Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 09:49:40 UTC No. 16203910

MOND aged like MILK

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 11:21:07 UTC No. 16203976

QRD?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 11:51:01 UTC No. 16204012

>>16203894
Stupid question, how do they know galaxies aren't just flying apart? A Catherine pinwheel will also produce a spiral shape.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 11:52:44 UTC No. 16204015

>>16203894
How do Dark matter autists explain how some galaxaies have no dark matter? Isn't that like some galaxies not having Sulphur? If the universe is the same everywhere shouldnt every galaxy have dark matter?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 12:33:18 UTC No. 16204056

>>16204015
Dark matter free/deficient galaxies actually support the dark matter hypothesis. If it were some gravitational effect then isolated galaxies should all have this effect, and yet some don't.
Galaxies can lose their dark matter in different ways, through tidal stripping or merging. If two galaxies collide the gas behaves differently to dark matter, and can be stripped away. If that gas form stars you end up with a galaxy with no (or negible) dark matter. And this is what is believed to be the case in the NGC1052 dwarf galaxies, where there is evidence of an old merger.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 12:51:24 UTC No. 16204078

dark matter was never alive in the first place.
If you have to correct for laws by invisible undetectable manner other than by its gravitational effects, then it is not simpler to add a new type of matter than happens to coincide with the deviation from visible matter than to assume our laws are broken.
In fact, it would be infinitely more complex to add a new type of matter than to fix our laws.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 13:39:30 UTC No. 16204156

>>16204056
But then galaxies without dark matter should also spin differently, right?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 13:42:51 UTC No. 16204157

>>16204078
>dark matter was never alive in the first place.
Zero point's for reading.
>then it is not simpler to add a new type of matter than happens to coincide with the deviation from visible matter than to assume our laws are broken.
Correct. But it's also not simpler to modify gravity than to add dark matter. Both models add (at least one) parameter. In no way does this mean dark matter is dead.
And let's look at the results after 30 years of effort on both ideas. The best modified gravity models fail to explain even basic observations. And dark matter has went from strength to strength, and is able to simultaneously explain the dynamics of galaxies and predict large scale structure and cosmology.
>In fact, it would be infinitely more complex to add a new type of matter than to fix our laws.
Wrong. In the standard model of cosmology dark matter is one single extra parameter. It doesn't have infinite numbers of parameters. Also you can't know fixing gravity is simpler without a working model, as there are literally an infinite number of ways to modify GR.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 13:43:53 UTC No. 16204160

>>16204156
They do, that's how they were identified.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 13:49:34 UTC No. 16204164

>>16204160
But that's wrong, internet says that all observed galaxies show the same rotation curve

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 13:56:45 UTC No. 16204175

>>16204164
Nope. These galaxies aren't even irrationally supported. Rotation curves are only useful for spiral galaxies, and they certainly aren't all the same.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874L..12D/abstract

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:03:46 UTC No. 16204195

>>16204175
>diffuse galaxy
Of course it's not going to have the same effect, that's like comparing a diffuse cloud of hydrogen with a compact star and saying there has to be some magical invisible matter that makes one do fusion, dark matter is just a relativistic electromagnetic effect just like gravity, no doubt about it

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:08:11 UTC No. 16204205

>>16204195
>Of course it's not going to have the same effect
If it's really just a modification gravity then it shouldn't matter. If you have to write a different "law of gravity" for each galaxy then you haven't solved anything.
>that's like comparing a diffuse cloud of hydrogen with a compact star and saying there has to be some magical invisible matter that makes one do fusion
No it's not. Both can be described fully by a fusion rate which depends on the density and temperature, without trying to say that physics is different.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:36:01 UTC No. 16204257

>>16204205
>If it's really just a modification gravity then it shouldn't matter
It does matter, because gravitational potential depends on the local energy density
>Both can be described fully by a fusion rate which depends on the density and temperature,
And gravitational effects can described by energy density without any need for dark matter, the observed galactic rotation curves are a combination of the conservation of angular momentum during formation along with frame-dragging and coupling effects, gravitational lensing, icluding that caused by dark matter, is just refraction/diffraction

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:40:44 UTC No. 16204265

>>16204257
>And gravitational effects can described by energy density without any need for dark matter,
Go ahead then. Present us with this incredible model which can quantitatively fit all these things and all things that MOND fails at.
Why don't you start with your model of the Milky Way's rotation curve.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:41:38 UTC No. 16204267

