Indeed.
" ?Indeed.
But do the numbers add up?
Or is it - once again - a case of "who the f*** cares about f***ing numbers!
In short, have you not, for the umpteenth time, demonstrated that the MM worldview is blind to quantitative analyses? Or, to be blunt, that your approach is antithetical to science?
Such as supersymmetry.
It allows the coupling constants of the three forces to meet at a single distance/energy scale which would allow for a "natural" GUT. I guess this would also lead to less free parameters although I'm a little rusty here.
Best tell all those people at CERN who are wasting there time then. They certainly seem to believe its a distinct possibility.
Google it. I'm sure you can find better sources than me.
But a number of these things were empirically demonstrated from measuring the gamma-rays in the first place! If you rule out the empirical evidence that something exists based on the fact that its never been shown to exist before then you're never going to discover anything new at all.
I can't read the paper. But based on the abstract, the phenomena described are too low in energy by a factor of at least 50 compared to the data in the FGST paper. So I'm not sure what the relevance is.
I'm not sure why you need a full solar cycle.
So what did you mean by
?
Actually it does, precisely because of the successes of the Standard Model. It cannot be explained by anything that interacts electromagnetically. That leaves neutrinos. But neutrinos are too light.
a) This was not my argument (not at the time anyway).
So tell me, MM, what was the proper - i.e. kosher according to the MM worldview of science - thing to have done wrt the original dark matter (i.e. Neptune)?I guess if I *had* to choose between the two, I'd rather be blind to the quantitative analysis than to be blind to the qualitative analysis like you.
How exactly would you suggest that we go about computing a number of photons counts to expect from a sun and from the planets when we haven't a full solar cycle to work with?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080515-galactic-dust.html
http://cmarchesin.blogspot.com/2009/08/galaxies-demand-stellar-recount.html
Have these more recent discoveries even been factored into current galaxy estimates in terms of the number of stars there are in a given galaxy, including our own? How many gamma ray emitting planets shall we assume for every star in your opinion?
I know how much you love to simply ignore the qualification side of empirical physics and all that matter to you is the math, but don't you get tired of just pulling these numbers out of thin air and then seeing them be demonstrated to be wrong over and over again?
From a 'qualitative" side of science, you haven't a leg to stand on and your math is just fancy window dressing. It's still just mathematical lipstick on a metaphysical pig.
Stars do emit a small amount of gamma rays.
Based on actually reading their paper.
What error? Citation please. Or a fully worked example of the gamma sources that they missed.
They are not a perfectly "natural" source for such emissions until you give evidence for that they are.
I asked for evidence that the Ferrm data sees gamma radiation from stars - a plural.
But it's not just pulled out of their ass. And other theories besides matter are being considered, I'm sure, from measurement errors to new forces that act on massive scales and so on.I don't know if anyone's mentioned this, yet, but the galaxy's star rotation indicates the existence of matter well in excess of that of adding up the mass of the stars.
Galaxies look like a bunch of stars swirling down a drain. In this case, the supposition is they're all in orbit, more or less, about the center of the galaxy, which has the vast bulk of mass, and thus gravity.
Except that when scientists measured how fast stars were going around the center of the galaxy, it was much closer to a solid disc rotating than a bunch of swirling stars.
The only way that can happen is if there's a lot more mass way outside the core of the galaxy so there's a counterpull of gravity that counteracts a lot of the swirliness. There isn't that much swirliness if you're being pulled from both sides almost equally.
Now stars are huge, and a hundred billion are a massive amount of mass, but it's no way near enough to account for that observed behavior.
SO, there must be a lot more mass, i.e. matter somewhere, but we can't see it, so "dark matter" it is. The rest so far is trying to derive characteristics of it -- doesn't interact with observable frequencies, etc.
Any ideas? Have fun!
The lensing data explicitly removes the possibility that the missing mass (or rather excess mass) is in the the form of massive objects.
Can you show they're even in the right ballpark to make a significant difference?
Which has now been ruled out by the lensing data. Hence the transition to WIMP type objects.
