Hard knock for dark matter theory
Juan R.
of observations. In the next fig, the blue points are data, the green line
is the MOND prediction and the red line is the 'best' fit done by dark matter
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/fit_compare.html
Moreover, the hypotetical "dark matter" has never been found or explained
from theories of matter.
A recent research puts doubts again over the hypotesis of dark matter
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7264/full/nature08437.html
The authors say our understanding of gravity may need modification to
eliminate the need for dark matter entirely. This are good news, after
such a dark age... :-D
This modification of gravity is already at our hands as noticed in my
recent work [#].
Using it we can explain the observed phenomena at galaxies beyond the
posibilities of dark matter theories (see above fig), including cluster
mass limits, and the obtaining of Milgrom constant a_0 from first principles.
We can also to show that the dark matter density profiles are only
*mathematical artifacts* and can predict its properties such as the
anomalous radial profiles (even dark matter theorists cannot explain this
about their theory!).
[#]
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
papa...@gmail.com
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> The hypotesis of dark matter has always failed to explain the fine-tuning
> of observations. In the next fig, the blue points are data, the green line
> is the MOND prediction and the red line is the 'best' fit done by dark matter
>
> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/fit_compare.html
>
> Moreover, the hypotetical "dark matter" has never been found or explained
> from theories of matter.
>
> A recent research puts doubts again over the hypotesis of dark matter
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7264/full/nature08437.html
>
> The authors say our understanding of gravity may need modification to
> eliminate the need for dark matter entirely. This are good news, after
> such a dark age... :-D
>
Well...reading the Nature letter, it is difficult to find exactly
where they express what you assert they wrote.
Actually, they appear to have detected a sort of a constant ratio
between baryon and dark matter densities in a large variety of
galaxies and they write on the abstract: "Our finding can be
interpreted as a close correlation between the enclosed surface
densities of luminous and dark matter in galaxies".
The concluding part of their letter reads:
"...if we compare the effective dark matter profile predicted by the
analytic form of the mass discrepancy–acceleration relation with the
enclosed mass profile of a Burkert halo surrounding a point mass such
that gbary = 5.7 x 10^-10 cm s^–2 at the core radius, we find that the
two profiles are very similar in shape. Moreover, this effective dark
matter profile typically predicts a universal maximum gravitational
acceleration generated by the dark halo, of the order of 3 x 10^-9 cm
s^–2. For any Burkert halo the maximum acceleration is generated
precisely at r0: from there, it then follows naturally that the
gravity due to dark matter at r0 should be universal and of that order
of magnitude. Then, from this universal and maximal acceleration due
to dark matter at r0, the mass discrepancy–acceleration relation (by
definition) predicts that there is a universal gravity due to baryons
at this radius, and thus a universal mean luminous surface density
within it."
Miguel Rios
Juan R.
Again in the words of one of the authors of this work: "There is absolutely
no rule in physics that explains these results"
But you could just ask him about he said and about he thinks
http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~hz4/
papa...@gmail.com
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
It was you who wrote:
"A recent research puts doubts again over the hypotesis of dark matter
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7264/full/nature08437.html
The authors say our understanding of gravity may need modification to
eliminate the need for dark matter entirely. This are good news, after
such a dark age... :-D"
So you are now saying that those opinions are not in the Nature
letter?
Also nowhere in http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~hz4/ I find any
reference stating "....gravity may need modification to eliminate the
need for dark matter entirely".
Miguel Rios
Yousuf Khan
> "A recent research puts doubts again over the hypotesis of dark matter
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7264/full/nature08437.html
> The authors say our understanding of gravity may need modification to
> eliminate the need for dark matter entirely. This are good news, after
> such a dark age... :-D"
>
> So you are now saying that those opinions are not in the Nature
> letter?
>
> Also nowhere in http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~hz4/ I find any
> reference stating "....gravity may need modification to eliminate the
> need for dark matter entirely".
>
> Miguel Rios
There was a previous thread about this very same subject here:
These links were posted in that previous thread, which are not subject
to the Nature magazine embargo. They contain more revealing quotes:
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/126875-st-andrews-scientists-find-mysterious-dark-matter-link/
Yousuf Khan
Sam Wormley
> The hypotesis of dark matter has always failed to explain the fine-tuning
> of observations. In the next fig, the blue points are data, the green line
> is the MOND prediction and the red line is the 'best' fit done by dark matter
>
> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/fit_compare.html
>
> Moreover, the hypotetical "dark matter" has never been found or explained
> from theories of matter.
>
> A recent research puts doubts again over the hypotesis of dark matter
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7264/full/nature08437.html
>
The sources of gravity in the cluster are not located where the ordinary
matter is located, so this cluster is a counter-example to MOND.
Dark Matter Exists - Sean Carroll
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/21/dark-matter-exists/
The Dark Energy Song - Sean Carroll
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/
MOND is Dead? ...most likely
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/density.html#MOND
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/old_new_cosmo.html
22 Oct 2002 - The Chandra X-ray Observatory presented evidence
against the modifications of Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) alternative
to dark matter theories. The August 2002 Scientific American has a
long article about MOND. The hot X-ray emitting gas around the
galaxy NGC 720 forms an ellipsoidal cloud, which requires an
ellipsoidal gravitational potential well. While an ellipsoidal
cloud of dark matter could provide such a well, MOND would
necessarily give a spherical potential well. In general MOND works
well on the scale of individual galaxies, but not for clusters of
galaxies. So why is MOND only maybe dead? Its supporters like
Milgrom are persistent and clever, and they may come up with a
MONDian explanation for NGC 720.
More on Dark Matter
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
21 Aug 2006 - NASA announced updated information about the "bullet
cluster" 1E0657-56 today. Two clusters of galaxies have recently
collided in this X-ray source. This cluster is filled with hot gas
so X-ray observations by the Chandra X-ray Observatory show where
the ordinary matter is located. 90% of the ordinary matter (the
"baryonic" matter) is hot gas.
The new results [Clowe et al., Bradac et al.] use gravitational
lensing of background galaxies to show where the sources of gravity
are located. The sources of gravity in the cluster are not located
where the ordinary matter is located, so this cluster is a
counter-example to MOND. All of this was known in 2003 but with
less precision. Sean Carroll has a nice post about this at Cosmic
Variance.
The Matter of the Bullet Cluster
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060824.html
Explanation: The matter in galaxy cluster 1E 0657-56, fondly known
as the "bullet cluster", is shown in this composite image. A mere
3.4 billion light-years away, the bullet cluster's individual
galaxies are seen in the optical image data, but their total mass
adds up to far less than the mass of the cluster's two clouds of
hot x-ray emitting gas shown in red. Representing even more mass
than the optical galaxies and x-ray gas combined, the blue hues
show the distribution of dark matter in the cluster. Otherwise
invisible to telescopic views, the dark matter was mapped by
observations of gravitational lensing of background galaxies.
In a text book example of a shock front, the bullet-shaped cloud of
gas at the right was distorted during the titanic collision between
two galaxy clusters that created the larger bullet cluster itself.
But the dark matter present has not interacted with the cluster gas
except by gravity. The clear separation of dark matter and gas
clouds is considered direct evidence that dark matter exists.
More: http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-problems-with-mond.html
Juan R.
It is not the first time that the dead of MOND is claimed in news.
But those claims are sensationalists and hide all the problems of DM
(including the observations and predictions cannot do)
As Milgrom says DM people don't seem to listen:
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/moti_bullet.html
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/bullet_comments.html
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/mnr/2008/00000383/00000002/art00001
(...)
As advanced in the next report, using a recent theory of gravity we can
explain the observed phenomena at galaxies beyond the posibilities of dark
matter theories, including cluster mass limits, and the obtaining of Milgrom
constant a_0 from first principles.
We can also to show that the dark matter density profiles are only
*mathematical artifacts* (just as Vulcan was a *mathematical artifact* of
Newtonian gravity) and can predict its properties such as the anomalous
radial profiles (even dark matter theorists cannot explain this about their
own theory!)
Juan R.
Sorry by this misunderstanding, but I did not say that they said that
in the Nature paper. They said that about their Nature paper.
> Also nowhere in http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~hz4/ I find any reference
> stating "....gravity may need modification to eliminate the need for
> dark matter entirely".
Another misreading. I did not say that he wrote that in his website.
I said that the author said about his own work the following:
"There is absolutely no rule in physics that explains these results"
And next I said that maybe you could ask him about, giving you his
website for CONTACT
Sam Wormley
Quoting Sean Carroll, California Institute of Technology
(http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/)
"Let me give an example to illustrate the different criteria employed by scientists to
judge theories. When we observe the dynamics of galaxies, we find that the apparent
gravitational force exerted by the galaxy on particles orbiting far around it is
inevitably much larger than we would expect by taking into account the combined mass of
all the visible material in the galaxy. A straightforward and popular hypothesis to
explain this observation is the idea of ''dark matter,'' the notion that most of the mass
in galaxies is not in stars or gas, but rather in some new kind of particle which has not
yet been observed directly, and which has an average mass density in the universe which is
approximately five times greater than that of ordinary matter. But there is a competing
idea: that our understanding of gravity (through Einstein's general relativity) breaks
down at the edges of galaxies, to be replaced by some new gravitational law. Such a law
has actually been proposed by Milgrom, under the name of ''Modified Newtonian Dynamics,''
or MOND (M. Milgrom, 1983, Astrophys. Journ. 270, 365). At this point we don't know for
certain whether the dark matter hypothesis or the MOND hypothesis is correct, but it is
safe to say that the large majority of scientific experts come down in favor of dark matter.
"Why is that? On the one hand, there is a sense in which MOND is more compact and
efficient: it has been demonstrated to accurately describe the observations of a wide set
of galaxies, with only a single free parameter, while the dark matter idea is somewhat
less predictive on this score. But there are two features working strongly in favor of
dark matter. First, it makes detailed predictions for a wide class of phenomena, well
outside the realm of individual galaxies: clusters of galaxies, gravitational lenses,
large-scale structure, the cosmic microwave background, and more, while MOND is completely
silent on these issues (there is no prediction to verify or disprove). The second (closely
related) point is that MOND is not really a complete theory, or even a theory at all, but
simply a suggested phenomenological relation that is supposed to hold for galaxies. Nobody
understands how to make it part of a larger consistent framework. Therefore, despite the
greater predictive power of MOND within its domain of validity, most scientists consider
it to be a step backward, as it seems less likely to ultimately be part of a comprehensive
description. (Nobody can say for sure, so the issue is still open, but the majority has a
definite preference.)"
Surfer
wrote:
>
>Quoting Sean Carroll, California Institute of Technology
> (http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/)
>
This bit doesn't match the real world:
<Start extract>
If we know the state of a system at one time, and the laws governing
its dynamics, we can calculate the state of the system at some later
time. You might be tempted to say that the particular state at the
first time ''caused'' the state to be what it was at the second time;
but it would be just as correct to say that the second state caused
the first.
<End extract>
Many processes are irreversible.
Juan R.
There is many mistakes in that work. First, I want to remark that Sean
Carroll mistakes about Newtonian gravity are revised in my last report
(see second reference listed therein)
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html
I would be not surprised if he showed misunderstandings about "Modified
Newtonian Dynamics" (MOND) also.
>
> Quoting Sean Carroll, California Institute of Technology
> (http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/)
>
> "Let me give an example to illustrate the different criteria employed by
> scientists to judge theories. When we observe the dynamics of galaxies,
> we find that the apparent gravitational force exerted by the galaxy on
> particles orbiting far around it is inevitably much larger than we would
> expect by taking into account the combined mass of all the visible
> material in the galaxy. A straightforward and popular hypothesis to
> explain this observation is the idea of ''dark matter,'' the notion that
> most of the mass in galaxies is not in stars or gas, but rather in some
> new kind of particle which has not yet been observed directly, and which
> has an average mass density in the universe which is approximately five
> times greater than that of ordinary matter. But there is a competing
> idea: that our understanding of gravity (through Einstein's general
> relativity) breaks down at the edges of galaxies, to be replaced by some
> new gravitational law. Such a law has actually been proposed by Milgrom,
> under the name of ''Modified Newtonian Dynamics,'' or MOND (M. Milgrom,
> 1983, Astrophys. Journ. 270, 365). At this point we don't know for
> certain whether the dark matter hypothesis or the MOND hypothesis is
> correct, but it is safe to say that the large majority of scientific
> experts come down in favor of dark matter.
His alussion to the number of experts believing in some option reflects the lack
of better argument. It is worth to remark that also mosts experts believed
that Newtonian theory was complete and that Mercury perihoelion anomaly
was due to some new unknown mass. They were so sure that mass was real than
even nemed it Vulcan before being found.
Of course, nobody found Vulcan and now we know that all those 'experts' were
wring. The same happen with those dark matter experts today.
Someone said that the ignorance of history obligates to repeat the same
mistakes.
Next Carroll makes all series of misguided claims about predictions.
Dark matter theory makes no predictions because the amount of dark matter
is obtained *after* the data is obtained not before. The pressumed amount
of dark matter is *obtained from* the difference between the prediction
using general relativty and the measurements.
How do you think that the idea of dark matter born? Yes from disagreement
between GR and observations!
Here you have a collection of predictions done by both Dark matter theorists
and MOND theorists and how MOND predictions have been confirmed
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondvsDM.html
Next you have the original Milgrom predictions. All again confirmed
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondpred.html
It is also known that MOND theorists were the first that predicted the
correct second peak for WMAP. Dark matter theorists prediction was wrong,
and only after the data was at hand, dark matter theorists changed their model
again.
Here you have more correct predictions from MOND and more disproved
predictions from dark matter (CDM).
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB1.html
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB5.html
See how the dark matter theorists have *now* forgotten that they predicted the
behavior ploted as orange line
About clusters I already gave you links, which you snip from the reply.
Can MOND explain lensing? No, because MOND is not relativistic and lensing
is a relativistic phenomena, which is explained by relativistic MOND.
MOND is not a complete theory, just as general relativity is not a compelte
theory (e.g. it lacks thermodynamics or quantum corrections).
Pretending that a incomplete theory as MOND is wrong because cannot explain
relativistic phenomena is so childish as saying that a incomplete theory
as general relativity is wrong because cannot explain quantum phenomena.
Saying that, because MOND is not a theory, it would be ignored is rather
childish. MOND is a law extracted from observations.
Would we ignore the laws of electrodynamics or thermodynamics extracted
from observations? Evidently, no.
Once we have phenomenological laws, we can build a theory explaining those
laws. Maxwell developed a theory of electrodynamics explaining all the
phenomenological laws obtained from hundred of observations done *before*.
That is how science works but Carroll and you seem confused...
Moreover, DM is not a theory. There is not theory of matter for DM.
DM is a concept. When you find discrepancies between observation and
prediction you add some ad hoc amount of DM until you can fit the data.
Nobody knows what is DM, what are its properties.... Also, in practice
DM theorists never can fit the fine data (they only do in a coarse way)
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/fit_compare.html
Carroll also seems to ignore that several theories give a framework
for MOND. Probably the most known was TeVeS theory, but there is more.
