Dark Matter Electromagnetically Debunked

[ChristineM]

To the 'believers' the evidence is always irrefutable.

Thats why verified evidence is so important

 

[PureX]

The people against dark matter cannot seem to accomplish anything in the way of science to support their beliefs.

I'm neither for nor against "dark matter". I'm simply pointing out that we could have called it "Bob Dobbs"; a fictional character that we've never met and that may or may not have ever existed, given what we don't know about "dark matter". However, there are numerous drawings of "Bob" in many 1950s and 60s machine operating manuals that we can claim to be "real evidence" of Bob's existence. Because the manuals ARE real! And sure enough ole "Bob's" face is in them! Here is one right here!

PROOF that Bob Dobbs is REAL!

 

[ChristineM]

I'm neither for nor against "dark matter". I'm simply pointing out that we could have called it "Bob Dobbs"; a fictional character that we've never met and that may or may not have ever existed, given what we don't know about "dark matter". However, there are numerous drawings of "Bob" in many 1950s and 60s machine operating manuals that we can claim to be "real evidence" of Bob's existence. Because the manuals ARE real! And sure enough ole "Bob's" face is in them! Here is one right here!

PROOF that Bob Dobbs is REAL!

You obviously have no compensation of the difference between verified observation of a thing and a cartoon sketch

 

[PureX]

You obviously have no compensation of the difference between verified observation of a thing and a cartoon sketch

And you're assuming based on nothing that there was no real Bob Dobbs upon which all these drawings were based. I'm old enough to actually remember seeing them in those manuals. Why aren't they actual bonafide evidence of the man they depict, in your mind?

It's interesting to me that what gets accepted as "real evidence" s always the evidence that supports what the determiner already believes to be true, or wants to believe to be true. And that this phenomena is as common among the 'scientism' crowd as among theists, or anyone else.

 

[ChristineM]

And you're assuming based on nothing that there was no real Bob Dobbs upon which all these drawings were based.

Nope, perhaps there was, but you yourself claimed fictional character

 

[PureX]

Nope, perhaps there was, but you yourself claimed fictional character

Sorry, I should have called it a "representational" character.

 

[firedragon]

OP Subject: Dark Matter Debunked by E&M explanations.

Video abstract.
It's time to put to bed the fairytale of Dark Matter. Something so dark and mysterious that it remains undetected after decades of searching with sophisticated instruments. In 2014, a vast network of plasma filaments—the Intergalactic Web—was discovered that connects many if not all the galaxies in the universe. Evidence shows stars are connected to their planets and to other stars, and all galaxies are connected. The more we carefully examine, we find the cosmos interconnected with plasma filaments—also known as Birkeland Currents. Author and electrical engineer Donald E. Scott, PhD, systematically debunks the theory,

Take you time to listen here -

Science does not work that way Native. It does not work such hard truth or knowledge claims. Ultimately it's a hypothesis. Even you are presenting a hypothesis. Tomorrow, another finding might come and confirm Dark Matter.

But it's always good to know what scientists find so thanks for that.

 

[Yerda]

"Indirectly observed" means it has not been observed, but only inferred by something else that has been observed. Much the same way Bigfoot has been inferred from observing fuzzy photos and giant footprints in the snow, but has never actually observed, itself.

The higgs boson and gravitational waves were inferred from theory a long time before they could be detected. It's a bit disingenuous to compare the status of dark matter to bigfoot. The cosmological models predict mass that can't be found in the data so the pros infer that there is missing mass that we can't detect.

There are other models - modified Newtonian dynamics, the superfluid vacuum, this electric universe idea etc but the dark matter models seem to best account for the data which is why they are more widely supported.

 

[Altfish]

"Indirectly observed" means it has not been observed, but only inferred by something else that has been observed. Much the same way Bigfoot has been inferred from observing fuzzy photos and giant footprints in the snow, but has never actually observed, itself.

...or God

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm neither for nor against "dark matter". I'm simply pointing out that we could have called it "Bob Dobbs"; a fictional character that we've never met and that may or may not have ever existed, given what we don't know about "dark matter". However, there are numerous drawings of "Bob" in many 1950s and 60s machine operating manuals that we can claim to be "real evidence" of Bob's existence. Because the manuals ARE real! And sure enough ole "Bob's" face is in them! Here is one right here!

PROOF that Bob Dobbs is REAL!

And once again you have demonstrated that those that accuse others of scientism are using it themselves. Science does not "prove" anything. All there is is evidence. There is rather strong evidence for Dark Matter. Right now there is no other explanation that is not pure handwaving, but that does not mean that the Dark Matter hypothesis wins by default. The problem is that those that deny Dark Matter have far less evidence for any of their beliefs which makes them more than a bit hypocritical when they attack the idea of Dark Matter.

