Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[joelr]

And that person would be you, I presume?

Uh, I posted a link, why would you not investigate????? You really could care less about learning do you?
It's Brian Koberland

First: There is NO specific EU model at the present, but several ideas which eventually will lead to an Universal Electric Universe model.

Several ideas which contradict themselves. No model is coming.

Secondly: If you are an astrophysical expert, why are you having troubles understanding an EU model at all? Don´t you even know that ALL ATOMS in the Universe have EM qualities which can constitute an EU model?

I do understand EU models from investigating them and then seeing several astrophysicists completely debunk all aspects of the ideas.
Why would you even ask if I know if atoms have some EM properties?

This does not mean an EU theory can be constituted. Do you know why there are no theories? Because EM cannot explain the things you wish it would.

I already covered these things but you ignore most requests for science.
I asked how EU will account for the strong force in atoms? This would require EM to be radically modified and a 2nd theory where EM becomes 37 times stronger and becomes a short range force only and holds quarks together. Even though quarks contain a charge completely different from EM?
It cannot be done. You never responded to posts of that type.

Thirdly: You cannot judge a possible EU model as long as you´re stuck in Newtons grave "Apple Pie" confusions and all it´s ad hoc assumptions.

That makes no sense? You just ignore gravitational forces and extend EM.
You see if EM can produce the same results as gravity? It's not a problem, it's just a fiction.

And as usual, you can't just say "gravity" or gravity theory", you have too add "fiction" or some sort of close-minded demeaning word because you can't just speak normal.
You don't mention gravity as a competing theory but as something that's wrong and you know this 100%. Even though you still have not dealt with any evidence for why Newtonian gravity works so well and why GR has made so many correct predictions, including GPS triangulation to a precise degree?

Why are you calling all proofs for gravity ad-hoc? Space travel is ad hoc?

Super-close-minded and very hypocritical?


EM doesn't work that way, it's basically like saying you want to use the strong force to explain all EM/light, gravity, and then it will "fix" dark matter.

Or someone else saying why not just use gravity to explain EM. It's actually stupid.
In a macro setting it's like taking a climate scientist who studies climate change and human behavior and technology on global warming and saying hey take the behavior of house cats and house cat technology and use that to explain global warming. And use house cats to explain gravity too.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
I said:
But then again: At least you now equalizes "gravity" with the EM qualities in all atoms. You then just have to chose the most logical explanation of attraction and repulsion.

OK, try saying it in English this time. For example, what does the phrase 'At least you now equalized 'gravity' with EM qualities in all atoms' mean?

NOBODY claims that gravity is as strong as EM inside of atoms.

I just meant that the natural way of attraction and gaining weight and sizes is the EM bindings of atoms.

As far as i can see, this betrays a great deal of misunderstanding of how EM works.

Of course you do since you´re educated to think in the gravitational ways.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
I said:
But then again: At least you now equalizes "gravity" with the EM qualities in all atoms. You then just have to chose the most logical explanation of attraction and repulsion.

I just meant that the natural way of attraction and gaining weight and sizes is the EM bindings of atoms.

Except that this does not explain the observed effects. If you only use EM, you don't get F=ma.

Of course you do since you´re educated to think in the gravitational ways.

Oh, please. It is trivial to check the EM equations and see if they explain some phenomenon. They don't.

 

[Native]

Now you're making things up. I never said I "believed" in dark matter, I said what scientists are saying - we don't know what it is. But so far experiments to understand it have taken in data and we make models based on this data.
So far data is pointing to some type of mass. No one is married to the idea?

How can you experiment with "dark matter data" when it isn´t found at all? Making thoretical speculations in physics is just thought experiments from earlier ad hoc assumptions and nothing else.

No it doesn´t points to "some types of mass". It rather points to quite another type of fundamental force and its embedded explanations which aren´t taken into considerations.

So again, dark matter is something we don't yet understand. Myths are stories people make up to pass on philosophical truths. They do not contain any reliable science beyond lucky guesses. I do not use myths to find science facts.
I do not yet know what dark matter is and I do not care what Lord of the Rings has to say about it.