Morever, in my recent work
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html
I advance a new theory of gravity that explains phenomena that neither MOND
or DM can explain.
Juan R.
Sean Carroll has absolutely no idea about irreversible processes.
And their 'ideas' about cosmology and Boltzmann brains are
rather laugdable. E.g. Carroll afirms that
"When you break an egg and scramble it you are doing cosmology,"
There is a funny joke about that work. The joke is "Have
cosmologist lost theirs?"
For a collection of 8 links to previous wrong articles from Carroll see
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/12/richard-feynman-mr-x-and-arrow-of-time.html
Notice also that Carroll contradicts himself. In some works say one thing
and in others say the contrary...
A more correct view on irreversible processes is given in the perspective
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20083.html
including some recent theories is being developed.
Sam Wormley
>
> Dark matter theory makes no predictions because the amount of dark matter
> is obtained *after* the data is obtained not before. The pressumed amount
> of dark matter is *obtained from* the difference between the prediction
> using general relativty and the measurements.
>
Dark matter is not a theory, nor does it make predictions!
Dark matter is a temporary name for matter that does not interact
electromagnetically, whose gravitational influence is observed
on galactic and larger scales. Perhaps, Juan you should do some
self-education wrt dark matter.
Richard Tobin
Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Dark matter is not a theory, nor does it make predictions!
> Dark matter is a temporary name for matter that does not interact
> electromagnetically, whose gravitational influence is observed
> on galactic and larger scales.
That's just quibbling. It *is* a theory that there is such matter
(rather than there being some other explanation for the observations).
And that theory *does* make predictions, which is why it's generally
accepted.
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
John Park
> In article <H3kAm.80914$5n1.76050@attbi_s21>,
> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> Dark matter is not a theory, nor does it make predictions!
>> Dark matter is a temporary name for matter that does not interact
>> electromagnetically, whose gravitational influence is observed
>> on galactic and larger scales.
>
> That's just quibbling. It *is* a theory that there is such matter
> (rather than there being some other explanation for the observations).
> And that theory *does* make predictions, which is why it's generally
> accepted.
>
--John Park
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"John Park" <af...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:hasvpd$r11$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
Well, other experiments are being conducted to see if there is
"nearly Dark Matter", such as WIMPs, so it is more than a
hypothesis.
Dark Matter allows us to use GR as fashioned now (which we know
works on solar system-sized scale), to describe galaxies (even
the visible Universe). We don't have to wonder if the manifold
reacts differently at different energy levels / speeds (say a
variable G rather than a constant), or whether the "reasonable
off diagonal term assumptions" made in GR are too simple, we can
proceed on.
Until we can get off this planet to get more experience, it
doesn't really (dark) matter. ;>)
David A. Smith
Juan R.
Do you have better arguments than idiotic straw mans on minor issues
whereas you sniped all the IMPORTANT info and links showing how ignorant
you are on the topic?
Or do you really think that the difference between observations and
the best DM fit (the red line on the plot I introduced) vanishes when
you snip it from a USENET message?
Juan R.
> Dear John Park:
>
> "John Park" <af...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:hasvpd$r11$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>> Richard Tobin (ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk) writes:
>>> In article <H3kAm.80914$5n1.76050@attbi_s21>, Sam Wormley
>>> <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dark matter is not a theory, nor does it make predictions! Dark
>>>> matter is a temporary name for matter that does not interact
>>>> electromagnetically, whose gravitational influence is observed on
>>>> galactic and larger scales.
>>>
>>> That's just quibbling. It *is* a theory that there is such matter
>>> (rather than there being some other explanation for the observations).
>>> And that theory *does* make predictions, which is why it's generally
>>> accepted.
>>
>> I think it would be better described as a hypothesis.
>
> Well, other experiments are being conducted to see if there is "nearly
> Dark Matter", such as WIMPs
Unfortunately, a waste of both time and money.
(...)
Sam Wormley
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) wrote on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:09:33 -0700:
>> Well, other experiments are being conducted to see if there is "nearly
>> Dark Matter", such as WIMPs
>
> Unfortunately, a waste of both time and money.
>
> (...)
>
Historically searches for such unknowns have definitely been
worth the time and money.
Neutrinos
Positrons
Heavy Quarks and Leptons
etc.
dlzc
On Oct 12, 8:22 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\) wrote on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:09:33 -0700:
...
> > Well, other experiments are being
> > conducted to see if there is "nearly
> > Dark Matter", such as WIMPs
>
> Unfortunately, a waste of both time and money.
But to not look is not scientific. To assume your conclusion obviates
the purpose. How Dark is Dark? Dark Matter is either here and
completely undetecable in any way (other than gravitationally), or it
is some sort of field effect. To (mis)quote UA... "you won't know if
you don't look".
David A. Smith
Juan R.
Not the same case unfortunately...
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley wrote on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:22:38 +0000:
>
>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>> N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) wrote on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:09:33 -0700:
>>>> Well, other experiments are being conducted to see if there is "nearly
>>>> Dark Matter", such as WIMPs
>>> Unfortunately, a waste of both time and money.
>>>
>>> (...)
>>>
>>>
>> Historically searches for such unknowns have definitely been worth
>> the time and money.
>>
>> Neutrinos
>> Positrons
>> Heavy Quarks and Leptons
>> etc.
>
> Not the same case unfortunately...
How so?
Juan R.
But you misunderstand what is scientific. Scienctific is not to look
to any idea. Looking for dark matter today has the same validity that
looking for Maxwell aether today.
We already have theories and evidences that dark matter does *not* exist.
We do not need to look.
I know others need to look, specially those whose *careers* depend on it.
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:22:38 +0000:
>>
>>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>>> N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) wrote on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:09:33 -0700:
>>>>> Well, other experiments are being conducted to see if there is
>>>>> "nearly Dark Matter", such as WIMPs
>>>> Unfortunately, a waste of both time and money.
>>>>
>>>> (...)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Historically searches for such unknowns have definitely been worth
>>> the time and money.
>>>
>>> Neutrinos
>>> Positrons
>>> Heavy Quarks and Leptons
>>> etc.
>>
>> Not the same case unfortunately...
>
>
> How so?
A mistery for you, I know!
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley wrote on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:15:42 +0000:
>
>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>> Sam Wormley wrote on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:22:38 +0000:
>>>
>>>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>>>> N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) wrote on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:09:33 -0700:
>>>>>> Well, other experiments are being conducted to see if there is
>>>>>> "nearly Dark Matter", such as WIMPs
>>>>> Unfortunately, a waste of both time and money.
>>>>>
>>>>> (...)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Historically searches for such unknowns have definitely been worth
>>>> the time and money.
>>>>
>>>> Neutrinos
>>>> Positrons
>>>> Heavy Quarks and Leptons
>>>> etc.
>>> Not the same case unfortunately...
>>
>> How so?
>
> A mistery for you, I know!
>
>
How is searching for WIMP generically different than searching for
neutrinos before they were confirmed?
Juan R.
How and why neutrinos were predicted theoretically? By whom?
Was there alternatives explaining the same observations?
Was there alternatives explaining also observations could not be explained
by the neutrino hypotesis (then)?
How and why WIMPS were predicted theoretically? By whom?
Is there alternatives explaining the same observations?
Is there alternatives explaining also observations cannot be explained
by the WIMP hypotesis?
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley wrote on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:53:15 +0000:
>> How is searching for WIMP generically different than searching for
>> neutrinos before they were confirmed?
>
> How and why neutrinos were predicted theoretically? By whom?
> Was there alternatives explaining the same observations?
> Was there alternatives explaining also observations could not be explained
> by the neutrino hypotesis (then)?
>
> How and why WIMPS were predicted theoretically? By whom?
> Is there alternatives explaining the same observations?
> Is there alternatives explaining also observations cannot be explained
> by the WIMP hypotesis?
>
In three replies, now, you can't seem to articulate how hunting
for WIMPS is different than hunting for neutrinos.
dlzc
On Oct 12, 2:19 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> dlzc wrote on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:38:22 -0700:
> > On Oct 12, 8:22 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\) wrote on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:09:33 -0700:
> > ...
> >> > Well, other experiments are being
> >> > conducted to see if there is "nearly
> >> > Dark Matter", such as WIMPs
>
> >> Unfortunately, a waste of both time and money.
>
> > But to not look is not scientific. To assume
> > your conclusion obviates the purpose. How Dark
> > is Dark? Dark Matter is either here and
> > completely undetecable in any way (other than
> > gravitationally), or it is some sort of field
> > effect. To (mis)quote UA... "you won't know
> > if you don't look".
>
> But you misunderstand what is scientific.
No, I do not.
> Scienctific is not to look to any idea.
Yes, as long as you have a model that makes quantitative prediction
into spaces that have not been tested yet. We know Dark Matter must
be here, so we must either investigate how Dark it is, or give it up
as being entirely undetectable (except gravitationally). When will
the Lorentz aether folks ive up?
> Looking for dark matter today has the
> same validity that looking for Maxwell
> aether today.
I disagree, as outlined above. WIMPs were a candidate, and we needed
to look.
> We already have theories and evidences
> that dark matter does *not* exist. We do
> not need to look.
Others disagree on the "theories". I happen to agree with you, Dark
Matter is no form of matter, just as Dark Energy is no form of
energy. But that is assuming that Dark Matter is not stuff... and
without looking we can not eliminate that possibility.
> I know others need to look, specially
> those whose *careers* depend on it.
So you think that employment, and fully eliminating untruth is a bad
idea? You don't have to beat that same old drum, Juan.
David A. Smith
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> Sam Wormley wrote on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:53:15 +0000:
[...]
> > How is searching for WIMP generically different than searching for
> > neutrinos before they were confirmed?
> How and why neutrinos were predicted theoretically? By whom?
They were proposed by Pauli in 1930 as a "desperate remedy" to save
"the 'exchange theorem' of statistics and the law of conservation of
energy." He wrote, in the letter proposing the existence of neutrinos,
"I agree that my remedy could seem incredible because one should
have seen these neutrons much earlier if they really exist. But only the
one who dare can win..."
The letter may be found at
http://www.pp.rhul.ac.uk/~ptd/TEACHING/PH2510/pauli-letter.html
It took 26 years, and enormous advances in experimental physics, before
neutrinos were observed.
> Was there alternatives explaining the same observations?
Yes, of course. The obvious alternative was that we needed a drastic
revision of standard physics, but in a regime that could be tested
only by the observations that needed to be explained. Niels Bohr, for
example, suggested that energy was not exactly conserved at the
subatomic level.
> Was there alternatives explaining also observations could not be
> explained by the neutrino hypotesis (then)?
The neutrino hypothesis was loose enough to explain a lot -- for example,
Pauli required only that its mass be less than that of an electron. Later
observations further restricted the mass, and also required that the
neutrino be a "dark" particle, one that interacted only very weakly.
> How and why WIMPS were predicted theoretically? By whom?
That's a little harder, because there are many possible WIMPs,
proposed for various reasons (mostly having nothing to do with
dark matter).
In a 1982 Phys. Rev. Lett. paper, for example, Pagels and Primack
proposed that the lightest supersymmetric particle in a theory
with spontaneously broken local supersymmetry would imply "that
the universe is filled with a gravitino gas -- possibly its dominant
constituent," and suggested that "gravitinos could also provide the
dark matter required in galactic halos and small clusters of galaxies."
Shortly after that, Blumenthal, Pagels, and Primack had a paper in
Nature discussing the applications to galactic halos in more detail.
The gravitino itself, though, had been predicted theoretically long
before that -- at least as early as 1976 -- for reasons having nothing
to do with astrophysics or cosmology.
More generally, supersymmetry was first proposed for reasons having
to do strictly with particle physics. R parity, which guarantees the
existence of a lightest supersymmetric particle, was proposed by
Salam and Strathdee and by Fayet in 1975. The application to dark
matter came in the mid-1980s.
Similarly, Weinberg's paper proposing the axion appeared in 1978, where
the issue at hand was the strong CP problem. The first papers I know
of suggesting that it could account for dark matter were by Holman,
Lazarides, and Shafi in 1982 and Preskil, Wise, and Wilczek in 1983.
This makes the situation somewhat different from Pauli's neutrino
proposal: while Pauli proposed a new particle specifically to solve an
observational problem, WIMP models mainly take particles suggested
for oyther, independent theoretical reasons and look for their implications
for astrophysics and cosmology.
> Is there alternatives explaining the same observations?
Perhaps -- as Bohr suggested at the time of the proposal of the neutrino,
we can instead change some fundamental physical law. But the main
relativistic proposal I know of, Bekenstein's TeVeS, contains not just
an adjustable parameter, but an entire adjustable function.
> Is there alternatives explaining also observations cannot be explained
> by the WIMP hypotesis?
Not that I know of. Like the neutrino hypothesis when it was first made,
the WIMP hypothesis has a bunch of adjustable parameters (masses and
interaction strengths -- *just* like the neutrino). And the alternatives,
like TeVeS, are similarly hugely adjustable.
Steve Carlip
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
If neutrinos are dark matter by what process were they all produced?
Are they not critical at just at the end of a stars life?
What mechanism would saturate the universe with so many many
neutrinos.
Mitch Raemsch
dlzc
On Oct 13, 11:48 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
> If neutrinos are dark matter by what
> process were they all produced? Are
> they not critical at just at the end
> of a stars life? What mechanism would
> saturate the universe with so many many
> neutrinos.
A Big Bang? And their energies would be red shifted, as photon's are,
making them exceedingly difficult to detect.
David A. Smith
Sam Wormley
Thanks Steve.
-Sam
Yousuf Khan
There's less evidence for a WIMP's existence than there was for the
other things you mentioned. Everything else had a precursor discovery.
Neutrinos came out of energy calculations. Positrons are just
anti-matter equivalents of electrons, so we know electrons existed,
therefore positrons must also. Heavy quarks and leptons were preceded by
lighter quarks and leptons. No precursors for WIMPs though, other than
the possibility that they might be one of many candidates for Dark
Matter; it's a postulation of a postulation.
Yousuf Khan
Sam Wormley
Can you cite some "measure" that there is less evidence for a WIMP's
existence than, say, neutrinos?
Peter Webb
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:UGdBm.84738$5n1.84534@attbi_s21...
__________________________________
He just did that. Now, we can directly "see" neutrinos in the same manner as
other elementary particles. In the 1930s, we knew some particle was escaping
with energy (or that conservation of energy was wrong), they called it the
"neutrino". In comparison, there is no observation which requires WIMPs,
there are lots of other explanations for what we see which don't involve
throwing away the basic laws of physics.
Juan R.
> In sci.astro Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanR...@canonicalscience.com>
> wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:53:15 +0000:
>
> [...]
>> > How is searching for WIMP generically different than searching for
>> > neutrinos before they were confirmed?
>
>> How and why neutrinos were predicted theoretically? By whom?
>
> They were proposed by Pauli in 1930 as a "desperate remedy" to save "the
> 'exchange theorem' of statistics and the law of conservation of energy."
