Dark Matter

Scientists believe in dark matter because their calculations tell them there should be more mass/gravity than what is observed based on how galaxies move, how stars/nebula/whatever inside galaxies move. This is an example of trying to change reality to fit with one’s theories, rather than changing one’s theories to fit with reality – in other words, anti-science, if we define science as the scientific method.

How did this anti-science get so popular? Dark matter is a common idea, physicists accept it as completely certain even though they begrudgingly admit there is yet no observable evidence for it. And most people have heard of it, the idea has the catchy name dark matter which is at once mysterious and evocative of something powerful, tantalizing, and makes you think the scientists must really be “getting to the bottom” of this whole understanding reality thing, if they are doing work on such mesmerizing things as dark matter!

Why didn’t science take another look at how it calculates gravitational effects over the largest distances rather than jump right into an insane kind of religious frenzy of faith? Are there any physicists who are working on the real issue of fitting our theories to reality, rather than abandoning rationality to play with egotistical and hopeful thinking?

Have you ever hear of MonD?

Scientists are not usually morons but I can see how you would think they were, at the end of the day the gravitational effects of the universe should work across the board. They don’t it will take another Einstein to show why “dark” matter is what it is…

I’m sure the idea of dark matter/energy was injected as an excuse in the midst of a lack of understanding, but in this case, they happen to be right (according to RM:AO anyway).

They appear to be right according to James, Good job Sciency guys some Christian apologist thinks you’re right, fuck yeah!!!£12222544

In direct response to the OP:

The situation is this:
Scientists have some theory that produces certain predictions. They come across an instance in which the theory produces the wrong predictions, BUT when they postulate the existence of some previously unknown entity, the predictions are fixed.

And you think that the correct approach, instead of postulating the entity, is to throw out the theory.

Now, let me start off by saying that the theory could be wrong, and any incorrect prediction is, indeed, evidence (sometimes weak, sometimes strong) against the theory.

However, that being said, there is historical precident for the approach of NOT throwing out the theory, but instead postulating a new entity, actually working.

Our theory of Gravity produced certain predictions about Uranus’ orbit. Those predictions were wrong - the equations did not match the observed path of Uranus. However, if there were another uknown planet, it would explain the deviation of Uranus and fix the equations. So – throw out all we know about physics and gravity, or postulate a planet we’d never observed before?

The planet turned out to be Neptune.

Sometimes it’s right to not throw out the theory. Sometimes the theory is right, and when something goes askew…sometimes there really is a new unobserved entity.

Now, this of course isn’t meant to give free reign towards any ideas just making up whatever they want to explain failed predictions. But it does mean that it’s not always the stupid choice to not abandon an otherwise very successful theory.

They are right that there is more “stuff” out there which they cannot see, sure, but they do not seem aware of what this stuff is… Dark matter is assumed to be this ordinary-like matter that is for some reason “invisible”, and hanging out in a large cloud surrounding galaxies. They do not seem to realize that so-called dark matter is just an inherent aspect of the ambient field itself, the activity going on below the level of their instruments to detect. This activity is so small as to not register on any but the largest aggregate measurements, i.e. the movements of the arms of a spiral galaxy.

So are you also saying, James, that physicists’s equations (Newton and Einstein) for calculating gravity are correct, or are these merely approximations? The error (namely that the equations predict galaxies to act differently than we see them acting) is either due to their equations being somewhat incorrect, or is due to their assumption of the total amount of “mass” in a galaxy being incorrect, or both.

I am thinking that they are inaccurate in the sense that they built an ontology that was incorrect, built upon the elements of rigid bodies and forces. Since they could find no rigid bodies to be exerting the forces, they erred in their predictions.

A) Rigid bodies can never exist (which they eventually discovered for themselves)
B) Forces don’t actually exist except as an aberrant after effect of something they cannot see.
C) that "dark matter/energy is displaying that they cannot see what it is that is causing their forces.
D) To “see” the causes of motion, one has to used Logic. It can only be seen with the mind’s eye.

Would you consider it anti-science to have decided there was a Pluto Before we could see it?

If they did not exhaust other options first, including taking another honest (non-dogmatic) look at their assumptions and their equations which generate the predictions, then yes.

The basic requirement of science is the position of, “I might be wrong”. In other words, honesty and humility. Knowledge builds from there.

Mechanical,
I totally agree.

Dark matter was invented to explain why
our Suck theory of gravity doesn’t work
on the large scale.

First, explain where the suck comes from, say I.

Just because I’m here, says matter, coyly.

