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

Groups > sci.physics > #704860 > unrolled thread

Dark Matter Did It

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Dark Matter Did It john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 08:11 -0700
    Re:Dark Matter Did It Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-09-27 19:04 +0200
    Re: Dark Matter Did It moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-27 18:06 +0000
      Re: Dark Matter Did It john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 18:59 -0700
        Re: Dark Matter Did It moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-28 03:33 +0000
          Re: Dark Matter Did It john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 05:48 -0700
            Re: Dark Matter Did It Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 15:55 +0000
              Re: Dark Matter Did It benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 12:24 -0400
            Re: Dark Matter Did It moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-28 16:24 +0000
              Re: Dark Matter Did It Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 11:21 -0700
    Re: Dark Matter Did It mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-27 11:20 -0700
      Re: Dark Matter Did It Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 16:49 -0700
        Re: Dark Matter Did It mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-27 19:56 -0700
          Re: Dark Matter Did It Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 21:00 -0700
    Re: Dark Matter Did It "Talk.origins T" <Talk.Origins@aol.com> - 2018-09-27 17:03 -0700

#704860 — Dark Matter Did It

I can think of so many observations that the mainstream Physics blames on Dark Matter!
One of which is Galactic Rotation Curves. Galaxies supposedly rotate slower on whatever side is needed because “that’s where the Dark Matter Is”.

Do these people not realize how ludicrous that is?

And now that a direct relationship has been shown between angular momentum of galaxies and their visible matter..... dum da dum dum!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#704881

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> I can think of so many observations that the mainstream Physics blames on Dark Matter!
> One of which is Galactic Rotation Curves. Galaxies supposedly rotate slower on whatever side is needed because “that’s where the Dark Matter Is”.
> 
> Do these people not realize how ludicrous that is?
> 
> And now that a direct relationship has been shown between angular momentum of galaxies and their visible matter..... dum da dum dum!
> 

Are you aware that at least 3 very different  domains of
 astrophysics  independently predict about the same ratio between
 regular and dark matter ?

Most people for some reasons exclusively focus on rotation curves,
 probably because it is easy to understand.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#704895

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>I can think of so many observations that the mainstream Physics blames on Dark Matter!
>One of which is Galactic Rotation Curves. Galaxies supposedly rotate slower
> on whatever side is needed because "that's where the Dark Matter Is".

>Do these people not realize how ludicrous that is?

Explain why it is "ludicrous" for 'invisible heavy stuff' to be unevenly 
distributed.
.
(yes, I know you will NEVER answer this)

Now explain Einstein lensing.

>And now that a direct relationship has been shown between angular momentum
>of galaxies and their visible matter..... dum da dum dum!

In that one two year old article. Find any followups yet? No?

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

#704975

MM
“da dum dum! 

In that one two year old article. Find any followups yet? No? 
”
Oh, yeah! You guys REALLY want to follow THAT up.

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

#704983

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>In that one two year old article. Find any followups yet? No?

>Oh, yeah! You guys REALLY want to follow THAT up.

I take that as a "no".


Also:

>Explain why it is "ludicrous" for 'invisible heavy stuff' to be unevenly
>distributed.

>(yes, I know you will NEVER answer this)

Yup. No answer.

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

#705016

MM
“
>Explain why it is "ludicrous" for 'invisible heavy stuff' to be unevenly ”

Invisible heavy stuff distributed right where your theory needs it? Oh no! Absolutely necessary!!

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

#705029

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> MM
> “
>> Explain why it is "ludicrous" for 'invisible heavy stuff' to be unevenly ”
> 
> Invisible heavy stuff distributed right where your theory needs it? Oh
> no! Absolutely necessary!!
> 

Here’s a nice parable. 
Back in the 1920s there was this observational problem where beta decay
seemed to violate energy conservation: the total energy of the neutron
before the decay did not equal the energy of the proton and the beta
particle after the decay. Now, conservation of energy up to that point had
been a completely bulletproof principle, with thousands of confirmations.
But some physicists said, maybe energy isn’t conserved in beta decay. Maybe
it’s just as big a law as everyone thought. Maybe it’s flawed and we should
start over. 

Hold on, someone said. Maybe there is a new kind of matter that has no mass
or at most a tiny amount of mass, and it’s practically undetectable, and it
has no electric charge at all, and it just happens to carry away the
missing energy. 

What? some people spluttered. You have new invisible matter just where the
theory needs it, just to save this law of energy conservation? Are you
nuts? What do you call this invisible fairy of a particle no one has seen?

I call it a neutrino, the theorist said. 

How are we to prove that this particle even exists, other than just to
assume it’s there to save energy conservation? the critics spluttered. 

And that’s when the interesting thinking started to happen. Not that it was
easy to figure out. It took three decades to find even the first clear
evidence that neutrinos existed at all, and by then physicists were
supposing that there were at least four varieties of them. But the point
is, neutrinos DO exist. And yes, the guess that they did exist came purely
from an effort to explain an anomalous observation that appeared to violate
a sacred law of physics. 