I reject to discuss further with you on this level of mythical ignorance and insulting remarks.

 

[Polymath257]

How can you experiment with "dark matter data" when it isn´t found at all? Making thoretical speculations in physics is just thought experiments from earlier ad hoc assumptions and nothing else.

No it doesn´t points to "some types of mass". It rather points to quite another type of fundamental force and its embedded explanations which aren´t taken into considerations.

Well, a different version of gravity *was* considered. it didn't work. Even MOND required some dark matter to explain the observations.

The point is that, unlike EU, MOND gave specific predictions that could be tested against observation. It *did* (does?) give the correct galaxy rotation curves, by the way. But it fails to explain the observed patterns of lensing.

MOND was at least a viable scientific proposition. It was specific in its assumptions, mathematical in its formulation, precise in its predictions and it explained a great many things in detail. yet it ultimately was shown to be wrong.

In contrast, EU only has vaguely defined assumptions, has no mathematical basis, has no precise predictions, and explains absolutely nothing. As such, it simply isn't anything worth considering *until* someone willing to put in the time gives such specifics.

Now, I simply don't think it is worthwhile to put in the time and energy into developing EU since I think the likelihood it will turn out to be valid is zero. But, if you or someone ese wants to put in the time and energy and see what happens, I am willing to look *once specific predictions are made and verified*.

I reject to discuss further with you on this level of mythical ignorance and insulting remarks.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
How can you experiment with "dark matter data" when it isn´t found at all? Making thoretical speculations in physics is just thought experiments from earlier ad hoc assumptions and nothing else.

No it doesn´t points to "some types of mass". It rather points to quite another type of fundamental force and its embedded explanations which aren´t taken into considerations.

Well, a different version of gravity *was* considered. it didn't work. Even MOND required some dark matter to explain the observations.

Yes I know. Different alternative cosmological versions which includes the gravitational matter of course will fail since we are talking of two different fundamental forces and cosmic explanations.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
How can you experiment with "dark matter data" when it isn´t found at all? Making thoretical speculations in physics is just thought experiments from earlier ad hoc assumptions and nothing else.

No it doesn´t points to "some types of mass". It rather points to quite another type of fundamental force and its embedded explanations which aren´t taken into considerations.

Yes I know. Different alternative cosmological versions which includes the gravitational matter of course will fail since we are talking of two different fundamental forces and cosmic explanations.

I see you ignored my statements about the failure of EU. It doens't even pass the *first* test, that MOND passed easily.

 

[ecco]

Native,
Why does the hopping astronaut not just keep drifting further away from the surface of the moon? There is no "pressure of the weight of the gaseous atmosphere" to push him back "down".




Oh. I'll bet he still has me on ignore because I kept asking him if his EM friends could build a solar system simulator without using the formulas for gravity.

 

[Native]

Polymath257 said: ↑
Well, a different version of gravity *was* considered. it didn't work. Even MOND required some dark matter to explain the observations.

Yes I know. Different alternative cosmological versions which includes the gravitational matter of course will fail since we are talking of two different fundamental forces and cosmic explanations.

I see you ignored my statements about the failure of EU. It doens't even pass the *first* test, that MOND passed easily.

By my "Yes I know", I did not ignore anything at all.

But of course I oppose your attempts to judge an EU model out of the cosmic equations on the premises that an EM/EU model shall obey the consensus ideas of gravity and all it´s assumed ideas based on unfound "dark this and that".

EM is measurable and falsifiable all over the places in cosmos and it doesn´t work with unseen matter. Of course the EM/EU ONLY can be proven/disproven by its OWN rules, forces and qualities.

 

[Polymath257]

Polymath257 said: ↑
Well, a different version of gravity *was* considered. it didn't work. Even MOND required some dark matter to explain the observations.


By my "Yes I know", I did not ignore anything at all.

