Questions on Dark Matter & Dark Energy

[TheBitterOne]

So anyway, I was just half-listening to Linda Moulton Howe on Coast to Coast interviewing some astronomer, and she asked him a question that made my jaw drop. It basically went:

"So professor, can you explain to me and the listeners exactly what dark matter is?"

* Needle scratch *

Hang on, hang on, hang on.

Does she not understand that both dark matter and dark energy are not actual things; they are merely mathematical fudges to prop up a flawed model.

She seems to be under the monstrously-mistaken impression that this is not the case. The astronomer craftily danced around this point and bamboozled her with a lot of pseudo-scientific nonsense while basically winking at the above truth.

Please discuss.

 

[Wade]

I think it's an example of the Linda Moulton Howe scientific method and while I didn't hear this particular broadcast it doesn't sound like she handled it any differently from any other discussions she's had when it comes to implementing (not contemplating) theoretical stop gaps used to temporarily fill in an inconvenient hole.

The point being I think she was well aware of this and didn't feel compelled to put in any disclaimers.

She almost makes me miss Hoagland...almost...

 

[marduk]

So anyway, I was just half-listening to Linda Moulton Howe on Coast to Coast

Well, there's your first and second problems right there.

interviewing some astronomer, and she asked him a question that made my jaw drop. It basically went:

"So professor, can you explain to me and the listeners exactly what dark matter is?"

* Needle scratch *

Hang on, hang on, hang on.

Does she not understand that both dark matter and dark energy are not actual things; they are merely mathematical fudges to prop up a flawed model.

She seems to be under the monstrously-mistaken impression that this is not the case. The astronomer craftily danced around this point and bamboozled her with a lot of pseudo-scientific nonsense while basically winking at the above truth.

Please discuss.

Dark matter is an actual thing. Well, it's an actual inferred thing. See, the universe isn't moving or spread out like it should be.

To account for that differential, dark matter has been proposed and indirectly observed via gravitational lensing.

Dark matter is an unidentified type of matter comprising approximately 27% of the mass and energy in the observable universe[1]that is not accounted for by dark energy, baryonic matter (ordinary matter), and neutrinos.[2] The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.[3]Although dark matter has not been directly observed, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects such as the motions of visible matter, gravitational lensing, its influence on the universe's large-scale structure, and its effects in the cosmic microwave background. Dark matter is transparent to electromagnetic radiation and/or is so dense and small that it fails to absorb or emit enough radiation to be detectable with current imaging technology.

and

Gravitational lensing observations of galaxy clusters allow direct estimates of the gravitational mass based on its effect on light coming from background galaxies, since large collections of matter (dark or otherwise) gravitationally deflect light. In clusters such as Abell 1689, lensing observations confirm the presence of considerably more mass than is indicated by the clusters' light. In the Bullet Cluster, lensing observations show that much of the lensing mass is separated from the X-ray-emitting baryonic mass. In July 2012, lensing observations were used to identify a "filament" of dark matter between two clusters of galaxies, as cosmological simulations predicted.[47]

In August 2016, astronomers reported that Dragonfly 44, an ultra diffuse galaxy (UDG) with the mass of the Milky Way galaxy, but with nearly no discernable stars or galactic structure, may be made almost entirely of dark matter.[18][19][20]

Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In essence, dark matter is matter that is well, dark. It has mass (and hence gravity) but doesn't appear to shine or block light.

It's also a pretty wicked Canadian Sci-Fi TV show with a really hot female lead, a cool ship, and sometimes co-stars Wesley Crusher as a bad guy.

Which makes me smile.

 

[TheBitterOne]

Well, there's your first and second problems right there.



Dark matter is an actual thing. Well, it's an actual inferred thing. See, the universe isn't moving or spread out like it should be.

To account for that differential, dark matter has been proposed and indirectly observed via gravitational lensing.



and



Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In essence, dark matter is matter that is well, dark. It has mass (and hence gravity) but doesn't appear to shine or block light.

It's also a pretty wicked Canadian Sci-Fi TV show with a really hot female lead, a cool ship, and sometimes co-stars Wesley Crusher as a bad guy.

Which makes me smile.

Thanks to both of you for replying.

With respect, marduk, if interested, I would ask you to take some time to re-think what you're being told about dark matter and dark energy.

As stated earlier, they are not things.

They are mathematical fudges.

To put it in simplistic terms, the conventional model says that:

1 + 1 should = 2.

But 1 + 1 actually = 3. (WTF?!?)

Instead of realizing that the basis of it all - 1 + 1 - is a fundamentally flawed formula or assumption, 'dark matter' has been invented to explain that 1 + 1 is actually pushed out by 'dark matter' and therefore does = 3 (cosmic eyeroll).

It's a breathtakingly ludicrous lie.

If an accountant tried that s&^% he would be jailed.

 

[marduk]

Thanks to both of you for replying.

With respect, marduk, If interested, I would ask you to take some time to re-think what you're being told about dark matter and dark energy.