>>16203894
LMAO, everybody knew that was a jew scam, only retards believed it was something else.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:43:39 UTC No. 16204269

>>16204257
>Refraction/diffraction
Based anisotropic vacuum enjoyer. If the vacuum does indeed have a base refractive index like any other 'medium', one has to wonder if you could engineer the vacuum to have a negative refractive index...
Or better yet, what if our concept of inertia was wholly dependent on a universal rotation?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:54:48 UTC No. 16204301

>>16204265
>Present us with this incredible model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:58:53 UTC No. 16204309

>>16204301
>Why don't you start with your model of the Milky Way's rotation curve.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:08:26 UTC No. 16204497

>>16204012
lmfao

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 18:56:49 UTC No. 16204950

>>16204012
>how do they know galaxies aren't just flying apart?
And constantly reform into new galaxies?
Then intergalactic space would be filled with so much stars that it would be detectable I guess.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 21:09:14 UTC No. 16205171

>>16204950
>And constantly reform into new galaxies?
Why not? This is what Halton Arp said he observed over his career.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 21:40:34 UTC No. 16205195

>>16205171
He did not. He claimed quasars were ejected proto-galaxies, but it was all based on some effect which disappeared in when samples became better and much larger. He has no direct evidence for it being new galaxies, it was just conjecture.
Also it makes no sense that galaxies are constantly disappearing. Where are all the massive remnant galaxies? Also the fact the Sun is 5 billion years old and yet is near the galactic center. If it had been moving at its current velocity for that time it would have left the local group. It didn't because it's gravitationally bound.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 21:48:49 UTC No. 16205204

>>16204015
>How do Dark matter autists explain how some galaxaies have no dark matter?
Aint that the point? It's easier to explain galaxies having/lacking stuff than galaxies having different physical rules.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 23:32:44 UTC No. 16205385

>>16205195
>it was just conjecture
It was based on a huge number of literal observations, including the Einstein cross, so that's the opposite of conjecture
>Also the fact the Sun is 5 billion years old and yet is near the galactic center
Maybe the stars are spiraling outward so they won't escape the galaxy until after some number of rotations. Why is it assumed that galaxies are closed systems?

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 02:12:17 UTC No. 16205587

>>16203894
Gravity is fake on earf

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:29:39 UTC No. 16206294

>>16205385
>It was based on a huge number of literal observations, including the Einstein cross, so that's the opposite of conjecture
No it wasn't. Arp's ideas were based on Karlsson's 1990 analysis of quasar periodic redshift which used just 116 quasars. Modern samples of are a thousand times bigger and yet don't show these periodic features. Because they were spurious, just shitty statistics that Arp and others bought into.
>Maybe the stars are spiraling outward so they won't escape the galaxy until after some number of rotations.
And why would that happen. Just waving your hands and saying "maybe" isn't an explanation. You're adding an imaginary force, it's no different than assuming extra matter to make them bound.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:38:05 UTC No. 16206310

>>16204015
this is a much worse problem for MOND though kek

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:28:41 UTC No. 16206781

>>16206294
>And why would that happen. Just waving your hands and saying "maybe" isn't an explanation. You're adding an imaginary force, it's no different than assuming extra matter to make them bound.
If a planet can spiral inward, why not out? I don't see the need for extra forces.
>Modern samples of are a thousand times bigger and yet don't show these periodic features. Because they were spurious, just shitty statistics that Arp and others bought into.
IIRC Arp was subtracting the redshift of each quasar's parent galaxy to obtain a value for "intrinsic" redshift. Other astronomers came along and added 1000x more data where they didn't apply that transformation, thus adding a bunch of noise to the original signal. Obviously once you add enough random noise, you can make the signal disappear.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:49:05 UTC No. 16206812

>>16206781
>If a planet can spiral inward, why not out? I don't see the need for extra forces.
With only the visible matter there isn't enough gravitational force to keep stars like the Sun in a single orbit. Where is the extra force coming from?
>IIRC Arp was subtracting the redshift of each quasar's parent galaxy to obtain a value for "intrinsic" redshift. Other astronomers came along and added 1000x more data where they didn't apply that transformation, thus adding a bunch of noise to the original signal. Obviously once you add enough random noise, you can make the signal disappear.
The original claim of periodicity (by Karlsson) didn't do that. It was purely in the redshift distribution. Arp's model of intrinsic redshift was built to explain that.
Arp also claimed that high redshift quasars are ejected from low redshift galaxies. He claims to find very strong correlations, but only looks at a handful of galaxies. And only systems which Arp has handpicked. People have tested this claim objectively by correlating galaxies and quasars on the sky. In tens if thousands of pairs the result is consistent with random expectation. There is no correlation in large samples.
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506366

