Fermi and dark matter

Reality Check · Nov 3, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
You forgot the whole "cause/effect" benefit of "controlled experiments".
...snip...
You can't do that with pure observation, you can't necessarily isolate a "cause".

Actually there is no guarantee that you can isolate a "cause" from controlled experiments either. Some experiments are impossible or too expensive to do. For example what is the 'cause' of cosmic rays and what controlled experiment do you propose to establish it?

Here is a "pure observation": Light from stars have absorption lines in them. Can you isolate a 'cause' for these absorption lines?

Michael Mozina said:
It's evidence of "missing mass" or 'unidentified mass'.
...snip...

Just measuring the the mass distribution is evidence of "missing mass". The evidence that the mass is not normal matter is: the three observations of dark matter separated from normal matter: Bullet Cluster,MACS J0025.4-1222 and Abell 520.

Michael Mozina said:
Yes there is. The leap of faith is similar to the UFO scenario. You are assuming that because we cannot identify the object, it must *NECESSARILY* be from another planet. In my analogy, yes, it's currently "unidentified", but it could be (and probably is) from *THIS* planet. You're making a huge assumption to claim that the missing mass is anything other than ordinary matter.
[/qote]
No there is not.

Michael Mozina said:

Ah, here's where the ridicule begins? What up with that? If you can't beat me via empirical physics, try a personal attack? You must be getting desperate.

Click to expand...

It is not a personal attack. Any intelligent person can see that the three observations (empirical physics!) of dark matter separated from normal matter (Bullet Cluster,MACS J0025.4-1222 and Abell 520) are overwhelming evidence for dark matter.

Michael Mozina said:

Sure but you refused to consider that fact that the missing mass could be ordinary matter. You refused to actually "confirm" any of the properties of your metaphysical brand of "dark matter". You simply "assumed" all of them on an "as needed" basis to fill the gaps of your otherwise failed mass calculation theory. Even when there is evidence presented to you that we may have underestimated the number of stars in galaxies by a large factor, you still *assume* that new and exotic matter is necessary or required. Why?

Click to expand...

Because:
Gravitational measurements show that 25% to 30% of the universe is mass.

The measured mass of stars are only about 0.5% of the mass in the Universe.

The measured mass of the intergalactic medium is 3.6% of the mass in the Universe.

I can understand that 0.4% is about 60 times less than 25%?
I can understand that even if astronomers are out by a factor of 2 then 1% is less than 25%?
I can understand that even if astronomers are out by a factor of 10 then 4% is less than 25%?
I can understand that even if astronomers are out by a factor of 50 then 20% is less than 25%?

Can you?

Michael Mozina · Nov 3, 2009

edd said:
Fair point.

I don't think Michael's seen it though, and arguably a second hand experiment relayed by verbal means is less reliable than one relayed by photons directly from the experiment, which is what an astronomical observation is.

I really don't grasp why you (lots of astronomers) call these simple observations "experiments". There is no control mechanism in an "observation" and therefore there is no way to determine "cause" in these types of "observations". We observe gamma rays. Period. We aren't controlling them. We aren't controlling the voltages, the amps, the number of "dark matter" particles, or anything of the sort. We therefore have no clue as to "cause" of the gamma rays.

The empirical difference between our positions is that I can physically demonstrate a "cause/effect" relationship between "discharges" and gamma rays. Even still I can't "experiment" with the idea in space. I can "look for evidence" but since I have no control of distant events, and limited technology, there's no cause/effect determination that is possible from this simple "observation" of gamma rays.

DeiRenDopa · Nov 3, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:

Now we're into repeat mode ...

EITHER you trash GR, because it cannot be demonstrated "in the lab", and insist that astronomers try harder to find Vulcan.

OR you accept that GR is a better theory of gravity (than Newton's) BECAUSE it can do the numbers on the sky, DESPITE the fact that no one can demonstrate it "in the lab"*

Click to expand...

Bzzt. False dichotomy fallacy. Minus 5 points for you. Is it true that we use Einstein's theories in GPS systems? I've heard that statement before but I've never actually checked it out.

Dude, the point of this exercise is to see - using historical examples - if your approach works.

GPS etc came many decades after Pound/Rebka, and neither of these - nor any other test of GR - involves creating planets orbiting the Sun "in the lab", in order to observe the perihelia.

Imagine an MM clone writing in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, - you get the idea - Pound/Rebka, GPS, artificial satellites, space probes, the HST, etc, etc, etc are all in the far future (if imaginable, credibly, at all).

During this period the MM clone would have written just as you have done, concerning "gravity", controlled experiments "in the lab", a perfectly good alternative explanation that astronomers were not spending time on (Vulcan)*, etc, etc, etc.

I accept "GR theory" (the way Einstein taught it) with the constant of gravity set to zero. I'm not into your blunder theory variation that is stuffed with magic because I've never seen gravity do repulsive tricks.

You don't get to pick and choose ... unless you admit, openly and honestly, that you are being non-scientific (i.e. subjective, idiosyncratic, and inconsistent); gravity with Λ does just as good a job of accounting for 'numbers in the sky' as GR did for the orbit of Mercury.

Ready to make the big admission, MM? That all your posturing amounts to non-science, pure and simple?

* well, that would have been the ignorant claim; the reality, of course, may have been quite different ...

Michael Mozina · Nov 3, 2009

Reality Check said:
Actually there is no guarantee that you can isolate a "cause" from controlled experiments either.

I suppose it depends on the experiment but what's the point of having a control mechanism if you aren't trying to isolate cause?

Some experiments are impossible or too expensive to do. For example what is the 'cause' of cosmic rays and what controlled experiment do you propose to establish it?

Well, EM fields have been known to accelerate charged particles to very high speeds, so I'd guess the EM field is responsible for many of them.

Here is a "pure observation": Light from stars have absorption lines in them. Can you isolate a 'cause' for these absorption lines?

Not from the observation itself, but I might be able to do that in controlled experiments here on Earth.

Just measuring the the mass distribution is evidence of "missing mass".

It still tells you *nothing* about it's composition.

The evidence that the mass is not normal matter is: the three observations of dark matter separated from normal matter:

That is not 'evidence that the mass is not normal matter". All that is is 'evidence" that most of your 'missing mass" in likely to be contained inside of solar systems. That's hardly "big news" to a guy that believes in heavy element suns.

We're now going around in circles because you refuse to acknowledge that all this lensing data tells us is where this 'missing mass' is located and maybe a little bit about it's composition. If most of that "missing mass" is in the form of "clumps" (suns, planets, moons, comets, asteroids, etc) the matter is not likely to interact with "clumps" in the colliding galaxy. Evidently most of our 'missing mass' follows the infrastructure of the solar systems, not the ISM. That's all your colored diagrams show us. Everything else you said is "imagined". You "imagine" these color represent something they do not. They do not tell us which of the matter is contained in ordinary elements from the periodic table and which are not. They only tell us where our mass estimates are most flawed, and evidently it's not the ISM where we're really off the mark. Like I said, that is hardly news to me personally.

Michael Mozina · Nov 3, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
You don't get to pick and choose ... unless you admit, openly and honestly, that you are being non-scientific (i.e. subjective, idiosyncratic, and inconsistent);

Well, choosing to trust empirical physics is in fact a "subjective" choice I suppose. It is however completely consistent and it is entirely "scientific". I do get to "pick and choose" to have beliefs, or lack of belief based on whether or not an idea can be empirically demonstrated. There's nothing "non-scientific" about empirical physics.

gravity with Λ does just as good a job of accounting for 'numbers in the sky' as GR did for the orbit of Mercury.

Ya, and "gravity" shows up in a lab too DRD. Gravity however does not do any of repulsive tricks in empirical tests.

Ready to make the big admission, MM?

Sure. Care to now make the big admission that you cannot demonstrate that the term "dark matter" is anything other than ordinary matter you can't identify yet? Care to make the big admissions that exotic forms of "dark matter" cannot be shown to emit anything under any circumstance because it's never happened in the whole history of Earth as far as you know?

That all your posturing amounts to non-science, pure and simple?

Your dead inflation deities and dark stuff amounts to non-scientific religion, pure and simple. Like a YEC, you "hope" (and evidently pray) that your beliefs will "one day" be vindicated via empirical physics, even though today you are completely without empirical support of your beliefs. Like YEC only Lambda-CDM and YEC require "faster than light expansion". Pure coincidence?