Can you understand this? Dark Matter very probably is a real thing. We don't know what it is yet, hence the name "Dark", but we are pretty sure that there is matter there. It not only is shown by observation that is constantly repeated, it also fits the number one hypothesis for the universe as a whole.



When one has absolutely nothing complaining about ideas that at least work partially is not justified.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science does not work that way Native. It does not work such hard truth or knowledge claims. Ultimately it's a hypothesis. Even you are presenting a hypothesis. Tomorrow, another finding might come and confirm Dark Matter.

But it's always good to know what scientists find so thanks for that.

Except his source is not a scientist. He does not follow the scientific method. He only dislikes the concept of Dark Matter and has an ad hoc explanation but not evidence.

And confirming of hypotheses happen all of the time. Dark Matter has been repeatedly confirmed as a hypothesis, but it is still in the hypothetical stage because it is an incomplete hypothesis. Even full blown theories, such as the theory of evolution, which has been confirmed millions of times, is a theory. That means that it is not "proven" That is a mathematical term. One can claim that evolution is a scientific fact. One cannot claim that it has been proven.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Very shortly:
He has the electromagnetic force to govern and form everything and it´s rotational and orbital motions in the observable Universe.
He has the observed electromagnetic strings in the Cosmic Web to connect everything electromagnetically.
When taking the electromagnetically explanation approach towards the formation and motion of galaxies, the need for "dark matter" isn´t there anymore.
This is only assumed needed when working excludingly with the assumed gravity - which nobody can explain by which dynamic means it should work, anyway.

So he hasn’t found a way to reconcile the electromagnetic force with gravity? There’s almost certainly a Nobel Prize waiting for whoever pulls that off.

 

[PureX]

The higgs boson and gravitational waves were inferred from theory a long time before they could be detected. It's a bit disingenuous to compare the status of dark matter to bigfoot. The cosmological models predict mass that can't be found in the data so the pros infer that there is missing mass that we can't detect.

There are other models - modified Newtonian dynamics, the superfluid vacuum, this electric universe idea etc but the dark matter models seem to best account for the data which is why they are more widely supported.

...or God

And once again you have demonstrated that those that accuse others of scientism are using it themselves. Science does not "prove" anything. All there is is evidence. There is rather strong evidence for Dark Matter. Right now there is no other explanation that is not pure handwaving, but that does not mean that the Dark Matter hypothesis wins by default. The problem is that those that deny Dark Matter have far less evidence for any of their beliefs which makes them more than a bit hypocritical when they attack the idea of Dark Matter.

Can you understand this? Dark Matter very probably is a real thing. We don't know what it is yet, hence the name "Dark", but we are pretty sure that there is matter there. It not only is shown by observation that is constantly repeated, it also fits the number one hypothesis for the universe as a whole.

When one has absolutely nothing complaining about ideas that at least work partially is not justified.

The very fact that ya'll felt the need to defend science against my "unreasonable" skepticism really ought to give you pause for thought. Especially if you think "scentism" isn't a thing.

 

[Altfish]

The very fact that ya'll felt the need to defend science against my "unreasonable" skepticism really ought to give you pause for thought. Especially if you think "scentism" isn't a thing.

How did my comment defend science?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The very fact that ya'll felt the need to defend science against my "unreasonable" skepticism really ought to give you pause for thought. Especially if you think "scentism" isn't a thing.

You posted what looked like an attack on others, not skepticism. You were the one that made a blatant false accusation of "scientism". Yes, scientism is a thing. Though ironically it is used far more by people that accuse others of it than any other group. Instead of accusing others of a wrong that they did not do you might want to try to find flaws in an idea. That can be rather difficult if one does not even understand basic physics.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The higgs boson and gravitational waves were inferred from theory a long time before they could be detected. It's a bit disingenuous to compare the status of dark matter to bigfoot. The cosmological models predict mass that can't be found in the data so the pros infer that there is missing mass that we can't detect.

There are other models - modified Newtonian dynamics, the superfluid vacuum, this electric universe idea etc but the dark matter models seem to best account for the data which is why they are more widely supported.

Nonetheless, considerable resources have been directed at detecting a dark matter particle for well over a decade now, and so far, hay nada.

 

[Yerda]

The very fact that ya'll felt the need to defend science against my "unreasonable" skepticism really ought to give you pause for thought. Especially if you think "scentism" isn't a thing.

That's not fair at all.

Nonetheless, considerable resources have been directed at detecting a dark matter particle for well over a decade now, and so far, hay nada.

Yup.

It's worse than that. They don't even know what they're looking for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonetheless, considerable resources have been directed at detecting a dark matter particle for well over a decade now, and so far, hay nada.

Very true. Only some false positives that were later shown to be not from dark matter. But also in all of that time no one has proposed an alternative that explains the observable evidence as well. Sooner or later, hopefully, this will be resolved.