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 22:03:01 UTC No. 16206823

>>16206812
>With only the visible matter there isn't enough gravitational force to keep stars like the Sun in a single orbit. Where is the extra force coming from?
F=dP/dt = d(mv)/dt = m*dv/dt + v*dm/dt = ma + v*dm/dt

When dm/dt=0, F=ma. When dm/dt != 0, F != ma and you have unstable orbits.

Imagine the stars at the center of the galaxy lose mass while stars at the edges gain mass, just for example. This could happen because there's a bunch of interstellar gas floating around that gets absorbed.

>The original claim of periodicity (by Karlsson) didn't do that.
Well obviously if the quasars are being ejected, it makes sense to separate out the "recessional" redshift from the "intrinsic" redshift. The "recessional" redshift can take on any value so if you mix enough of that data into your set you wash out the "intrinsic" signal. Why not make an honest attempt at analysis?

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 22:12:40 UTC No. 16206838

>>16206823
>Imagine the stars at the center of the galaxy lose mass while stars at the edges gain mass, just for example. This could happen because there's a bunch of interstellar gas floating around that gets absorbed.
Not what I asked.
>Well obviously if the quasars are being ejected, it makes sense to separate out the "recessional" redshift from the "intrinsic" redshift. The "recessional" redshift can take on any value so if you mix enough of that data into your set you wash out the "intrinsic" signal. Why not make an honest attempt at analysis?
Arp claimed both features exist, and both should exist in his intrinsic model. The fact that the redshift peaks have disappeared is a big problem for his model. Also the negative result in the correlation.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 22:27:57 UTC No. 16206876

>>16204015
They haven't found completely and entirely dark matter free galaxies, that's a misconception. Though they have found Galaxies with very very little dark matter.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 22:50:46 UTC No. 16206902

>>16206838
>Not what I asked.
You asked, where's the extra force coming from? Answer: dm/dt

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 23:00:36 UTC No. 16206910

>>16206902
That's not an answer. You're trying to explain why something could spiral out. The part you are missing is it doesn't matter. If there isn't enough mass to keep the object bound over a single orbit the star will leave completely and permanently. No spiraling, no orbiting.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 23:22:12 UTC No. 16206937

>>16206910
Wrong, pseud. Caught u larpin.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 23:32:03 UTC No. 16206947

>>16203894
Reminder that you cannot see or measure dark matter and never will.

Dark matter is string theory levels of untreated schizophrenia

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 23:42:43 UTC No. 16206961

>>16203894
So what does this leave us? Galaxies are held together by "nothing"? Are we teaching MAGIC in schools now?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 00:09:21 UTC No. 16207011

>>16206961
Indeed, Allah holds the heavens and the earth, lest they cease. And if they should cease, no one could hold them [in place] after Him. Indeed, He is Forbearing and Forgiving.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 12:44:59 UTC No. 16207717

how can we prove that dark matter is black holes?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 13:48:03 UTC No. 16207814

>>16203894
Shill me something else then MOND /sci/ bros.. the dark troons are laughing at us...

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 13:56:37 UTC No. 16207825

>>16207717
If they were around the mass scale of stars then one could detect background stars being gravitationally lensed by the foreground black holes. For a single object this is rare, but to explain dark matter you need an extremely large number.
But people have been trying this since the early 90's, they have found normal planets, low mass stars but only one black hole. There is nowhere near enough of them.
To make it more complicated the black holes would have to be special, as from cosmology there isn't enough normal matter to form enough black holes to explain all dark matter. So the black holes would have to be primordial, created in the early universe. If they are much lower mass they can hide from the lensing, there have been a huge amount of studies looking for them but no evidence of primordial black holes.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:27:24 UTC No. 16207850

>>16206961
Galaxies are held together by gravity, same as it ever was. There is also dark matter around many (most?) galaxies which changes their structures and the ways in which they move.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:39:39 UTC No. 16207861

Dark matter hypothesis is completely explained by black holes. Differently sized black holes yield different increases in rotational speeds of galaxies. The larger the discrepancy the larger the black hole. In this way MOND is both correct and incorrect, insofar that this is a purely gravitational effect but also that this is not some rescaling of newtons laws. Nobel prize plz

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:01:02 UTC No. 16207878

>>16207861
That's totally wrong. You're talking about MACHOs (massive compact halo objects) which have been ruled out and ruled out again. Dark matter is WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles).

