The ad hoc excuses for dark matter failures are never ending

[Michael Mozina]

https://sciencemint.com/a-study-found-s ... an-others/

You know.....

It's bad enough that the predictive track record of dark matter in the lab is useless, but....

It turns out the predictive usefulness of dark matter theory as it relates to observation is quite bad as well. For instance, CDM computer models "predict" that satellite galaxies should be arranged randomly around the DM halo in various orbits, whereas we find they are generally arranged around the equatorial plane of the galaxy. Likewise, CDM computer models are based on DM that "passes on through" various collision processes and galaxies should all have roughly the same amount (percentage wise) of dark matter. It turns out that this is also not true.

https://physicsworld.com/a/satellite-ga ... ter-model/

The goalposts are now in overdrive with respect to "saving" the cold dark matter model from it's previous 'predictive failures' by whipping up some new 'postdictions' based on new metaphysical properties of DM, and pretending the previous predictions never existed.

For decades now the LCDM cosmology model is a complete predictive failure on every level, both in the lab, and in space. They can dream up a thousand and one mathematical and metaphysical excuses about why their metaphysical models keep failing, but the reality is that they keep *failing*, over and over and over again, not only in terms of the lab, but also in terms of direct observation.

Metaphysics isn't the answer. Making up wild "interactions" between metaphysical entities isn't the answer either.

The longer that astronomers resist embracing the role of electric fields and electrical currents in space, the longer they delve in the metaphysical dark ages of physics.

Think about it for a moment. The term "dark matter" has been around for nearly 90 years and it's no closer to a 'real physical explanation' than it's ever been. The term 'dark energy' has been around for more than two decades and yet its still impossible for any astronomer to name a single source of the stuff, or explain how it retains a constant density throughout expansion. Between the two of them they make up the *vast* majority of the LCDM model.

The LCMD model is a predictive disaster, akin to the titanic of cosmology theories. It's 'unsinkable' only because astronomer refuse to let die a natural scientific death based on it's value of "tests".

The only way there';s any room from exotic matter is if they know for a fact they've found all the ordinary matter in the universe, and the last decade and a half make it absolutely clear they they've found very little of the actual known mass of the universe.

Basically the LCDM model violates known laws of physics, it's incompatible with the standard particle physics model, it's self conflicted with respect to the Hubble constant, and it's predicatively useless, both in the lab, and at predicting objects at high redshift.

It really is time to let the LCDM model die a normal scientific death already. The more they try to prop it up with new metaphysical ad-hoc 'add-ons', the more desperate they sound.

[crawler]

If free photons are the elementary (quasi) particles that have a small mass & when confined have a large mass & make ordinary matter, then free neutrinos (dark photons) might be the dark equivalent that make dark matter.

I agree with Ranzan & Co that neutrinos are twin paired photons that are 90 deg out of phase, ie the em fields negate, hence the dark nature.
Neutrinos have double the mass of single photons.
And any dark particles would not form ordinary atoms, but would form a very dense neutron-like black/dark body.

Apparently we already have evidence of neutrinos, ie one kind of DM. But neutrinos cant/dont i think explain the funny gravity in spiral galaxies.
So now we/they need to find good evidence of black bodies. Or some other explanation for funny galaxies.

[Michael Mozina]

If free photons are the elementary (quasi) particles that have a small mass & when confined have a large mass & make ordinary matter, then free neutrinos (dark photons) might be the dark equivalent that make dark matter.

I agree with Ranzan & Co that neutrinos are twin paired photons that are 90 deg out of phase, ie the em fields negate, hence the dark nature.
Neutrinos have double the mass of single photons.
And any dark particles would not form ordinary atoms, but would form a very dense neutron-like black/dark body.

Apparently we already have evidence of neutrinos, ie one kind of DM. But neutrinos cant/dont i think explain the funny gravity in spiral galaxies.
So now we/they need to find good evidence of black bodies. Or some other explanation for funny galaxies.

The problem with neutrinos as 'dark matter' is that they aren't "cold" (relatively slow moving) forms of matter that are likely to return to a stable orbit.

They are more apt to act like photons traveling out from their point of origin until they finally interact with something else. It doesn't really fit the bill in terms of being "cold' enough to fit into their computer models correctly.

[crawler]

If free photons are the elementary (quasi) particles that have a small mass & when confined have a large mass & make ordinary matter, then free neutrinos (dark photons) might be the dark equivalent that make dark matter.

I agree with Ranzan & Co that neutrinos are twin paired photons that are 90 deg out of phase, ie the em fields negate, hence the dark nature.
Neutrinos have double the mass of single photons.
And any dark particles would not form ordinary atoms, but would form a very dense neutron-like black/dark body.

