I want to open the floor for a debate on the existance or non-existance of dark matter. Proofs, truths, observations, mathematical reasoning, etc...
This is to be an open discussion with no initial slant or goal other than fine thinking.
I'd like to pretend that what we discuss here has some impact on the world at large, but...

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

If this: http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/phys...rk_matter.html is what dark matter is, there is no question for me it exists.
Why should there be no unlit intergalactic material, no "failed stars" as escapees in interstellar space etc.?
Some stars for example seem to be escaping our galaxy; I think Arcturus is one. Shouldn't the same account for dark bodies?

__________________
Mars Society.

There is little doubt that there is dark matter out there. The questions at this time are:
1. Does it exist in large enough amounts to explain the dynamical properties of galaxies and galaxy clusters it is hypothesized to explain.

and

2. Is it mostly non-baryonic as required by the Big Bang concordance model, or could it be entirely baryonic as suggested by some observations.

and

3. Does Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) successfully account for the dark matter phenomenon.

As soon as you look at the power function, proper motion and luminosity of quasars and blue "galaxies"; and say to yourself, "I have a big bang hangover and I need help explaining dark matter." you have taken the first step. Intrinsic redshifts plug a lot of dark matter holes in a hurry.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Jerry, you wouldn't be 'ol John Kierein in disguise would you? http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

I like JS Princeton's description of dark matter simply as matter that does not interact with light.

The data is there but comprehending it made so much more sense to me when I heard it in those terms.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

What data is there that dark matter exists?
Its all inferred....Lead from one place to another by an equation.

For example, the gravitational measurements of other galaxies indicates there is more gravity than there should be. So either the theory of gravity is wrong or there is more matter out there than can be explained by 'normal' matter. Since there is sufficient evidence that the predictions based on our knowledge of gravitational effects on matter are correct, that leaves the other possibility that there is more matter out there than 'normal' matter.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Jerry, you wouldn't be 'ol John Kierein in disguise would you? http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html[/quote]
No, but I will take that as a compliment. I just met John in Denver this week. We may have ended up on the same platform, but we climbed up opposite sides.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Intrinsic redshifts certainly have the potential to explain some of the dark matter observations. For example, dark matter estimates made from cluster velocity dispersions, are overestimated if intrinsic redshifts are contaminating the velocity dispersion. Remove the intrinsic component and the velocity dispersion drops and therefore the mass estimate.

Individual spiral galaxies present a strong case for dark matter, but the detailed evidence suggests it is not the non-baryonic CDM. The coupling of dark and visible matter suggests it is baryonic. The recent observations that many ellipticals lack significant dark matter again points toward it being baryonic. Molecular hydrogen is the most likely baryonic candidate for the dark matter.

MOND has been pretty successful at modeling rotation curves, but it fails with NGC 2841 and the MOND proponent say it only takes a single violation to falsify the hypothesis.

Assuming that red shift is a distance/age indicator for the universe, then dark matter exists, if it(red shift), is not, then dark matter does not exist.
Is this correct?

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

Scientific method says it take only a single violation to falsify anything.
Or you could be using the wrong algorithm to interpert data....

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

I agree with you, almost completely. There is somethiing in the MOND phrenology, and in the Tully-Fisher relationship, that ties us to the origin and stability of galactic rotations. But I think a force, rather than a form of matter, is more likely to fit the data. The reasoning is quite simple:

1) We live fairly close to the edge of a galaxy, we should read some small gradient of a gravametric effect.

2) Show me circular rotation and I lift the bonnet and expect to find a magnetic field. I have never been able to stablize a system of orbits without either an EMF or a retrorocket, and as near as I can tell, there is only one moon of jupiter so equipped.

3) The MOND theorists who juggle these numbers have been able to predict the behavior of most rotational systems EXCEPT in the case of cluster group structure. This is the only place where dark matter modeling works better, and if intrinsic redshifts place hot galaxies in these holes - who needs dark matter?

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Not necessarily. The MOND people do not think there are significant amounts of dark matter, but do accept the standard redshift interpretation.

The problem is how you define a violation. There is a lot of ground covered by adjustable parameters in most theories. That is certainly the case with cold dark matter. If an observation does not fit with the model parameters, then new parameters are sought. There is nothing wrong with that, but the MOND people are surprisingly direct with statements like this:

Its difficult to find similar abrupt statements as to conditions that would falsify Cold Dark Matter. Probably the closest thing I've seen is this statement by Donato &amp; Salucci:

They go on to say:

The implication here is that so much effort has been invested in theoretical development and modeling of CDM scenarios, that they have surpassed the actual depth of observational evidence capable of verifying or falsifying the theory.

So then observations start popping up like elliptical galaxies without significant dark matter and .... well I guess we'll see where that leads us over the next few years.

True, most systems have been fit well to MOND parameters, but NGC 2841 does not and NGC 3198 probably does not as discussed in Bottema et al . Now they are the ones saying that these examples could falsify the hypothesis. Still, regardless of whether or not the hypothesis is ultimately falsified, it would seem important to understand why it works so well for so many galaxies.

Its also interesting that Stacy McGaugh predicted the low amplitude of the second peak of the CMB - a prediction that was soon after verfied by BOOMERanG.