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:28:59 UTC No. 16207907

>>16207878
>Dark matter is WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles)
[Evidence lacking]

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:33:10 UTC No. 16207912

>>16207907
You misspelled "overwhelming," retard.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:36:12 UTC No. 16207916

>>16207912
From wigibedia
>[sic] Weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) are hypothetical particles ...

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:55:41 UTC No. 16207933

Maybe the dark matter is between galaxies and pushes them away (like magnets repel each others at same poles)?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 17:01:18 UTC No. 16207990

>>16207861
>The larger the discrepancy the larger the black hole.
Except that doesn't hold observationally, not all galaxies even have a supermassive black hole. Take M33 as an example, the third largest galaxy in the Local Group. It has a nice flat rotation curve, the missing mass is much more dominant than in the Milky Way but M33 has no detected SMBH (down to very low limits).
>In this way MOND is both correct and incorrect
If what you say was correct MOND wouldn't work at all. MOND "predicts" the rotation curve based on the visible matter. If it's actually the central black hole the MOND should be pure garbage in garbage out.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 17:12:19 UTC No. 16208004

>>16207990
Idk anything about the specific galaxies, so you can take my prediction as a strength of my hypothesis. The milky way is bigger than M33, so a smaller black hole would cause faster rotation anomalies. Am I right about the sizes? If so, just know I didn't guess or look it up. I'll put my intuition on this to any observational anomaly you propose and I'm confident it'll be consistent.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 17:29:56 UTC No. 16208027

>>16208004
> The milky way is bigger than M33, so a smaller black hole would cause faster rotation anomalies. Am I right about the sizes?
No, it doesn't scale. M33 is smaller, about 10% of the Milky way mass in stars. But it's black hole is much much smaller (if it even has one), less than 0.04% that of the Milky Way black hole.
So no, this doesn't fit with your claim.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:30:02 UTC No. 16208416

But it's not enough to have a black hole in the center of the galaxy to explain the rotation speeds. There needs to be black matter scattered around in the galaxy.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:35:36 UTC No. 16208425

>>16208416
Or more accurately, there needs to be a black matter halo surrounding the galaxy out to a huge distance, like a big cloud with the galaxy in the middle. It's the gravitational pull of this halo that causes the structures and behaviors we observe.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:39:55 UTC No. 16208430

>>16207825
I meant black holes with about mass of asteroid. So there's studies which with high confidence can claim that such black holes cant exist? Can you link them?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:45:08 UTC No. 16208437

Could wimps fit in the standard model or would they necessarily break it?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:49:04 UTC No. 16208443

Maybe it's a stupid question, but what if we don't measure the mass of galaxies, their outskirts, etc., correctly? Which messes up with our predictions

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:54:31 UTC No. 16208454

>>16203894
>dude omg I totally know how everything in the entire universe works!!!
>I'm as smart as god!!
>also I don't believe in god btw
whats the name of this mental illness

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 22:00:26 UTC No. 16208466

>>16208454
> i believe in something that cant disproved by any means or way
> im very smart!!!

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 22:04:30 UTC No. 16208475

>>16208430
That is the region in mass which is still plausible. There are some constraints from microlensing, white dwarfs and femto lensing. This paper cites a few.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.02544

At this mass they would mostly behave pretty much exactly like normal dark matter. The main difficultly of these things remains generating them. Inflation doesn't naturally produce PBHs, so one needs to modify the spectrum. There is some fine tuning involved in making PBHs but not making to many.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 22:12:02 UTC No. 16208494

>>16208443
If you believe that you're faced with two big problems. There are two tests of cosmology which constrain the density of normal matter, being the elements formed in fusion in the early universe and the fluctuations seen in the cosmic microwave background. Both give the consistent result that there isn't enough normal matter to explain DM. The CMB is particularly powerful because it is also sensitive to the total mass.