Apparently we already have evidence of neutrinos, ie one kind of DM. But neutrinos cant/dont i think explain the funny gravity in spiral galaxies.
So now we/they need to find good evidence of black bodies. Or some other explanation for funny galaxies.

The problem with neutrinos as 'dark matter' is that they aren't "cold" (relatively slow moving) forms of matter that are likely to return to a stable orbit.

They are more apt to act like photons traveling out from their point of origin until they finally interact with something else. It doesn't really fit the bill in terms of being "cold' enough to fit into their computer models correctly.

Yes. Free neutrinos might explain lots of dark matter spread fairly evenly all throo the (eternal infinite) universe in general. But cant explain funny gravity in spiral galaxies etc.
But confined neutrinos, ie dark particles, neutron-like, might abide by gravity laws & some other laws in the same way as ordinary particles, in which case DPs would have a cold nature.

[spark]

I just think of dark matter as ether/aether which permeates all space and dark energy as electromagnetic forces which are vibrations/waves/disturbances in the ether throughout space.

[crawler]

I just think of dark matter as ether/aether which permeates all space and dark energy as electromagnetic forces which are vibrations/waves/disturbances in the ether throughout space.

DM should include DE i think. Except that DM might exist, but DE is an absurdity.

DE supposedly has mass. How can energy have mass?? Its silly.

And yet DE supposedly pushes not pulls -- ie DE's gravity pull is supposedly overpowered by some kind of pushing.

The most sensible theory of aether is that everything we see & feel is due to a process (vibrations, disturbances, excitations, flows etc) of the aether.
An accelerating flow (for some reason) of aether might i suppose push.
And such flow/pushing need not involve em forces i think, in which case the only other kind of force is gravity ( ignoring the silly strong force & the silly weak force), or in this case it would be in a sense reverse-gravity (if aether is accelerating away rather than towards).

EU says that gravity is a kind of subtronic em force at a subatomic level. Could this manifest as push??

Anyhow the BB model of DE is an absurdity. But there might indeed be a kind of DE in our eternal infinite universe.

[crawler]

I forgot. EU gravity is a push (at the universal level)(a pull at the solar system & galactic levels).

[paladin17]

The problem with neutrinos as 'dark matter' is that they aren't "cold" (relatively slow moving) forms of matter that are likely to return to a stable orbit.

And why do you think so? There is nothing prohibiting an arbitrary velocity for a neutrino. If they are massless, then it would contradict special relativity, but the evidence (e.g. neutrino oscillations) shows that they should have mass, and this is the current consensus in particle physics world.

[Michael Mozina]

The problem with neutrinos as 'dark matter' is that they aren't "cold" (relatively slow moving) forms of matter that are likely to return to a stable orbit.

And why do you think so? There is nothing prohibiting an arbitrary velocity for a neutrino. If they are massless, then it would contradict special relativity, but the evidence (e.g. neutrino oscillations) shows that they should have mass, and this is the current consensus in particle physics world.

Generally speaking at least, neutrinos are not thought to move slowly enough to clump together and stay in relatively stable orbits around galaxies. They are more akin to "hot/warm" dark matter. They're moving so fast, and interacting so infrequently with other forms of matter that most of them simply "pass on through". The main attraction of the "WIMP" was it's hypothetical large mass and it's hypothetical ability to move slowly. They've pretty much eliminated all the available WIMP space however, so we seem to be heading toward something akin to axions.

I suppose one could never eliminate *every* possible scenario related to neutrinos or WIMPS, but their computer models don't seem to work right when the plug in neutrino interaction with ordinary matter. The moment one limits their models to known physics, they seem to blow up.

[paladin17]

Generally speaking at least, neutrinos are not thought to move slowly enough to clump together and stay in relatively stable orbits around galaxies. They are more akin to "hot/warm" dark matter. They're moving so fast, and interacting so infrequently with other forms of matter that most of them simply "pass on through". The main attraction of the "WIMP" was it's hypothetical large mass and it's hypothetical ability to move slowly. They've pretty much eliminated all the available WIMP space however, so we seem to be heading toward something akin to axions.

I suppose one could never eliminate *every* possible scenario related to neutrinos or WIMPS, but their computer models don't seem to work right when the plug in neutrino interaction with ordinary matter. The moment one limits their models to known physics, they seem to blow up.

As I've said, there's nothing directly prohibiting an arbitrary energy (and hence speed) of a neutrino. Given that neutrino mass is considered to be below 1 eV, even basic chemical reactions theoretically may produce "cold neutrinos". Even just a lump of hot (10^3 K) matter can. The probability of the process itself is incredibly small, but then again the number of particles (in a star, for example) is very large.
Moreover, they can be produced in regular nuclear fusion and fission - depending on how much energy is taken by other particles.

