Will the Religions Ever be Completely Driven out by the Sciences?

[Dennis Kean]

The Bible as a source of valid factual information, is effectively worthless.

The words "In the beginning..." meant nothing to science until the Big Bang was discovered! Consider the wasted years Corvus... Top scientists began to take a second look at Genesis. Genesis is a meticulous scientific account of the formation of our solar engine and planet earth. The sequence of events described is stunning and incontrovertibly testifies to a source beyond human capacity. We just arrived at the first three words of Genesis and it has turned the heads of scientists who had more experience than you.

But your religious views about science, are embarrassing. Your vulgar comments betray you as one who defends a doctrine and not one who is disposed to rational thinking.

 

[Dennis Kean]

Basically and simply, Dark Matter it is argued collects only around galaxies, forming Dark Matter halos. It is this additional mass that accounts for the observed flat rotation curve of galaxies. You don't seem to understand. That is the distinction between galaxies and star systems, the latter do not have a halo of mass to interfere with Kepler's laws.

''
The rotational/orbital speeds of galaxies/stars do not follow the rules found in other orbital systems such as stars/planets and planets/moons that have most of their mass at the centre. Stars revolve around their galaxy's centre at equal or increasing speed over a large range of distances. In contrast, the orbital velocities of planets in solar systems and moons orbiting planets decline with distance. In the latter cases, this reflects the mass distributions within those systems. The mass estimations for galaxies based on the light they emit are far too low to explain the velocity observations.[4]

The galaxy rotation problem is the discrepancy between observed galaxy rotation curves and the theoretical prediction, assuming a centrally dominated mass associated with the observed luminous material. When mass profiles of galaxies are calculated from the distribution of stars in spirals and mass-to-light ratios in the stellar disks, they do not match with the masses derived from the observed rotation curves and the law of gravity. A solution to this conundrum is to hypothesize the existence of dark matter and to assume its distribution from the galaxy's center out to its halo.[citation needed]

Though dark matter is by far the most accepted explanation of the rotation problem, other proposals have been offered with varying degrees of success. Of the possible alternatives, the most notable is Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), which involves modifying the laws of gravity.[5]'' Galaxy rotation curve - Wikipedia plus Emergent gravity, which also EXPLAINS the observed rotation curve,

The most likely solution, to the Dark Matter enigma, is the gravitational accumulation of neutrinos, which are constantly emitted by the stars at furious rates. Their mass contribution provides the speed differential balancing.

 

[Native]

The solar system is not surrounded by a Halo of Dark matter, the galaxy is,

And where is the Solar System located? You have three guesses
You simply forget to include the Solar System in the galaxy and then we STILL have the insolvable problem where "dark this or that" never will work logically.

 

[Native]

Extremely energetic high frequency electromagnetic radiation, emanating from two opposite poles of the black hole, which pushes material out of the galactic core and into the wider galaxy, into two opposite directions, like a mixer. Seeding the galaxy with fresh hydrogen and other gaseous elements, leading to new star formation and elemental fecundity etc. This only happens while the back hole is feeding from infalling matter, to create an accretion disc. The compositional matter of the disc is heated to billions of degrees Celsius by extreme friction of the matter particles involved, which in turn generates the high frequency EM jets. Below: Artistic Impression of a close up view of a black hole complete with accretion disc and jets of extremely high energy photons.

This cannot be correct! Nothing, even light, can escape a "black hole" according to the gravity laws in the Standard Model.

 

[Corvus]

This cannot be correct! Nothing, even light, can escape a "black hole" according to the gravity laws in the Standard Model.

Again your understanding is faulty, the energy is not emitted by the black hole. It is generated by the accretion disc that surrounds the event horizon. The accretion disc gets very hot due to friction, the energy is released as X rays.

 

[Native]

I am proud to say I am neither an expert on Myths of Creation, Faries or Unicorns.
I know because science is based on empirical evidence, creation myths are not.

No, you are not an expert on Myths of Creation. Otherwise you would have understood most of what I´ve written in a very plain English.

But the only reply you can come up with is your usual "GIBBERISH" when you read of other ideas and thoughts but your own which in large are based on all kinds of Standard Model-Black this-and-that-Fairies which is invented every time the Standard Model is contradicted.

I know because science is based on empirical evidence

"Empirical evidence" is based on concrete and direct observation´s and this cannot be said about the "Black Matter and Energy Trolls. The galactic rotation curve is a direct observation and this of course cannot be solved with invisible matters or a mathematical equation.

 

[Native]

Again your understanding is faulty, the energy is not emitted by the black hole. It is created by the accretion disc that surrounds the event horizon.

Again: Your ability to circumvent a nasty question is very brilliant!

From - Black hole - Wikipedia
A black hole is a region of spacetime exhibiting such strong gravitational effects that nothing—not even particles and electromagnetic radiation such as light—can escape from inside it.

From your text above:

Below: Artistic Impression of a close up view of a black hole complete with accretion disc and jets of extremely high energy photons.