But of course I oppose your attempts to judge an EU model out of the cosmic equations on the premises that an EM/EU model shall obey the consensus ideas of gravity and all it´s assumed ideas based on unfound "dark this and that".

EM is measurable and falsifiable all over the places in cosmos and it doesn´t work with unseen matter. Of course the EM/EU ONLY can be proven/disproven by its OWN rules, forces and qualities.

Yes, and those rules are Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law. And when those *and only those* are applied to real world situations, they fail to correspond with what actually happens. EM is one force in the universe. Nobody denies that. But it is not the *only* force in the universe. Gravity is also a force in the universe. It is required to explain what we actually see. EM is simply not enough. There are also two more forces: the strong and the weak nuclear forces. Those two are also different than EM and they are necessary to explain things like the stability oftomic nuclei and some aspects of nuclear decay.

Dark matter has been 'found'. We know where it is and have mapped it out. What we do not know is what it is made of. Those are two different things.

 

[Native]

Yes, and those rules are Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law. And when those *and only those* are applied to real world situations, they fail to correspond with what actually happens.

I´m NOT talking of "wired electromagnetism" in this topic. I have my focus on the very basics of cosmic formation everywhere, taking the EM as ONE force which governs everything by its different charges and with it´s electromagnetic polarities and magnetic circuits, very much as in the Sun.

You have to extend your views of EM to "cosmic clouds of dust and gas" where the EM is working on the plasmatic scales, giving rotational and orbital motions to everything.

Gravity is also a force in the universe. It is required to explain what we actually see. EM is simply not enough.

"Gravity" isn´t a force at all! Even Einstein said this! "Gravity" predictions is even directly contradicted in galaxies and it only survives in theories by inventing all kinds of undetected "dark this and that".

Yes I know! "Gravity" works nicely in the solar System, etc. etc. but never mind this for now.

EM is simply not enough. There are also two more forces: the strong and the weak nuclear forces. Those two are also different than EM and they are necessary to explain things like the stability oftomic nuclei and some aspects of nuclear decay.

Do you really belive I´m discussing something which I haven´t read? You don´t have to explain the consensus fundamental forces to me.

Of course the EM isn´t working differently anywhere! It just working with different charges and in different elementary stages the EM has different results!

If cosmological scientist don´t consider the Plasma Cosmology & Astrophysical Plasma in their attempts to find a united cosmological model, they´ll NEWER get the overall ideas of formations in cosmos.

Regarding the "stability of atomic nuclei" these (eternally) have their own basic EM forces and qualities but they can be charged and discharges, thus also explaining the term of "nuclear decay" when atoms are loosing an once added charge.

Dark matter has been 'found'. We know where it is and have mapped it out. What we do not know is what it is made of. Those are two different things.

I fully understand why you´re setting found in quation marks.

You have a "gravitational model" wich several times is found short on the cosmic scales. Still you and your fellow gravitational thinkers unrefletedly are trying to make it work on cosmic scales.

In order to hopefully make this trustworthy, you add some unfound "dark matter and energy everywhere" in order to keep your gravitational calculations and model to work theoretically, and then you claim it all to fit everywhere - the ad hoc invented "dark ghosts" just have to be "found" and explained scientifically, which even the gravity force itself also needs.

 

[Polymath257]

I´m NOT talking of "wired electromagnetism" in this topic. I have my focus on the very basics of cosmic formation everywhere, taking the EM as ONE force which governs everything by its different charges and with it´s electromagnetic polarities and magnetic circuits, very much as in the Sun.

Who said anything about wires? Maxwell's equations don't require any wires.

You have to extend your views of EM to "cosmic clouds of dust and gas" where the EM is working on the plasmatic scales, giving rotational and orbital motions to everything.

That is standard physics. Nothing unusual here. Except, of course, that they do NOT 'give orbital motions to everything'. That takes gravity.

"Gravity" isn´t a force at all! Even Einstein said this! "Gravity" predictions is even directly contradicted in galaxies and it only survives in theories by inventing all kinds of undetected "dark this and that".