> He wrote, in the letter proposing the existence of neutrinos, "I agree
> that my remedy could seem incredible because one should have seen these
> neutrons much earlier if they really exist. But only the one who dare
> can win..."
>
> The letter may be found at
> http://www.pp.rhul.ac.uk/~ptd/TEACHING/PH2510/pauli-letter.html
>
> It took 26 years, and enormous advances in experimental physics, before
> neutrinos were observed.
Then Pauli proposed the new particles as a way to maintain up conservations
laws (energy, momentum, and angular momentum) in decays. True?
The proposed particles *exactly* conserved they and were finally observed to
match *exactly* to predictions.
>> Was there alternatives explaining the same observations?
>
> Yes, of course. The obvious alternative was that we needed a drastic
> revision of standard physics, but in a regime that could be tested only
> by the observations that needed to be explained. Niels Bohr, for
> example, suggested that energy was not exactly conserved at the
> subatomic level.
Sugestions are not any type of alternative theory. My question really was,
did exist some theory violating conservation laws which *explained*
observations without invoking neutrinos and *predicted* some new
observations (*not* predicted by neutrino hypotesis) but latter observed?
Hint: No.
>> Was there alternatives explaining also observations could not be
>> explained by the neutrino hypotesis (then)?
>
> The neutrino hypothesis was loose enough to explain a lot -- for
> example, Pauli required only that its mass be less than that of an
> electron. Later observations further restricted the mass, and also
> required that the neutrino be a "dark" particle, one that interacted
> only very weakly.
In short, no alternative theory to neutrinos was formulated which
explained decays (without invoking neutrinos) whereas also explained
observations cannot be explained using neutrinos.
>> How and why WIMPS were predicted theoretically? By whom?
>
> That's a little harder, because there are many possible WIMPs, proposed
> for various reasons (mostly having nothing to do with dark matter).
First important point. Neutrinos were a solution to a specific problem.
WIMPS look more like a theoretical solution in the search of some
problem.
> In a 1982 Phys. Rev. Lett. paper, for example, Pagels and Primack
> proposed that the lightest supersymmetric particle in a theory with
Second important point: supersymmetry. Has been supersimmetry observed in
nature?
Hint: No.
> spontaneously broken local supersymmetry would imply "that the universe
> is filled with a gravitino gas -- possibly its dominant constituent,"
> and suggested that "gravitinos could also provide the dark matter
> required in galactic halos and small clusters of galaxies." Shortly
> after that, Blumenthal, Pagels, and Primack had a paper in Nature
> discussing the applications to galactic halos in more detail. The
> gravitino itself, though, had been predicted theoretically long before
> that -- at least as early as 1976 -- for reasons having nothing to do
> with astrophysics or cosmology.
>
> More generally, supersymmetry was first proposed for reasons having to
> do strictly with particle physics. R parity, which guarantees the
> existence of a lightest supersymmetric particle, was proposed by Salam
> and Strathdee and by Fayet in 1975. The application to dark matter came
> in the mid-1980s.
>
> Similarly, Weinberg's paper proposing the axion appeared in 1978, where
> the issue at hand was the strong CP problem. The first papers I know of
> suggesting that it could account for dark matter were by Holman,
> Lazarides, and Shafi in 1982 and Preskil, Wise, and Wilczek in 1983.
>
> This makes the situation somewhat different from Pauli's neutrino
> proposal:
Say this to Sam.
> while Pauli proposed a new particle specifically to solve an
> observational problem, WIMP models mainly take particles suggested for
> oyther, independent theoretical reasons and look for their implications
> for astrophysics and cosmology.
As remarked above.
>> Is there alternatives explaining the same observations?
>
> Perhaps -- as Bohr suggested at the time of the proposal of the
> neutrino, we can instead change some fundamental physical law.
A suggestion is not a theory.
> But the
> main relativistic proposal I know of, Bekenstein's TeVeS, contains not
> just an adjustable parameter, but an entire adjustable function.
TeVeS is a rather popular but not the correct way to do relativistic MOND.
TeVeS contains three parameters. MOND uses one parameter.
The DM models, using two or three parameters, cannot match
the success of the MOND predictions.
How can someone really wait that a non-working theory will substitute
a working theory that match predictions?
>> Is there alternatives explaining also observations cannot be explained
>> by the WIMP hypotesis?
>
> Not that I know of. Like the neutrino hypothesis when it was first
> made, the WIMP hypothesis has a bunch of adjustable parameters (masses
> and interaction strengths -- *just* like the neutrino). And the
> alternatives, like TeVeS, are similarly hugely adjustable.
We have theory without adjustable parameters (even a_0 can be computed *now*)
and explain observations (I have listed some few in previous messages)
that cannot be explained by other proposals: TeVeS, MOND, PCG, DM, AQUAL...
Juan R.
Then you think that the above historical-scientific questions were totally
random!
Amazing :-D
Juan R.
Why do not try to open some list/table of particles first?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg
Juan R.
Neutrinos are not aceptable for WIMPS because are too light.
> Are
> they not critical at just at the end of a stars life? What mechanism
> would saturate the universe with so many many neutrinos.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
--
Juan R.
> Dear BURT:
>
> On Oct 13, 11:48 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote: ...
>> If neutrinos are dark matter by what
>> process were they all produced? Are
>> they not critical at just at the end
>> of a stars life? What mechanism would saturate the universe with so
>> many many neutrinos.
>
> A Big Bang?
Fantasy.
Juan R.
> Dear "Juan R." González-Álvarez:
>
> On Oct 12, 2:19 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> dlzc wrote on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:38:22 -0700:
>> > On Oct 12, 8:22 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> >> N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\) wrote on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:09:33 -0700:
>> > ...
>> >> > Well, other experiments are being
>> >> > conducted to see if there is "nearly
>> >> > Dark Matter", such as WIMPs
>>
>> >> Unfortunately, a waste of both time and money.
>>
>> > But to not look is not scientific. To assume your conclusion
>> > obviates the purpose. How Dark is Dark? Dark Matter is either here
>> > and completely undetecable in any way (other than gravitationally),
>> > or it is some sort of field effect. To (mis)quote UA... "you won't
>> > know if you don't look".
>>
>> But you misunderstand what is scientific.
>
> No, I do not.
>
>> Scienctific is not to look to any idea.
>
> Yes, as long as you have a model that makes quantitative prediction into
> spaces that have not been tested yet.
The model must agree with available observations. And DM models do not
match observations as well as other models do.
The perennial question asked by MOND community is. If DM is here, why DM
models cannot match observations as MOND does?
> We know Dark Matter must be here,
> so we must either investigate how Dark it is, or give it up as being
> entirely undetectable (except gravitationally).
We do not know that. You assume that DM is here, the same than Newtonian
theorists assumed that Vulcan "must be here".
> When will the Lorentz
> aether folks ive up?
>
>> Looking for dark matter today has the same validity that looking for
>> Maxwell aether today.
>
> I disagree, as outlined above. WIMPs were a candidate, and we needed to
> look.
"Were", just as DM "was" once, just as Vulcan was, just as Maxwell aether
was once searched...
>> We already have theories and evidences that dark matter does *not*
>> exist. We do not need to look.
>
> Others disagree on the "theories". I happen to agree with you, Dark
> Matter is no form of matter, just as Dark Energy is no form of energy.
Then you did not even read me!
We disagree. Dark matter is not any form of matter but a mathematical
device for GR (as Vulcan was for Newtonian gravity).
However, dark energy is a real form of energy. It has nothing to see with
exotic forms of energy nor with nonsensical landscapes but is a real energy,
which can be computed and the result agrees with last cosmological
measurements.
(...)
>> I know others need to look, specially those whose *careers* depend on
>> it.
>
> So you think that employment, and fully eliminating untruth is a bad
> idea?
I think that the career-oriented claims (done in science news services one
day and the next also) about dark matter being ready to be finally
observed are so repulsive like the 40+ years of dishonest claims done
around superstring theory.
The scandal about string theory and the dishonest manipulation of mass media
to maintain alive academic careers and crazy ideas is accurately noticed in
two books one by Peter Woit and other by Lee Smolin
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Even-Wrong-Failure-Physical/dp/0465092756
http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/0618551050
Similar books can be written about the dark matter issue.
Uncle Al
There may be no need whatsover for dark matter - simply by
observation,
<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/10/12/a-new-challenge-to-einstein/>
Good observation trumps bad bullshit theory and enlightens good
classical theory.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
PD
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> carlip-nospam wrote on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:03:33 +0000:
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >> Sam Wormley wrote on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:53:15 +0000:
>
> > [...]
> >> > How is searching for WIMP generically different than searching for
> >> > neutrinos before they were confirmed?
>
> >> How and why neutrinos were predicted theoretically? By whom?
>
> > They were proposed by Pauli in 1930 as a "desperate remedy" to save "the
> > 'exchange theorem' of statistics and the law of conservation of energy."
> > He wrote, in the letter proposing the existence of neutrinos, "I agree
> > that my remedy could seem incredible because one should have seen these
> > neutrons much earlier if they really exist. But only the one who dare
> > can win..."
>
> > The letter may be found at
> >http://www.pp.rhul.ac.uk/~ptd/TEACHING/PH2510/pauli-letter.html
>
> > It took 26 years, and enormous advances in experimental physics, before
> > neutrinos were observed.
>
> Then Pauli proposed the new particles as a way to maintain up conservations
> laws (energy, momentum, and angular momentum) in decays. True?
>
> The proposed particles *exactly* conserved they and were finally observed to
> match *exactly* to predictions.
No, that isn't quite right. Neutrinos were posited to preserve energy
and momentum conservation in beta decay, but beta decay did not
suffice to demonstrate their existence. For that, the neutrino model
had to be developed a bit further to see what INDEPENDENT prediction
could be made of a measurable observation -- such as an interaction
that could only be instigated by neutrinos and not by another known
candidate. That is precisely what was done, and what was observed.
Now, of course one could say that the observed interactions could be
due to yet another unknown candidate and not neutrinos. But eventually
you get to the place where neutrinos explain beta decay, new
interaction signatures, observation C, observation D, and observation
E, and then an alternate accounting that says that what's really going
on is Mechanism A, Mechanism B, Mechanism C, Mechanism D, and
Mechanism E begins to sound a little far-fetched.
>
> >> Was there alternatives explaining the same observations?
>
> > Yes, of course. The obvious alternative was that we needed a drastic
> > revision of standard physics, but in a regime that could be tested only
> > by the observations that needed to be explained. Niels Bohr, for
> > example, suggested that energy was not exactly conserved at the
> > subatomic level.
>
> Sugestions are not any type of alternative theory. My question really was,
> did exist some theory violating conservation laws which *explained*
> observations without invoking neutrinos and *predicted* some new
> observations (*not* predicted by neutrino hypotesis) but latter observed?
>
> Hint: No.
Precisely. And that's why no other theory was considered viable for
long.
>
> >> Was there alternatives explaining also observations could not be
> >> explained by the neutrino hypotesis (then)?
>
> > The neutrino hypothesis was loose enough to explain a lot -- for
> > example, Pauli required only that its mass be less than that of an
> > electron. Later observations further restricted the mass, and also
> > required that the neutrino be a "dark" particle, one that interacted
> > only very weakly.
>
> In short, no alternative theory to neutrinos was formulated which
> explained decays (without invoking neutrinos) whereas also explained
> observations cannot be explained using neutrinos.
>
> >> How and why WIMPS were predicted theoretically? By whom?
>
> > That's a little harder, because there are many possible WIMPs, proposed
> > for various reasons (mostly having nothing to do with dark matter).
>
> First important point. Neutrinos were a solution to a specific problem.
> WIMPS look more like a theoretical solution in the search of some
> problem.
>
> > In a 1982 Phys. Rev. Lett. paper, for example, Pagels and Primack
> > proposed that the lightest supersymmetric particle in a theory with
>
> Second important point: supersymmetry. Has been supersimmetry observed in
> nature?
>
> Hint: No.
Not DIRECTLY in the form of supersymmetric particles. That is still an
open search, and that is a Good Thing in science, to not have every
open question answered.
However, there is a remarkable indication in the running of the
coupling constants which does strongly suggest supersymmetry.
Correct. There wasn't a viable one that was proposed.
>
> > But the
> > main relativistic proposal I know of, Bekenstein's TeVeS, contains not
> > just an adjustable parameter, but an entire adjustable function.
>
> TeVeS is a rather popular but not the correct way to do relativistic MOND.
>
> TeVeS contains three parameters. MOND uses one parameter.
> The DM models, using two or three parameters, cannot match
> the success of the MOND predictions.
>
> How can someone really wait that a non-working theory will substitute
> a working theory that match predictions?
>
> >> Is there alternatives explaining also observations cannot be explained
> >> by the WIMP hypotesis?
>
> > Not that I know of. Like the neutrino hypothesis when it was first
> > made, the WIMP hypothesis has a bunch of adjustable parameters (masses
> > and interaction strengths -- *just* like the neutrino). And the
> > alternatives, like TeVeS, are similarly hugely adjustable.
>
> We have theory without adjustable parameters (even a_0 can be computed *now*)
> and explain observations (I have listed some few in previous messages)
> that cannot be explained by other proposals: TeVeS, MOND, PCG, DM, AQUAL...
>
> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>
> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
Sam Wormley
Particles from the standard model are found wanting as candidates for
particles to account for the mass and distribution of the "dark matter".
Juan R.
Could parse this for human beings?
Juan R.
That I said is right. I did mean that neutrino hypotesis was formulated to
explain observations about beta decay. And, when finally found, neutrinos
conserved energy and momenta exactly as predicted.
The WIMP hypotesis is different. As showed in the galactic plot I linked in
previous messages dark matter cannot fit the whole of data, only
gross tendencies ignoring *details*. I reintroduce the plot again
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/fit_compare.html
The idea of searching WIMPS, cosmic superstrings, and all that looks so
ridiculous as if in 1930 someone were to look for idiotinos, a hypotetical
particle explaining only a 85% of energy and momentum conservation
and ignoring the details.
Moreover, whereas in the neutrino case no alternative theory explained
observations. In the dark matter case, we have alternative theories
explaining hundred of observations that dark matter cannot
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondvsDM.html
eric gisse
[...]
> Moreover, whereas in the neutrino case no alternative theory explained
> observations. In the dark matter case, we have alternative theories
> explaining hundred of observations that dark matter cannot
>
> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondvsDM.html
>
I find it odd that you think it is a good idea to field Milgrom's personal
site as if he were objective on the subject.
PD
>
> > Particles from the standard model are found wanting as candidates for
> > particles to account for the mass and distribution of the "dark
> > matter".
>
> Could parse this for human beings?
I understood it.
Particles from the standard model have been considered as being
responsible for dark matter. There are various reasons why each
candidate appears not to be viable.
Yousuf Khan
> There may be no need whatsover for dark matter - simply by
> observation,
>
> <http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/10/12/a-new-challenge-to-einstein/>
>
> Good observation trumps bad bullshit theory and enlightens good
> classical theory.