DeiRenDopa · Nov 3, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:

Dude, your gross ignorance is showing.

There is ~seven decades of effort, strenuous effort, spent on exactly this.

Only after all such avenues had been investigated, and came up empty, did CDM really come into its own.

Click to expand...

How about those two revelations I mentioned? Ooops?

I look forward to your reading your paper on this; until then ...

IIRC, one of the first sets of HST observations was aimed at determining if there were sufficient red dwarfs in the halo to account for the known missing mass ... there weren't (and MACHO, OGLE, etc, etc, etc subsequently, and independently, verified this result).

Click to expand...

So ultimately a lot of the missing mass turns out to be related to "dust" and the "assumption' related to how many small stars to small stars we can expect to observe.

Repeating your misunderstandings doesn't magically turn them into physics, MM.

I guess you really don't comprehend the difference between "empirical physics' and stuff someone just makes up in their head.

I understand that the MM approach is subjective, idiosyncratic, and inconsistent ... i.e. that it is not science.

Let's do a test: should you cease posting - here or anywhere on the internet - for an extended period, can you honestly say that anyone (a particular person, or persons) could carry on making the case you are making? If not, then haven't we just demonstrated that your approach is, in fact, subjective, and idiosyncratic?

I guess you have it in your head that our mass estimates for galaxies is "correct", but I just provided you with two papers to demonstrate that this is a false assumption and our mass estimate numbers could be off by several multiples.

Repeating your misunderstandings doesn't magically turn them into physics, MM.

DeiRenDopa · Nov 3, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Ooops. [...]

IMO there's still a "cause/effect" issue going on that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "dark energy". Why? Because "dark energy" doesn't do anything to plasma in a lab whereas the EM field does.

But, as we have seen - over and over and over again - your "O" is subjective, idiosyncratic, and inconsistent.

Got a paper or three in the works, MM? Where you show - using numbers etc - that the EM field (and plasma) will do the trick? If not, why not?

DeiRenDopa · Nov 3, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Well, choosing to trust empirical physics is in fact a "subjective" choice I suppose. It is however completely consistent and it is entirely "scientific". I do get to "pick and choose" to have beliefs, or lack of belief based on whether or not an idea can be empirically demonstrated. There's nothing "non-scientific" about empirical physics.

[...]

So, is the prominent 500.7 nm emission line, seen in many nebulae, due to nebulium, or [OIII]?

Do neutron stars exist?

Is SgrA* an SMBH?

And so on.

Can you explain, again, please how this works? Specifically, what are the objective, verifiable, consistent rules regarding extrapolation beyond "in the lab" environments?

Reality Check · Nov 3, 2009

If you want to continue this discussion then it should be in the previous thread where you stated this "missing matter" stuff.
Maybe you can answer the simple question about colliding blobs that you have been avoidig since 18 July 2009 (108 days and counting).

Alternately I could post the question here but I thnk that counts as cross-posting.

Michael Mozina said:
It still tells you *nothing* about it's composition.

It tells you that is is not normal matter.
It tells you that you have to do experiments and observe more to find out what the composition of dark matter actually is.

Michael Mozina said:
That is not 'evidence that the mass is not normal matter". All that is is 'evidence" that most of your 'missing mass" in likely to be contained inside of solar systems. That's hardly "big news" to a guy that believes in heavy element suns.

You have just claimed that stars are 60 times more massive than astronomers have measured. :eye-poppi

That is about the silliest thing that you have said. I hope that you are joking.

You are still ignorant of the fact that measurement show most of the visible matter in the universe is not in stars (0.4%). It is in the intergalactic medium (3.6%).

You are still ignorant about the fact that the three observations of dark matter separated from normal matter (Bullet Cluster,MACS J0025.4-1222 and Abell 520) are about the intergalactic medium (most of the mass in the galactic clusters).

Michael Mozina said:
We're now going around in circles because you refuse to acknowledge that all this lensing data tells us is where this 'missing mass' is located and maybe a little bit about it's composition.

The lensing data for non-colliding galactic clusters tells us that there is 'missing matter" located mostly between galaxies. It tells us little (or nothing) about its composition.

But the lensing data for the Bullet Cluster,MACS J0025.4-1222 and (maybe) Abell 520 tells us that most of the intergalactic medium (and so most of the mass) in those clusters acts differently from normal matter.
This non-normal matter acts as if it interacts weakly with other matter (possibly only electromagnetically). It passes through the normal matter and forms blobs to each side in the observations.
(see this post for the simple question that you hv

Michael Mozina said:
If most of that "missing mass" is in the form of "clumps" (suns, planets, moons, comets, asteroids, etc) the matter is not likely to interact with "clumps" in the colliding galaxy.

Still displaying your ignorance:
intergalactic medium not stars,
Colliding galactic clusters not galaxies.

Michael Mozina said:
Evidently most of our 'missing mass' follows the infrastructure of the solar systems, not the ISM. That's all your colored diagrams show us.

And yet more ignorance.

Have a look at The Camera that Changed the Universe: Part 4

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.

Emphasis added for those who cannot understand that the diagram shows massive amounts of mass outside of galaxies.

If I remember rightly, the density of the inergalactic medium in this surface density diagran is about 0.1 gm/square cm.

Michael Mozina · Nov 3, 2009

Reality Check said:
Maybe you can answer the simple question about colliding blobs that you have been avoidig since 18 July 2009 (108 days and counting).

You're a trip. I have not 'avoided' you on this issue at all, in fact I've been in your collective face about it for years. In all that time not one astronomer has been able to round up even a single gram of this magic matter stuff, and yet you expect me to believe you anyway.

It tells you that is is not normal matter.

It tells you *nothing of the sort*! You simply *assumed* that it is not "normal matter". All you know is that our technologies are limited and you can't "see" all the matter in a galaxy. Big deal. Nothing unusual there.

It tells you that you have to do experiments and observe more to find out what the composition of dark matter actually is.

Well, I 'sort of' agree with you, at least in the sense that it is still relevant and necessary to explain the "missing mass'. Again however there is zero empirical evidence that any of that missing mass is anything other than 'normal matter'.

You have just claimed that stars are 60 times more massive than astronomers have measured.

Actually no, I said they were more abundant than you realize and most of your "missing mass" tracks with the solar system infrastructure according to the lensing data.

I'm going to skip some of the redundant stuff.

This non-normal matter acts as if it interacts weakly with other matter (possibly only electromagnetically).

Well duh! If two solar systems pass by one another at a couple millions of miles per hour at a couple light years distance, they aren't likely to interact with each other "strongly". In fact they may hardly interact at all. Again, let me state emphatically that you know absolutely nothing at all about the composition of that unknown material based on this information..

It passes through the normal matter and forms blobs to each side in the observations.

With enough velocity and momentum, normal matter "passes through" normal matter too. So what? Solar systems are typically separated by light years. In in a high speed galaxy "collision" it's highly unlikely that the solar system infrastructures will directly collide. Even if a few stars or planets actually do actually slam into one another, the vast majority of objects in the solar systems will not collide but pass right through to the other side. In no way is that behavior "mystical" or "magical" or even "unexpected". So what? Ordinary matter would be expected to "pass through" any sort of 'collision' process in "vast quantities", whereas particles in the ISM might actually "collide".

That is entirely consistent with the core stellar infrastructure passing right through the other galaxy. Based on the distances between stars, that is hardly surprising. A "direct hit" between two stars is an astronomically low probability.

We're going around in circles now because you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that the reason we cannot 'see' this material is due to the limits of our technology. The reason we can't tell what it's made of is due to the limits of our technology. You can't tell what type of matter is 'missing', and you certainly cannot tell what it's made of from millions if not billions of light years away. You are simply "assuming" that this is some sort of exotic material. That is a pure act of faith on your part. You don't know that. You *assumed* that. You don't know that our galaxy mass estimates are anywhere near accurate so you really have no idea how much normal material is present, let alone be sure if you need anything other than normal material.

I showed you evidence that the universe is much brighter than we expected and galaxies are likely to have far more smaller stars per large star than we used to believe. The net result is that we may easily be able to double or triple the amount of normal matter in a given galaxy (like your collision galaxies), demonstrating that a lot of that 'dark matter' is composed "normal matter" despite your wild claims to the contrary.