Not in the slightest. For example the MSSM assigns properties (or rather a range of possibilities for the properties (mass etc)) to particles based on what we already know from the Standard Model and experiment with the added assumption of supersymmetry - something we have independent reasons for believing in. This is anything but ad hoc. In fact the properties of SUSY particles would be the same whether we'd observed DM or not.
They don't really have any hypothetical features not observed in other particles. At least none that I can think of. And I dunno where you get the idea they are "metaphysical" properties from.
I don't see your point.
The give us a quantitative alternative.
Wrong. See above.
Define "controlled experiment".
There's not a single instance of a supernova event inside our solar sytem, so what in the world would lead me to believe it occurs "out there somewhere else"?
You really don't get the idea of quantitative[\B] analysis do you?
The weak gravitational lensing data shows that the mass cannot be largely in the form of large objects.
Evidence?
I have no doubt whatsoever that you are, indeed, sure of this.
Are you so grotesquely ignorant of the relevant history?
Indeed.
Just like the hypothetical Neptune (as it subsequently became known) and Vulcan (which remains entirely hypothetical)?
I was not aware that any of these "new findings" referred to our own galaxy (the Milky Way) - can you point me to where, exactly, this reference is to be found?
Why should they need to, if they have no relevance?
I think I see your problem - you are stuck with the science that was taught to you in school many years ago. You have forgotten to learn, especially about the new discoveries that changed this original concept for dark matter.
What can you learn from this? Well, other than all sorts of things about the lensed galaxies, you can learn about dark matter! You see, gravitational lensing only cares about mass, and so we can figure out where -- in a cluster like this -- the mass is distributed. The results are breathtaking.
What this shows you is that yes, there are spikes where the individual galaxies are. But the cluster is dominated by this giant spherically-distributed mass that's present everywhere, both where there are galaxies and where there aren't. And that has got to be dark matter.
Can you please confirm that The energy output of the Universe from 0.1 micron to 1000 micron and Evidence for a Non-Uniform Initial Mass Function in the Local Universe are the papers you are referring to?
I know that (just so we're clear).
You keep missing the point, and denying history.
You are really out of date with your scientific knowlege. You seem to be stuck in your school boy days (some sort of second childhood?)
But they didn't at the time they were proposed. What is it that you don't understand about this really really basic argument?
Controlled experiments demonstrate the need for matter that only interacts weakly. This could be SUSY particles. On the other hand, it may not be.
That probably depends on whether you think we should be looking for GUTs. There's also the small matter of the hierarchy problem which you might like to stick in your favourite search engine.
Exactly the same with dark matter. Either our law of gravity is being violated or a new particle is required. You're not helping your argument here.
Uh-huh. You really don't this science malarkey do you. You're arguing against the existence of something because we don't know that it exists for definite. If we always did this we'd have no science at all.
The properties of gravity that were noticed by Newton at the time, like the -2 dependance were completely impossible to measure at the time in a lab. It took centuries for this to be rectified.
Its not metaphysics at all.
Nope completely wrong. The lightest particle in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (for instance) is stable. That is, the simplest possible extension that we can make to the Standard Model to include supersymmetry gives a stable supersymmetric partner. This is in no way made up. Its a consequence that is dependent only on our knowledge of the SM, QM and the assumption that the Universe is supersymmetric.
Nope. Completely wrong. Why do you continue to argue against something you have no idea about in such an agressive manner?
None of these, R-parity conservation.
It does have an effect - the intrinsic brightness of many celestial objects may have been underestimated. That is what the paper states.
Even if this article turns out to be correct and intrinsic brightness is used to calculate the mass of galaxies (I have my doubts about this) then stars become about 1% of the mass in the Universe. Dark matter then makes up the remaining 24% to 29% of gravitational mass.
Fixed your post.
I think your (total?) inability to grasp that theories are quantitative means you cannot, and will not, understand this.
You realise that you just allowed for a cosmological constant (Λ) explanation for dark energy, don't you?