>
If this is true, then we should be on the lookout for more anomalies to
General Relativity.
Yousuf Khan
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ad67ea2$1...@news.bnb-lp.com...
Let's add a better link:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3853
David A. Smith
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> [...]
Details and observational data sniped by Eric above.
Unlike you, he does not hide the difficulties of his favorite theory.
Also, unlike you, he is an active researcher in the field.
Finally, he gives hundred of references to papers, conferences, preprints,
and even covering in the news.
Juan R.
Which returns to my original point. Opening a list/table of the
particles of the SM explains why WIMPS and neutrinos are not in
the same footing.
Once more again, Sam seems to confound established science with
unproven hypotesis and sci-fi...
>
>> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>>
>> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
--
eric gisse
[...]
>>
>> Particles from the standard model have been considered as being
>> responsible for dark matter. There are various reasons why each
>> candidate appears not to be viable.
>
> Which returns to my original point. Opening a list/table of the
> particles of the SM explains why WIMPS and neutrinos are not in
> the same footing.
I find it curious that you are present in a debate about dark matter when
you don't have enough knowledge to understand why neutrinos are excluded as
dark matter candidates.
Or why WIMPs aren't an accepted part of the standard model.
>
> Once more again, Sam seems to confound established science with
> unproven hypotesis and sci-fi...
How's the shameless TeVeS and field theories of gravitation advocacy going?
eric gisse
> eric gisse wrote on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:16:47 -0800:
>
>> Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Details and observational data sniped by Eric above.
>
>>> Moreover, whereas in the neutrino case no alternative theory explained
>>> observations. In the dark matter case, we have alternative theories
>>> explaining hundred of observations that dark matter cannot
>>>
>>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondvsDM.html
>>>
>>>
>> I find it odd that you think it is a good idea to field Milgrom's
>> personal site as if he were objective on the subject.
>
> Unlike you, he does not hide the difficulties of his favorite theory.
Has TeVeS or MOND been able to make a reasonable crack at big bang cosmology
yet?
>
> Also, unlike you, he is an active researcher in the field.
I'm no less a researcher than you. I have webspace and a rarely used blog.
>
> Finally, he gives hundred of references to papers, conferences, preprints,
> and even covering in the news.
>
Great. Now do any of those give consistent explanations for cluster
collisions that don't end up invoking dark matter? Do any of those handle
modeling the large scale structure of the universe? Do any of those take a
shot at predicting the CMB power spectrum?
MOND's successes are old news. I've long felt that Milgrom stumbled upon a
nice hurestic like Ballmer, which is buttressed by the repeated observations
that MOND fails in situations like cluster mergers and large scale
formation.
Jumping and hollering that dark matter fails to account for some fine tuning
areas while ignoring the giant gaping holes in the theories you advocate is
lunacy.
Peter Webb
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hb6irb$o9a$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez wrote:
> [...]
>
>>>
>>> Particles from the standard model have been considered as being
>>> responsible for dark matter. There are various reasons why each
>>> candidate appears not to be viable.
>>
>> Which returns to my original point. Opening a list/table of the
>> particles of the SM explains why WIMPS and neutrinos are not in
>> the same footing.
>
> I find it curious that you are present in a debate about dark matter when
> you don't have enough knowledge to understand why neutrinos are excluded
> as
> dark matter candidates.
>
> Or why WIMPs aren't an accepted part of the standard model.
>
I don't think that is his point at all. Almost the opposite.
He knows that none of the standard model particles are candidates for WIMPs,
including neutrinos. His argument is that neutrinos slot just fine into the
standard model, but WIMPs don't. That is one obvious reason why neutrinos
are on a different footing to WIMPs. Of course, there are many others, you
can't compare them; we have neutrino observatories now FFS, nobody has ever
even seen a WIMP.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> carlip-nospam wrote on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:03:33 +0000:
> > In sci.astro Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanR...@canonicalscience.com>
[...]
> >> How and why neutrinos were predicted theoretically? By whom?
> >
> > They were proposed by Pauli in 1930 as a "desperate remedy" to save "the
> > 'exchange theorem' of statistics and the law of conservation of energy."
> > He wrote, in the letter proposing the existence of neutrinos, "I agree
> > that my remedy could seem incredible because one should have seen these
> > neutrons much earlier if they really exist. But only the one who dare
> > can win..."
> > The letter may be found at
> > http://www.pp.rhul.ac.uk/~ptd/TEACHING/PH2510/pauli-letter.html
> > It took 26 years, and enormous advances in experimental physics, before
> > neutrinos were observed.
> Then Pauli proposed the new particles as a way to maintain up conservations
> laws (energy, momentum, and angular momentum) in decays. True?
> The proposed particles *exactly* conserved they and were finally observed to
> match *exactly* to predictions.
Pauli's proposal was for a new particle inside the nucleus -- that part was
wrong. He proposed a particle with an undetermined mass ("of the same
order of magnitude as the electron mass" -- also wrong -- "and in any event
not larger than 0.01 proton masses" -- right, but an extremely weak bound).
He proposed a new type of interaction, but one that was completely
unspecified, except for being very weak.
The proposal was later elaborated by a number of people. The best model
was due to Fermi, who proposed a more specific interaction (which we now
know to be wrong, but, more or less accidentally, a good approximation),
with an unknown strength to be fitted to observation. Fermi also got the
details wrong -- he proposed an interaction with no parity violation, and
the later elaborations put in parity violation only by fitting it to observation.
If you want to call this a match to predictions, feel free. But the actual
proposals were, if anything, more phenomenological and "curve-fitting"
than current dark matter models.
Nevertheless, neutrinos do exist.
> >> Was there alternatives explaining the same observations?
> > Yes, of course. The obvious alternative was that we needed a drastic
> > revision of standard physics, but in a regime that could be tested only
> > by the observations that needed to be explained. Niels Bohr, for
> > example, suggested that energy was not exactly conserved at the
> > subatomic level.
[...]
> First important point. Neutrinos were a solution to a specific problem.
> WIMPS look more like a theoretical solution in the search of some
> problem.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. Are you arguing that it's better to
come up with new ad hoc explanations for each problem, rather than
looking for coherent theoretical frameworks that can be tested
against many predictions?
> > In a 1982 Phys. Rev. Lett. paper, for example, Pagels and Primack
> > proposed that the lightest supersymmetric particle in a theory with
> Second important point: supersymmetry. Has been supersimmetry observed
> in nature?
> Hint: No.
Not yet. I don't know if it will be. Neither do you. We *do* know that
something new will happen at around the TeV scale (from unitarity bounds
in QFT).
[...]
> >> Is there alternatives explaining the same observations?
> > Perhaps -- as Bohr suggested at the time of the proposal of the
> > neutrino, we can instead change some fundamental physical law.
> A suggestion is not a theory.
Pauli's proposal was also a suggestion, not a theory. You are making a
meaningless distinction here.
Steve Carlip
YKhan
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> He knows that none of the standard model particles are candidates for WIMPs,
> including neutrinos. His argument is that neutrinos slot just fine into the
> standard model, but WIMPs don't. That is one obvious reason why neutrinos
> are on a different footing to WIMPs. Of course, there are many others, you
> can't compare them; we have neutrino observatories now FFS, nobody has ever
> even seen a WIMP.
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute, even the Standard Model
table Juan presented is incomplete right now. It correlates various
matter particles with various force particles into rows and columns.
All of the types of matter particles are represented, while all of the
quantum-level force particles are too. The one row missing right now?
The gravity force carrier, the graviton. For those theories that
believe in the graviton, rather than gravity as simply being a
curvature of spacetime, then this force particle should correspond to
a family of matter particles too.
Yousuf Khan
YKhan
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > There's less evidence for a WIMP's existence than there was for the
> > other things you mentioned. Everything else had a precursor discovery.
> > Neutrinos came out of energy calculations. Positrons are just
> > anti-matter equivalents of electrons, so we know electrons existed,
> > therefore positrons must also. Heavy quarks and leptons were preceded by
> > lighter quarks and leptons. No precursors for WIMPs though, other than
> > the possibility that they might be one of many candidates for Dark
> > Matter; it's a postulation of a postulation.
>
> existence than, say, neutrinos?
There were some very precise energy levels measured that corresponded
to the discovery of the neutrino. The measurements corresponded very
precisely to their calculated values.
Can you point to any missing energy from particle collisions that
correspond to a WIMP?
Yousuf Khan
Raymond Yohros
> On Oct 12, 7:53 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> > > Sam Wormley wrote on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:15:42 +0000:
>
> > >> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> > >>> Sam Wormley wrote on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:22:38 +0000:
>
> > >>>>> N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) wrote on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:09:33 -0700:
> > >>>>>> Well, other experiments are being conducted to see if there is
> > >>>>>> "nearly Dark Matter", such as WIMPs
> > >>>>> Unfortunately, a waste of both time and money.
>
>
> > >>>> Historically searches for such unknowns have definitely been worth
> > >>>> the time and money.
>
> > >>>> Neutrinos
> > >>>> Positrons
> > >>>> Heavy Quarks and Leptons
> > >>>> etc.
> > >>> Not the same case unfortunately...
>
> > >> How so?
>
> > > A mistery for you, I know!
>
> > How is searching for WIMP generically different than searching for
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Are they not critical at just at the end of a stars life?
> What mechanism would saturate the universe with so many many
> neutrinos.
>
the big bang!
also, a huge load of photons
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
>> eric gisse wrote on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:16:47 -0800:
>>
>>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> Details and observational data sniped by Eric above.
>>
>>>> Moreover, whereas in the neutrino case no alternative theory
>>>> explained observations. In the dark matter case, we have alternative
>>>> theories explaining hundred of observations that dark matter cannot
>>>>
>>>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondvsDM.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I find it odd that you think it is a good idea to field Milgrom's
>>> personal site as if he were objective on the subject.
>>
>> Unlike you, he does not hide the difficulties of his favorite theory.
>
> Has TeVeS or MOND been able to make a reasonable crack at big bang
> cosmology yet?
I already explained to you dozens of times that I am not a fan of TeVeS.
I also emphasized my dislike of TeVeS in my reply to Carlip.
MOND is a non-relativistic theory. Nobody serious wait it to work fine
for high speeds and/or large masses. I.e. nobody wait that MOND can be
a good model for cosmology. Still, MOND theoreticians were the first
the predicted some cosmological data as the second peak of WMAP. DM
theorists failed miserably (just look to the LambdaCDM prediction of 1999).
Of course, the no aplicability of MOND beyond its range is totally
irrelevant for the excellence empirical and predictive basis it
has within its range.
Can you read? No.
>> Also, unlike you, he is an active researcher in the field.
>
> I'm no less a researcher than you. I have webspace and a rarely used
> blog.
Ask a 5-years old neighbouring the difference between "I", "you", and "he"
because you mix up in your response.
>> Finally, he gives hundred of references to papers, conferences,
>> preprints, and even covering in the news.
>>
>>
> Great. Now do any of those give consistent explanations for cluster
> collisions that don't end up invoking dark matter?
Of course. But I already explained to you BEFORE why you are plain wrong.
> Do any of those
> handle modeling the large scale structure of the universe? Do any of
> those take a shot at predicting the CMB power spectrum?
Can you read? No.
> MOND's successes are old news. I've long felt that Milgrom stumbled upon
> a nice hurestic like Ballmer, which is buttressed by the repeated
> observations that MOND fails in situations like cluster mergers and
> large scale formation.
>
> Jumping and hollering that dark matter fails to account for some fine
> tuning areas while ignoring the giant gaping holes in the theories you
> advocate is lunacy.
Can you read? No.
Does Milgrom care? Do I? No
Juan R.
I feel free to maintain I really said in its context. Above I did mean
that the predictions about the conservation laws were exactly matched.
> But the
> actual proposals were, if anything, more phenomenological and
> "curve-fitting" than current dark matter models.
The history of dark matter is full of misguided claims after refuted by
direct observation again and again. This is why in literature we find
cold dark matter, hot dark matter, baryonic dark matter, mixed dark matter...
And several phenomenological models within each familty. E.g. the Lambda
cold dark matter model of 1999 was totally refuted by WMAP and then changed
by the actual model (which has problems with independent barionic tests).
> Nevertheless, neutrinos do exist.
>
>> >> Was there alternatives explaining the same observations?
>
>> > Yes, of course. The obvious alternative was that we needed a drastic
>> > revision of standard physics, but in a regime that could be tested
>> > only by the observations that needed to be explained. Niels Bohr,
>> > for example, suggested that energy was not exactly conserved at the
>> > subatomic level.
>
> [...]
>
>> First important point. Neutrinos were a solution to a specific problem.
>> WIMPS look more like a theoretical solution in the search of some
>> problem.
>
> You say that as if it's a bad thing. Are you arguing that it's better
> to come up with new ad hoc explanations for each problem, rather than
> looking for coherent theoretical frameworks that can be tested against
> many predictions?
I am not. I am saying that not every piece belong to that puzzle is Nature
even if the people who find the pieces want to force the fit.
>> > In a 1982 Phys. Rev. Lett. paper, for example, Pagels and Primack
>> > proposed that the lightest supersymmetric particle in a theory with
>
>> Second important point: supersymmetry. Has been supersimmetry observed
>> in nature?
>
>> Hint: No.
>
> Not yet. I don't know if it will be. Neither do you. We *do* know
> that something new will happen at around the TeV scale (from unitarity
> bounds in QFT).
I would not be so arrogant to claim in public what others know or not.
Also I do not think that an empirical law (perfectly tested within its
range of applicability)
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondpred.html
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondvsDM.html
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/08/a-case-of-mond-over-dark-matter/
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/fit_compare.html
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mdlg.gif
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mdlg.gif_2
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/fitroster.html
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/stellarpops.html
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/MW_empirical.gif
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB1.html
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/AMcollisionvelocity.jpg
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB3.html
may be comparable to speculation over unobserved (supposed) matter, which
would be related to unobserved (supposed) particles, which are associated to
unobservable (supposed) simmetry more or less based over extrapolating
certain limited theories beyond observation and experiment.
> [...]
>> >> Is there alternatives explaining the same observations?
>
>> > Perhaps -- as Bohr suggested at the time of the proposal of the
>> > neutrino, we can instead change some fundamental physical law.
>
>> A suggestion is not a theory.
>
> Pauli's proposal was also a suggestion, not a theory. You are making a
> meaningless distinction here.
Nature will say that to you.
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> [...]
>
>
>>> Particles from the standard model have been considered as being
>>> responsible for dark matter. There are various reasons why each
>>> candidate appears not to be viable.
>>
>> Which returns to my original point. Opening a list/table of the
>> particles of the SM explains why WIMPS and neutrinos are not in the
>> same footing.
>
> I find it curious that you are present in a debate about dark matter
> when you don't have enough knowledge to understand why neutrinos are
> excluded as dark matter candidates.
>
> Or why WIMPs aren't an accepted part of the standard model.