 

[Clara Tea]

OP Subject: Dark Matter Debunked by E&M explanations.

Video abstract.
It's time to put to bed the fairytale of Dark Matter. Something so dark and mysterious that it remains undetected after decades of searching with sophisticated instruments. In 2014, a vast network of plasma filaments—the Intergalactic Web—was discovered that connects many if not all the galaxies in the universe. Evidence shows stars are connected to their planets and to other stars, and all galaxies are connected. The more we carefully examine, we find the cosmos interconnected with plasma filaments—also known as Birkeland Currents. Author and electrical engineer Donald E. Scott, PhD, systematically debunks the theory,

Take you time to listen here -

BLACK HOLES AT CENTERS OF GALAXIES:

Many decades ago, I suggested to Dr. Virginia Trimble, that the center of our galaxy (Milky Way) might be a black hole. She told me that it would suck in all matter if it was there. I didn't think so, because I knew that it was just like any other star, except that the gravity was so great that even light, itself, could not escape. At the time, it was thought that merely dust obscured our view of the galactic center. We know, now, that virtually all galaxies have black holes at their centers.

Bremsstrahlung - Wikipedia

cherenkov radiation - Google Search

By analyzing matter that is drawn into the black hole, we can determine that it is a black hole. Matter, when accelerated faster than the speed of light is allowed to go, in that medium, produces Cherenkov radiation (something like a sonic boom, but with light). Particles trapped in powerful magnetic fields produce Bremsstruhlung radiation.

Cherenkov radiation is also used to detect neutrinos.

INTERGALACTIC WEB:

For a while, astronomers were puzzled that there were vast structures throughout the universe that are too far apart to gravitationally influence one another. Yet, in the early stages of the universe, shortly after the big bang, matter was denser (because the universe hadn't yet had time to expand), and so it was possible for matter to interact (because of the close proximity).

Though all galaxies might have been connected long ago, apparently they have drifted too far apart to be connected now.

DARK MATTER:

How Vera Rubin discovered dark matter

According to the hypertext link above, a small portion of dark matter is made of neutrinos.

Vera Ruben discovered the effects of dark matter. Kent Ford was also working on the same project. For a while, it looked as though Ruben (a woman) was not going to get the Nobel Prize because of her gender. She tossed her equipment into her Chevy Suburban and moved to yet another observatory, chasing her elusive target (obviously, she didn't like Fords).

My friend and professor, Dr. Fred Reines, co-won the Nobel prize in physics in 1995 with his collegue and friend, Cowan for their 1956 discovery of Neutrinos. For a while, it looked as though Dr. Reines and Cowan were not going to win the Nobel prize since a Japanese team, using the SuperKamioKande detector (located in the Kamioka Mine) were getting most of the press.

The fact that neutrinos oscillate means that they change, and that means that time doesn't stand still for them (which it would if they were traveling at the speed of light, and they would have to have zero mass at the speed of light). Therefore, the fact that neutrinos oscillate necessarily means that they travel slower than the speed of light and that they have mass. Any particle that travels at the speed of light would have to have zero mass. Essentially, there is just one type of neutrino that oscillates to different modes (flavors of neutrinos) in a very ordered way. The speed of the neutrino is changed to internal energy. The rate of oscillation depends on the speed (hence energy) of the neutrinos.

DARK ENERGY:

Calphysics Institute: Introduction to Zero-Point Energy

Zero point energy, proposed by Max Planck, is the energy that remains when all energy is removed. It has been demonstrated by pulling metal plates together (Casimir force, discovered in the mid 1990s by Lamoreux.

Some believe that zero point energy pervades all of space, and might account for most of the dark energy.

But, in order for dark energy to account for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe (just the space is expanding, not space-time), it would have to have negative gravity.

The link above, says that "Zero-point energy behaves differently. For ordinary radiation, the ratio of pressure to energy density is w =1/3 c^2, which is customarily expressed in units whereby c =1." "But for zero-point energy, the ratio is w = -1. This is owing to the circumstance that the zero-point energy density is assumed to be constant: no matter how much the universe expands it does not become dilluted, but instead more zero-point energy is assumed to be created out of nothing."

 

[joelr]

Hmm, no papers. Okay. The OP gave us a "PhD" I present a "Professor":

Okay, he was a chemistry professor at a college but now makes his money on YouTube. He bases his work on peer reviewed science and is not afraid to use peer reviewed papers to support his claims and at times he will even interview the experts in the field. You will not see the awkward jump cuts when believers in woo woo do interviews where it appears that the questions asked are not the topics that the expert replied to. He also does not put himself forward as an expert but constantly refers to the works of experts in the field when necessary.

Totally debunked the Electric Universe! He also gets that it's rooted in wanting ancient mythology to be somehow "tuned in" to the universe.