No, according to my Galaxy Model of the
atom, it is energy given off by electrons everywhere
that causes inertia and gravity, but this energy
comes from the fusion of ELECTRON MATTER, which is
so much smaller than normal (our) matter, that the
energy is extremely faint and extremely high-frequency,
while being extremely, extremely numerous/dense.

Here’s how the Galaxy model deals with Benzene:

Here’s Benzene:
users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF

That’s the Galaxy Model orbital:
one rotation of the disc linked to
two precessions of the disc brings
everything back around in its own pathway
which can only be shared by a point
exactly opposite on the disc.
One to two.
1:2
Matter.
Helium would be represented like this:
users.accesscomm.ca/john/He.GIF
Of course, in reality the electrons are not
little balls at one radius of the disc, but clouds that
spiral more or less tightly from nucleus to
edge while remaining in the disc.

john

If Einstein depicted matter to be energy that equals mass multiplied by the square of the velocity of light…then why would light be dark? Isn’t light…light?

I have never understood how someone could propose light to be dark…dark is dark. Light cannot be dark…but you can say light has levels of itself causing its own darker light phases as it becomes lesser than what it was.

Dark would therefore infer “without light”, not with light…therefore how could it be energy, or the creator of energy? Seems not by the terms that the human mind proposed detailed Science itself = self explanations…how can you argue with yourselves when the psyche already conferred the argument. Aren’t you actually trying to gain something other than what you currently have? In other words if you know you are running out of a resource and are beginning to worry about your greedy future, wouldn’t your greedy mind try to create an unsubstantiated unrealistic evaluation just to allow yourselves to exist as you always have…greedy, power mongering and in need of a future resource and monetary gain. How far does greed take you…to self destruction per say?

helper, that is very interesting, and I would like to understand the Galaxy Model more. What is the nature of this electron energy, and how specifically does it cause/create “inertia” and “gravity” effects?

Mechanical- hi, I usually harangue sci.physics people,
so I rarely come here, except to flip you
guys some of the better ones. I’ll answer your questions
in a following post; I just want to give you this Black Hole
stuff right now- it’s quite clear:

If you believe in extra dimensions,
you will have trouble.
There are only 3 dimensions.
And there is Time.

But there is no smallest, so a focus
of organization like ours can happen
again and again, infinitely, as you
go up or down the ‘size’ scale.
Each comes complete with its own em, so don’t go
saying it can’t happen because OUR em
doesn’t deal with it.

As such, there are smaller and
smaller ‘layers’ of material expression.
When a Black Hole forms in our ‘layer’
it is because there is a vortex which
has formed in the layer beneath ours.

Each smaller material expression makes up the
electrons and other subatomic particles of
the one above- these being the largest structures
it forms. It is also present as we see Space
around us- as individuals and smaller groups.
Whichever way this underlying Space is moving,
larger Space is influenced to follow. But where
the smaller Space is turning in a vortex, because
the smaller Space is much higher frequency, it can
turn much faster than the Space above. The Space
above is shredded every time it tries to follow
into the vortex. It cannot be in there, so for
the Space above, it really is a Black Hole, because
every time it gets close to the center, it gets
ripped into its subatomic constituents and shot
back out.

john
galaxy model for the atom

Yes I see it this way also.

Yes I believe this too is correct.

Very cool explanation for a black hole.

So the layer of reality below ours is more dense-continuous relative to ours, and what exists in our layer is only manifestation of what is going on in this lower layer. Mass would be a concentration of the lower layer energy in relatively small space; this would produce a “heaviness” effect in our layer as our layer is attempting to “flow with” the movements of the lower layer’s motion… More mass would cause more “drag” and pull in our layer, looking like a spiral into the center of mass-- and this is exactly what gravity looks like in our observations. Also as you say with the lower layer being much higher frequency and thus moving much faster than the above layer could keep up with.

If the density is high enough no amount of inertia balance in another object can cause that object to sustain an “orbit”, as orbit is just a temporary balance of the pull into the vortex-spiral against the “heaviness” (inertia, resistance to pull) of the object. And if the density at the lower layer is even greater, a black hole appears where even the light-energy EM that would normally be pulled into and stuck in the center of mass of the vortex (a star) is pulled deeper and cannot form a star.

Your theory is good and involves so-called hidden local variables, which means your theory is logical unlike conventional quantum mechanical models. Also you theory and James’ Rational Metaphysics:Affectance Ontology seems to share a lot in common. Perhaps you can engage him here or on another thread about comparing notes between your two ideas.

mechanical said, “helper, that is very interesting, and I would like to understand the Galaxy Model more. What is the nature of this electron energy, and how specifically does it cause/create “inertia” and “gravity” effects?”

When the next-gen matter fuses within the electron, it
gives off the same thing that our stars give off- neutrinos.