Now, John, you may scoff that the neutrino story is not how physics should
be done, by inventing new kinds of matter just to try to preserve laws of
physics, rather than throwing the laws away. 

But, John, your scoffing is not compelling, especially since the neutrino
story was replicated over and over and over again, with new predicted kinds
of matter being proposed to save laws of physics and later discovering that
the predicted matter was indeed right where it was predicted. Pions, omega
minus baryon, muon neutrinos, quarks, charmed particles, gluons, W and Z
bosons, Higgs bosons....

And you’d be a fool to suggest that it was a bad idea ever to look for
these things. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#705034

On 9/28/2018 11:55 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MM
>> “
>>> Explain why it is "ludicrous" for 'invisible heavy stuff' to be unevenly ”
>>
>> Invisible heavy stuff distributed right where your theory needs it? Oh
>> no! Absolutely necessary!!
>>
> 
> Here’s a nice parable.
> Back in the 1920s there was this observational problem where beta decay
> seemed to violate energy conservation: the total energy of the neutron
> before the decay did not equal the energy of the proton and the beta
> particle after the decay. Now, conservation of energy up to that point had
> been a completely bulletproof principle, with thousands of confirmations.
> But some physicists said, maybe energy isn’t conserved in beta decay. Maybe
> it’s just as big a law as everyone thought. Maybe it’s flawed and we should
> start over.
> 
> Hold on, someone said. Maybe there is a new kind of matter that has no mass
> or at most a tiny amount of mass, and it’s practically undetectable, and it
> has no electric charge at all, and it just happens to carry away the
> missing energy.
> 
> What? some people spluttered. You have new invisible matter just where the
> theory needs it, just to save this law of energy conservation? Are you
> nuts? What do you call this invisible fairy of a particle no one has seen?
> 
> I call it a neutrino, the theorist said.
> 
> How are we to prove that this particle even exists, other than just to
> assume it’s there to save energy conservation? the critics spluttered.
> 
> And that’s when the interesting thinking started to happen. Not that it was
> easy to figure out. It took three decades to find even the first clear
> evidence that neutrinos existed at all, and by then physicists were
> supposing that there were at least four varieties of them. But the point
> is, neutrinos DO exist. And yes, the guess that they did exist came purely
> from an effort to explain an anomalous observation that appeared to violate
> a sacred law of physics.
> 
> Now, John, you may scoff that the neutrino story is not how physics should
> be done, by inventing new kinds of matter just to try to preserve laws of
> physics, rather than throwing the laws away.
> 
> But, John, your scoffing is not compelling, especially since the neutrino
> story was replicated over and over and over again, with new predicted kinds
> of matter being proposed to save laws of physics and later discovering that
> the predicted matter was indeed right where it was predicted. Pions, omega
> minus baryon, muon neutrinos, quarks, charmed particles, gluons, W and Z
> bosons, Higgs bosons....
> 
> And you’d be a fool to suggest that it was a bad idea ever to look for
> these things.
> 
Odd is right, John. Neutrinos exist. Hell, I was THERE when it was 
discovered. I even took a physics course from professor Frederick 
Reines, Nobel prize winner for discovering the neutrino! (He was a 
TOTALLY cool guy by the way) It's so funny the way Odd pretends to be so 
educated in physics and says how uneducated I am, yet just compare...

John, neutrinos (and neutral currents) are the Key to explaining the 
physics of low energy transmutations (as in why chickens do not 
explode). Trust me. I KNOW something.

However note that neutrinos have little or no mass. They are NOT "dark 
matter". Dark matter is a logical invention to explain the huge mistake 
that is the "big bang" theory. Odd, Dark matter is 100% bullshit and 
error. John is right on the mark about that one. Trust me.

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

#705035

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"
>>Explain why it is "ludicrous" for 'invisible heavy stuff' to be unevenly =
>"

>Invisible heavy stuff distributed right where your theory needs it? Oh no! 
>Absolutely necessary!!

What Odd said.

And you are complaining that just happens to cause the correct rotation
curve? You are confusing cause and effect. The invisible heavy stuff just
happens to cause the correct rotation curve. You sneer "And it just
happens to be the right amount in the right place, right where your theory
needs it?"  Well, that amount in that place CAUSES the rotation curve you
see. If there was a DIFFERENT amount in a DIFFERENT place, there would be
a DIFFERENT rotation curve, and then you'd be complaining "And it just
happens to be the right amount in the right place, right where your theory
needs it?"  No matter how the dark matter is distributed, it would produce
a certain rotation curve, and you'd complain how the dark matter just
happens to be right where your theory needs it!

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

#705069

On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 6:24:59 AM UTC-10, Michael Moroney wrote:

> 
> >MM
> >"
> >>Explain why it is "ludicrous" for 'invisible heavy stuff' to be unevenly =
> >"
> 
> >Invisible heavy stuff distributed right where your theory needs it? Oh no! 
> >Absolutely necessary!!
> 
> What Odd said.
> 
> And you are complaining that just happens to cause the correct rotation
> curve? You are confusing cause and effect. The invisible heavy stuff just
> happens to cause the correct rotation curve. You sneer "And it just
> happens to be the right amount in the right place, right where your theory
> needs it?"  Well, that amount in that place CAUSES the rotation curve you
> see. If there was a DIFFERENT amount in a DIFFERENT place, there would be
> a DIFFERENT rotation curve, and then you'd be complaining "And it just
> happens to be the right amount in the right place, right where your theory
> needs it?"  No matter how the dark matter is distributed, it would produce
> a certain rotation curve, and you'd complain how the dark matter just
> happens to be right where your theory needs it!