I do not find curious that you pretend to participate in a debate beyond
your possibilities. Neither I find curious that you lie about others say
because you are being doing this for years now.
Juan R.
> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hb6irb$o9a$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>> Particles from the standard model have been considered as being
>>>> responsible for dark matter. There are various reasons why each
>>>> candidate appears not to be viable.
>>>
>>> Which returns to my original point. Opening a list/table of the
>>> particles of the SM explains why WIMPS and neutrinos are not in the
>>> same footing.
>>
>> I find it curious that you are present in a debate about dark matter
>> when you don't have enough knowledge to understand why neutrinos are
>> excluded as
>> dark matter candidates.
>>
>> Or why WIMPs aren't an accepted part of the standard model.
>>
>>
> I don't think that is his point at all. Almost the opposite.
>
> He knows that none of the standard model particles are candidates for
> WIMPs, including neutrinos. His argument is that neutrinos slot just
> fine into the standard model, but WIMPs don't. That is one obvious
> reason why neutrinos are on a different footing to WIMPs. Of course,
> there are many others, you can't compare them; we have neutrino
> observatories now FFS, nobody has ever even seen a WIMP.
Eric Gisse has a loooooooooong history of lying about what others say.
Unfortunately for him, thing get archived in USENET. Everyone can
go backward in the thread and read what I really wrote the opossite
to that he says.
Juan R.
I think that gravitons are the gravity carriers for a nonlinear quantum
field theory of gravity and that the general relativity is an geometric
approximation [#].
However, the particles detected up to now are just those in the table
linked above. And gravitons are not here.
As an adittional note, there is a hypotesis advanced in one of the theories
of gravity I have revised in my last work
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html
Search in that page the reference to work by Yu. S. Vladimirov.
Last year in a paper in "Grav. and Cosm." he affirmed that general relativity
is an induced effect from electromagnetism. He obtains G_ab = T_ab from a
second order interaction /a la/ Wheeler and Feynman
A revision of his theory is given in the sections 8 and 8.1 of my report.
In his work the graviton would not be a fundamental particle but a
composite particle done of some nonlinear mess of photons!
I have worked something about this and find a way to explain the spin of
graviton from the spin of photons. But I have not advanced in this research.
Moreover, of course this is all *speculative*.
[#] More or less as geometrical optics arises as approximation from
physical optics.
Steve Willner
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> writes:
> Let's add a better link:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3853
Very interesting. The result is barely (if at all) statistically
significant: about 2.5 sigma. The measurements are difficult to
make, and the analysis contains plausible though unverified
assumptions about dark matter. However, if the result is confirmed,
it will show either that GR is wrong on large scales or the
properties of dark matter are not what we now expect. (That last
refers to the physical properties of dark matter; not its existence.
The analysis of the lensing data, on which the preprint is based,
requires dark matter to exist.)
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Yousuf Khan
> If you want to call this a match to predictions, feel free. But the actual
> proposals were, if anything, more phenomenological and "curve-fitting"
> than current dark matter models.
>
> Nevertheless, neutrinos do exist.
>
>>>> Was there alternatives explaining the same observations?
>
>>> Yes, of course. The obvious alternative was that we needed a drastic
>>> revision of standard physics, but in a regime that could be tested only
>>> by the observations that needed to be explained. Niels Bohr, for
>>> example, suggested that energy was not exactly conserved at the
>>> subatomic level.
>
> [...]
>
>> First important point. Neutrinos were a solution to a specific problem.
>> WIMPS look more like a theoretical solution in the search of some
>> problem.
>
> You say that as if it's a bad thing. Are you arguing that it's better to
> come up with new ad hoc explanations for each problem, rather than
> looking for coherent theoretical frameworks that can be tested
> against many predictions?
So you're admitting that Dark Matter theory is basically just curve
fitting, yet DM proponents mercilessly mock modified gravity theories
for also being curve-fitting. If they are both just curve-fitting right
now, then neither one has any superiority over the other.
The modified gravity seems to fit the galactic scale much better, while
the DM seems to hold up better in the galactic cluster scale, and
neither one holds up at all in the cosmic scale where we have Dark Energy.
Yousuf Khan
eric gisse
> In article <l5wBm.266$pl1...@newsfe01.iad>,
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> writes:
>> Let's add a better link:
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3853
>
> Very interesting. The result is barely (if at all) statistically
> significant: about 2.5 sigma. The measurements are difficult to
> make, and the analysis contains plausible though unverified
> assumptions about dark matter. However, if the result is confirmed,
> it will show either that GR is wrong on large scales or the
> properties of dark matter are not what we now expect. (That last
> refers to the physical properties of dark matter; not its existence.
> The analysis of the lensing data, on which the preprint is based,
> requires dark matter to exist.)
I'm far more willing to bet our understanding of a somewhat nebulous
substance is suspect.
>
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
[...]
> >> First important point. Neutrinos were a solution to a specific problem.
> >> WIMPS look more like a theoretical solution in the search of some
> >> problem.
> > You say that as if it's a bad thing. Are you arguing that it's better to
> > come up with new ad hoc explanations for each problem, rather than
> > looking for coherent theoretical frameworks that can be tested
> > against many predictions?
> So you're admitting that Dark Matter theory is basically just curve
> fitting, yet DM proponents mercilessly mock modified gravity theories
> for also being curve-fitting. If they are both just curve-fitting right
> now, then neither one has any superiority over the other.
Dark matter theories (note the plural) are for the most part extensions
of the Standard Model of elementary particle physics that predict the
existence of additional massive, weakly interacting particles. Some
very reasonable assumptions about mass scales and interaction strengths
-- which come from the fact that we *know* that the Standard Model
becomes inconsistent at the TeV scale -- lead to predictions of the
abundance of such particles that matches the observed abundance of
dark matter.
The details, though, depend on exactly what model you're looking at.
In the absence of direct experimental evidence, a major effort goes into
"model building," looking at various specific models (e.g., the minimal
standard supersymmetric model with various ranges of parameters)
and seeing what they predict about astrophysical dark matter. This
is enough to reject some models -- for instance, those that predict far
too much dark matter -- but certainly not enough to confirm any of
them.
For direct confirmation, we need better experimental data. It's not
likely that astrophysics will give us enough; as you suggest, there is
enough flexibility to allow for curve-fitting without determining nearly
enough detail. Instead, we need laboratory tests. The LHC will reach
energies that will be able to confirm or rule out large classes of models;
the next generation of direct dark matter searches will directly test
many others.
The main difference with most MOND-like models is that many dark
matter models *do* suggest direct laboratory tests. If those fail, and
we need to screw around with dark matter models to get them to fit
astrophysics while evading laboratory tests, then they're comparable
to typical modified gravity theories.
There are also proposals for direct cosmological tests that should be
able to distinguish between typical dark matter models and typical
modified gravity models. In particular, if we can trace the detailed
history of structure formation in the Universe (with the LSST, for
instance), that should greatly help in disentangling the two.
Very few of the people I know who actually work in this field "mercilessly
mock modified gravity theories." Many of them do point out the the
most successful modified gravity theories are, so far, phenomenological
models that have no known sensible relativistic extension. But this
doesn't mean that no such extension exists, and, in fact, quite a few
of the top high energy theorists in the world have spent time working
on modified gravity -- they just haven't succeeded.
Steve Carlip
eric gisse
[...]
> Very few of the people I know who actually work in this field "mercilessly
> mock modified gravity theories." Many of them do point out the the
> most successful modified gravity theories are, so far, phenomenological
> models that have no known sensible relativistic extension. But this
> doesn't mean that no such extension exists, and, in fact, quite a few
> of the top high energy theorists in the world have spent time working
> on modified gravity -- they just haven't succeeded.
>
> Steve Carlip
<bitch>
The problem with modified gravity theories is that they are frequently
panned as alternatives to dark matter and sometimes dark energy. I, however,
always amused by pointing out that the modified gravity theories are doing
the exact same thing as dark matter - just sloppier. Invoking arbitrary
tensor/vector/scalar fields on top of GR or some other theory of gravitation
is a lot less satisfying than weakly interacting matter.
</bitch>
Speaking of the successes of MOND, I continue to believe that the situation
is similar to the Ballmer description of the Hydrogen spectrum from way back
in the day. A handy mathematical formalism does not a theory make, which is
something people seem to be missing here. This opinion is buttressed by the
(apparent to me) fact that both dark matter and MOND are tightly tuned to a
few specific parameters (mass, luminosity, ratio of the two..) and such.
eric gisse
> eric gisse wrote on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:26:12 -0800:
>
>> Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>> Particles from the standard model have been considered as being
>>>> responsible for dark matter. There are various reasons why each
>>>> candidate appears not to be viable.
>>>
>>> Which returns to my original point. Opening a list/table of the
>>> particles of the SM explains why WIMPS and neutrinos are not in the
>>> same footing.
>>
>> I find it curious that you are present in a debate about dark matter
>> when you don't have enough knowledge to understand why neutrinos are
>> excluded as dark matter candidates.
>>
>> Or why WIMPs aren't an accepted part of the standard model.
>
> I do not find curious that you pretend to participate in a debate beyond
> your possibilities. Neither I find curious that you lie about others say
> because you are being doing this for years now.
>
>
>
Dude, why are you even trying? I've repeatedly watch you flatly deny that
literature says something that I copied and pasted it saying. You are out of
your depth in yet another subject.
Juan R.
> carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>> If you want to call this a match to predictions, feel free. But the
>> actual proposals were, if anything, more phenomenological and
>> "curve-fitting" than current dark matter models.
>>
>> Nevertheless, neutrinos do exist.
>>
>>>>> Was there alternatives explaining the same observations?
>>
>>>> Yes, of course. The obvious alternative was that we needed a drastic
>>>> revision of standard physics, but in a regime that could be tested
>>>> only by the observations that needed to be explained. Niels Bohr,
>>>> for example, suggested that energy was not exactly conserved at the
>>>> subatomic level.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> First important point. Neutrinos were a solution to a specific
>>> problem. WIMPS look more like a theoretical solution in the search of
>>> some problem.
>>
>> You say that as if it's a bad thing. Are you arguing that it's better
>> to come up with new ad hoc explanations for each problem, rather than
>> looking for coherent theoretical frameworks that can be tested against
>> many predictions?
>
> So you're admitting that Dark Matter theory is basically just curve
> fitting, yet DM proponents mercilessly mock modified gravity theories
> for also being curve-fitting. If they are both just curve-fitting right
> now, then neither one has any superiority over the other.
Modified gravity theories are not curve fitting, because using them you
can predict the behavior BEFORE observation. The galactic curves of galaxies
can be predicted using the MOND or other laws. DM theory cannot predict if
any specific galaxy will be Newtonian or anomalous. It is AFTER observation
that DM theorists fill some amount of DM until obtaining the best fit.
This is also valid for cosmology. MOND theorists predicted the correct
behavior BEFORE observations were done. DM cosmologists failed and
modified their model AFTER observations were done.
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB1.html
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondvsDM.html
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondpred.html
> The modified gravity seems to fit the galactic scale much better, while
> the DM seems to hold up better in the galactic cluster scale, and
> neither one holds up at all in the cosmic scale where we have Dark
> Energy.
This is why we need a new theory for all scales. A theory that can explain
observations cannot be explained using current theories.
Juan R.
(...)
> The details, though, depend on exactly what model you're looking at. In
> the absence of direct experimental evidence, a major effort goes into
> "model building," looking at various specific models (e.g., the minimal
> standard supersymmetric model with various ranges of parameters) and
> seeing what they predict about astrophysical dark matter. This is
> enough to reject some models -- for instance, those that predict far too
> much dark matter -- but certainly not enough to confirm any of them.
>
> For direct confirmation, we need better experimental data. It's not
> likely that astrophysics will give us enough; as you suggest, there is
> enough flexibility to allow for curve-fitting without determining nearly
> enough detail. Instead, we need laboratory tests. The LHC will reach
> energies that will be able to confirm or rule out large classes of
> models; the next generation of direct dark matter searches will directly
> test many others.
>
> The main difference with most MOND-like models is that many dark matter
> models *do* suggest direct laboratory tests.
Some MOND-like models predict a modification of inertia whereas
other predict a modification of gravity. Both can be tested in laboratory.
From memory, I think that Milgrom supports the first interpretation.
I support the other option. The theory advanced in my last report [#]
suggests very specific laboratory tests.
(...)
> There are also proposals for direct cosmological tests that should be
> able to distinguish between typical dark matter models and typical
> modified gravity models. In particular, if we can trace the detailed
> history of structure formation in the Universe (with the LSST, for
> instance), that should greatly help in disentangling the two.
Indeed, the theory advanced in my last report [#] computes the value
of a_0 and explains its link with the large structure of cosmos.
MOND theorists already noticed the link of a_0 with cosmological
parameters as a_H and a_Gamma but never could explain the observed
numerology.
The mistery of the relation MOND to Cosmological parameters is now solved.
As a bonus we obtain also a solution to the CC problem and prediction
of phenomena beyond all DM models.
[#]
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
>> eric gisse wrote on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:26:12 -0800:
>>
Your continous self-presentation like an expert do not hide the fact
that you are an undergraduate dropout, that you lie about that others say
(this thread contain new instances as noticed by Peter Webb), or that
USENET is rich on your collection of nonsenses that did you a famous CRACKPOT.
Remind the recent case where you self-proclaimed expert and pretended
to 'review' a FOP paper until Ilja, Tom, and me noticed that you could not
even do simple (textbook-like) computations like "g_ab g^bc" :-D
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Moreover, whereas in the neutrino case no alternative theory explained
>> observations. In the dark matter case, we have alternative theories
>> explaining hundred of observations that dark matter cannot
>>
>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondvsDM.html
>>
>>
> I find it odd that you think it is a good idea to field Milgrom's
> personal site as if he were objective on the subject.
I have cited data, not people. And in any case it is worth to notice
that above is *not* Milgrom personal site.
Either you are lying or you cannot read. Both options expose you again :-D
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Moreover, whereas in the neutrino case no alternative theory explained
>> observations. In the dark matter case, we have alternative theories
>> explaining hundred of observations that dark matter cannot
>>
>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondvsDM.html
>>
>>
> I find it odd that you think it is a good idea to field Milgrom's
> personal site as if he were objective on the subject.
What is odd is to see how you return to /ad hominem/ attacks
always you lack any argument Eric :-D
Moreover, above is *not* Milgrom personal site. This fact gives an
excellent idea about your absolute lack of objectivity.
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Moreover, whereas in the neutrino case no alternative theory explained
>> observations. In the dark matter case, we have alternative theories
>> explaining hundred of observations that dark matter cannot
>>
>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondvsDM.html
>>
>>
> I find it odd that you think it is a good idea to field Milgrom's
> personal site as if he were objective on the subject.
What is odd is to see how you return to /ad hominem/ attacks always you
lack any argument Eric :-D
Moreover, above is *not* Milgrom personal site. This fact gives an
excellent idea about your absolute lack of objectivity.
NOTE: Eric posted the above /ad hominem/ and changed headers. I have
corrected headers and resubmitted this reply.