As stated earlier, they are not things.

They are mathematical fudges.

To put it in simplistic terms, the conventional model says that:

1 + 1 should = 2.

But 1 + 1 actually = 3. (WTF?!?)

Instead of realizing that 1 + 1 is a fundamentally flawed concept, 'dark matter' has been invented to account for the fact that 1 + 1 is actually pushed out by dark matter and therefore does = 3.

It's a ludricrous, breathtaking lie.

If an accountant tried that s&^% he would be jailed.

Nope, not at all. Your logic is flawed.

It's not a mathematical fudge. It's the result of the scientific method.

Here's how it worked:
Given the amount of mass we see in galaxies, the predicted behaviour of galaxies is X.
Let's test that prediction by looking at them.
Their behaviour is actually observed to be Y.

What can account for the delta between X and Y?

Non-baryonic matter was proposed. Adjust hypothesis and prediction. Observe.

OK, that fits better, but there's still a delta.

And so on.

We infer objects all the time. Nobody's observed a black hole because its black, you see? You observe stuff falling into it, and you observe light bending around it because of gravity.

Just like nobody's observed a dinosaur, an electron, or Trump's hairline. We just infer them through rocks that appear to have been made from bones, electricity, and the fact that there has to be a hairline there somewhere.

 

[TheBitterOne]

Given the amount of mass we see in galaxies, the predicted behaviour of galaxies is X.
Let's test that prediction by looking at them.
Their behaviour is actually observed to be Y.

This is 1 + 1 should = 2 but actually = 3.

You just don't see it yet.

 

[marduk]

This is 1 + 1 should = 2 but actually = 3.

You just don't see it yet.

Ok.

Galaxies don't move like they should given the amount of matter we can see.

You answer it then if it isn't dark matter.

 

[TheBitterOne]

Ok.

Galaxies don't move like they should given the amount of matter we can see.

You answer it then if it isn't dark matter.

Maybe reflect on your own statement.

Things don't behave in the way we think they should. Because they should behave the way we think they should since our equation is necessarily correct, there must be some hidden element that makes our equation correct.

This is nonsense.

 

[marduk]

Maybe reflect on your own statement.

Things don't behave in the way we think they should. Because they should behave the way we think they should since our equation is necessarily correct, there must be some hidden element that makes our equation correct.

This is nonsense.

They don't move the way that the planets move around the sun due to gravity. Gravity seems to scale up remarkably well, all the way down to Voyager 1 and 2 being a long, long way away.

That's not nonsense. It's an anomaly.

(P.S. Dark matter causes gravitational lensing, so something's there)

 

[Randall]

Great discussion. Personally, I tend to think that some extra ingredients have been added to the mathematical soufflé to make sure it rises properly, but that doesn't mean that what has been dubbed Dark Matter isn't something either. We just don't know what that something is exactly. If it's the case that we're living in a vast computational construct, then everything is a product of the program, in which case the something and the math would essentially equal the same thing. But what if that's not the case? What if Dark Matter is an influence from a so called "shadow galaxy" or parallel universe? Then that something would be as real as our galaxy or universe. It's all very interesting.

 

[marduk]

Great discussion. Personally, I tend to think that some extra ingredients have been added to the mathematical soufflé to make sure it rises properly, but that doesn't mean that what has been dubbed Dark Matter isn't something either. We just don't know what that something is exactly. If it's the case that we're living in a vast computational construct, then everything is a product of the program, in which case the something and the math would essentially equal the same thing. But what if that's not the case? What if Dark Matter is an influence from a so called "shadow galaxy" or parallel universe? Then that something would be as real as our galaxy or universe. It's all very interesting.

Here's an interesting 3-d map of a chunk of stuff that appears to have mass but be transparent to light:

That looks an aweful lot like the mass distributions found in nebulae:

You know, clumps of stuff that kind of blobs around and is blobby.

So what we appear to be looking at (to me) is large-scale nebula-like formations that are really really big, and really really transparent.

 

[Red]

And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but dark matter belongs in a working model in which several other aspects have been validated. It would be different if the model solely relied on the absence of dark matter to prove correct, but this is not the case. The model is large and complex; dark matter only comprises a small part of it.

 

[Randall]

I wonder how much mass the average star has compared to the mass of everything in it's orbit ( planets moons, dust, asteroids, comets ... etc. ) and where that additional mass has been factored in? Obviously it has been right? But I'm just curious.So here it is: Our Sun, a G2 main-sequence star that contains 99.86% of the system's known mass and dominates it gravitationally.

​

 

[marduk]

I wonder how much mass the average star has compared to the mass of everything in it's orbit ( planets moons, dust, asteroids, comets ... etc. ) and where that additional mass has been factored in? Obviously it has been right? But I'm just curious.So here it is: Our Sun, a G2 main-sequence star that contains 99.86% of the system's known mass and dominates it gravitationally.

​

I think the answer is Kepler's laws.

http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay20/Ay20-Lec4x.pdf