An unidentified flying objects isn't *NECESSARILY* from another planet. Likewise "missing mass" isn't "SUSY material" (with all the ad hoc properties you assigned to it all willy nilly).

Michael Mozina · Nov 3, 2009

What exactly were you expecting to "see" anyway?

Considering the distances involved with solar systems, they will most likely pass through one another. Likewise, even the distance between particles in the ISM could be substantial and not even individual atoms/ions in the ISM would necessarily "collide". Even much of the the material in the ISM could 'pass through' ordinary matter. I fail to understand exactly what it is about this image that you find surprising in terms of what to expect from normal matter (like that dust and doubling of point sources).

DeiRenDopa · Nov 3, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
[...]

Reality Check said:

It tells you that is is not normal matter.

Click to expand...

It tells you *nothing of the sort*! You simply *assumed* that it is not "normal matter". All you know is that our technologies are limited and you can't "see" all the matter in a galaxy. Big deal. Nothing unusual there.

Are you sure?

Can you describe a distribution of normal matter, in a rich cluster of galaxies, which is consistent with all relevant astronomical observations?

An order of magnitude "consistent with" will do (for now).

If you can't, what objective, independently verifiable basis is there for your claim?

It tells you that you have to do experiments and observe more to find out what the composition of dark matter actually is.

Click to expand...

Well, I 'sort of' agree with you, at least in the sense that it is still relevant and necessary to explain the "missing mass'. Again however there is zero empirical evidence that any of that missing mass is anything other than 'normal matter'.

Only in the sense that astronomical observations do not constitute "empirical evidence".

If you discount such observations, why do you bother writing posts about astronomy?

[...]

It passes through the normal matter and forms blobs to each side in the observations.

Click to expand...

With enough velocity and momentum, normal matter "passes through" normal matter too. So what? Solar systems are typically separated by light years. In in a high speed galaxy "collision" it's highly unlikely that the solar system infrastructures will directly collide. Even if a few stars or planets actually do actually slam into one another, the vast majority of objects in the solar systems will not collide but pass right through to the other side. In no way is that behavior "mystical" or "magical" or even "unexpected". So what? Ordinary matter would be expected to "pass through" any sort of 'collision' process in "vast quantities", whereas particles in the ISM might actually "collide".

That is entirely consistent with the core stellar infrastructure passing right through the other galaxy. Based on the distances between stars, that is hardly surprising. A "direct hit" between two stars is an astronomically low probability.

What happened to all the light from the stars which are the primaries of all the solar systems?

Where did all the mass which stars that have passed through the red giant-PNe stage of evolution shed go?

And so on.

We're going around in circles now because you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that the reason we cannot 'see' this material is due to the limits of our technology. The reason we can't tell what it's made of is due to the limits of our technology.

Actually, the main reason why we keep going on this merry-go-round is that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that astronomers have many independent techniques for estimating the distribution and composition of ordinary (normal) matter in the IGM of rich clusters.

Where does this willful ignorance come from?

You can't tell what type of matter is 'missing', and you certainly cannot tell what it's made of from millions if not billions of light years away.

Of course he can ... you just don't want to listen.

You are simply "assuming" that this is some sort of exotic material. That is a pure act of faith on your part. You don't know that. You *assumed* that. You don't know that our galaxy mass estimates are anywhere near accurate

Of course he does ... you just don't want to listen.

so you really have no idea how much normal material is present, let alone be sure if you need anything other than normal material.

I showed you evidence that the universe is much brighter than we expected and galaxies are likely have far more smaller stars per large star than we used to believe.

You did not.

You cited two PRs, and when confronted with copies of the papers*, refused to read them.

Further, you have refused to show - you know, with numbers and equations - how the findings reported in those papers affect determination of the distribution of mass within a normal spiral galaxy (HINT: the need for a DM halo is just as strong with or without these papers' results).

You have also refused to cite papers - of which there are dozens, possibly hundreds - which report findings different from (at odds with) these two.

And so on.

IOW, the case you continue to present continues to be subjective, deliberately misleading, and inconsistent.

The net result is that we may easily be able to double or triple the amount of normal matter in a given galaxy (like your collision galaxies), demonstrating that a lot of that 'dark matter' is composed "normal matter" despite your wild claims to the contrary. [...]

(bold added)

"We" are waiting for you to do exactly that.

How's the paper coming along, MM?

* preprints actually

Michael Mozina · Nov 3, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
Are you sure?

Positive. You and I don't have the technology necessary to see 'everything' in a galaxy. We subjectively 'interpret' a whole lot based on a limited set of data.

Can you describe a distribution of normal matter, in a rich cluster of galaxies, which is consistent with all relevant astronomical observations?

Nope, and neither can you which is why you're stuffing the gaps with "dark matter".

If you can't, what objective, independently verifiable basis is there for your claim?

My claim of what? All I know is we have relatively primitive technology that limits our capabilities. We can't account for all the mass in a galaxy based on our current mass estimates. So what? None of these facts necessitates new and exotic "made up" matter with ad hoc properties galore. I'd say it's time to "scrap" the mass estimation techniques and start over again.

If you discount such observations, why do you bother writing posts about astronomy?

You're putting a very odd 'spin' on statements (again). I don't discount the observations of "missing mass". I "discount" your belief that you already know/knew exactly how much "normal" matter exists in any given galaxy in any of those lensing studies. All you can do here is use "flawed" mass estimation techniques, and then compare it to the lensing data "measurements", and thereby "test" your mass estimation techniques. They *FAILED MISERABLY*. Let that mass estimation technique die a natural death and try again.

If you *insist* on sticking with your old and "failed" theories of "normal mass" estimation, and want to call the difference "dark matter", ok. Don't however turn around and pretend your failed mass estimation techniques were valid all along and the difference is made up of "exotic matter" with ad hoc properties galore.

Michael Mozina · Nov 3, 2009

Reality Check said:
Because:
Gravitational measurements show that 25% to 30% of the universe is mass.

What pray tell is the rest made of? Please resist the need to stuff the gaps of your ignorance with useless terms like magic energy.

[*]The measured mass of stars are only about 0.5% of the mass in the Universe.

You didn't "measure" the mass of the stars, you "estimated" the mass of the stars. Those estimate were based upon a whole host of assumptions like the amount of light absorbed by dust, etc, all of which have now been shown to be "questionable" at best.

[*]The measured mass of the intergalactic medium is 3.6% of the mass in the Universe.

Again, this too is 'assumed' and/or "estimated", it is not "measured".

I can understand that 0.4% is about 60 times less than 25%?

I can understand that when a mass estimation technique is that far off, it's time to give it a proper scientific burial and call it "falsified" once and for all. Evidently we need some new mass estimation techniques that jive with the lensing data?

All the rest of your "assumption" are evidently based on the false belief that we have accurately "measured" the amount of mass in a galaxy, when in fact we never did. We "estimated' that mass, and clearly we did a pitiful job that in no way agrees with the lensing data. One of the two "techniques" for "measuring" the mass of a galaxy is wrong, and one is correct. The lensing data is most likely to be "correct". The "estimation' process is most likely to be incorrect because it is based on far many more assumptions than the lensing data.

All this information tells us ultimately is that the mass estimation techniques we use today are nearly useless at determining that actual amount of mass in a galaxy. Period.

It does *not* tells us that *BOTH* methods of determining mass are correct as you are trying to claim! That is simply an "outrageous" claim IMO.

Michael Mozina · Nov 3, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
They only tell us where our mass estimates are most flawed, and evidently it's not the ISM where we're really off the mark. Like I said, that is hardly news to me personally.

The more I think about it, the more I think this statement is less than accurate. I really don't know how much of the ISM is likely to simply 'pass through' the ISM of the other galaxy. A lot will depend on the composition and speed of the ISM, but even the majority of that material could in fact 'pass trough' the 'collision' process.

The more I think about it, the images don't even actually tell me anything more than most of the materials passes through the collision process. Period. A lot of that mass could be in the ISM or in bodies in the solar system infrastructures, but the lensing data does seem to suggest that "collisions" are more of a 'pass through' process when the momentum and angular directional components are favorable.

DeiRenDopa · Nov 3, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:

Are you sure?

Click to expand...

Positive. You and I don't have the technology necessary to see 'everything' in a galaxy. We subjectively 'interpret' a whole lot based on a limited set of data.

Sigh.