The electric light beams are radiating out from the center of the galaxy INSIDE the event horizon, which shouldn´t be possible according the Standard Model idea of a black hole, right?

This more than suggest that the Standard Model in this matter ALSO have a very low standard of logics.

 

[Native]

Further discussion between us is futile.

And this goes for you and me too Thanks for nothing

 

[Polymath257]

The most likely solution, to the Dark Matter enigma, is the gravitational accumulation of neutrinos, which are constantly emitted by the stars at furious rates. Their mass contribution provides the speed differential balancing.

Nope. Neutrinos don't solve the dark matter problem. This was a proposal that was considered. Yes, neutrinos are produced in very large quantities, but because of their small masses, they are highly relativistic. That changes the dynamics and the results simply don't agree with observations. The dark matter we have evidence for is non-relativistic. That's why it is called 'Cold Dark Matter'.

 

[Polymath257]

"Empirical evidence" is based on concrete and direct observation´s and this cannot be said about the "Black Matter and Energy Trolls. The galactic rotation curve is a direct observation and this of course cannot be solved with invisible matters or a mathematical equation.

The rotation curve is only one piece of the evidence. We also have the evidence from the dynamics of galaxy clusters (they wouldn't hold together as they do without another mass component). And, even better for many aspects, we have the gravitational lensing information. The latter even allows us to plot the location of the dark matter.

 

[Corvus]

Nope. Neutrinos don't solve the dark matter problem. This was a proposal that was considered. Yes, neutrinos are produced in very large quantities, but because of their small masses, they are highly relativistic. That changes the dynamics and the results simply don't agree with observations. The dark matter we have evidence for is non-relativistic. That's why it is called 'Cold Dark Matter'.

Gravitons would be a better candidate. Should they actually exist, Which I doubt, being non normalizable and as yet undetected.

 

[Corvus]

The rotation curve is only one piece of the evidence. We also have the evidence from the dynamics of galaxy clusters (they wouldn't hold together as they do without another mass component). And, even better for many aspects, we have the gravitational lensing information. The latter even allows us to plot the location of the dark matter.

Also the amount of light emitting stars observed do not account for the mass inferred from the flat rotation curve.

 

[Polymath257]

The electric light beams are radiating out from the center of the galaxy INSIDE the event horizon, which shouldn´t be possible according the Standard Model idea of a black hole, right?

No, that is NOT what they are doing. That is your misinterpretation of an artists conception. The beams from a black hole originate from the accretion disk and are spin by local effects into the beams you see. At no point are they within the event horizon.

 

[Polymath257]

Gravitons would be a better candidate.

No, they don't work either. Essentially, gravitons are the particle aspect of gravity. That quantum effect is too small to be relevant in this context.

Now, alternative forms for the gravitational interaction have also been proposed (MOND, TeVeS) as an alternative to the existence of dark matter. However, they don't work for the specifics that we see in the Bullet cluster (where the matter and dark matter have been separated). Even if gravity is modified, some dark matter is required to explain the current observations.

 

[Polymath257]

Also the amount of light emitting stars observed do not account for the mass inferred from the flat rotation curve.

Right. That was the first evidence of dark matter. But there are many other pieces of evidence. Another that I didn't mention comes from the cosmic background radiation. The particular variations in that radiation can give an estimate for both baryonic matter (that made from protons and neutrons) and the total amount of matter (baryonic and dark). The two differ significantly.

 

[Polymath257]

If so, both the orbital motion in the Solar System and in the galaxies should be the same rotational pattern if governed by the same hypothetical force.

As said before: This is an insolvabe question and it demands severe thinking outside the square Standard Cosmology boxes.

No, actually, it is not insolvable.

Yes, the observations of motion within the solar system does constrain the specifics of dark matter and possible explanations for the rotation curve.

The point is that while dark matter dominates at the galactic level, it is still of very low density and in a small system like our solar system, the effects are quite small. So, while solar system observations put a limit on the overall density of dark matter, those limits are higher than what is required for the rotation curves. This is well known for the people studying this subject.

The solar system data also puts tight constraints on alternative explanations like modified gravity (MOND). The upshot is that even gravity modification isn't enough to explain the rotation curves *and* be consistent with solar system observations *unless* there is a component of matter we don't see.

 

[Corvus]

No, they don't work either. Essentially, gravitons are the particle aspect of gravity. That quantum effect is too small to be relevant in this context..

Yes I am aware of what gravitons are. [1604.06704] Massive gravitons as dark matter and gravitational waves This might be of interest.

 

[Polymath257]

Take an astronomy course and the lights will go on!

Take a graduate level physics course to see how wrong you are.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes I am aware of what gravitons are. [1604.06704] Massive gravitons as dark matter and gravitational waves This might be of interest.

Interesting speculation. I will see what the follow-up shows.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sorry dude, I didn't mean to say simply who cares, I tried to edit and then my browser froze. What I meant was who (really) cares, since the poster in question is obviously trying to trigger.

Ah, understood.