Pic related is a statistical measure of the fluctuations on different scales in the CMB. The line is a model which assumes all dark matter is just normal matter. The fluctuations you predict are too strong, these are baryonic acoustic oscillation. But this was predicted by standard cosmology, some normal matter plus non-interacting DM can explain both the CMB and light elements.

>>16208437
They would be beyond it. The standard model is currently complete, although it doesn't explain gravity, DM or other things. Basically anything new is beyond it. Some of them could be simple extensions, like sterile neutrinos or axions.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 22:28:17 UTC No. 16208519

>>16208475
> That is the region in mass which is still plausible.
Oh so dark matter can be explained only by asteroid-mass black holes? But as I understand there're no possible experiments to test it yet?
> The main difficultly of these things remains generating them
What's wrong with such possible explanation?

> During inflation, quantum fluctuations can lead to over-dense regions in the early universe. If these density fluctuations are significant enough, they could collapse under their own gravity to form black holes after inflation ends.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 22:30:44 UTC No. 16208528

>>16208494
>there isn't enough normal matter to explain DM
I'm telling about the mass of luminous components. Like what if we actually underestimate it?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 22:50:01 UTC No. 16208576

>>16203894
the rival theory to dark matter is EM gravity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWW_mtihc1Q

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 22:58:56 UTC No. 16208599

>>16208576
Does it give testable predictions? Does it have already experimental results in its favor?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 23:04:17 UTC No. 16208612

>>16208599
predicts counter-rotation in galaxies and at planetary poles, hexagonal morphology of poles at gas giants, and general twisted filamentary superstructure of cosmos
lab plasmas are morphologically similar to observed stellar structures like nebulae, galaxies
arcing experiments produce morphologically similar features to surface features like craters and canyons observed in the solar system

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 23:06:34 UTC No. 16208622

>>16208612
Papers to read?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 23:12:36 UTC No. 16208632

>>16208622

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 23:14:05 UTC No. 16208636

>>16208576
It's obviously wrong. Galaxies have flat rotation curves, not sqrt(r) which would keep increasing endlessly. Most galaxies have flat and then a decline, many have a peak before the flat part too.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 23:14:47 UTC No. 16208638

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 23:15:54 UTC No. 16208640

>>16208622
It's electric universe woo, they don't do real papers.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 23:16:24 UTC No. 16208643

>>16208612
> counter-rotation in galaxies and at planetary poles, hexagonal morphology of poles at gas giants, and general twisted filamentary superstructure of cosmos

doesn't need EM gravity and explained completely by other things
> lab plasmas are morphologically similar to observed stellar structures like nebulae, galaxies
false equivalence
> arcing experiments produce morphologically similar features to surface features like craters and canyons observed in the solar system
false equivalence again lol


also no predictive power to test whatsoever and no experimental evidence, but i guess good theory to larp as cool contrarian to own normies.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 23:19:05 UTC No. 16208645

>>16208612
None of those things are testable predictions. They are either things that are already known, or "x looks like y". Is there really no unique testable predictions from this model of galaxy dynamics?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 23:24:15 UTC No. 16208654

>>16208528
>>16208519
bump

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 23:32:52 UTC No. 16208675

>>16208027
It does though. Never claimed it's a linear scale. Why would it be?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 23:35:23 UTC No. 16208678

>>16208454
Ernest Jones, in 1913, was the first to construe extreme narcissism, which he called the "God-complex", as a character flaw. He described people with God-complex as being aloof, self-important, overconfident, auto-erotic, inaccessible, self-admiring, and exhibitionistic, with fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience. He observed that these people had a high need for uniqueness.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 23:37:18 UTC No. 16208680

>>16208519
>Oh so dark matter can be explained only by asteroid-mass black holes? But as I understand there're no possible experiments to test it yet?
Not only, this is just one possibility. There are experiments in that range, but they are not tight enough to rule out such PBHs being all of DM at any mass.
>What's wrong with such possible explanation?
Nothing is wrong with it but it requires tuning. To give just the right mass to evade existing limits. Then you have to make just enough and not too much. Under all the scales we can measure the fluctuations the spectrum is basically scale free and flat. Extrapolated to smaller scales and there are no PBHs formed. To make PBHs the spectrum of fluctuations needs to violently depart from this trend and then go back to normal.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 23:41:56 UTC No. 16208691

>>16208675
You said the "The larger the discrepancy the larger the black hole". M33 has a relatively larger discrepancy but a relatively smaller black hole. So no, it doesn't follow your hypothesis.
And to be taken seriously you actually need a quantitative model which could predict the rotation curves based on the black hole. Nobel Prizes aren't awarded for baseless suppositions.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 23:51:44 UTC No. 16208704

>>16208680
> it requires tuning.
maybe it doesn't according to this paper
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157323003976

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 23:58:30 UTC No. 16208714

>>16208704
What text in the paper says that?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 23:59:44 UTC No. 16208716

>>16208714
just ctrl+f "fine-tuning"

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 00:11:28 UTC No. 16208732

>>16208680
also see this
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/acaafa

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 08:54:05 UTC No. 16209429

>>16204267
Is dark matter a jewish scam?