Doin' the Gish Gallop again are we MM?

"All you know is that our technologies are limited and you can't "see" all the matter in a galaxy" - that's your claim.

Now, what do you understand by gravitational lensing, MM? After all, did you not say you were a card-carrying member of the Einstein GR club?

Other readers: yeah, I know, we've been here, done this, got a dozen t-shirts ... if MM keeps up with this blatant dishonesty, I'm done ...

Can you describe a distribution of normal matter, in a rich cluster of galaxies, which is consistent with all relevant astronomical observations?

Click to expand...

Nope, and neither can you which is why you're stuffing the gaps with "dark matter".

Thank you.

But I thought you declared astronomy not science, seeing as you can't test anything much "in the lab"; you did do this, didn't you?

Yet another demonstration of your subjective, inconsistent worldview?

Where's the science MM?

If you can't, what objective, independently verifiable basis is there for your claim?

Click to expand...

My claim of what?

That all you need is normal matter (no CDM required).

All I know is we have relatively primitive technology that limits our capabilities. We can't account for all the mass in a galaxy based on our current mass estimates. So what? None of these facts necessitates new and exotic "made up" matter with ad hoc properties galore. I'd say it's time to "scrap" the mass estimation techniques and start over again.

And I'd say it's time for you to stop being willfully ignorant, and go learn some astronomy.

Wait ... you ignored this suggestion, what, a dozen times or more; OK, forget it.

If you discount such observations, why do you bother writing posts about astronomy?

Click to expand...

You're putting a very odd 'spin' on statements (again). I don't discount the observations of "missing mass". I "discount" your belief that you already know/knew exactly how much "normal" matter exists in any given galaxy in any of those lensing studies. All you can do here is use "flawed" mass estimation techniques, and then compare it to the lensing data "measurements", and thereby "test" your mass estimation techniques. They *FAILED MISERABLY*. Let that mass estimation technique die a natural death and try again.

Dude, no one has tested gravitational lensing, by ~sol mass objects (much less ~trillion sol mass objects), "in the lab", so how do you know anything?

Remind me again, please, what are the allowable limits of extrapolation (of theories such as GR, from "in the lab" tests)?

If you *insist* on sticking with your old and "failed" theories of "normal mass" estimation, and want to call the difference "dark matter", ok. Don't however turn around and pretend your failed mass estimation techniques were valid all along and the difference is made up of "exotic matter" with ad hoc properties galore.

You could care less about what I - or anyone else - does, wrt astrophysical analyses ... you are trying to show - using your subjective, idiosyncratic, inconsistent approach - that all relevant astronomical observations can be accounted for - quantitatively - with distributions of normal (baryonic) matter.

So far, you have failed - miserably - to do so.

Michael Mozina · Nov 4, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
Now, what do you understand by gravitational lensing, MM? After all, did you not say you were a card-carrying member of the Einstein GR club?

I know enough about it to believe that it works as advertised in the sense that matter will cause a curvature of spacetime that can act as a lens in some cases. I'll even go so far as to let you use that method to "test" your "galaxy mass estimates". Oh look, according to the lensing data, your mass estimate technique failed miserably. Now what?

DeiRenDopa · Nov 4, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:

Now, what do you understand by gravitational lensing, MM? After all, did you not say you were a card-carrying member of the Einstein GR club?

Click to expand...

I know enough about it to believe that it works as advertised in the sense that matter will cause a curvature of spacetime that can act as a lens in some cases. I'll even go so far as to let you use that method to "test" your "galaxy mass estimates". Oh look, according to the lensing data, your mass estimate technique failed miserably. Now what?

Huh?

Lensing observations tell you what the mass of the lens is (and, in some cases, its distribution).

These observations, combined with many others (of several different kinds), are consistent with the existence of a great deal of 'non-baryonic' (not normal), cold mass. The distribution of this kind of mass is consistent with it having a very low electromagnetic cross-section, i.e. behaving as cold, dark, collisionless, mass.

And, let's not forget, consistent ... quantitatively.

Which brings us right back to the paper you're working on ... showing that the amount of, and distribution of, normal matter (in rich clusters, galaxies of many kinds, etc, etc, etc) required to be consistent with the lensing observations is such-and-such, AND showing that this amount, and distribution, is consistent with ALL relevant other astronomical observations ...

How's that paper coming on, MM?

Reality Check · Nov 4, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
You're a trip. I have not 'avoided' you on this issue at all, in fact I've been in your collective face about it for years. In all that time not one astronomer has been able to round up even a single gram of this magic matter stuff, and yet you expect me to believe you anyway.

I will post it here so everyone can see the simple question that you have been avoiding for 3 months.

Michael Mozina said:
It tells you *nothing of the sort*! You simply *assumed* that it is not "normal matter". All you know is that our technologies are limited and you can't "see" all the matter in a galaxy. Big deal. Nothing unusual there.

The assuption is that normal matter acts normally. The IGM interacts gravitationally and electromagnetically. The other stuff in the colliding galaxic clusters does not interact electromagnetically. That is not normal

Michael Mozina said:
Well, I 'sort of' agree with you, at least in the sense that it is still relevant and necessary to explain the "missing mass'. Again however there is zero empirical evidence that any of that missing mass is anything other than 'normal matter'.

There is no missing mass. Gravitational lensing has given us good maps of the mass distruction in galactic clusters. The colliding galactic clusters have separated the IGM from the dark matter and shows that dark matter interacts weakly or not al all with normal matter.

Michael Mozina said:
Actually no, I said they were more abundant than you realize and most of your "missing mass" tracks with the solar system infrastructure according to the lensing data.

What lensing data?

The lensing data that I have supplied to you is about galactic clusters.It shows that most of the mass in a galactic cluster is

Not in the galaxies.
Not in the intergalactic medium.

Michael Mozina said:
Well duh! If two solar systems pass by one another at a couple millions of miles per hour at a couple light years distance, they aren't likely to interact with each other "strongly". In fact they may hardly interact at all. Again, let me state emphatically that you know absolutely nothing at all about the composition of that unknown material based on this information..

Well duh! ou ignorance is astounding.
Astronomers know this. They know that when galxies collide the solar systems in themn do not collide and do not interact "strongly".
But one more time:
Let me state emphatically: The observations are of the colliding intergalactic medium in colliding galactic clusters.
Is that loud enough for you?
Can you read that?
Do you understand that the observations are nothing to do with solar systems?

Reality Check · Nov 4, 2009

Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple question

First asked 18 July 2009
Here is the question:

A is a big blob of gas.
B is a bib blob of gas.
Blob A hits blob A.
- If the gas is all the same stuff then the result will be another blob of gas.
  It is probable that some of the gas will not not collide. In that case there will be blobs of gas to each side. The size of these outlying blobs will reflect the amount of gas that did not collide. See the point below about why insignificant amounts of normal (baryonic) matter will not collide.
- If the gas is a mixture of two kinds of gas , one of which interacts weakly with the other, then the result will be 3 blobs since the weakly interacting gas passes through the other gas.
  The size of these outlying blobs will reflect the amount of gas that did not collide plus the amount of weakly interacting gas.
We see 3 blobs.
The outlying blobs contain most of the matter in the bolbs A and B.
Thus the gas is made of two kinds of gas, one of which interacts weakly with the other.

Any problems with this analysis with what is going on with the majority of the matter in the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222 (and even Abell 520)?

Remember that astronomers can calculate the probability of atoms in the ICM colliding as they travel millions of light years through each cluster. I do not know the exact number but expect it to be high (an atom travels millions of light years through a medium containing about 1 atom per cubic meter - you do the math!).
Thus the amount of gas that did not collide is tiny. The outlying blobs are thus mostly weakly interacting gas, i.e. particles that collided but did not interact strongly.

If you cannot find any problems then you agree that these three observations are evidence that there is matter that does not interact like baryonic matter. This we call nonbaryonic matter.

Reality Check · Nov 4, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
What pray tell is the rest made of? Please resist the need to stuff the gaps of your ignorance with useless terms like magic energy.

The non-magical dark energy.

Michael Mozina said:
You didn't "measure" the mass of the stars, you "estimated" the mass of the stars. Those estimate were based upon a whole host of assumptions like the amount of light absorbed by dust, etc, all of which have now been shown to be "questionable" at best.