Yes, gravity is a curvature of spacetime and it is also a force. We can also regard EM as a curvature of a 5 dimensional spacetime with the 5th dimension relating to the specific EM force.

Yes I know! "Gravity" works nicely in the solar System, etc. etc. but never mind this for now.

Sorry, that is one of the big constraints in any theory. If you neglect this, you won't get much of anywhere.

Do you really belive I´m discussing something which I haven´t read? You don´t have to explain the consensus fundamental forces to me.

Of course the EM isn´t working differently anywhere! It just working with different charges and in different elementary stages the EM has different results!

There are two electric charges which we call positive and negative. That's it.

If cosmological scientist don´t consider the Plasma Cosmology & Astrophysical Plasma in their attempts to find a united cosmological model, they´ll NEWER get the overall ideas of formations in cosmos.

Well, they *do* consider the plasmas in things like certain nebula, or in accretion disks, etc. I'm not sure why you think they don't.

Regarding the "stability of atomic nuclei" these (eternally) have their own basic EM forces and qualities but they can be charged and discharges, thus also explaining the term of "nuclear decay" when atoms are loosing an once added charge.

No, it is exactly the same EM force. But the strong and weak are also active. The EM force alone cannot cope with the atomic nucleus.

I fully understand why you´re setting found in quation marks.

You have a "gravitational model" wich several times is found short on the cosmic scales. Still you and your fellow gravitational thinkers unrefletedly are trying to make it work on cosmic scales.

Of course they do. We first see if there is something we potentially neglected to include, see if that can explain what we see. If not, then we modify the theory (or we do both at the same time), etc. That's how science is done.

In order to hopefully make this trustworthy, you add some unfound "dark matter and energy everywhere" in order to keep your gravitational calculations and model to work theoretically, and then you claim it all to fit everywhere - the ad hoc invented "dark ghosts" just have to be "found" and explained scientifically, which even the gravity force itself also needs.

Yes, it has been found. That is my point. And those ghosts do, in fact, lead to testable predictions that can be verified. Your EU has nothing like that.

 

[joelr]

How can you experiment with "dark matter data" when it isn´t found at all? Making thoretical speculations in physics is just thought experiments from earlier ad hoc assumptions and nothing else.

Ways to do experiments are always being thought up. If you study physics someday you'll realize that all new findings started as theoretical and eventually we found ways to test for them.

Experiments at the SLAC collider are being devised that might detect DM in the supercollider.

No it doesn´t points to "some types of mass". It rather points to quite another type of fundamental force and its embedded explanations which aren´t taken into considerations.

It points to some type of mass. When we put dark matter into super computer models of the universe it accounts for:

Large-Scale Structure Formation

Galactic Rotation Curves

Galaxy Clusters

The Cosmic Microwave Background


There are many other reasons why DM seems to be a good fit. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, which explains the way light elements such as Helium were formed after the Big Bang, tells us abundance of baryonic matter doesn’t account for the total matter content of the Universe inferred from other observations, and dark matter does solve that issue.

EM cannot be used to explain dark matter. EM cannot explain gravitational anomalies. It can't explain the cosmic background density, it's light, something we know a tremendous amount about. What you're suggesting is that our knowledge of EM is WRONG. That Maxwell is wrong and that a revised theory will pop up and magically do all the same things AND explain dark matter?

EM cannot replace the strong force, you keep ignoring this. EM repels protons in the nucleus of an atom. But the strong force is 37 times stronger and overrides EM.
EM has it's role but it cannot do what gravity and the strong force does.

In 1926 we observed a star shining it's light right next to the sun, we could see it because of an eclipse. General relativity predicted exactly how much the image would be shifted because of the gravity of the sun.
That was the first proof of general relativity.

It's exactly as realistic as flat earth. But not knowing relativity, quantum mechanics and obviously even Maxwell's electromagnetism and how the equations work and what they can and can't do, you would not understand this and it enables you to think someone could re-theorize EM and make it fix everything.
It has nothing to do with an "open mind" it's pure ignorance of basic science.