If I may add just a footnote, SOME of the supernova researchers are just as chagrin that cosmological theoriest, including those involved in supernova analysis, have declared victory for the Precision Einstein de-Sitter-inflation-dark matter-dark energy-not to be changed until the next surprise cosmology. Extraordinary confidence requires extraoderous egoes.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Its clearer than ever to me that the CMB is the Aether. The lowest energy state available. Certain models of the Aether have never been disproved. You dont need anything else. Its inevitable at this point with current physics grand unification flop. Not all of the basic observations have been correctly explained.
If you can get past the first letter "A" and open your mind, you might see something here. http://www.aetherometry.com/
I know this post will get flamed and I'm sure that it's been debunked to death, but debunkers use the same arguments whilst a few of us constantly correlate new data out side our experiences or what we've been taught.
As a debunker, you will never learn anything outside your sand box.
Debunking is a negative activity, and you want to teach kids that?
I hope you guys have fun debunking yourselves.
Bye.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

shhh. :-$ Calm down. You're getting negative. [-X By the way, as a Mathematician, I must say that I've discovered plenty of things outside of what I was taught. I just gave a lecture on a non-euclidean geometry I created. (meaning simply that I have no knowledge of any published papers on it) (woulda had a bigger audience if that jerk hadn't blackmailed the students into attending the concurrent psych lecture. )

So just because I look for facts does not mean I can't see anything new and unique. :P

__________________
"Doesn’t everybody know rhetorical questions are dismissive and obnoxious?" &lt;http://www.mcla.edu/Academics/Majors...phy/style.php>

I sniffed around in the sandbox you referenced, read some testimonials, saw some gold leaf stuff reminicent of the 18th century, and discovered it would cost money to read beyond the abstracts. Anyone who has read Huckleberry Fin knows what is like once you grab that hook. It may be entertaining, might even be worth a buck, but it is not true religion you will find inside the fleecing tent.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

At 2.7 degrees K., this would not seem to be the lowest energy state....

No, it is a critical activity. With the information explosion, one must be critical of all information that one is contronted with. There certainly is plenty of bad information. "Is this "good" information, or is this - as Maureen Dowd might put it - 'unhelpful in a fundamental way"?"

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

upriver, could you give a synopsis of the Aether theory you've linked to.

If as you're suggesting "debunkers" never learn anything new and therefore dismiss what is really happening, then a better word would be "detruthers" I would think.

Exactly what has been said on this thread that has initiated this response? Who exactly are the "debunkers" you're referring to?

Bwahahahahahaha! You're all wrong, It's the Matrix, the Matrix has you I tell you, the machines are coming, hehehehehehe, they're coming to take me away ha ha, ho ho, he he.... 8-[ 8-[

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

So, I get the feeling, so far, that baryonic dark matter is the easiest to 'swollow.' Personally, I don't like the idea of matter we can't interact with. Of course, electricity was known as a party oddity for about 80 years before we found a use for it.

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

That is certainly not the prevailing view. The Big Bang concordance model has the universe as 23% non-baryonic dark matter and 73% dark energy leaving only 4% for baryons. However, there is growing evidence for the dark matter being entirely baryonic that is independent of theoretical considerations.

Baryonic dark matter would most likely be dominated by molecular hydrogen which is difficult to detect, but has been detected in some galaxies in very large amounts. Non-baryonic particles are the type of dark matter that do not readily interact with normal matter and EM radiation - making them exceedingly difficult to detect.

I spent more time than I should have there: One of the proofs of Corona &amp; Corena is “systemic” variation in the discharge rate of cathode ray tubes. Discharge rates are sensitive to virtually any environmental factor imaginable: Vibrations, humidity, temperature, convection, neutrinos, gamma rays, and so on. Poor tests yield ambiguous results. Unfortunately, the same objections can be legitimately raised about the WMAP data reductions of the CMB.

One more thought on the Aether site: Michelson &amp; Morley never did get a truly null result, although the number stayed within their margin of error and shrunk with each improvement in accuracy. So many independent tests of GR have yielded affirmative results it is difficult to reasonably question Einstein’s success. But if the error in M &amp; M was always positive, (and not just because they reset their zero at the lowest absolute reading.) then there is justification for a space-based verification of this test. It is a little hard to squeeze Aether back into the equation, but we need something. We need good, imaginative experiments.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

I do not believe that there is enough proof of non-baryonic matter to justify its assumed existence

1. Dark matter has not been “seen”. There is evidence of MACHO’s, old cold star cores, and similar “real” dark matter” as “seen” by the disturbance of the image of background stars, but there has not been one observation of other “dark matter” blocking the light of background stars.

2. Those who believe that there are other forms of matter or subatomic particles causing the gravitational effects, are “forcing” this assumption to preserve gravitational stability based upon an understanding of gravity that is only “locally” validated.

3. Those who assume that gravitational inference is sufficient to justify the existence of dark matter should realize that they are making an extrapolation of our present understanding of Gravity.

4. This assumption that our understanding of gravity is fully realized by the expression of general relativity is dubious for several reasons, two of which are listed here.

.........a. General Relativity results in an incongruous description of reality. (See my posting on Conservation Issues which illustrates how General relativity results in an ambiguous description of the conservation mass and conservation of energy.)
.........b. Gravity still remains the elusive force deifying unification with the other forces of nature.

5. Those who are familiar with my work, know that I propose a uniform expansion of space-time, which means that even atoms expand. (The rate has to be at an exact geometrically described rate in order to preserve celestial and atomic structures). One of the consequences of this is that the effect of gravity becomes a function of time, as believed by Paul Dirac and George Gamow. Allowing for this factor alone can negate the need for dark matter to predict the velocity profile of stars orbiting in a galaxy. For me, dark matter does not exist since I do not need it to preserve celestial stability of galactic structures, nor do I need it to predict a “flat universe”.

Snowflake.

Snowflake, where is the post on the conservation issues?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Hi Tensor

The posting called "Conservation Issues" is fairly recent so it should be on the current page of "Against the Mainstream".

Thanks for checking it out.

Snowflake

Here is snowflake's thread.