That is right. The masses of stars are estimated from measurements.
Your ignorance is showing again. You obviously did not read the papers or the comments of more knowledgeable posters (unlike you or me).
These papers are about making the estimates more accurate. The question is whether the mass in galaxies is out by a factor of 60 as you claim (to account for the measured/estimated mass).

Michael Mozina said:
Again, this too is 'assumed' and/or "estimated", it is not "measured".

Right again - The amount of IGM is eastimated from measurements.

Michael Mozina said:
I can understand that when a mass estimation technique is that far off, it's time to give it a proper scientific burial and call it "falsified" once and for all. Evidently we need some new mass estimation techniques that jive with the lensing data?

The mass estimation techniques (you know the ones that agree on the mass) are not "that far off". They are certainly not a factor of 60 off. If you have evidence of this then present it. All you have presented is a couple of news articles that imply a small effect, i.e. off by 20% (a factor of 1.2!) and off by some factor in specfic types of galaxies.

Michael Mozina said:
All the rest of your "assumption" are evidently based on the false belief that we have accurately "measured" the amount of mass in a galaxy, when in fact we never did. We "estimated' that mass, and clearly we did a pitiful job that in no way agrees with the lensing data. One of the two "techniques" for "measuring" the mass of a galaxy is wrong, and one is correct. The lensing data is most likely to be "correct". The "estimation' process is most likely to be incorrect because it is based on far many more assumptions than the lensing data.

All this information tells us ultimately is that the mass estimation techniques we use today are nearly useless at determining that actual amount of mass in a galaxy. Period.

It does *not* tells us that *BOTH* methods of determining mass are correct as you are trying to claim! That is simply an "outrageous" claim IMO.

All the rest of your post is evidently based on the false belief that normal matter does not interact strongly electromagnetically with normal matter.

The observations of the Bullet Cluster, MACS J0025.4-1222 and (maybe) Abell 520 tell us that *BOTH* gravitational lensing and the mass estimation techniques are in agreement.

N.B. Once more: We are talkiing about the lensing data for galactic clusters where most of the mass is in the IGM - not the galaxies.

Reality Check · Nov 4, 2009

Reality Check said:
Have a look at The Camera that Changed the Universe: Part 4

Emphasis added for those who cannot understand that the diagram shows massive amounts of mass outside of galaxies.

If I remember rightly, the density of the inergalactic medium in this surface density diagran is about 0.1 gm/square cm.

A correction:
The intracluster medium (or intergalactic medium):

Although the ICM on the whole contains the bulk of a cluster's baryons, it is not very dense, with typical values of 10^-3 particles per cubic centimeter. The mean free path of the particles is roughly 10¹⁶ m, or about one lightyear.

This is roughly 1 x 10^-21 grams in a cubic meter (1000 H atoms). If we take the depth of the galactic cluster 0024+1624 to be 800,000 light years (which is probably on the generous side) that gives a surface mass density of around 0.001 g/square cm.

The background mass in the diagram has a minimum of 0.3 g/square cm.
I wonder where the extra mass comes from?

sol invictus · Nov 4, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I know enough about it to believe that it works as advertised in the sense that matter will cause a curvature of spacetime that can act as a lens in some cases. I'll even go so far as to let you use that method to "test" your "galaxy mass estimates". Oh look, according to the lensing data, your mass estimate technique failed miserably. Now what?

Now what? Now we know there's a lot of gravitational mass in and around galaxies that doesn't emit or absorb much EM radiation. Oh look, and that also agrees with the many other techniques the measure or depend on the same quantity (like rotation curves, the power spectrum of galaxies, the CMB, structure formation simulations, etc. etc.).

How, exactly, is that a "failure"?

DSo · Nov 4, 2009

Science – We have looked up in the sky and see an interesting phenomena. We have estimated the mass of galaxies by multiple methods. We believe we have fairly tight constraints on the amount of “normal” mass in the galaxies. Yet the mass we estimate is only a fraction of that required to explain things like galactic rotation curves. Therefore we postulate that a, to now poorly understood, entity we’ll call Dark Matter also exists. This matter is not detectible by our conventional means of detecting matter. Here is a mathematical model of Dark Matter. Hey look at that! Based on the model for Dark Matter another phenomena can be explained, namely this background of gamma ray noise emitted from the central portion of our galaxy. We know of no explanation using normal matter that better explains the properties of these gamma rays.

Michael Mozina – You’ve just made Dark Matter up in your head, therefore I don’t believe it.

Science – Say again Michael?

Michael Mozina said:
I can understand that when a mass estimation technique is that far off, it's time to give it a proper scientific burial and call it "falsified" once and for all. Evidently we need some new mass estimation techniques that jive with the lensing data?

All the rest of your "assumption" are evidently based on the false belief that we have accurately "measured" the amount of mass in a galaxy, when in fact we never did. We "estimated' that mass, and clearly we did a pitiful job that in no way agrees with the lensing data. One of the two "techniques" for "measuring" the mass of a galaxy is wrong, and one is correct. The lensing data is most likely to be "correct". The "estimation' process is most likely to be incorrect because it is based on far many more assumptions than the lensing data.

All this information tells us ultimately is that the mass estimation techniques we use today are nearly useless at determining that actual amount of mass in a galaxy. Period.

Science – On the contrary Michael, most experts in the field agree that we have estimated the amount of normal matter in the galaxies to a relatively small band of estimates. Multiple lines of independent evidence are pointing in the same direction. This range of estimates does not come close to explaining the phenomena we observed. Thus we have a working hypothesis that a poorly understood entity we’ll call Dark Matter exists. The evidence in favor of DM is strong enough that a number of people are devoting large parts, if not all of their careers to the study of this subject.

MM – You folks are obviously wrong! If you belive that then I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you!

Science – OK Micheal, we are willing to listen. Do you have an explanation for all these phenomena that is better and simpler than DarkMatter?

MM – You bet I do!

Science – OK, what is it? Show us the evidence and the numbers.

MM – Numbers! I don’t need any freakin’ numbers! Sheeeesh …

DSo – speaking as a curious layman in all of this … I wonder who I should believe?

Reality Check · Nov 5, 2009

This is almost off topic but since dark energy has been mentioned in this thread, I will point out the "Starts With a Bang" blog is blogging on dark energy starting today with Dark Energy: Hard to Kill (Part 1).

Hopefully he will cover one of the better bits of evidence for dark matter and energy:

Scientists use the WMAP data to measure that the universe is spatially flat to within 2% (previously the uncertainty was 15%).
Scientists measure the amount of visible mass & energy in the universe.
The result is that 96% of the mass & energy in the universe is missing. This is missing stuff is labeled dark matter and dark energy.
Gravitational lensing data then gives an estimate for the amount of dark matter.
Observations of Type Ia supernovae give an estimate for the amount of dark energy.
The results are that the percentage of mass & energy in the universe from various sources are:
- 0.4% from stars.
- 3.6% from the intra-cluster medium (ICM).
- 23% from dark matter (+/- 3%).
- 73% from dark energy (+/- 3%).

I do not know what the uncertainties are in the estimates for stars and ICM are.

Michael Mozina · Nov 5, 2009

sol invictus said:
Now what?

Ya. Essentially you falsified one "guestimation" of normal matter with two different measurements that evidently both demonstrate the "guestimate" of mass in a galaxy is way off. We also have evidence that dust absorbs/deflects a lot more light than we realized and a lot of that "missing mass" can easily be "explained" by ordinary matter.

Now we know there's a lot of gravitational mass in and around galaxies that doesn't emit or absorb much EM radiation.

Except of course you folks turn right around and tell me it burps out gamma rays on command? This "dark matter" seem to do magic light tricks and still it's 'dark'? What's up with that? Now mind you it *never* does it's gamma ray magic here on Earth or anywhere in the solar system, just "somewhere out there" where we can't see it happen. How bloody inconvenient.

Oh look, and that also agrees with the many other techniques the measure or depend on the same quantity (like rotation curves, the power spectrum of galaxies, the CMB, structure formation simulations, etc. etc.).

So essentially you demonstrated two different ways (lensing and rotation curves) that the "guestimate" of the amount of normal material in a galaxy is "way" off.

We also have some recent ideas as to why that might be, including all that "dust" that blocked all that extra light and caused us to underestimate the number of point sources in a galaxy. Now don't you figure it's about time to toss your previous mass estimates into the trash can and try again?