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 08:59:51 UTC No. 16209435

>>16208640
I have no skin in the game regarding electric universe but I find it incredible that it's dismissed as mere crackpottery while academia just literally invents new shit all the time to explain preexisting laws not working.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:06:13 UTC No. 16209439

>>16209435
> it's dismissed as mere crackpottery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism discusses it seriously, much like the approach taken towards MOND. So your contrarianism doesn't apply here.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:10:00 UTC No. 16209443

>>16209435
>new shit to explain preexisting laws not working.

yeah shit like dark matter, mond or em gravity

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:13:07 UTC No. 16209448

>>16209439
>EU is always taken seriously because it has a wiki article!

Shut up dumbass

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:15:56 UTC No. 16209453

>>16209448
If theory is dismissed as mere crackpottery in 4chan, it doesn't mean academy does the same, retard.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:37:55 UTC No. 16209476

What if galaxies are like magnets and they just pull or push each others away?

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 10:06:50 UTC No. 16209498

>>16209435
The issue isn't that the things there proposing are verboten, it's that the way it's constructed isn't scientific at all.
If a cosmologist puts forward a new hypothesis about how the universe, how does it develop? First they would do some analytic calculations to see if it is viable, then they might do some simulations. Then one will consider if this idea can be tested observational with cosmological data, or possibly it can be ruled out and rejected already. People don't assume their hypothesis is correct from day one, in fact they never do. The EU crowd claim to understand how the universe works, they know for definite that it's dominated by EM effects. How did they test their model of galaxies (for example)? The answer is they haven't at all. But they have youtube videos claiming that is how the universe works. It's all completely untested. There is nothing wrong with hypothesising something crazy, but you cannot just assume it's correct.

What little "testing" they do is pretty unscientific. A lot of it is "X looks like this picture of something plasmay", therefore it must be plasma. They seriously cite their interpretations of ancient cave paintings as evidence that all of this happened. That is ancient aliens levels of pseudoscience. They rant about how experiments are much better than what the mainstream does. In the decades the project has existed for they only funded a single experiment. That one "experiment" had no scientific predictions and nothing that could falsify any ideas. That experiment has now rebranded as a free-energy scam and now it's top secret, no more "results". They are completely disinterested in astronomical data, and despite claiming the solar system is dominated by plasma they haven't bothered looking at the mountains of plasma physics experiments that have flown in space for decades. Most of them claim the Sun is powered by giant currents, yet none them have actually tried to find these currents.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 10:14:45 UTC No. 16209505

>>16209498
did you read these and what do you think?
if you're the same anon
>>16208732
>>16208716

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 10:16:57 UTC No. 16209510

>>16209498
Good post. Did or do you study in uni?

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 10:17:56 UTC No. 16209511

>>16209498
>>16209435

You might think that someone else outside the EU could do this testing for them, but it's impossible because there is nothing to test. It's not written down anywhere, there is no standard model of the EU. What the "theory" means varies between different proponents. Some of them believe EM rules large scales, others claim the Sun is powered by electricity, others claim gravity is electromagnetic. Some of them reject relativity, while the most extreme reject mathematical physics entirely (say goodby to classical physics and engineering). There is no EU model or theory, it is just a lose collection of ideas.

It's psudoscientific woo.

>>16209439
That is not the electric universe, Gravitoelectromagnetism is an effect in general relativity.

The EU page on Wikipedia was deleted. It now redirects to the Plsama Cosmology page. Plasma cosmology is a long dead hypothesis which bears little relation to the EU.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 10:25:47 UTC No. 16209517

>>16206781
nooo, my gambling strategy totally worked. you can't just increase the number of games to show me that it regresses to the law of large numbers. that breaks everything.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 10:39:29 UTC No. 16209533

>>16209511
Oh so these are three distinct things. Gravitoelectromagnetism is real thing, and it is a simplified framework that uses analogies from electromagnetism to understand gravity in specific, less complex cases? While it may lack ultra-accuracy, this precision is often unnecessary for the contexts in which GEM is applied?