I'm curious why don't you have an open mind? Why not study standard science along with conspiracy theories? Why not study general relativity just to debunk it?

I reject to discuss further with you on this level of mythical ignorance and insulting remarks.

You're dam right I'm not talking about ancient mythical fiction in a science discussion?

 

[Native]

You have to extend your views of EM to "cosmic clouds of dust and gas" where the EM is working on the plasmatic scales, giving rotational and orbital motions to everything.

That is standard physics. Nothing unusual here. Except, of course, that they do NOT 'give orbital motions to everything'. That takes gravity.

You can get spin and orbital motions from everywhere - even besides EM. It´s even embedded in atoms and its a normal phenomenon in weather systems etc. etc.

I said:
"Gravity" isn´t a force at all! Even Einstein said this! "Gravity" predictions is even directly contradicted in galaxies and it only survives in theories by inventing all kinds of undetected "dark this and that".

Yes, gravity is a curvature of spacetime and it is also a force. We can also regard EM as a curvature of a 5 dimensional spacetime with the 5th dimension relating to the specific EM force.

Einsteins "curvature of spacetime" and t4reh "rubber sheet model" is even more silly than Newtons apple-pie idea of gravity.

Curved motions in cosmos is NOT a force but the result of af natural force.

The EM force don´t need more dimensions but the 3 natural ones. Multy-dimentions in space are just for physical theorists who have run out of natural explanations. "Time" is not a dimension but just an human expression for motions anywhere.

I said:
If cosmological scientist don´t consider the Plasma Cosmology & Astrophysical Plasma in their attempts to find a united cosmological model, they´ll NEWER get the overall ideas of formations in cosmos.

Well, they *do* consider the plasmas in things like certain nebula, or in accretion disks, etc. I'm not sure why you think they don't.

Yes but not in the context of an overall cosmic formation system. If you have any links of this, please forward me.

I said:
Regarding the "stability of atomic nuclei" these (eternally) have their own basic EM forces and qualities but they can be charged and discharged, thus also explaining the term of "nuclear decay" when atoms are loosing an once added charge.

No, it is exactly the same EM force. But the strong and weak are also active. The EM force alone cannot cope with the atomic nucleus.

As you know I don´t differ between EM "here or there". On its strongest, the EM force produces strong gamma rays which - for instants - is the result of the formational processes of "dust and gas" in galactic centers as observed here - Strange Gamma Rays From The Centre of Our Galaxy Are Not What Astronomers Thought

I said:
I fully understand why you´re setting found in quation marks.

You have a "gravitational model" wich several times is found short on the cosmic scales. Still you and your fellow gravitational thinkers unrefletedly are trying to make it work on cosmic scales.

Of course they do. We first see if there is something we potentially neglected to include, see if that can explain what we see. If not, then we modify the theory (or we do both at the same time), etc. That's how science is done.

Yes it is the normal scientific process - or it should be. Because this didn´t happend in the case of the galactic rotation anomaly. Here the scientists just added a speculative dark matter instead of considering influences from the other fundamental forces.

I said:
In order to hopefully make this trustworthy, you add some unfound "dark matter and energy everywhere" in order to keep your gravitational calculations and model to work theoretically, and then you claim it all to fit everywhere - the ad hoc invented "dark ghosts" just have to be "found" and explained scientifically, which even the gravity force itself also needs.

Yes, it has been found. That is my point. And those ghosts do, in fact, lead to testable predictions that can be verified. Your EU has nothing like that.

No an EU Model has nothing of dealing with ghosts. The gravitational ideas were directly contradicted in the galactic realms, and that´s it. All the dark ghost arrived mentally and intellectually after this discovery which in itself temporarily should have stopped all ideas and accepts of gravity and its ghost as a force.

Your "testable prediction" only confirms the skewed cosmological perceptions and calculations of gravity and nothing more.

 

[Native]

Ways to do experiments are always being thought up. If you study physics someday you'll realize that all new findings started as theoretical and eventually we found ways to test for them.