How, exactly, is that a "failure"?

The "failure" is in your emotional attachment to the "guestimate" and to the belief that 'missing mass' = "exotic particle that does anything I say". Just admit that your previous mass estimates are falsified and try recalculating the normal matter in a galaxy in a way that is more consistent with what we've learned over the last few years via lensing data and rotation curves.

I *LOVE* how you expect me to ignore the fact that the sun and the planets emit gamma rays due to "electrical discharges", but you expect me to also buy this invisible, gamma burping, magic "dark" (but emits gamma rays on command) matter theory. Come on. The believability factor is making "modern astronomy" about as believable as astrology these days. 96% of your theory (and math) is evidently completely useless on Earth. You can't get a "dark matter" thingamabob to emit a single gamma ray on Earth or anywhere in the solar system and you ignore the single most obvious light source in the universe.

Michael Mozina · Nov 5, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
Huh?

"Huh?" right back at you. You've essentially falsified your "normal" mass 'guestimates' twice now and yet you refuse to alter your mass guestimates, even in the face of recent evidence to explain *WHY* you keep blowing the mass estimates! It's like a Monty Python skit - "Tis only a scratch....come back and fight you coward....".

Lensing observations tell you what the mass of the lens is (and, in some cases, its distribution).

These observations, combined with many others (of several different kinds), are consistent with the existence of a great deal of 'non-baryonic' (not normal), cold mass.

BaLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOny!

It's only evidence that our "normal matter" estimates of point sources (those pesky little stars) are grossly off the mark. It's time to simply scrap your estimates of 'normal' matter and come up with better estimates of "normal matter" because "normal matter" emits light that evidently "normal matter" then absorbs in greater amounts than we first realized.

You're like the individual looking at an unidentified flying objects that immediately makes the wild ass claim that 'it's *definitely* (without any doubt at all) from another planet I tell you!". Balooooooooony.

The distribution of this kind of mass is consistent with it having a very low electromagnetic cross-section, i.e. behaving as cold, dark, collisionless, mass.

How exactly did it "annihilate" again to give us all the pretty bright gamma lights in the sky? How come we never see it happen anywhere on Earth, or anywhere inside this solar system? How come it only happens "out there somewhere" where I conveniently can't reach in my human lifetime? How many of these "wild faith" doctrines do I have to swallow hook line and sinker to be a part of the "dark" astronomy cult?

And, let's not forget, consistent ... quantitatively.

Ya, let's forget all about "qualitatively" verifying anything because you haven't got squat in terms of empirical physics. "Quantitatively" you want me to believe you've accurately counted how many invisible matter faeries fit on the head of pin with "high precision" (with the error bars!) no less.

Give me a break.

Which brings us right back to the paper you're working on ... showing that the amount of, and distribution of, normal matter (in rich clusters, galaxies of many kinds, etc, etc, etc) required to be consistent with the lensing observations is such-and-such, AND showing that this amount, and distribution, is consistent with ALL relevant other astronomical observations ...

I thought you guys and gals are the "professionals"? Can't you take a break from that dark religion thing of yours to whip something up, or are you so infatuated with the "Dark" thingies that you've dreamed up on paper to try another (empirical) approach?

How's that paper coming on, MM?

That would be on hold while I'm earning a living doing something constructive that I can actually sell on the open market. If you "astronomers" had to live on the consumer products that you could sell on the open market based on "dark energy", "inflation", and "dark matter", you'd starve to death, or be sued for false advertising. How about publishing a paper involving something that *is* known to emit gamma rays like "electrical discharges"? Oh ya, I forgot, that's your arch enemy, your version of the devil in your religion. You folks will do anything and everything to avoid the dreaded "EU theory" in all it's evil guises.

Michael Mozina · Nov 5, 2009

Reality Check said:
The non-magical dark energy.

Yet if I blatantly pilfer your math, you can't tell the empirical difference between 'magic energy' and 'dark energy' and you can't make either one of them show up here on Earth.

Now the one macroscopic force of nature that *IS* known to accelerate matter is the electromagnetic field, but again that's the one forbidden topic of astronomy. And that my friends is how we end up with magic, er "dark energy" (complete with nifty math formula stuffed into a blunder theory).

That is right. The masses of stars are estimated from measurements.

Those "measurements" were fine, but your "assumptions" about how much light was being absorbed and deflected was way off evidently.

Your ignorance is showing again. You obviously did not read the papers or the comments of more knowledgeable posters (unlike you or me).
These papers are about making the estimates more accurate.

So how about making your mass estimates "more accurate" and at least double the point sources in a galaxy? Hell, you've got *tons* of missing mass to explain, so you can liberally spread it around.

The question is whether the mass in galaxies is out by a factor of 60 as you claim (to account for the measured/estimated mass).

Unless you can show me some direct evidence of exotic matter the only matter I'm aware of resides in "standard" particle physics theory and the periodic table. If you make a wild claim about exotic matter, I'll expect pretty darn good evidence to substantiate that claim *BEFORE* you start pointing at that sky and claiming magic, er "dark" something or other did it.

Michael Mozina · Nov 5, 2009

DSo said:
Science – We have looked up in the sky and see an interesting phenomena.

Like when "discharges" emit "gamma rays"?

We have estimated the mass of galaxies by multiple methods.

Ok. We have the "lensing method" (I've got no problem with that one). We've go the "rotation" method and that one seems to jive pretty well with the lensing data. Then we have the "wild guessing" method related to how much "normal matter' resides in a galaxy. That one doesn't jive with the other two methods. Maybe it needs replaced?

We believe we have fairly tight constraints on the amount of “normal” mass in the galaxies.

Why? Two methods don't jive with the third and the third one is *FILLED* with all sorts of 'assumptions' that we already know to be suspect.

Yet the mass we estimate is only a fraction of that required to explain things like galactic rotation curves.

So it's broken. Fix it.

Therefore we postulate that a, to now poorly understood, entity we’ll call Dark Matter also exists.

"Missing mass", or "mass we cannot account for" is not automatically composed of "exotic matter". How did we get from "poorly understood" to suddenly being sure it emits gamma rays again?

This matter is not detectible by our conventional means of detecting matter.

None of the matter is "directly" detectable by our conventional means of detection, which is why we have to indirectly detect it by various means (like lensing). We can't "detect' individual stars in a galaxy or begin to count them. We "estimate" them based on a whole series of debatable assumptions.

Here is a mathematical model of Dark Matter. Hey look at that! Based on the model for Dark Matter another phenomena can be explained, namely this background of gamma ray noise emitted from the central portion of our galaxy.

Wait a minute. First it's "poorly understood" and now you know it emits gamma rays too? How did we go from 'poorly understood' to "making up" properties on the fly?

We know of no explanation using normal matter that better explains the properties of these gamma rays.

That's just silly IMO. Of course we do. We know of a at least a half dozen bodies inside this specific solar system that emit gamma rays and we know they are related to "discharges". There is a very simple explanation, but unfortunately it involves that dreaded evil word - "electricity".

You have absolutely no way to know exactly how much "normal matter" there is inside any galaxy that is millions if not billions of light years from Earth. The very best you might hope to do is "estimate" that number, and two other methods demonstrate that one of the other methods is wrong. Instead of fixing the one that's broken, you've started piling on "ad hoc properties", and even more things you cannot empirically demonstrate in a lab. The whole thing is purely goofy at this point. It's clear that there is more blocking of light going on than we realized, and it's clear that it has a greater impact on the number of point sources in a galaxy than we realized.

The mystery here is how you went from "poorly understood" to having 'great confidence' in the belief that it emits gamma rays.

Michael Mozina · Nov 5, 2009

Reality Check said:
I will post it here so everyone can see the simple question that you have been avoiding for 3 months.

It's not that I have avoided your question, you have simply avoided my answer.

The assuption is that normal matter acts normally. The IGM interacts gravitationally and electromagnetically. The other stuff in the colliding galaxic clusters does not interact electromagnetically. That is not normal

Pure gibberish IMO. All you know is you cannot account for all the matter. That's hardly surprising since you've been underestimating by the number of small stars in the galaxy and the number of point sources in a galaxy by substantial amounts.

There is no missing mass. Gravitational lensing has given us good maps of the mass distruction in galactic clusters.

Then there's no "dark matter" either because it's been "seen" in the lensing data. You simply blew your "baryonic mass" estimates in a big way.