Juan R.
I have noticed that Eric changed headers and your reply to him was not
received on the other nws where he send his original lie.
Juan R.
I have noticed that Eric changed headers and your reply was not
received on the other nws where he sent his original lie.
Juan R.
> eric gisse wrote on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:26:12 -0800:
>
>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>> Particles from the standard model have been considered as being
>>>> responsible for dark matter. There are various reasons why each
>>>> candidate appears not to be viable.
>>>
>>> Which returns to my original point. Opening a list/table of the
>>> particles of the SM explains why WIMPS and neutrinos are not in the
>>> same footing.
>>
>> I find it curious that you are present in a debate about dark matter
>> when you don't have enough knowledge to understand why neutrinos are
>> excluded as dark matter candidates.
>>
>> Or why WIMPs aren't an accepted part of the standard model.
>
> I do not find curious that you pretend to participate in a debate beyond
> your possibilities. Neither I find curious that you lie about others say
> because you are being doing this for years now.
I have noticed that you changed headers and my reply was not
received on the other nws where you sent your original lie :-D
eric gisse
> "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez wrote on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:06:22 +0000:
>
>> Peter Webb wrote on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:21:54 +1100:
>>
>>> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hb6irb$o9a$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
A nice feature of this newsgroup client is that it defaults to having the
followup only go to the newsgroup I'm reading the thread from.
Besides, you are the one who reposted the same spam to a half dozen
different newsgroups under a different name. Glass houses, chief.
>
>
>
eric gisse
> eric gisse wrote on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:26:27 -0800:
>
>> Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez wrote:
>>
>>> eric gisse wrote on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:26:12 -0800:
>>>
>>>> Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Particles from the standard model have been considered as being
>>>>>> responsible for dark matter. There are various reasons why each
>>>>>> candidate appears not to be viable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which returns to my original point. Opening a list/table of the
>>>>> particles of the SM explains why WIMPS and neutrinos are not in the
>>>>> same footing.
>>>>
>>>> I find it curious that you are present in a debate about dark matter
>>>> when you don't have enough knowledge to understand why neutrinos are
>>>> excluded as dark matter candidates.
>>>>
>>>> Or why WIMPs aren't an accepted part of the standard model.
>>>
>>> I do not find curious that you pretend to participate in a debate
>>> beyond your possibilities. Neither I find curious that you lie about
>>> others say because you are being doing this for years now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Dude, why are you even trying? I've repeatedly watch you flatly deny
>> that literature says something that I copied and pasted it saying. You
>> are out of your depth in yet another subject.
>
> Your continous self-presentation like an expert do not hide the fact
> that you are an undergraduate dropout
How much easier does it get to marginalize me when you lie about me like
that?
> , that you lie about that others say
> (this thread contain new instances as noticed by Peter Webb), or that
> USENET is rich on your collection of nonsenses that did you a famous
> CRACKPOT.
One of these days that martyr complex will get so strong that you'll douse
yourself in petrol and light a match.
>
> Remind the recent case where you self-proclaimed expert and pretended
> to 'review' a FOP paper until Ilja, Tom, and me noticed that you could not
> even do simple (textbook-like) computations like "g_ab g^bc" :-D
Simple error in index gymnastics while performing the variation. Oddly
enough, you only managed to pick up on that _after_ other people did.
Ilja's paper is still nonsense, the reasons I have listed continue to be
valid. Try not to get tripped up over a tangential point.
Speaking of reviews, I'm wondering if my last review of your laughable
manuscript will match equation for equation with the next available version.
>
>
eric gisse
[...]
> I have worked something about this and find a way to explain the spin of
> graviton from the spin of photons. But I have not advanced in this
> research. Moreover, of course this is all *speculative*.
The lack of progress could be explained by gravitions being spin 2 and
photons being spin 1.
eric gisse
>
> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hb6irb$o9a$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>>>
>>>> Particles from the standard model have been considered as being
>>>> responsible for dark matter. There are various reasons why each
>>>> candidate appears not to be viable.
>>>
>>> Which returns to my original point. Opening a list/table of the
>>> particles of the SM explains why WIMPS and neutrinos are not in
>>> the same footing.
>>
>> I find it curious that you are present in a debate about dark matter when
>> you don't have enough knowledge to understand why neutrinos are excluded
>> as
>> dark matter candidates.
>>
>> Or why WIMPs aren't an accepted part of the standard model.
>>
>
> I don't think that is his point at all. Almost the opposite.
It didn't read that way to me, otherwise I wouldn't have said anything.
[...]
eric gisse
[...]
> There is many mistakes in that work. First, I want to remark that Sean
> Carroll mistakes about Newtonian gravity are revised in my last report
> (see second reference listed therein)
Why are you still going on about this? Your only reference is his online
lecture notes, from the section that briefly discusses how the
proportionality constant in the field equations is defined. You never even
read the later half of the notes for the actual derivation of the weak field
limit, nor have you read the book. Serious weaksauce argument there.
[...]
> His alussion to the number of experts believing in some option reflects
> the lack of better argument. It is worth to remark that also mosts experts
> believed that Newtonian theory was complete and that Mercury perihoelion
> anomaly was due to some new unknown mass. They were so sure that mass was
> real than even nemed it Vulcan before being found.
Neptune and Pluto were just discovered using that method. It wasn't that
wrong of an idea.
Scientists eventually realized that there was no possible orbit that would
keep Vulcan perpetually hidden, so congrats on leaving out the part of the
scientific method that validates the process.
>
> Of course, nobody found Vulcan and now we know that all those 'experts'
> were wring. The same happen with those dark matter experts today.
If dark matter wasn't real, it wouldn't have behaved exactly as expected in
the bullet cluster and other cluster mergers.
>
> Someone said that the ignorance of history obligates to repeat the same
> mistakes.
>
> Next Carroll makes all series of misguided claims about predictions.
>
> Dark matter theory makes no predictions because the amount of dark matter
> is obtained *after* the data is obtained not before. The pressumed amount
> of dark matter is *obtained from* the difference between the prediction
> using general relativty and the measurements.
Except via lensing observations which directly measure the amount of overall
matter, from which we can subtract the luminious matter and figure out
what's missing.
Phrasing it the way you do belies your prejudices.
>
> How do you think that the idea of dark matter born? Yes from disagreement
> between GR and observations!
The idea of dark matter was born from disagreement with _NEWTON_ and
observations, dating back to the 30's with the original discovery of
rotation curves.
Speaking of history, remember neutrinos? How'd that work out? Same line of
thought. Dismissing the process out of hand because you don't like the
result isn't science.
>
> Here you have a collection of predictions done by both Dark matter
> theorists and MOND theorists and how MOND predictions have been confirmed
>
> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondvsDM.html
I always liked arguments that boil down to what can fill a score card
better.
>
> Next you have the original Milgrom predictions. All again confirmed
>
> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondpred.html
I find it odd that Milgrom hasn't updated any of the pages in nearly 6
years, even though there have been several major WMAP data releases and
other highly significant developments in cosmology.
>
> It is also known that MOND theorists were the first that predicted the
> correct second peak for WMAP. Dark matter theorists prediction was wrong,
> and only after the data was at hand, dark matter theorists changed their
> model again.
How can a claim that MOND gets a part (not even the whole thing) of the CMB
power spectrum correct be even close to relevant when MOND has repeatedly
failed to be fielded as a theory that correctly nails _all_ of the acoustic
peaks in the CMB? Even if taken as gospel that DM got it after the fact,
that is still a good bit better than MOND has been able to do.
But now that you've covered only the favorable views of MOND, let's look at
some of the unfavorable ones.
* Completely fails in describing the bullet cluster dynamics without further
invocation of dark matter.
* Completely fails to get the formation of the large scale structure of the
universe correct.
I think those two are pretty damning.
>
> Here you have more correct predictions from MOND and more disproved
> predictions from dark matter (CDM).
>
> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB1.html
>
> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB5.html
>
> See how the dark matter theorists have *now* forgotten that they predicted
> the behavior ploted as orange line
Predicted what? He gives no references for the prediction. Besides - "The
lines are the LCDM model as it existed prior to the advent of accurate, high
resolution CMB data (dashed orange line)". Not changing a model once better
data appears is _lunacy_.
Let's go more recent:
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr3/pub_papers/fiveyear/basic_results/wmap5basic.pdf
The L-CDM model continues to work just fine.
>
> About clusters I already gave you links, which you snip from the reply.
>
> Can MOND explain lensing? No, because MOND is not relativistic and lensing
> is a relativistic phenomena, which is explained by relativistic MOND.
Which should be a surprise to nobody really, given that the essential
features of gravitational lensing will be encapsulated by the GR component
of "relativistic" MOND.
>
> MOND is not a complete theory, just as general relativity is not a
> compelte theory (e.g. it lacks thermodynamics or quantum corrections).
What are you talking about? GR works with thermodynamics quite fine.
[...]
>
> Saying that, because MOND is not a theory, it would be ignored is rather
> childish. MOND is a law extracted from observations.
So was Ballmer's rule for the Hydrogen spectrum.
[...]
> Moreover, DM is not a theory. There is not theory of matter for DM.
Are you sure?
Folks have been describing the required properties of dark matter for quite
awhile. It is a fluid that supports no anisotropic shear, no pressure, does
not has electromagnetic interactions (or any significant interactions), is
decidedly nonbaryonic, is not composed of neutrinos, is thermally cold, and
plays well with others.
> DM is a concept. When you find discrepancies between observation and
> prediction you add some ad hoc amount of DM until you can fit the data.
> Nobody knows what is DM, what are its properties.... Also, in practice
> DM theorists never can fit the fine data (they only do in a coarse way)
>
> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/fit_compare.html
That might be related to the fact that past a certain point, we do not have
a firm grasp of DM's actual properties or its' distribution. The coarseness
of a fit might have something to do with the coarseness of the observational
data.
>
> Carroll also seems to ignore that several theories give a framework
> for MOND. Probably the most known was TeVeS theory, but there is more.
>
> Morever, in my recent work
>
>
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html
>
> I advance a new theory of gravity that explains phenomena that neither
> MOND or DM can explain.
>
>
You have no "recent work", you have a notepad of ideas that you are yet to
publish. You've been referencing your notepad for the past 4-ish years, but
are yet to publish.
eric gisse
And when is this going to be available to the public? What you are doing is
in quite poor form.
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I have worked something about this and find a way to explain the spin
>> of graviton from the spin of photons. But I have not advanced in this
>> research. Moreover, of course this is all *speculative*.
>
> The lack of progress could be explained by gravitions being spin 2 and
> photons being spin 1.
Cannot read Eric?
I already got the spin 2 of gravitons FROM the spin 1 of photons [#].
[#] In reality it is more complex than above because the other spin modes
are also got. But this is all beyond your compresion Eric :-D
Juan R.
> Peter Webb wrote:
>
>
>> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hb6irb$o9a$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Particles from the standard model have been considered as being
>>>>> responsible for dark matter. There are various reasons why each
>>>>> candidate appears not to be viable.
>>>>
>>>> Which returns to my original point. Opening a list/table of the
>>>> particles of the SM explains why WIMPS and neutrinos are not in the
>>>> same footing.
>>>
>>> I find it curious that you are present in a debate about dark matter
>>> when you don't have enough knowledge to understand why neutrinos are
>>> excluded as
>>> dark matter candidates.
>>>
>>> Or why WIMPs aren't an accepted part of the standard model.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't think that is his point at all. Almost the opposite.
>
> It didn't read that way to me, otherwise I wouldn't have said anything.
You cannot read then?
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
>> eric gisse wrote on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:26:27 -0800:
>>
>>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>>
>>>> eric gisse wrote on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:26:12 -0800:
>>>>
>>>>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Particles from the standard model have been considered as being
>>>>>>> responsible for dark matter. There are various reasons why each
>>>>>>> candidate appears not to be viable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which returns to my original point. Opening a list/table of the
>>>>>> particles of the SM explains why WIMPS and neutrinos are not in the
>>>>>> same footing.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it curious that you are present in a debate about dark matter
>>>>> when you don't have enough knowledge to understand why neutrinos are
>>>>> excluded as dark matter candidates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or why WIMPs aren't an accepted part of the standard model.
>>>>
>>>> I do not find curious that you pretend to participate in a debate
>>>> beyond your possibilities. Neither I find curious that you lie about
>>>> others say because you are being doing this for years now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Dude, why are you even trying? I've repeatedly watch you flatly deny
>>> that literature says something that I copied and pasted it saying. You
>>> are out of your depth in yet another subject.
>>
>> Your continous self-presentation like an expert do not hide the fact
>> that you are an undergraduate dropout
>
> How much easier does it get to marginalize me when you lie about me like
> that?
You are the one who has been fantasizing for years about pursuing degrees
on physics and math. You are the one who has been fantasizing about
being an expert in relativity and others...
The true is that you abandoned math earlier and physics this summer, without
any posibility to continue a career on physics after 10 years trying.
The true is that your nonsenses about relativity get archived in USENET and
in other places.
>> , that you lie about that others say
>> (this thread contain new instances as noticed by Peter Webb), or that
>> USENET is rich on your collection of nonsenses that did you a famous
>> CRACKPOT.
>
> One of these days that martyr complex will get so strong that you'll
> douse yourself in petrol and light a match.
I am not the one who feel the need to hide his photo in facebook Eric :-D
>> Remind the recent case where you self-proclaimed expert and pretended
>> to 'review' a FOP paper until Ilja, Tom, and me noticed that you could
>> not even do simple (textbook-like) computations like "g_ab g^bc" :-D
>
> Simple error in index gymnastics while performing the variation. Oddly
> enough, you only managed to pick up on that _after_ other people did.
Was not simple error, was a BIG error that no student does, less
still an *expert*.
(...)
> Speaking of reviews, I'm wondering if my last review of your laughable
> manuscript will match equation for equation with the next available
> version.
You confounded the order of words. It is "laughable review" :-D
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> [...]
>
>> There is many mistakes in that work. First, I want to remark that Sean
>> Carroll mistakes about Newtonian gravity are revised in my last report
>> (see second reference listed therein)
>
> Why are you still going on about this? Your only reference is his online
> lecture notes, from the section that briefly discusses how the
> proportionality constant in the field equations is defined. You never
> even read the later half of the notes for the actual derivation of the
> weak field limit, nor have you read the book. Serious weaksauce argument
> there.
You never even read I wrote.
> [...]
>
>> His alussion to the number of experts believing in some option reflects
>> the lack of better argument. It is worth to remark that also mosts
>> experts believed that Newtonian theory was complete and that Mercury
>> perihoelion anomaly was due to some new unknown mass. They were so sure
>> that mass was real than even nemed it Vulcan before being found.
>
> Neptune and Pluto were just discovered using that method. It wasn't that
> wrong of an idea.
Nature showed the contrary. Vulcan does not exist :-D
>> Of course, nobody found Vulcan and now we know that all those 'experts'
>> were wring. The same happen with those dark matter experts today.