"I you study physics one day"!?
You obviously have the conviction that nobody can study physics outside the Universities.

BTW. If I recall correctly: You claimed yourself to be a theoretical
astrophysicist, didn´t you? In which "astrophysical branch" if I may ask?

Ways to do experiments are always being thought up. If you study physics someday you'll realize that all new findings started as theoretical and eventually we found ways to test for them.

Experiments at the SLAC collider are being devised that might detect DM in the supercollider.

DM is just an invention in order to patch the gravitational contradiction of the galactic rotation curve observation. After this significant discovery, all kinds of "dark this and that" ghosts showed up everywere and even in the institutions of colliders.

Subsequently all talks and discussions of DM is useless and it is an obvious task for Ghost Busters

What you're suggesting is that our knowledge of EM is WRONG.

No I don´t at all. I more than suggest is that EM is not understood on the cosmic scales, mostly because of different scientific EM areas once have their own EM approaches, which lead to the splitting up the general EM force into several fundamental EM-forces.

EM cannot replace the strong force, you keep ignoring this. EM repels protons in the nucleus of an atom. But the strong force is 37 times stronger and overrides EM.
EM has it's role but it cannot do what gravity and the strong force does.

I dont ignore this! I just take the EM force to work anywhere and with different charges and thats it.

In 1926 we observed a star shining it's light right next to the sun, we could see it because of an eclipse. General relativity predicted exactly how much the image would be shifted because of the gravity of the sun.
That was the first proof of general relativity.

You could make the same measurement just by using the refraction of light.

Native said: ↑
I reject to discuss further with you on this level of mythical ignorance and insulting remarks.

You're dam right I'm not talking about ancient mythical fiction in a science discussion?

Still, you´re having no "damn" troubles at all dealing with the human made modern science fictions of DM mythical ghosts in a scientific discussion

 

[Native]

Subject to discuss:
Strange Gamma Rays From The Centre of Our Galaxy Are Not What Astronomers Thought
---------------------
Excerpt:
"Astronomers have found that a strange excess of gamma rays coming from the heart of the Milky Way isn't the product of dark matter after all. They argue it's actually coming from a profusion of very old stars that we have yet to identify.

Dark matter can't be detected, and its hypothetical presence can only be inferred by its effect on the space around it. For example, if there's more mass in a region of space than there should be, it's usually attributed to dark matter. That doesn't mean it exists, but it's a useful explanation until a better one comes along"
----------------------
What do you think of the contents in this article?

Quote:
"For example, if there's more mass in a region of space than there should be, it's usually attributed to dark matter".

This sentense is pure nonsens to me. If there is more mass anywhere but expected, it isn´t the mass distribution and it´s location which is wrong, but the scientific way of asserting "Newton particles" = mass = (attractive) motion, which is wrong.

It´s of course NOT the observed imagery in cosmos which is wrong - it´s the theoretical assertions and assumptions wich are wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

Subject to discuss:
Strange Gamma Rays From The Centre of Our Galaxy Are Not What Astronomers Thought
---------------------
Excerpt:
"Astronomers have found that a strange excess of gamma rays coming from the heart of the Milky Way isn't the product of dark matter after all. They argue it's actually coming from a profusion of very old stars that we have yet to identify.

Dark matter can't be detected, and its hypothetical presence can only be inferred by its effect on the space around it. For example, if there's more mass in a region of space than there should be, it's usually attributed to dark matter. That doesn't mean it exists, but it's a useful explanation until a better one comes along"
----------------------
What do you think of the contents in this article?

Quote:
"For example, if there's more mass in a region of space than there should be, it's usually attributed to dark matter".

This sentense is pure nonsens to me. If there is more mass anywhere but expected, it isn´t the mass distribution and it´s location which is wrong, but the scientific way of asserting "Newton particles" = mass = (attractive) motion, which is wrong.

It´s of course NOT the observed imagery in cosmos which is wrong - it´s the theoretical assertions and assumptions wich are wrong.