The colliding galactic clusters have separated the IGM from the dark matter and shows that dark matter interacts weakly or not al all with normal matter.

Gah. You're still ignoring the obvious. The things that "separated" were the "baryonic matter" that didn't collide and the "baryonic matter" that did. There no separation of "bayonic" and "non bayronic" matter in that image. That is completely made up in your head. Some of that baryonic matter you can account for, but the vast majority of it you cannot.

I'm not going to let you simply "make up" stuff regarding that lensing data. The fact that matter is present creates the lensing effect, but that lensing effect can be caused by *ANY* form of matter, including "normal matter". You're the one making the extraordinary claim that somehow it can only be "exotic gamma ray emitting matter" and you can't produce that same event once here on Earth. See a problem with your logic?

There is no way in hell that the lensing data can tell you what that material is made of. Any form of matter will do in terms of bending light.

It's *way* more likely you simply blew the baryonic mass estimates, both in terms of the composition and density of the ISM/IGM and the number of stars in a galaxy. That "dark matter" isn't necessarily "exotic matter" anymore than "unidentified flying objects" are *necessarily* from another planet. You're *leaping* to *wild and speculative* conclusions based on evidence that doesn't ultimately support your claim.

Reality Check · Nov 5, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
It's not that I have avoided your question, you have simply avoided my answer.

I have never noticed any answer. Can you give a link to the post where you state that when 2 blobs of gas made of normal matter collide, most of the matter passes through the blobs without interacting (thus forming 3 blobs)?

Michael Mozina said:
Pure gibberish IMO. All you know is you cannot account for all the matter. That's hardly surprising since you've been underestimating by the number of small stars in the galaxy and the number of point sources in a galaxy by substantial amounts.

All I know is that you have no idea what the science behind the 2 news articles actually is. Try reading the papers:

The energy output of the Universe from 0.1 micron to 1000 micron

The dust effect gives changes luminosity and so in the mass of galaxies of ~20%.
Did you understand Tubbythin's post (his equation applies to ?
So even if we were underestimating the luminosity of a star by a factor of 2, we'd underestimating the mass of the star by a factor of just 1.2. So no, it doesn't make a great deal of difference.
(also read about the mass–luminosity relation and note that most stars in a galaxy are dwarf stars)

Tubbythin has presented evidence that this will not significantly change the estimate of the mass in stars.

Evidence for a Non-Uniform Initial Mass Function in the Local Universe

The second paper demonstrates that the IMF function is not universal. It varies from galaxy to galaxy. For certain galaxies, astronomers have been underestimating the proportion of small to big stars.

You have presented no evidence that this will significantly change the estimate of the mass in stars.
Astronomers do not calculate the mass of every galaxy in the universe (we have not observed them all!). They take a sample, calculate an average and appy it to the 100 billion galaxies that are estimated to be in the universe. I suspect that the uncertainty in the 100 billion number is much greater than this effect. The number may even be double this - a whopping 0.8% of the mass & energy in the universe is in stars!

Michael Mozina said:
Then there's no "dark matter" either because it's been "seen" in the lensing data. You simply blew your "baryonic mass" estimates in a big way.

There is dark matter. It is called dark matter because it is dark. It does not emit detectable light. It can only be seen gravitationally.
The simple question that I asked you demonstrates that dark matter is made of nonbaryonic matter.

Michael Mozina said:
Gah. You're still ignoring the obvious. The things that "separated" were the "baryonic matter" that didn't collide and the "baryonic matter" that did. There no separation of "bayonic" and "non bayronic" matter in that image. That is completely made up in your head. Some of that baryonic matter you can account for, but the vast majority of it you cannot.

Gah. You're still ignoring the obvious and displaying your ignorance yet again:
The intracluster medium (or intergalactic medium):

Although the ICM on the whole contains the bulk of a cluster's baryons, it is not very dense, with typical values of 10-3 particles per cubic centimeter. The mean free path of the particles is roughly 1016 m, or about one lightyear.

You do know that the Bullet cluster is at least 1 megaparsec in width 3,261,6366 lightyears?
That means that normal baryonic particles collide over 3 million times to pass from one side to the other. Normal baryonic particles that collide heat up. Normal baryonic particles that heat up in the ICM produce X-rays that can be detected as in the rest of the Bullet Cluster.

Reality Check · Nov 5, 2009

The last post I did reminded me that we so not have any confirmation that you are not silly enough to be basing your opinion on just news articles rather than the scientific papers.
So have you answered this post?

DeiRenDopa said:
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?

Reality Check · Nov 5, 2009

Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple question (Part 2)

First asked 5 November 2009:
The answer to Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple question? post about colliding blobs is not how astronomers confirmed that the Bullet Cluster, MACS J0025.4-1222 and Abell 520 contain matter that does not interacting electromagnetically like normal matter. The distribution of the dark and visible matter in the clusters was a big clue. The scientific confirmation though is that computer simulations of colliding blobs containing a mixture of normal, gaseous matter and matter that only has gravitational friction show the same properties as in my post:

The dark matter goes straight through the normal matter.
The normal matter collides, slows down and heats up.
As the collision progresses the dark matter emerges from the cluster (the outlying blobs seen in the Bullet Cluster).
As more time passes the dark matter reverses direction and heads back into the cluster. MACS J0025.4-1222 is just entering this stage while Abell 520 is well into this stage.

See Dark Matter Part 3.5: When Clusters Collide!

Michael Mozina: What is wrong with the computer simulations?

P.S. One result of the computer simulations is the prediction that under the right conditions dark matter will from a ring around the cluster.
Here is a news article (since you like these) about a ring of dark matter:
NASA finds further proof of dark matter
(I really dislike that "proof" word - it should be "evidence").

Now we have four observations or dark matter that agree with it not interacting electromagnetically like normal matter!http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1324/nasa-finds-further-proof-dark-matter

Michael Mozina · Nov 5, 2009

Reality Check said:
I have never noticed any answer. Can you give a link to the post where you state that when 2 blobs of gas made of normal matter collide, most of the matter passes through the blobs without interacting (thus forming 3 blobs)?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5266518&postcount=148

Read it this time.

What is the big deal about *most* of the solar system infrastructure and some of the ISM passing through each other?

DeiRenDopa · Nov 5, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
"Huh?" right back at you. You've essentially falsified your "normal" mass 'guestimates' twice now and yet you refuse to alter your mass guestimates, even in the face of recent evidence to explain *WHY* you keep blowing the mass estimates! It's like a Monty Python skit - "Tis only a scratch....come back and fight you coward....".

BaLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOny!

It's only evidence that our "normal matter" estimates of point sources (those pesky little stars) are grossly off the mark. It's time to simply scrap your estimates of 'normal' matter and come up with better estimates of "normal matter" because "normal matter" emits light that evidently "normal matter" then absorbs in greater amounts than we first realized.

You're like the individual looking at an unidentified flying objects that immediately makes the wild ass claim that 'it's *definitely* (without any doubt at all) from another planet I tell you!". Balooooooooony.

How exactly did it "annihilate" again to give us all the pretty bright gamma lights in the sky? How come we never see it happen anywhere on Earth, or anywhere inside this solar system? How come it only happens "out there somewhere" where I conveniently can't reach in my human lifetime? How many of these "wild faith" doctrines do I have to swallow hook line and sinker to be a part of the "dark" astronomy cult?

Ya, let's forget all about "qualitatively" verifying anything because you haven't got squat in terms of empirical physics. "Quantitatively" you want me to believe you've accurately counted how many invisible matter faeries fit on the head of pin with "high precision" (with the error bars!) no less. Give me a break.

I thought you guys and gals are the "professionals"? Can't you take a break from that dark religion thing of yours to whip something up, or are you so infatuated with the "Dark" thingies that you've dreamed up on paper to try another (empirical) approach?

That would be on hold while I'm earning a living doing something constructive that I can actually sell on the open market. If you "astronomers" had to live on the consumer products that you could sell on the open market based on "dark energy", "inflation", and "dark matter", you'd starve to death, or be sued for false advertising. How about publishing a paper involving something that *is* known to emit gamma rays like "electrical discharges"? Oh ya, I forgot, that's your arch enemy, your version of the devil in your religion. You folks will do anything and everything to avoid the dreaded "EU theory" in all it's evil guises.

OK, I'm done.

