Dark Matter Electromagnetically Debunked

[Native]

But to the 'scientism" crowd, it's as sacrosanct as God is to the theism crowd. And mostly for the same reasons. But I get into trouble with the 'overseers' here if I post too much about that. They think I'm being 'mean'.

IMO nothing is sacrosanct if it contains factual arguments in a debate forum.

 

[Native]

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.

Thanks for your reply.

My background perception of "black holes" and "dark matter":
According to the Newtonian gravity model of celestial motions, there is a central force which hold the planets in their orbital paths according to planetary distances from the Sun. This idea was imposed on galactic motions as well, but they didn´t find a central object, hence they stated the galactic centers to have a "heavy black hole" to hold the stars in galaxies.

But this idea was seriously questioned by the discovery of the galactic rotation curve where all stars orbits the galactic center with the same velocity disregarding the distances, hence the scientists thought there must be an "unknown dark matter force" in play to make this orbital pattern.

Summary of this:
We have a gravitational idea which isn´t scientifically explained and doesn´t fit all over in our Milky Way galaxy. We have an assumed "heavy dark hole" and furthermore an unknown "dark matter", all in all tree unexplained forces and matters.

It´s all this Donald E. Scott in the video interpret and explains differently by including the basic electromagnetic force and its circuital magnetic motions to govern all formations and motions in the observable Universe.

Personally I find his explanations very refreshing, natural and logical - but of course, believers of the standing conventional theories and it´s unexplained assumptions are having a hard time to reset the gravitational thinking.

 

[Yerda]

Personally I find his explanations very refreshing, natural and logical - but of course, believers of the standing conventional theories and it´s unexplained assumptions are having a hard time to reset the gravitational thinking.

The idea of these Birkeland currents connecting stars and galaxies in an electrical network sounds really interesting and exciting to me. I love the idea of the cosmos as a mind and the objects he posits could be thought of as communication pathways.

The problem is that there's almost no support for any of this. There seems to be nothing of note to be found and even this chap you've shared doesn't appear to have any peer reviewed work on the matter. To make it worse these theories are pushed by cranks of all sorts and involve throwing out ideas and theories for which there are masses of observational evidence.

It might turn out that this one guy armed with some vector calculus and Maxwell's equations is right and all of the world's cosmologists, astrophysicists etc are wrong but there isn't any reason to believe it to be the case based on what we know so far.

 

[wellwisher]

The claim that the evidence is "circumstantial is one that you would have to support. But I never see deniers of science ever defending their apparently false allegations.

From this source:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1516944112#:~:text=The evidence for the existence,in the universe, gravitational lensing,

"The evidence for the existence of dark matter through its gravitational impact is clear in astronomical observations—from the early observations of the large motions of galaxies in clusters and the motions of stars and gas in galaxies, to observations of the large-scale structure in the universe, gravitational lensing, and the cosmic microwave background."

That is not just one source. That is four or five different sources. Meanwhile there does not appear to be any evidence for the electric universe. Without a coherent testable hypothesis they by definition cannot have any evidence.

The big problem is dark matter and dark energy has never been observed in the lab to prove these are real and self standing. One could just as well say invisible unicorns=dark matter, since they cannot be seen in the lab, either, but could be used as a placeholder for what we see.

My theory is this problem is connected to the current theory, that the universe has no center and is expanding in all directions, simultaneously. In this theory, the universe is sort of like blowing up a balloon. This will cause all points to move apart in all directions, at the same time.

The problem is without a center of mass or gravity, you cannot do a universal energy balance for the universe that is consistent for all. What ended up happening was the energy balance for the center-less universe kept changing with each new discovery, until the standard model needed a bandaid to account for the larger and larger differences. This was deemed dark matter and dark energy. But these have yet to be seen in the lab to know if they exist as phenomena, all to itself, and was not just a theoretical placeholder for something else for the needed extra energy.

Without a center of the universe, references become relative, as do your energy balances. This creates a problem, if you choose the wrong reference to define the universe; you may be too high or too low.

As an example, say you have a man on a train at velocity V and a stationary man at the station. Both men had been asleep and neither knows who is moving. If we assume relative reference, either man can appear to see and claim the other is moving, since their two references will appear relative.