Hi Mike M.
I made a youtube video on Dark Matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ormOPwVXe_Q

It says dark matter is matter with no electrons.
Pictures show the stuff in a proposed theory.
It is just as sparse as matter in galaxies and distributed
in lumps, similar to here in the Milky Way.
Alan F. 

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

#704901

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:11:46 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> I can think of so many observations that the mainstream Physics blames on Dark Matter!
> One of which is Galactic Rotation Curves. Galaxies supposedly rotate slower on whatever side is needed because “that’s where the Dark Matter Is”.


There is no rotation outer galaxies stars are in orbit.


Where is dark matter hiding with the atom's of the Earth?


> 
> Do these people not realize how ludicrous that is?
> 
> And now that a direct relationship has been shown between angular momentum of galaxies 

again... orbital...not angular momentum

Mitchell Raemsch

> and their visible matter..... dum da dum dum!

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

#704953

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:20:24 AM UTC-10, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:11:46 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > I can think of so many observations that the mainstream Physics blames on Dark Matter!
> > One of which is Galactic Rotation Curves. Galaxies supposedly rotate slower on whatever side is needed because “that’s where the Dark Matter Is”.
> 
> 
> There is no rotation outer galaxies stars are in orbit.
> 
> 
> Where is dark matter hiding with the atom's of the Earth?
> 
> 
> > 
> > Do these people not realize how ludicrous that is?
> > 
> > And now that a direct relationship has been shown between angular momentum of galaxies 
> 
> again... orbital...not angular momentum
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> > and their visible matter..... dum da dum dum!

Dark matter cannot survive matter. It would be ionized
and lost into our mud and fog. Dark matter has no electrons.

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

#704982

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:20:24 AM UTC-10, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:11:46 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > > I can think of so many observations that the mainstream Physics blames on Dark Matter!
> > > One of which is Galactic Rotation Curves. Galaxies supposedly rotate slower on whatever side is needed because “that’s where the Dark Matter Is”.
> > 
> > 
> > There is no rotation outer galaxies stars are in orbit.
> > 
> > 
> > Where is dark matter hiding with the atom's of the Earth?
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Do these people not realize how ludicrous that is?
> > > 
> > > And now that a direct relationship has been shown between angular momentum of galaxies 
> > 
> > again... orbital...not angular momentum
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> > > and their visible matter..... dum da dum dum!
> 
> Dark matter cannot survive matter. It would be ionized
> and lost into our mud and fog. Dark matter has no electrons.

That's plasma. But how did dark matter separate from
the much less real matter? Did they not have a common
beginning origin with galaxies and their stars?


If it is everywhere it must be in orbit or it falls
into stars... and it would be hiding on Earth...
can science really accept something it has never handled
on Earth but is somehow hiding with the atoms?

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#704986

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 4:56:25 PM UTC-10, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:20:24 AM UTC-10, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:11:46 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > > > I can think of so many observations that the mainstream Physics blames on Dark Matter!
> > > > One of which is Galactic Rotation Curves. Galaxies supposedly rotate slower on whatever side is needed because “that’s where the Dark Matter Is”.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > There is no rotation outer galaxies stars are in orbit.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Where is dark matter hiding with the atom's of the Earth?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Do these people not realize how ludicrous that is?
> > > > 
> > > > And now that a direct relationship has been shown between angular momentum of galaxies 
> > > 
> > > again... orbital...not angular momentum
> > > 
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > 
> > > > and their visible matter..... dum da dum dum!
> > 
> > Dark matter cannot survive matter. It would be ionized
> > and lost into our mud and fog. Dark matter has no electrons.

Hi Mitch, 
> 
> That's plasma. But how did dark matter separate from
> the much less real matter?

The creation sequence is like this:

1 expansion continues forever
2 matter is tightly packed protons and electrons
3 all matter is ionized in gamma ray burst
4 electrons escape and dark matter remains with no electrons
5 all is dark matter
6 some electrons collide with electrons head on, making matter galaxies




> Did they not have a common
> beginning origin with galaxies and their stars?


Yes matter and dark matter have a common origin : as matter expanding apart
> 
> 
> If it is everywhere it must be in orbit or it falls
> into stars..

It was everywhere, but some became matter in recombination.

. and it would be hiding on Earth...
> can science really accept something it has never handled
> on Earth but is somehow hiding with the atoms?

Dark matter is just matter with no electrons


> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

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

#704956

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 10:11:46 AM UTC-5, john wrote:
>
> Dark Matter...

Anagram of "Dark Energy" is "Garry Denke"
Anagram of "Dark Matter" is "Trademark T"

Talk.origins T

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web