Dark matter gets the boot again

Dark-matter hope fades in microwave haze:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...microwave-haze

On 14/09/2012 4:00 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Dark-matter hope fades in microwave haze:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...microwave-haze


I suspect there is going to be a competing interpretation of the results
shortly.

Yousuf Khan

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 17:19:43 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 14/09/2012 4:00 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Dark-matter hope fades in microwave haze:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...0/dark-matter-
hope-fades-in-microwave-haze


I suspect there is going to be a competing interpretation of the results
shortly.

Yousuf Khan

You cannot, by definition, detect dark matter.

You can determine only it's main artifact: Funding and grants. As long as
there is funding for dark matter research, there will be claims that this
or that almost proves the existence of dark matter.

Gotta remember, half of all Ph.D. physicists can't find work in physics
at all - and a good number of those that find work in "physics" do so in
the non-science field pop-Fizixs.

On 9/15/12 5:50 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
You cannot, by definition, detect dark matter.

Astronomer "detect" dark matter by it's gravitational effects.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Detection

On Sep 15, 3:53*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 9/15/12 5:50 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

You cannot, by definition, detect dark matter.

* *Astronomer "detect" dark matter by it's gravitational effects.
* *See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Detection

How is the density and subsequent mass of dark matter different from
helium?

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 17:53:38 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 9/15/12 5:50 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
You cannot, by definition, detect dark matter.

Astronomer "detect" dark matter by it's gravitational effects.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Detection

Idiot. You're using circular logic. You can't say the hypothesis to
explain the anomaly is tested by the anomaly.

You have to have a scientific test of the hypothesis, and you don't have
one. That has never bothered you one damned bit, however.

The ONLY evidence for "dark matter" is that we don't see any matter that
would make our theory make accurate predictions. So, it must be
'invisible'.

ALL the particles in the standard theory that have been candidates for
dark matter have been ruled out.

It has been found that there is NO dark matter around our solar system.

Now the expected annihilation of dark matter should dark matter exist,
failed to be detected. Ha! next you're going to say it goes into dark
energy or some other non-science hypothesis.

On 9/15/12 10:46 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:


Idiot. You're using circular logic. You can't say the hypothesis to
explain the anomaly is tested by the anomaly.

You have to have a scientific test of the hypothesis, and you don't have
one. That has never bothered you one damned bit, however.

The ONLY evidence for "dark matter" is that we don't see any matter that
would make our theory make accurate predictions. So, it must be
'invisible'.

ALL the particles in the standard theory that have been candidates for
dark matter have been ruled out.

It has been found that there is NO dark matter around our solar system.

Now the expected annihilation of dark matter should dark matter exist,
failed to be detected. Ha! next you're going to say it goes into dark
energy or some other non-science hypothesis.


Dark matter appears to "clump" only on galactic and larger scale.

Dark matter appears to have mass, making up 23.3% (to within 1.3%)
of the total mass-energy of the universe.

Dark matter does not appear to interact electromagnetically, neither
emitting or absorbing photons.

Dark matter appears to contribute to the anomalous rotations of
galaxies and galactic clusters.

See: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080823.html
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110629.html
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110122.html

PRE
It's "unseen mass", not dark matter; "gravitational entropy", not dark energy.

On Sep 16, 6:34*pm, wrote:
It's "unseen mass", not dark matter; "gravitational entropy", not dark energy.

It's aether, or perhaps it's just helium that's too cold to be photon
or electron reactive, but still capable of gravity forming it into a
lens.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:00:06 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Dark-matter hope fades in microwave haze:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...k-matter-hope-
fades-in-microwave-haze

All this is really saying is that an anomalous source of microwaves isn't
caused by axions (or whatever the hell they're called) annihilating. It
doesn't say there's no dark matter. -- Goat