However, if you assume both frames are relative and do an energy balance, the moving train will have required more startup energy than a smaller moving station. Relative reference does not always allow a consistent energy balance in all relative frames, since it only deals in velocity, but not with mass which, unlike velocity, is invariant.

In the case of dark matter and dark energy, they were needed to add energy to the theoretical universe that was not needed 50 years ago. This is like assuming the man at the station was moving, which left us with too little energy to explain the total system fuel usage. They needed to add extra energy by means of a bandaid theory. This bandaid is being challenged, but not in terms of an energy balance, but in terms of a different addendum.

The science bureaucracy does not wish to change the standard model, so one is expected to work the bandaid, instead of start from scratch in a way that allows for a center of mass or use the speed of light as the reference for the energy balance, since this is same for all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The big problem is dark matter and dark energy has never been observed in the lab to prove these are real and self standing. One could just as well say invisible unicorns=dark matter, since they cannot be seen in the lab, either, but could be used as a placeholder for what we see.

My theory is this problem is connected to the current theory, that the universe has no center and is expanding in all directions, simultaneously. In this theory, the universe is sort of like blowing up a balloon. This will cause all points to move apart in all directions, at the same time.

The problem is without a center of mass or gravity, you cannot do a universal energy balance for the universe that is consistent for all. What ended up happening was the energy balance for the center-less universe kept changing with each new discovery, until the standard model needed a bandaid to account for the larger and larger differences. This was deemed dark matter and dark energy. But these have yet to be seen in the lab to know if they exist as phenomena, all to itself, and was not just a theoretical placeholder for something else for the needed extra energy.

Without a center of the universe, references become relative, as do your energy balances. This creates a problem, if you choose the wrong reference to define the universe; you may be too high or too low.

As an example, say you have a man on a train at velocity V and a stationary man at the station. Both men had been asleep and neither knows who is moving. If we assume relative reference, either man can appear to see and claim the other is moving, since their two references will appear relative.

However, if you assume both frames are relative and do an energy balance, the moving train will have required more startup energy than a smaller moving station. Relative reference does not always allow a consistent energy balance in all relative frames, since it only deals in velocity, but not with mass which, unlike velocity, is invariant.

In the case of dark matter and dark energy, they were needed to add energy to the theoretical universe that was not needed 50 years ago. This is like assuming the man at the station was moving, which left us with too little energy to explain the total system fuel usage. They needed to add extra energy by means of a bandaid theory. This bandaid is being challenged, but not in terms of an energy balance, but in terms of a different addendum.

The science bureaucracy does not wish to change the standard model, so one is expected to work the bandaid, instead of start from scratch in a way that allows for a center of mass or use the speed of light as the reference for the energy balance, since this is same for all.

You are putting too much faith on "in the lab". In astrophysics the laboratory is the universe so we have observed both "in the lab". Practically all observations are indirect in the sciences and we have observed both indirectly. For dark matter we have not observed a single particle. That is important because fully understanding a physical object does involve knowing the traits of a single particle. There are limitations on what dark matter is so your analogy fails in several ways,

And you might want to talk to a physicist about calculating the energy balance of the universe. They do not seem to agree with youDark energy was introduced because the Universe was observed not to be expanding only from the Big Bang. It has continually expanded since then. The Big Bang was the initial expansion of the universe which was many more magnitudes of order higher than the current rate of expansion. Understanding dark energy more could give us the understanding of why the universe is expanding.

So it is incorrect to say that either one has not been observed "in the lab". We just have not observed them enough to fully understand them yet.

 

[Native]

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

Yes, isn´t it just fantastic to be able to combine it all together

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. he was a chemistry professor at a college but now makes his money on YouTube. .. He also does not put himself forward as an expert ..

If he himself is not an expert in the field, then his views mean nothing. That is why he left academic field and earns his keep through Youtube. My good wishes to him.

Yes, isn´t it just fantastic to be able to combine it all together

It will be nice if we could have ToE, but we are not yet there.

 

[Native]

The idea of these Birkeland currents connecting stars and galaxies in an electrical network sounds really interesting and exciting to me. I love the idea of the cosmos as a mind and the objects he posits could be thought of as communication pathways.

I agree in your suggestion of "communication pathways".

The problem is that there's almost no support for any of this.