>
> If dark matter wasn't real, it wouldn't have behaved exactly as expected
> in the bullet cluster and other cluster mergers.
Do you mean 'real' as Vulcan? Then I agree.
>> Someone said that the ignorance of history obligates to repeat the same
>> mistakes.
>>
>> Next Carroll makes all series of misguided claims about predictions.
>>
>> Dark matter theory makes no predictions because the amount of dark
>> matter is obtained *after* the data is obtained not before. The
>> pressumed amount of dark matter is *obtained from* the difference
>> between the prediction using general relativty and the measurements.
>
> Except via lensing observations which directly measure the amount of
> overall matter, from which we can subtract the luminious matter and
> figure out what's missing.
It is just the contrary, the amount of dark matter that some people
*imagine* is here, is inferred from the lensing observations, which
cannot be explained by GR.
> Phrasing it the way you do belies your prejudices.
>
>
>> How do you think that the idea of dark matter born? Yes from
>> disagreement between GR and observations!
>
> The idea of dark matter was born from disagreement with _NEWTON_ and
> observations, dating back to the 30's with the original discovery of
> rotation curves.
No. The disagreement with Newton gave MOdified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND).
The disagreement with GR gave Dark Matter (DM).
> Speaking of history, remember neutrinos? How'd that work out? Same line
> of thought. Dismissing the process out of hand because you don't like
> the result isn't science.
No, neutrinos are not in the same place than WIMPS. Read the thread.
>> Here you have a collection of predictions done by both Dark matter
>> theorists and MOND theorists and how MOND predictions have been
>> confirmed
>>
>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondvsDM.html
>
> I always liked arguments that boil down to what can fill a score card
> better.
I always liked the scary reactions to the fact that MOND works better.
>
>> Next you have the original Milgrom predictions. All again confirmed
>>
>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondpred.html
>
> I find it odd that Milgrom hasn't updated any of the pages in nearly 6
> years, even though there have been several major WMAP data releases and
> other highly significant developments in cosmology.
I find it odd that you lie on this nasty way.
>> It is also known that MOND theorists were the first that predicted the
>> correct second peak for WMAP. Dark matter theorists prediction was
>> wrong, and only after the data was at hand, dark matter theorists
>> changed their model again.
>
> How can a claim that MOND gets a part (not even the whole thing) of the
> CMB power spectrum correct be even close to relevant when MOND has
> repeatedly failed to be fielded as a theory that correctly nails _all_
> of the acoustic peaks in the CMB? Even if taken as gospel that DM got it
> after the fact, that is still a good bit better than MOND has been able
> to do.
Who would think that a non-relativistic theory would match relativistic
data? Who would critize a theory that explain data within its field of
applicability whereas alternatives (e.g. Lambda CDM 1999) were ruled out?
> But now that you've covered only the favorable views of MOND, let's look
> at some of the unfavorable ones.
>
> * Completely fails in describing the bullet cluster dynamics without
> further invocation of dark matter.
First DM fails to explain the bullet cluster. Second MOND is not relativistic.
> * Completely fails to get the formation of the large scale structure of
> the universe correct.
MOND is not relativistic. Nobody serious would apply it to the cosmos as
a whole. However, DM is supposed to work at galactic scale, but it fails.
> I think those two are pretty damning.
But you ill-informed and biased opinion can be easily ignored.
>
>> Here you have more correct predictions from MOND and more disproved
>> predictions from dark matter (CDM).
>>
>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB1.html
>>
>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB5.html
>>
>> See how the dark matter theorists have *now* forgotten that they
>> predicted the behavior ploted as orange line
>
> Predicted what? He gives no references for the prediction.
Who care about your ignorance?
> Besides -
> "The lines are the LCDM model as it existed prior to the advent of
> accurate, high resolution CMB data (dashed orange line)". Not changing a
> model once better data appears is _lunacy_.
Hiding the FACT that the proclaimed 'good' model was wrong whereas the
MOND model predicted the correct value is at the best _dishonest_.
> Let's go more recent:
>
> http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr3/pub_papers/fiveyear/basic_results/wmap5basic.pdf
>
> The L-CDM model continues to work just fine.
No really, the L-CDM model is pure curve fitting and some of the parameters
used to force the fit are not consistent. This is different from a model
that PREDICTED the correct data once again.
>> About clusters I already gave you links, which you snip from the reply.
>>
>> Can MOND explain lensing? No, because MOND is not relativistic and
>> lensing is a relativistic phenomena, which is explained by relativistic
>> MOND.
>
> Which should be a surprise to nobody really, given that the essential
> features of gravitational lensing will be encapsulated by the GR
> component of "relativistic" MOND.
No. We do not need GR to explain lensings.
>> MOND is not a complete theory, just as general relativity is not a
>> compelte theory (e.g. it lacks thermodynamics or quantum corrections).
>
> What are you talking about? GR works with thermodynamics quite fine.
Another instance of your ignorance.
> [...]
>
>
>> Saying that, because MOND is not a theory, it would be ignored is
>> rather childish. MOND is a law extracted from observations.
>
> So was Ballmer's rule for the Hydrogen spectrum.
There is better analogies.
> [...]
>
>> Moreover, DM is not a theory. There is not theory of matter for DM.
>
> Are you sure?
The standard model is well-known.
> Folks have been describing the required properties of dark matter for
> quite awhile.
Folks have been changing the required properties of dark matter for
each new observation ruling out them.
> It is a fluid that supports no anisotropic shear, no
> pressure, does not has electromagnetic interactions (or any significant
> interactions), is decidedly nonbaryonic, is not composed of neutrinos,
> is thermally cold, and plays well with others.
>
>> DM is a concept. When you find discrepancies between observation and
>> prediction you add some ad hoc amount of DM until you can fit the data.
>> Nobody knows what is DM, what are its properties.... Also, in practice
>> DM theorists never can fit the fine data (they only do in a coarse way)
>>
>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/fit_compare.html
>
> That might be related to the fact that past a certain point, we do not
> have a firm grasp of DM's actual properties or its' distribution. The
> coarseness of a fit might have something to do with the coarseness of
> the observational data.
Do you even understand the figure?
>
>> Carroll also seems to ignore that several theories give a framework for
>> MOND. Probably the most known was TeVeS theory, but there is more.
>>
>> Morever, in my recent work
>>
>>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html
>>
>> I advance a new theory of gravity that explains phenomena that neither
>> MOND or DM can explain.
>>
>>
>>
> You have no "recent work", you have a notepad of ideas that you are yet
> to publish. You've been referencing your notepad for the past 4-ish
> years, but are yet to publish.
--
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> [...]
>
>> There is many mistakes in that work. First, I want to remark that Sean
>> Carroll mistakes about Newtonian gravity are revised in my last report
>> (see second reference listed therein)
>
> Why are you still going on about this? Your only reference is his online
> lecture notes, from the section that briefly discusses how the
> proportionality constant in the field equations is defined. You never
> even read the later half of the notes for the actual derivation of the
> weak field limit, nor have you read the book. Serious weaksauce argument
> there.
You never even read I wrote.
> [...]
>
>> His alussion to the number of experts believing in some option reflects
>> the lack of better argument. It is worth to remark that also mosts
>> experts believed that Newtonian theory was complete and that Mercury
>> perihoelion anomaly was due to some new unknown mass. They were so sure
>> that mass was real than even nemed it Vulcan before being found.
>
> Neptune and Pluto were just discovered using that method. It wasn't that
> wrong of an idea.
Nature showed the contrary. Vulcan does not exist :-D
>> Of course, nobody found Vulcan and now we know that all those 'experts'
>> were wring. The same happen with those dark matter experts today.
>
> If dark matter wasn't real, it wouldn't have behaved exactly as expected
> in the bullet cluster and other cluster mergers.
Do you mean 'real' as Vulcan? Then I agree.
>> Someone said that the ignorance of history obligates to repeat the same
>> mistakes.
>>
>> Next Carroll makes all series of misguided claims about predictions.
>>
>> Dark matter theory makes no predictions because the amount of dark
>> matter is obtained *after* the data is obtained not before. The
>> pressumed amount of dark matter is *obtained from* the difference
>> between the prediction using general relativty and the measurements.
>
> Except via lensing observations which directly measure the amount of
> overall matter, from which we can subtract the luminious matter and
> figure out what's missing.
It is just the contrary, the amount of dark matter that some people
*imagine* is here, is inferred from the lensing observations, which cannot
be explained by GR.
> Phrasing it the way you do belies your prejudices.
>
>
>> How do you think that the idea of dark matter born? Yes from
>> disagreement between GR and observations!
>
> The idea of dark matter was born from disagreement with _NEWTON_ and
> observations, dating back to the 30's with the original discovery of
> rotation curves.
No. The disagreement with Newton gave MOdified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND).
The disagreement with GR gave Dark Matter (DM).
> Speaking of history, remember neutrinos? How'd that work out? Same line
> of thought. Dismissing the process out of hand because you don't like
> the result isn't science.
No, neutrinos are not in the same place than WIMPS. Read the thread.
>> Here you have a collection of predictions done by both Dark matter
>> theorists and MOND theorists and how MOND predictions have been
>> confirmed
>>
>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondvsDM.html
>
> I always liked arguments that boil down to what can fill a score card
> better.
I always liked the scary reactions to the fact that MOND works better.
>> Next you have the original Milgrom predictions. All again confirmed
>>
>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondpred.html
>
> I find it odd that Milgrom hasn't updated any of the pages in nearly 6
> years, even though there have been several major WMAP data releases and
> other highly significant developments in cosmology.
I find it odd that you lie on this nasty way.
>> It is also known that MOND theorists were the first that predicted the
>> correct second peak for WMAP. Dark matter theorists prediction was
>> wrong, and only after the data was at hand, dark matter theorists
>> changed their model again.
>
> How can a claim that MOND gets a part (not even the whole thing) of the
> CMB power spectrum correct be even close to relevant when MOND has
> repeatedly failed to be fielded as a theory that correctly nails _all_
> of the acoustic peaks in the CMB? Even if taken as gospel that DM got it
> after the fact, that is still a good bit better than MOND has been able
> to do.
Who would think that a non-relativistic theory would match relativistic
data? Who would critize a theory that explain data within its field of
applicability whereas alternatives (e.g. Lambda CDM 1999) were ruled out?
> But now that you've covered only the favorable views of MOND, let's look
> at some of the unfavorable ones.
>
> * Completely fails in describing the bullet cluster dynamics without
> further invocation of dark matter.
First DM fails to explain the bullet cluster. Second MOND is not
relativistic.
> * Completely fails to get the formation of the large scale structure of
> the universe correct.
MOND is not relativistic. Nobody serious would apply it to the cosmos as a
whole. However, DM is supposed to work at galactic scale, but it fails.
> I think those two are pretty damning.
But you ill-informed and biased opinion can be easily ignored.
>> Here you have more correct predictions from MOND and more disproved
>> predictions from dark matter (CDM).
>>
>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB1.html
>>
>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB5.html
>>
>> See how the dark matter theorists have *now* forgotten that they
>> predicted the behavior ploted as orange line
>
> Predicted what? He gives no references for the prediction.
Who care about your ignorance?
> Besides -
> "The lines are the LCDM model as it existed prior to the advent of
> accurate, high resolution CMB data (dashed orange line)". Not changing a
> model once better data appears is _lunacy_.
Hiding the FACT that the proclaimed 'good' model was wrong whereas the
MOND model predicted the correct value is at the best _dishonest_.
> Let's go more recent:
>
> http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr3/pub_papers/fiveyear/basic_results/wmap5basic.pdf
>
> The L-CDM model continues to work just fine.
No really, the L-CDM model is pure curve fitting and some of the
parameters used to force the fit are not consistent. This is different
from a model that PREDICTED the correct data once again.
>> About clusters I already gave you links, which you snip from the reply.
>>
>> Can MOND explain lensing? No, because MOND is not relativistic and
>> lensing is a relativistic phenomena, which is explained by relativistic
>> MOND.
>
> Which should be a surprise to nobody really, given that the essential
> features of gravitational lensing will be encapsulated by the GR
> component of "relativistic" MOND.
No. We do not need GR to explain lensings.
>> MOND is not a complete theory, just as general relativity is not a
>> compelte theory (e.g. it lacks thermodynamics or quantum corrections).
>
> What are you talking about? GR works with thermodynamics quite fine.
Another instance of your ignorance.
> [...]
>
>
>> Saying that, because MOND is not a theory, it would be ignored is
>> rather childish. MOND is a law extracted from observations.
>
> So was Ballmer's rule for the Hydrogen spectrum.
There is better analogies.
> [...]
>
>> Moreover, DM is not a theory. There is not theory of matter for DM.
>
> Are you sure?
The standard model is well-known.
> Folks have been describing the required properties of dark matter for
> quite awhile.
Folks have been changing the required properties of dark matter for each
new observation ruling out them.
> It is a fluid that supports no anisotropic shear, no pressure, does not
> has electromagnetic interactions (or any significant interactions), is
> decidedly nonbaryonic, is not composed of neutrinos, is thermally cold,
> and plays well with others.
>
>> DM is a concept. When you find discrepancies between observation and
>> prediction you add some ad hoc amount of DM until you can fit the data.
>> Nobody knows what is DM, what are its properties.... Also, in practice
>> DM theorists never can fit the fine data (they only do in a coarse way)
>>
>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/fit_compare.html
>
> That might be related to the fact that past a certain point, we do not
> have a firm grasp of DM's actual properties or its' distribution. The
> coarseness of a fit might have something to do with the coarseness of
> the observational data.
Do you even understand the figure?
--
eric gisse
> eric gisse wrote on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:02:40 -0800:
>
>> Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> There is many mistakes in that work. First, I want to remark that Sean
>>> Carroll mistakes about Newtonian gravity are revised in my last report
>>> (see second reference listed therein)
>>
>> Why are you still going on about this? Your only reference is his online
>> lecture notes, from the section that briefly discusses how the
>> proportionality constant in the field equations is defined. You never
>> even read the later half of the notes for the actual derivation of the
>> weak field limit, nor have you read the book. Serious weaksauce argument
>> there.
>
> You never even read I wrote.
I have, actually. You left a copy of the manuscript up for public download
and I read it, and it was horrible. I pointed out the specific problems with
your analysis, but you were quite unwilling to discuss them.
Did you forget?
>
>> [...]
>>
>>> His alussion to the number of experts believing in some option reflects
>>> the lack of better argument. It is worth to remark that also mosts
>>> experts believed that Newtonian theory was complete and that Mercury
>>> perihoelion anomaly was due to some new unknown mass. They were so sure
>>> that mass was real than even nemed it Vulcan before being found.
>>
>> Neptune and Pluto were just discovered using that method. It wasn't that
>> wrong of an idea.
>
> Nature showed the contrary. Vulcan does not exist :-D
True but not my point. Two planets had already been discovered that way.
>
>>> Of course, nobody found Vulcan and now we know that all those 'experts'
>>> were wring. The same happen with those dark matter experts today.