These smaller-scale neutrinos are everywhere
that the bigger ones are, but much more numerous.
It is these that may be the ‘ultramundane particles’
that LeSage gravity requires.

So, matter/electrons everywhere give off this smaller-scale
neutrino which is absorbed by the matter/protons everywhere
to cause LeSage gravity.

john
galaxy model

I would guess that most did not consider it confirmed until it was ‘seen’. I would guess that science will not consider dark matter fully confirmed until it is detected more directly. Though at range, all detection is indirect. I was raising the issue of not directly detectable. Do you rule out much of QM (as confirmed) since the observations tend to be of effects rather than ‘players’? (and by the way, I do not Think either a yes or no answer is silly, I am just trying to show that the issue is fairly broad in science.) Another way to probe this is to ask what else you consider mere speculation that is heading into or already is in scientific consensus? Black holes? The Big Bang?

The basic requirement of science is the position of, “I might be wrong”. In other words, honesty and humility. Knowledge builds from there.I would guess that most did not consider it confirmed until it was ‘seen’. I would guess that science will not consider dark matter fully confirmed until it is detected more directly. Though at range, all detection is indirect. I was raising the issue of not directly detectable. Do you rule out much of QM (as confirmed) since the observations tend to be of effects rather than ‘players’? (and by the way, I do not Think either a yes or no answer is silly, I am just trying to show that the issue is fairly broad in science.) Another way to probe this is to ask what else you consider mere speculation that is heading into or already is in scientific consensus? Black holes? The Big Bang?
[/quote]
Atmosphere a natural condition of mass/light/sound

Scientists review all of the space cell through the atmosphere = previous discoveries

Atmosphere altered by converting uranium…the natural state of the plasma body alters, it heats due to frequency change for conversion of uranium per radiation signals.
Atmosphere converts its mass/light/sound…Scientists now observe new phenomena.

Phenomena observed relates to altered natural state/mass of the atmosphere (through which they review space itself)…they can now witness the black body radiation in which they involved their own scientific alterations…increased radiation signals in the Earth’s atmosphere.

This is not a new scientific discovery…it is a loss of our own natural creation allowing you to witness the previous destruction involved in the alteration of the angelic sound bodies surrounding Planet Earth causing fall out.

Did they see the Big Bang?
They are fully promoting it as irrefutable fact, programming all secular children into knowing it to be scientific fact, despite the ability to prove it to be a fairy tale by “seeing” it using the same “indirect” tools they used to construct it.

No they aren’t stop talking shit. It’s the theory du jour, it is barely even that atm. I wish you’d give up all this science is a religion nonsense, it isn’t your hypothesis is, it has no evidence no peer review and is no different from any other interpretation which you seem to have outrageously plagiarise without acknowledging your sources. Being a crackpot is only going to get you so far.

Like anything in life there are fashions, 100 or so years ago it shifted to quantum mechanics, the most successful scientific theory of the 20th century and possibly the millenia, in 100 years it could be something else. Science evolves, crackpots devolve.

That was my Point. Now perhaps the person I was responding to does not accept the Big Bang and I will need to use Another example. My Point was that direct observation is not possible in many instances and not needed for a lot of confirmation that involves indirect ‘perceiving’. Hell, even seeing, at least according to modern science, is indirect.

[/quote]
For you, obviously, The Big Bang would not have been a good example. For him it might be. Does an electron microscope image or ultrasound Count as direct seeing? What is ‘seeing the effects of something’ and what is ‘seeing something directly’? I am arguing that these are not so easy to separate and unless he is skeptical of a very large portion of mainstream science, then dark matter is just one example amongst many. My posts generally probe particular individuals. I know enough about you not to use the Big Bang as a probe and if you had written the OP I might have tried something else. Given that you are more skeptical than most about much of mainstream science, it might have taken a while to come up with examples. Just because I use an example does not mean that I Think the example is true. It is more that I am hoping he Thinks it is true and then we can see why that is accepted but dark matter is not. Other examples might challenge direct seeing vs. indirect in a variety of ways, Always triangulating to see what the other person’s actual position is. Is it consistent?

I may in parallel spit out my take on The Big Bang or Dark Matter. But this need not be part or the Foundation of my line of argument/exploration.

Personally I Think it was fine to postulate Pluto Before more direct (though arguably still not direct) forms of seeing it were managed. To say that it seems likely there is Another planet or planetoid out there beyond Neptune given the effects on the other planets. All we have is effects, really, of one kind or Another. I do tend to trust some more than others.

However deduction seems to be a process that you trust a great deal, more than me in fact. And deduction from effects is what they are doing.