If you study ancient tribes and their mythical world perception, you´ll frequently meet their statement of "everything is connected" suggesting such communications pathways.

There seems to be nothing of note to be found and even this chap you've shared doesn't appear to have any peer reviewed work on the matter. To make it worse these theories are pushed by cranks of all sorts and involve throwing out ideas and theories for which there are masses of observational evidence.

This situation is normal when someone is serving alternate ideas - and it´s also "normal" for those to ignorantly be called cranks and so on - until it shows to be very real and even better than the former theories.

It might turn out that this one guy armed with some vector calculus and Maxwell's equations is right and all of the world's cosmologists, astrophysicists etc are wrong but there isn't any reason to believe it to be the case based on what we know so far.

Well, if you have the slightest doubts on all this, you´ll maybe also have problems of going deeper into his explanations.

It take time to make paradigms shifts from "what we know now present" to get alternate explanations and knowledge, you know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If he himself is not an expert in the field, then his views mean nothing. That is why he left academic field and earns his keep through Youtube. My good wishes to him.It will be nice if we could have ToE, but we are not yet there.

Professor Dave does not repeat his own personal views. He goes along with mainstream science. At times he has had guests on the show, the scientists directly working in the fields that he is talking about. For example when he refuted the claims of a creationist chemistry professor, Dr. James Tour, about Tours attempt to refute abiogenesis he directly talked with people working in abiogenesis to refute Tour. He does not base his work on "Because I said so". He is trying to be a valid science educator. I would disagree with you that just because he is a science educator that his views mean nothing. They do mean something since his views do not belong to him and he is very open about it. He merely agrees with the experts in the fields, and can properly source them to show that various science deniers are wrong.

And Professor Dave will agree with you that we do not have a ToE yet. You may have jumped the gun in criticizing him. He was a professor of Chemistry at one point in his career. He was not at a research university, not all of them are. Some merely educate students and for them the "publish or perish" rule does not hold. I think that he liked being an educator and YouTube allows him to do so and continue to earn a good living. He does not make his money on sensationalism. If anything he makes it on debunking sensationalism. He also does basic science lessons for those that want to learn. He will teach at an undergrad level in the sciences. He is a chemist so you find quite a bit of physical and organic chemistry on his channel.

The person in the OP's video is the sort that is not an expert in the field and makes his money by pedaling his own non-peer reviewed ideas. He is a sensationalist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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 -

So why do we learn about this grand discovery on youtubez and not on the cover of every major science publication?

 

[Native]

The big problem is dark matter and dark energy has never been observed in the lab to prove these are real and self standing. One could just as well say invisible unicorns=dark matter, since they cannot be seen in the lab, either, but could be used as a placeholder for what we see.

Agreed in this. Even the consensus "gravity" idea cannot be explained by what dynamic means it should work. And the Newtonian idea of "laws of celestial motion" was directly contradicted on galactic scales, which was why "dark matter" was assumed upon the also unexplained gravity assumption.

The problem is without a center of mass or gravity, you cannot do a universal energy balance for the universe that is consistent for all.

This was also why the scientists assumed a "heavy black hole/object" in galactic centers and ascribed the entire galactic starry masses to this center without even speculate on what force it takes to make and orbit all these stars in a flat plane in its disk.

But having a kind of 2D flat hole to have such forceful qualities is non sensical. If we take our Milky Way galaxy, its central bulge where the so called "hole" is located, is about 1000 lightyear thick and strong gamma- and x-rays from the nuclear process are beaming out of both poles/holes of the galactic plane. This clearly indicate a WHIRLING FUNNEL of TRANSFORMATION and FORMATION from gas and dust to form stars and planets, primarily in the galactic centers. So we are in fact dealing with such a FUNNEL which galactic scenario is looking very much like the eye of a hurricane.

This motion is impossible for the standard gravity to make, and then we only have the basic Electromagnetic Force and its magnetic circuital flow left to count on.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

How long did it take before they detected the higgs boson?

Or atoms?
In fact, we were building nukes before we were able to directly observe atoms.
During all that time, atoms were only observed indirectly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed in this. Even the consensus "gravity" idea cannot be explained by what dynamic means it should work. And the Newtonian idea of "laws of celestial motion" was directly contradicted on galactic scales, which was why "dark matter" was assumed upon the also unexplained gravity assumption.