MM, there is no basis for a discussion with you on this topic (at least, not one based on science).

Take care.

Perpetual Student · Nov 5, 2009

deirendopa said:
ok, i'm done.

Mm, there is no basis for a discussion with you on this topic (at least, not one based on science).

Take care.

Επιτέλους!

Michael Mozina · Nov 5, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
OK, I'm done.

MM, there is no basis for a discussion with you on this topic (at least, not one based on science).

Take care.

That is in fact probably true, but it's absolutely not my fault.

It's not my fault that you cannot produce a single gram of something that you claim is many times more abundant than the dirt in my backyard. It's not my fault you can't produce any empirical evidence of this material from a controlled experiment. It's not my fault you can't show me a single instance of "dark matter" ever emitting gamma rays in a controlled experiment.

In terms of the "cause" of those gamma rays, if you were claiming that "electricity did it" you would have absolutely no trouble at all demonstrating that electrical discharges cause the emission of gamma rays here on Earth. You'd have no problem demonstrating that many planets and our own sun emit these wavelengths of energy.

It's really not my personal fault that you decided to claim that "dark matter did it" without so much as a single shred of empirical evidence to support your claim. Evidently all you have is a ton of mathematical lipstick on a metaphysical pig. Since I can't empirically verify any of it, that mathematical lipstick of a presentation is about as useful as numerology. Not one of your claims can be empirically verified in a lab, not the claim of gamma ray emissions, not the claim of longevity of exotic "dark matter", not even the claim that exotic matter exists in the first place! None of it has any effect on anything here on Earth, and 'dark matter" has never emitted one single gamma ray in a controlled test.

Nature has already demonstrated a very effective and simple way of creating gamma rays but it has nothing at all to do with "dark matter". It does have something to do with that dreaded "EU theory" that your industry fears like the plague. That's probably the only reason you won't consider it.

Reality Check · Nov 5, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5266518&postcount=148

Read it this time.

Read it when you posted oit. Read it again. Nothing about blobs in it. Nothing in it about the actual observations of galactic clusters and the intra-cluster medium.

There seems to be something serious wrong with your ability to understand that these observation are not to do with solar systems and the ISM.

Michael Mozina said:
What is the big deal about *most* of the solar system infrastructure and some of the ISM passing through each other?

There is no big deal about *all* of the "solar system infrastructure" passing through each other. That is what stars do when galactic clusters collide. Even the galaxies in the clusters have few collisions.

Stated 6 November 2009 (for the 10th time but maybe you will grasp the concept eventually):
There is a big deal when two blobs of intra-cluster medium (ICM) in colliding galactic clusters collide and

Most of the mass in each of them passes through the other without slowing down or heating up.
Some of the mass in each of them does slow down, heat up and emit X-rays.

Simple physics tells us that all of the mass in the two blobs of intra-cluster medium (ICM) must have collided if it was normal matter.
In Michael Mozina's universe all of the mass must be in the second group.
It is not. Therefore in the real universe most of the mass is not normal matter.

Dark Matter Part 3.5: When Clusters Collide! has a good description of this. Since you are obviously unable to click the link and read it here is a quote:

Some normal matter is packed together in tight, dense little clumps. Good examples of this are stars and galaxies. When you run two large clusters (spanning millions of light years) into each other, these little clumps hardly ever hit each other, and move with a lot of momentum. What does this mean? They tend to miss one another, and they hardly get slowed down by the friction of moving through the other cluster. In other words, they behave like the little metal balls in a game of "Crossfire". They mostly just pass straight through to the other side.

That leaves us with the gas, which is where most of the normal matter is, and the dark matter. For all intents and purposes, these are distributed over the entire cluster, so they're very diffuse, but also omnipresent. The gas is still made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and these tiny particles interact with one another very easily. When they run into each other, they behave similarly to running two jets of water into each other:

There is a lot of friction between them, which (if you remember) both slows them down and also heats them up. The slowing down is why the X-ray-emitting gas is always in the middle of these clusters (in all three cases), and the heating is why the gas becomes energetic enough to emit X-rays! In other words, the gas goes "SPLAT!"

But what of the dark matter? Although it obeys the same gravitational laws of physics, it's missing the main source of friction -- electric charge! In fact, we're pretty sure that dark matter has practically no electromagnetic interactions at all. The friction between dark matter particles (as well as between dark matter and gas) is so small it might as well not even be there at all. Colliding dark matter with itself is as futile as colliding light beams with one another; they might as well not even be there!

Michael Mozina · Nov 5, 2009

Reality Check said:
Read it when you posted oit. Read it again. Nothing about blobs in it. Nothing in it about the actual observations of galactic clusters and the intra-cluster medium.

Please read it again RC and look for the term "blob". Better yet, do a "Find" and locate the word "blob". You were talking about blobs way back then and I "dealt" with it then too.

There seems to be something serious wrong with your ability to understand that these observation are not to do with solar systems and the ISM.

It's not my "ability to understand" you, it's my "ability to believe" that statement that I'm having trouble with. What else is there to "collide" other than stars and ISM?

If you tell me it's "dark matter", we're right back to square one. For all you and I know "dark matter" is simply composed of more suns and more ISM than we realize. Unless you have evidence that some other form of matter exists and could be involved, I have no evidence that "Dark matter" is anything other than "ordinary matter" that you simply can't account for.

The weakness of your argument is due to the fact that ordinary matter will often "pass through" rather than collide, but some material, particularly in the ISM will collide. "Normal" matter behaves this way, and therefore there is no evidence that any of this matter is anything other than normal matter. Any other claim is an "extraordinary" claim and requires "extraordinary' support too.

There is no big deal about *all* of the "solar system infrastructure" passing through each other. That is what stars do when galactic clusters collide. Even the galaxies in the clusters have few collisions.

Stated 6 November 2009 (for the 10th time but maybe you will grasp the concept eventually):
There is a big deal when two blobs of intra-cluster medium (ICM) in colliding galactic clusters collide and

Most of the mass in each of them passes through the other without slowing down or heating up.

Why? What is the percentage of suns, planets and stars that you expect to actually "collide" during such process?

[*]Some of the mass in each of them does slow down, heat up and emit X-rays.

Click to expand...

Those would be the particles that actually interacted, and probably originate in the ISM, not the solar system infrastructure. It may also be related to the where the solar system infrastructure "passed through" the ISM of the other galaxy as "stuff interacted'. There any number of reasons why some material would interact and some would not. Anything "massive" would likely not interact much at all. The cores could/would pass right by one another for all I know.

Simple physics tells us that all of the mass in the two blobs of intra-cluster medium (ICM) must have collided if it was normal matter.
In Michael Mozina's universe all of the mass must be in the second group.
It is not. Therefore in the real universe most of the mass is not normal matter.

Click to expand...

Why would all "normal matter" be expected to "collide' rather than just "pass through' in your opinion? Here's where the wheels seem to come off your argument. There no way it's all going to interact with matter in the other galaxy. Much of the solar system infrastructures might pass through intact. The density and composition of the ISM will determine how much material might actually be expected to "collide".

I think I'll devote a separate post to your quote.

edd · Nov 5, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
If you tell me it's "dark matter", we're right back to square one. For all you and I know "dark matter" is simply composed of more suns and more ISM than we realize. Unless you have evidence that some other form of matter exists and could be involved, I have no evidence that "Dark matter" is anything other than "ordinary matter" that you simply can't account for.

Baryon fraction is well constrained in several ways - none of which you would approve of though, I'm sure.

Why? What is the percentage of suns, planets and stars that you expect to actually "collide" during such process?

It's actually quite a straightforward calculation - the collision cross-sections are pretty well known and basically no stars or planets collide in a galaxy merger. Gas does though.

Why would all "normal matter" be expected to "collide' rather than just "pass through' in your opinion? Here's where the wheels seem to come off your argument. There no way it's all going to interact with matter in the other galaxy. Much of the solar system infrastructures might pass through intact. The density and composition of the ISM will determine how much material might actually be expected to "collide".

It's straightforward laboratory-founded kinetic theory of gases. You can calculate the gas density and figure it out simply enough. There's no weird physics at all.

Fermi and dark matter

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Master Poster

Banned

Banned

Master Poster

Master Poster

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Master Poster

Banned

Banned

Banned

Master Poster

Banned

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Scholar

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Master Poster

Illuminator

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Master Poster