Looks to me like they thought they had a detection of decay of dark matter and found a different explanation. Whether dark matter decays or not is an open question, so it would have been quite interesting if this went the other way. Instead, we are still searching for what constitutes dark matter.

Yes, you claim the theoretical assertions are wrong, but offer none of your own in sufficient detail to test. At least in this article, they had one possible explanation, looked for alternatives, compared the explanations with the data and figured out what is going on. At this point, EU has done nothing at all.

 

[Native]

Looks to me like they thought they had a detection of decay of dark matter and found a different explanation.

Yes this one:
"Something else that has been attributed to dark matter is what astronomers call the gamma-ray excess. It's exactly what it sounds like. Gamma rays are the highest-energy electromagnetic waves in the Universe, produced by the most intense objects - such as pulsars, neutron stars, colliding neutron stars, black holes, and supernovae".
This is what I think of as a wrong assertion based on wrong DM gravity premmises.

Yes, you claim the theoretical assertions are wrong, but offer none of your own in sufficient detail to test. At least in this article, they had one possible explanation, looked for alternatives, compared the explanations with the data and figured out what is going on. At this point, EU has done nothing at all.

I´m astonished over your lack of connective skills! The scientists speaks of strong electromagnetic gamma rays in a galactic center and you don´t make the EM and EU connections at all!?

Still you claim an EU model for NOT dealing with this phenomenae as I´ve done all throughout these actual 38 pages in my topic!? Are you sure you really WANT TO KNOW of any EU Models and it´s EM explanations at all ?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes this one:
"Something else that has been attributed to dark matter is what astronomers call the gamma-ray excess. It's exactly what it sounds like. Gamma rays are the highest-energy electromagnetic waves in the Universe, produced by the most intense objects - such as pulsars, neutron stars, colliding neutron stars, black holes, and supernovae".
This is what I think of as a wrong assertion based on wrong DM gravity premmises.

Yes, gamma rays are produced in high energy processes. They can also be produced in the decay of some subatomic particles or in the interaction of such. For example, when an electron and a positron annihilate each other, gamma rays are produced.

THe suggestion was that an excess of gamma rays *might* be due to the decay of whatever particle makes up dark matter. it was found, however, that other explanations were sufficient to explain it. That means that this observation wasn't likely to be from the decay of dark matter. Which doens't mean there is no dark matter (it might not decay or it may decay with a different energy). In particular, this has bearing on whether dark matter is made from axions, but not whether it is made form, say, LMSSP.

I´m astonished over your lack of connective skills! The scientists speaks of strong electromagnetic gamma rays in a galactic center and you don´t make the EM and EU connections at all!?

yes, there are some high energy EM fields. That *doesn't* support the EU! Everyone knows that there are EM fields in the universe. That isn't the point of issue. The point of issue is whether those are enough to explain away gravity. And they are not.

Still you claim an EU model for NOT dealing with this phenomenae as I´ve done all throughout these actual 38 pages in my topic!? Are you sure you really WANT TO KNOW of any EU Models and it´s EM explanations at all ?

You have given absolutely no specifics. You have given a few glittering generalities and nothing more. I have repeatedly asked for details and you have refused to give the. I have repeatedly asked for detailed calculations and you have avoided the issue. I have repeatedly asked for any prediction from EU that can be tested. And you have given none. All you have claimed is that you have to believe first and then all will be clear. Sorry, that isn't how it works.

 

[Native]

Polymath257,
I said:
I´m astonished over your lack of connective skills! The scientists speaks of strong electromagnetic gamma rays in a galactic center and you don´t make the EM and EU connections at all!?

yes, there are some high energy EM fields. That *doesn't* support the EU! Everyone knows that there are EM fields in the universe. That isn't the point of issue. The point of issue is whether those are enough to explain away gravity. And they are not.

Dear oh dear! "Yes the EM is everywhere i cosmos, but it doesn´t do anything and it is not the issue".

This is just pathetic!