven not by photons, but by electrons in the solar wind that break apart water and other molecules in the coma and have been accelerated in the comet's nearby environment. The resulting excited atoms make this distinctive light."

 


Gee …   You don’t suppose …

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...