This was also why the scientists assumed a "heavy black hole/object" in galactic centers and ascribed the entire galactic starry masses to this center without even speculate on what force it takes to make and orbit all these stars in a flat plane in its disk.

But having a kind of 2D flat hole to have such forceful qualities is non sensical. If we take our Milky Way galaxy, its central bulge where the so called "hole" is located, is about 1000 lightyear thick and strong gamma- and x-rays from the nuclear process are beaming out of both poles/holes of the galactic plane. This clearly indicate a WHIRLING FUNNEL of TRANSFORMATION and FORMATION from gas and dust to form stars and planets, primarily in the galactic centers. So we are in fact dealing with such a FUNNEL which galactic scenario is looking very much like the eye of a hurricane.

This motion is impossible for the standard gravity to make, and then we only have the basic Electromagnetic Force and its magnetic circuital flow left to count on.

Sorry, but that has been debunked a long long time ago. Such currents are observable. They are measurable. The needed currents simply do not exist which may be why there re no peer reviewed articles support the electric universe.

 

[Native]

So why do we learn about this grand discovery on youtubez and not on the cover of every major science publication?

You know perfectly why.

Because new ideas very seldom come from the conventional educated sources. And because new ideas very seldom passes the peer review practice. And because even laymen reticules alternate and new explanations - even if they comes with mathematical calculations and lots of experiments as the case of this video content.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know perfectly why.

Because new ideas very seldom come from the conventional educated sources. And because new ideas very seldom passes the peer review practice. And because even laymen reticules alternate and new explanations - even if they comes with mathematical calculations and lots of experiments as the case of this video content.

Really? Citation needed. But we know that you won't support that claim because you can't. Yes, some new ideas do not arise in academia, but that does not mean that more are found outside of peer review than within it. You seem to have this strange idea that peer review is against new ideas. It is only against bad long ago refuted ideas..

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You know perfectly why.

I do. But I have a feeling that you have a different opinion. Something that involves global conspiracies and alike, perhaps?

Because new ideas very seldom come from the conventional educated sources. And because new ideas very seldom passes the peer review practice. And because even laymen reticules alternate and new explanations - even if they comes with mathematical calculations and lots of experiments as the case of this video content.

So.... conspiracy?

Or are you saying that a couple years of now, the dude in this youtubez vid is going to get a Nobel?
So, did he at least try to get a paper published? If yes, can you post evidence thereof?

 

[Native]

It will be nice if we could have ToE, but we are not yet there.

It should otherwise be easy enough. Just get rid of the unexplainable and occult "gravity" which is in the way of all attempts to find a TOE and count on the real atomic and electromagnetic forces and its natural motions.

This is in fact what this present video is all about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It should otherwise be easy enough. Just get rid of the unexplainable and occult "gravity" which is in the way of all attempts to find a TOE and count on the real atomic and electromagnetic forces and its natural motions.

This is in fact what this present video is all about.

Just because you do not understand something does not make it unexplainable or occult. Why should anyone get rid of our present models? Just because you do not like them is not a good enough reason. Our current models are well supported by evidence. Where is the scientific evidence for your beliefs?

 

[Native]

I do. But I have a feeling that you have a different opinion. Something that involves global conspiracies and alike, perhaps?

You can keep your feelings and conspiration theories to yourself.

Or are you saying that a couple years of now, the dude in this youtubez vid is going to get a Nobel?
So, did he at least try to get a paper published? If yes, can you post evidence thereof?

I´m NOT going further into your personal accusations. Make your own research on the video author, Professor Donald E. Scott.

BTW: May I suggest you to listen to the entire video content before posting further suspicious fly away comments?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can keep your feelings and conspiration theories to yourself.

I´m NOT going further into your personal accusations. Make your own research on the video author, Professor Donald E. Scott.

BTW: May I suggest you to listen to the entire video content before posting further suspicious fly away comments?

I did some more Google searching on Donald E. Scott. He does not appear to even be a doctor much less a professor. His books at Amazon tell us that he earned a BS and a masters of science in electrical engineering. So not even a scientist either.

Do you have any reliable sources that confirm what appear to be false honorifics stolen by this man?