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 10:47:36 UTC No. 16209538

>>16209505
I'll look at it later in detail. The bit about baryogenesis is interesting, never heard that before in the context of PBHs. But it does sound speculative.

>>16209510
I do research on galaxies. I've been here long enough to remember when there were regular threads about EU nonsense. It seems more and more they've given up on arguing with people and concentrated on monetizing yourtube videos.

>>16209533
It is a separate and real thing yes. It's distinct from "normal" gravity in the sense that the electric and magnetic forces are different, but part of the same underlying field.
There have been some fringe claims every few years that GR, or GEM, can explain galaxy dynamics without dark matter. But there's always a flaw.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 10:59:42 UTC No. 16209545

>>16204195
>a relativistic electromagnetic effect just like gravity, no doubt about it
But there is doubt about it, because that is not what gravity is.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 11:14:29 UTC No. 16209566

>>16209538
>I'll look at it later in detail.
I'll wait for your analysis, maybe in this thread. The main author seems fishy tho.
> It's distinct from "normal" gravity in the sense that the electric and magnetic forces are different, but part of the same underlying field.
Could the analogies between gravity and electromagnetism serve as a strong argument for the idea that they originate from a single fundamental force? Or is it equally possible that, despite these significant similarities, gravity and electromagnetism are not derived from a single force?

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 03:50:20 UTC No. 16211035

>>16209566
>Could the analogies between gravity and electromagnetism serve as a strong argument for the idea that they originate from a single fundamental force?
That's what Einstein always believed, but he was never able to make it work rigorously.
Such a unification, including the nuclear forces, remains the ongoing goal of physics.

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 09:32:49 UTC No. 16211268

>>16211035
But could it be just coincidence behind the analogies? Or the chances are low for that and there MUST be some common underlying principle?

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 09:35:03 UTC No. 16211273

>>16207878
Dark matter could also be axions or a superfluid. I think axions are the favoured hypothesis right now.

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 09:42:17 UTC No. 16211277

>>16211268
The hard part is that em is better described by a U(1) symmetry and is unified with the weak interactions via an SU(2) symmetry. The price you pay is that the electroweak interactions are no longer infinite in range, breaking the similarities between gravity. This is partly why physicists want to describe gravity by a symmetry principle but it doesn't seem to work

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 10:21:07 UTC No. 16211290

>>16211277
with high-temperature em loses its infinite range, maybe gravity will lose it too

Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 10:41:09 UTC No. 16211297

>>16211290
idk, stars are pretty hot

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 03:16:28 UTC No. 16212977

>>16208416
>>16208027
Thought more about this and the answer is obvious. Black holes rotate at different speeds. Faster rotating smaller black hole can be tough to detect and induce more dark matter.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 17:54:40 UTC No. 16217272

>>16209476
We havent met repelling gravity

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 07:05:45 UTC No. 16219006

>>16203894
>Israeli scientist wrong
wow it's like science from third world shitholes are not trustworthy

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 08:10:50 UTC No. 16219066

>>16209545
Ahh yes, instead gravity is the curvature of nothing

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 15:47:20 UTC No. 16219931

>>16203894
/sci/zos right again, its all so tiresome

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 15:48:51 UTC No. 16219933

>>16203894
why cant we have open source access to all these scanning satellites and data NASA is gathering in real time? its literally funded by taxpayer money

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 15:48:52 UTC No. 16219934

>>16219066
The thing that curves is the geometry of spacetime.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 16:04:36 UTC No. 16219970

>>16219933
The fuck are you going to do with raw satellite data?

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 04:05:34 UTC No. 16221214

>>16219970
>He doesn't know

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 04:45:57 UTC No. 16221295

what about MOG

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 04:54:19 UTC No. 16221305

>>16219934
Geometry of spacetime is a mathematical abstraction, though, might as well say that gravity is when you bend over to take tyrone's dick because your local spacetine geometry curves

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 13:45:58 UTC No. 16221869

>>16221305
No it's not? we can see gravitational lensing.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 13:59:06 UTC No. 16221886

>>16221869
You can see the exact same lensing effect around every single physical object