Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #679095 > unrolled thread

galaxy with no dark matter

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  galaxy with no dark matter Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 21:40 -0500
    galaxy with no dark matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 05:42 -0700
      Re: galaxy with no dark matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-30 15:06 +0000
      Re: galaxy with no dark matter Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 23:49 -0500
        Re: galaxy with no dark matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 07:16 -0700
          Re: galaxy with no dark matter "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 13:07 -0700
            Re: galaxy with no dark matter "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-31 16:35 -0700
    galaxy with no dark matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 06:13 -0700
      Re: galaxy with no dark matter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-30 15:30 +0000

#679095 — galaxy with no dark matter

For all those folks who say, "There's no dark matter, gravity behaves
weirdly way out there in outer space": Here's a galaxy with almost no
dark matter, which behaves exactly the way one might reasonably expect
based upon current, widely accepted ideas about gravity.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25767

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/galaxy-seems-to-lack-dark-matter-stumping-astronomers/

https://www.space.com/40119-ghostly-galaxy-almost-no-dark-matter.html

Dark matter: Get used to it.

-- 
Goat / RLW

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#679116

Lofty
"Dark matter: Get used to it. 
"
So? What is it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#679127

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Lofty
>"Dark matter: Get used to it. 
>"
>So? What is it?

We don't know yet.
(do you think that's a problem?)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#679209

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:42:43 -0700 (PDT), john <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Lofty
>"Dark matter: Get used to it. 
>"
>So? What is it?

John, if we knew then we wouldn't be calling it by such a generic,
minimally descriptive name, would we?  All we know is that it's there.

Indeed, if we knew everything, we'd quickly grow bored and move to one
of those other universes which string theory tells us about where things
can still happen, but differently from how they happen here.

And if we knew everything, we'd either be able to do that or we'd know
that they aren't there for us to visit.

But we're not omniscient, so there are still things left to discover.

This is one of them.

Clearly you're possessed of a sense of wonder, but you're taking the
easy way out by just making shit up.  Go learn something, or do
something constructive, or something artistic, for fuck's sake.

Once eating, drinking, fucking and making money become routine, what
else is there that's worth doing?

-- 
Goat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#679233

"Goat

by just making shit up.  Go learn something, or do 
something constructive, or something artistic, for fuck's sake. 

Once eating, drinking, fucking and making money become routine, what 
else is there that's worth doing? "

Everything else is stamp collecting 

-- 
Goat 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#679274

On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 7:16:44 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> "Goat
> 
> by just making shit up.  Go learn something, or do 
> something constructive, or something artistic, for fuck's sake. 
> 
> Once eating, drinking, fucking and making money become routine, what 
> else is there that's worth doing? "
> 
> Everything else is stamp collecting 
> 
> -- 
> Goat

Thinking Science beyond what's known Bert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#679301

___"reber G=EMC^2"<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
"I park & bark in the dark. I'm of low wit & a stupid shit." Bert
This is "Thinking Science beyond what's known". Bert
>
"Why am I posting this, it's making me cry as it always does"
>
______  "Why am I not loved by all?". Bert.
>

>
>
>
hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#679117

What a Fractal theory of Space says is, there are no empty places. The big is made from the small. The small is made from the smaller. There is no smallest. Space is FULL.
Yes, I know you guys can't visualize Fractal, and see empty Space, but our photons are too big for us to see smaller stuff. Which doesn't mean that smaller stuff isn't there. Space is FULL.

So, I was trying to figure out how all this OTHER unseen and as yet unrecognized Matter out there might show up as it does. ALL of Space, no matter what size, should have the same density. If it doesn't, there's a reason. The only reason can be SPIN. Wherever more of the Space has stored spin energy, maybe?

And now this limit on spinning disc galaxies of one billion years. It shows that this SPIN in Space has a FREQUENCY!  Cool!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#679129

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

<snip illogical fractal claim>

>Yes, I know you guys can't visualize Fractal,

Oh, I like playing with fractals. Mandelbrot sets, Julia sets, even ferns
and lots of fun stuff like that. Your claim I can't "visualize" fractals
is way wrong.

>and see empty Space, but our
>photons are too big for us to see smaller stuff. Which doesn't mean that
>smaller stuff isn't there. Space is FULL.

So again, for the zillionth time, why do you claim this is true? [crickets]

Wait, I know. You are a graduate of the Archimedes Plutonium School of
Physics and Math, where you believe "If I thought it up, it MUST be true!"
Correct? [crickets]

Only problem with that school is they don't teach you how to explain _why_
you believe what you do.  Archie P can't do that either, except to explain
one of his "If I thought it up, it MUST be true!" "proofs" by using one of
his earlier "If I thought it up, it MUST be true!" "proofs".

>So, I was trying to figure out how all this OTHER unseen and as yet
>unrecognized Matter out there might show up as it does.

Before you do that, you need to look for evidence that it even exists at
all.

> ALL of Space, no matter what size, should have the same density.

But it doesn't.

> If it doesn't, there's a reason.

Yes. So far, so good.

> The only reason can be SPIN.

And wham! Off into the weeds you go again.  A much better reason is that
your "theory" is quite simply WRONG.  Remember, "If I thought it up, it
MUST be true!" gets you exactly nowhere in science.

> Wherever more of the Space has stored spin energy, maybe?

Maybe not. No, make that definitely not.

>And now this limit on spinning disc galaxies of one billion years.

WRONG. Yet again.  It is the OUTERMOST EDGE of galaxies that seem to
have a revolution period of 1 billion years.  Using the numbers YOU
provided, the Sun takes about 205 million years to do so. That's because
the Sun is not on the outer edge.

Why do you INSIST on clinging onto a false interpretation like that?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web