[Michael Mozina]

Generally speaking at least, neutrinos are not thought to move slowly enough to clump together and stay in relatively stable orbits around galaxies. They are more akin to "hot/warm" dark matter. They're moving so fast, and interacting so infrequently with other forms of matter that most of them simply "pass on through". The main attraction of the "WIMP" was it's hypothetical large mass and it's hypothetical ability to move slowly. They've pretty much eliminated all the available WIMP space however, so we seem to be heading toward something akin to axions.

I suppose one could never eliminate *every* possible scenario related to neutrinos or WIMPS, but their computer models don't seem to work right when the plug in neutrino interaction with ordinary matter. The moment one limits their models to known physics, they seem to blow up.

As I've said, there's nothing directly prohibiting an arbitrary energy (and hence speed) of a neutrino. Given that neutrino mass is considered to be below 1 eV, even basic chemical reactions theoretically may produce "cold neutrinos". Even just a lump of hot (10^3 K) matter can. The probability of the process itself is incredibly small, but then again the number of particles (in a star, for example) is very large.
Moreover, they can be produced in regular nuclear fusion and fission - depending on how much energy is taken by other particles.

It seems however that when they compare their own computer models to the actual observations, they don't actually look the same.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... r-theories

The problem with all their metaphysical ad hoc "fixes" is that they have no real 'predictive' value at all, and the math doesn't jive with the direct observations.

One could dream up an infinite variety of invisible forms of matter and energy, but alas we simply have no empirical evidence that such things even exist or that they are required to explain distant uncontrolled observations in space.

Electrical current and electric fields are the "missing ingredient" and exotic forms of matter and energy are metaphysical kludges.

[crawler]

Generally speaking at least, neutrinos are not thought to move slowly enough to clump together and stay in relatively stable orbits around galaxies. They are more akin to "hot/warm" dark matter. They're moving so fast, and interacting so infrequently with other forms of matter that most of them simply "pass on through". The main attraction of the "WIMP" was it's hypothetical large mass and it's hypothetical ability to move slowly. They've pretty much eliminated all the available WIMP space however, so we seem to be heading toward something akin to axions.

I suppose one could never eliminate *every* possible scenario related to neutrinos or WIMPS, but their computer models don't seem to work right when the plug in neutrino interaction with ordinary matter. The moment one limits their models to known physics, they seem to blow up.

As I've said, there's nothing directly prohibiting an arbitrary energy (and hence speed) of a neutrino. Given that neutrino mass is considered to be below 1 eV, even basic chemical reactions theoretically may produce "cold neutrinos". Even just a lump of hot (10^3 K) matter can. The probability of the process itself is incredibly small, but then again the number of particles (in a star, for example) is very large.
Moreover, they can be produced in regular nuclear fusion and fission - depending on how much energy is taken by other particles.

It seems however that when they compare their own computer models to the actual observations, they don't actually look the same.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... r-theories

The problem with all their metaphysical ad hoc "fixes" is that they have no real 'predictive' value at all, and the math doesn't jive with the direct observations.

One could dream up an infinite variety of invisible forms of matter and energy, but alas we simply have no empirical evidence that such things even exist or that they are required to explain distant uncontrolled observations in space.

Electrical current and electric fields are the "missing ingredient" and exotic forms of matter and energy are metaphysical kludges.

If electrons etc are photons that have formed loops then dark electrons might be neutrinos etc that have formed loops.

[paladin17]

Electrical current and electric fields are the "missing ingredient" and exotic forms of matter and energy are metaphysical kludges.

Any studies on that? Is there a working theory of how electrical current and electric fields can reproduce the known rotation curves?

[Michael Mozina]

Electrical current and electric fields are the "missing ingredient" and exotic forms of matter and energy are metaphysical kludges.

Any studies on that? Is there a working theory of how electrical current and electric fields can reproduce the known rotation curves?

In terms of basic galaxy rotation curves, you have the work of Anthony Peratt, including his computer models. In terms of counter-rotation possibilities related to galaxy rotation patterns, you could refer to Scott's work. On the other hand, first, before we even get into "electricity" at all, *only* in reference to galaxy rotation patterns, why do we need to introduce exotic matter in the first place? In other words, how do you know that astronomers have *even today* accounted for all the ordinary mass inside of our own galaxy, let alone anywhere outside of it? How much of it do you figure they found in just the last decade or so?

In terms of raw lensing data, even that can be explained with ordinary matter without respect to anything particularly exotic.

[BeAChooser]

Electrical current and electric fields are the "missing ingredient" and exotic forms of matter and energy are metaphysical kludges.

Any studies on that? Is there a working theory of how electrical current and electric fields can reproduce the known rotation curves?

How can you have been here since 2014 and not be aware of the work of Anthony Peratt?