>>
>> If dark matter wasn't real, it wouldn't have behaved exactly as expected
>> in the bullet cluster and other cluster mergers.
>
> Do you mean 'real' as Vulcan? Then I agree.
Then why does dark matter obey the properties assigned to it before the
discovery of the bullet cluster? Why does gravitational lensing behave
exactly as if there is dark matter there?
>
>>> Someone said that the ignorance of history obligates to repeat the same
>>> mistakes.
>>>
>>> Next Carroll makes all series of misguided claims about predictions.
>>>
>>> Dark matter theory makes no predictions because the amount of dark
>>> matter is obtained *after* the data is obtained not before. The
>>> pressumed amount of dark matter is *obtained from* the difference
>>> between the prediction using general relativty and the measurements.
>>
>> Except via lensing observations which directly measure the amount of
>> overall matter, from which we can subtract the luminious matter and
>> figure out what's missing.
>
> It is just the contrary, the amount of dark matter that some people
> *imagine* is here, is inferred from the lensing observations, which cannot
> be explained by GR.
So why is dark matter so consistent with the properties assigned to it? I
know of 3 cluster merger systems, 2 of which are like the bullet cluster and
the other is a huge multiple galaxy merger. All of which show evidence of
dark matter.
[...]
>
> I always liked the scary reactions to the fact that MOND works better.
Until it is used outside of the relatively narrow regime in which it was
derived, in which case the magic of curve fitting diminishes somewhat.
>
>
>>> Next you have the original Milgrom predictions. All again confirmed
>>>
>>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondpred.html
>>
>> I find it odd that Milgrom hasn't updated any of the pages in nearly 6
>> years, even though there have been several major WMAP data releases and
>> other highly significant developments in cosmology.
>
> I find it odd that you lie on this nasty way.
s/Milgrom/McGauch/g
>
>>> It is also known that MOND theorists were the first that predicted the
>>> correct second peak for WMAP. Dark matter theorists prediction was
>>> wrong, and only after the data was at hand, dark matter theorists
>>> changed their model again.
>>
>> How can a claim that MOND gets a part (not even the whole thing) of the
>> CMB power spectrum correct be even close to relevant when MOND has
>> repeatedly failed to be fielded as a theory that correctly nails _all_
>> of the acoustic peaks in the CMB? Even if taken as gospel that DM got it
>> after the fact, that is still a good bit better than MOND has been able
>> to do.
>
> Who would think that a non-relativistic theory would match relativistic
> data?
What, pray tell, is "relativistic data"? The CMB is thermally cold, ~2.7K.
Not at all relativistic. Why is it at all clear that MOND doesn't apply to
the CMB, other than the fact it doesn't work?
> Who would critize a theory that explain data within its field of
> applicability whereas alternatives (e.g. Lambda CDM 1999) were ruled out?
I'm not clear on what the model doesn't, as every iteration of the L-CDM
model I have seen has fit the WMAP data releases. No literature references,
no coherent discussion.
>
>> But now that you've covered only the favorable views of MOND, let's look
>> at some of the unfavorable ones.
>>
>> * Completely fails in describing the bullet cluster dynamics without
>> further invocation of dark matter.
>
> First DM fails to explain the bullet cluster. Second MOND is not
> relativistic.
DM does explain the bullet cluster.
>
>> * Completely fails to get the formation of the large scale structure of
>> the universe correct.
>
> MOND is not relativistic. Nobody serious would apply it to the cosmos as a
> whole. However, DM is supposed to work at galactic scale, but it fails.
No, it doesn't. Though I'm not sure why I'm even arguing this point because
there's no way I can convince you given your willingness to ignore
literature references that disagree with you.
>
>> I think those two are pretty damning.
>
> But you ill-informed and biased opinion can be easily ignored.
>
>
>>> Here you have more correct predictions from MOND and more disproved
>>> predictions from dark matter (CDM).
>>>
>>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB1.html
>>>
>>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB5.html
>>>
>>> See how the dark matter theorists have *now* forgotten that they
>>> predicted the behavior ploted as orange line
>>
>> Predicted what? He gives no references for the prediction.
>
> Who care about your ignorance?
>
>> Besides -
>> "The lines are the LCDM model as it existed prior to the advent of
>> accurate, high resolution CMB data (dashed orange line)". Not changing a
>> model once better data appears is _lunacy_.
>
> Hiding the FACT that the proclaimed 'good' model was wrong whereas the
> MOND model predicted the correct value is at the best _dishonest_.
The L-CDM model gets it correct, if you look at the "Implications for
Cosmology" paper from the 5 year release I posted you'll see this. I can
hardly comment on a page doesn't source its' claims.
>
>> Let's go more recent:
>>
>>
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr3/pub_papers/fiveyear/basic_results/wmap5basic.pdf
>>
>> The L-CDM model continues to work just fine.
>
> No really, the L-CDM model is pure curve fitting and some of the
> parameters used to force the fit are not consistent. This is different
> from a model that PREDICTED the correct data once again.
Really, how do the parameters force the fit? Feel free to explain.
>
>>> About clusters I already gave you links, which you snip from the reply.
>>>
>>> Can MOND explain lensing? No, because MOND is not relativistic and
>>> lensing is a relativistic phenomena, which is explained by relativistic
>>> MOND.
>>
>> Which should be a surprise to nobody really, given that the essential
>> features of gravitational lensing will be encapsulated by the GR
>> component of "relativistic" MOND.
>
> No. We do not need GR to explain lensings.
Well you don't really have much choice on that now do you? The GR component
of the action does most of the legwork.
>
>>> MOND is not a complete theory, just as general relativity is not a
>>> compelte theory (e.g. it lacks thermodynamics or quantum corrections).
>>
>> What are you talking about? GR works with thermodynamics quite fine.
>
> Another instance of your ignorance.
Feel free to open MTW and read the chapter on thermodynamics on curved
spacetime if you don't believe me.
>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>> Saying that, because MOND is not a theory, it would be ignored is
>>> rather childish. MOND is a law extracted from observations.
>>
>> So was Ballmer's rule for the Hydrogen spectrum.
>
> There is better analogies.
>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Moreover, DM is not a theory. There is not theory of matter for DM.
>>
>> Are you sure?
>
> The standard model is well-known.
But the properties of dark matter _are_ pretty well tied down even if there
isn't a corresponding entry in the standard model. We are reasonably sure
the standard model starts falling apart at LHC energies anyway.
>
>> Folks have been describing the required properties of dark matter for
>> quite awhile.
>
> Folks have been changing the required properties of dark matter for each
> new observation ruling out them.
Really? I just wrote them, please show how they have been ruled out.
>
>> It is a fluid that supports no anisotropic shear, no pressure, does not
>> has electromagnetic interactions (or any significant interactions), is
>> decidedly nonbaryonic, is not composed of neutrinos, is thermally cold,
>> and plays well with others.
>>
>>> DM is a concept. When you find discrepancies between observation and
>>> prediction you add some ad hoc amount of DM until you can fit the data.
>>> Nobody knows what is DM, what are its properties.... Also, in practice
>>> DM theorists never can fit the fine data (they only do in a coarse way)
>>>
>>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/fit_compare.html
>>
>> That might be related to the fact that past a certain point, we do not
>> have a firm grasp of DM's actual properties or its' distribution. The
>> coarseness of a fit might have something to do with the coarseness of
>> the observational data.
>
> Do you even understand the figure?
>
>
>
I understand that the dark matter prediction is sourced by an assumption of
a spherical matter halo (baryonic *and* dark) which isn't an accurate model
for reality.
Yousuf Khan
> The problem with modified gravity theories is that they are frequently
> panned as alternatives to dark matter and sometimes dark energy. I, however,
> always amused by pointing out that the modified gravity theories are doing
> the exact same thing as dark matter - just sloppier. Invoking arbitrary
> tensor/vector/scalar fields on top of GR or some other theory of gravitation
> is a lot less satisfying than weakly interacting matter.
Well, what if the favourite version of DM was not your favourite version
of it, but some other version of it, such as MACHOs or something? Would
you still say it's more satisfying?
My own personal favourite theory is neither MOND nor DM, but Dark Fluid.
It appeals to me, because physically a lot of what we see about space
reminds me alot about a fluid. But we all have our own aesthetic
preferences.
> Speaking of the successes of MOND, I continue to believe that the situation
> is similar to the Ballmer description of the Hydrogen spectrum from way back
> in the day. A handy mathematical formalism does not a theory make, which is
> something people seem to be missing here. This opinion is buttressed by the
> (apparent to me) fact that both dark matter and MOND are tightly tuned to a
> few specific parameters (mass, luminosity, ratio of the two..) and such.
MOND's a_0 parameter seems to be uncannily the same as the acceleration
produced by Dark Energy too.
Yousuf Khan
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
>> eric gisse wrote on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:02:40 -0800:
>>
>>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> There is many mistakes in that work. First, I want to remark that
>>>> Sean Carroll mistakes about Newtonian gravity are revised in my last
>>>> report (see second reference listed therein)
>>>
>>> Why are you still going on about this? Your only reference is his
>>> online lecture notes, from the section that briefly discusses how the
>>> proportionality constant in the field equations is defined. You never
>>> even read the later half of the notes for the actual derivation of the
>>> weak field limit, nor have you read the book. Serious weaksauce
>>> argument there.
>>
>> You never even read I wrote.
>
> I have, actually. You left a copy of the manuscript up for public
> download and I read it, and it was horrible. I pointed out the specific
> problems with your analysis, but you were quite unwilling to discuss
> them.
>
> Did you forget?
No, I remember well the laugh of that day, but it seems you forgot that :-D
>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> His alussion to the number of experts believing in some option
>>>> reflects the lack of better argument. It is worth to remark that also
>>>> mosts experts believed that Newtonian theory was complete and that
>>>> Mercury perihoelion anomaly was due to some new unknown mass. They
>>>> were so sure that mass was real than even nemed it Vulcan before
>>>> being found.
>>>
>>> Neptune and Pluto were just discovered using that method. It wasn't
>>> that wrong of an idea.
>>
>> Nature showed the contrary. Vulcan does not exist :-D
>
> True but not my point. Two planets had already been discovered that way.
But Vulcan did not exist even when many people was sure of its existence.
It was a bad idea to extrapolate the previous successes.
>>>> Of course, nobody found Vulcan and now we know that all those
>>>> 'experts' were wring. The same happen with those dark matter experts
>>>> today.
>>>
>>> If dark matter wasn't real, it wouldn't have behaved exactly as
>>> expected in the bullet cluster and other cluster mergers.
>>
>> Do you mean 'real' as Vulcan? Then I agree.
>
> Then why does dark matter obey the properties assigned to it before the
> discovery of the bullet cluster?
No dark matter is not "obeying the properties assigned to it". The properties
are inffered/changed after observations of the discrepancies between GR
and observations. In fact you are lying.
> Why does gravitational lensing behave
> exactly as if there is dark matter there?
What a surprise for you! It is so strange as Vulcan which behave exactly as
if it there was there?
>>>> Someone said that the ignorance of history obligates to repeat the
>>>> same mistakes.
>>>>
>>>> Next Carroll makes all series of misguided claims about predictions.
>>>>
>>>> Dark matter theory makes no predictions because the amount of dark
>>>> matter is obtained *after* the data is obtained not before. The
>>>> pressumed amount of dark matter is *obtained from* the difference
>>>> between the prediction using general relativty and the measurements.
>>>
>>> Except via lensing observations which directly measure the amount of
>>> overall matter, from which we can subtract the luminious matter and
>>> figure out what's missing.
>>
>> It is just the contrary, the amount of dark matter that some people
>> *imagine* is here, is inferred from the lensing observations, which
>> cannot be explained by GR.
>
> So why is dark matter so consistent with the properties assigned to it?
> I know of 3 cluster merger systems, 2 of which are like the bullet
> cluster and the other is a huge multiple galaxy merger. All of which
> show evidence of dark matter.
Those consistencies and evidences are only in your mind.
> [...]
>
>
>> I always liked the scary reactions to the fact that MOND works better.
>
> Until it is used outside of the relatively narrow regime in which it was
> derived, in which case the magic of curve fitting diminishes somewhat.
Only a bad scientist would apply a theory/model beyond its field of
applicability. But only a dishonest pretender would critize a theory/model
because does not work beyond its field of applicability :-D
>>>> Next you have the original Milgrom predictions. All again confirmed
>>>>
>>>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondpred.html
>>>
>>> I find it odd that Milgrom hasn't updated any of the pages in nearly 6
>>> years, even though there have been several major WMAP data releases
>>> and other highly significant developments in cosmology.
>>
>> I find it odd that you lie on this nasty way.
>
> s/Milgrom/McGauch/g
You are still lying...
>
>>>> It is also known that MOND theorists were the first that predicted
>>>> the correct second peak for WMAP. Dark matter theorists prediction
>>>> was wrong, and only after the data was at hand, dark matter theorists
>>>> changed their model again.
>>>
>>> How can a claim that MOND gets a part (not even the whole thing) of
>>> the CMB power spectrum correct be even close to relevant when MOND has
>>> repeatedly failed to be fielded as a theory that correctly nails _all_
>>> of the acoustic peaks in the CMB? Even if taken as gospel that DM got
>>> it after the fact, that is still a good bit better than MOND has been
>>> able to do.
>>
>> Who would think that a non-relativistic theory would match relativistic
>> data?
>
> What, pray tell, is "relativistic data"? The CMB is thermally cold,
> ~2.7K. Not at all relativistic. Why is it at all clear that MOND doesn't
> apply to the CMB, other than the fact it doesn't work?
You continue lying. Not just MOND works at galactic scale (DM fails) but
that MOND has done predictions about CMB whereas previous DM models failed
and were substituted by ad hoc models AFTER observations (more curve fitting)
MOND cannot explain the *relativistic* part of the spectrum, but this is not
a surprise for us because MOND is a non-relativistic theory.
>> Who would critize a theory that explain data within its field of
>> applicability whereas alternatives (e.g. Lambda CDM 1999) were ruled
>> out?
>
> I'm not clear on what the model doesn't, as every iteration of the L-CDM
> model I have seen has fit the WMAP data releases. No literature
> references, no coherent discussion.
Liar. The literature is given. This is another of your crazy attempts to
hide evidence on the fiasco of DM models.
>>> But now that you've covered only the favorable views of MOND, let's
>>> look at some of the unfavorable ones.
>>>
>>> * Completely fails in describing the bullet cluster dynamics without
>>> further invocation of dark matter.
>>
>> First DM fails to explain the bullet cluster. Second MOND is not
>> relativistic.
>
> DM does explain the bullet cluster.
It does not.
>
>>> * Completely fails to get the formation of the large scale structure
>>> of the universe correct.
>>
>> MOND is not relativistic. Nobody serious would apply it to the cosmos
>> as a whole. However, DM is supposed to work at galactic scale, but it
>> fails.
>
> No, it doesn't. Though I'm not sure why I'm even arguing this point
> because there's no way I can convince you given your willingness to
> ignore literature references that disagree with you.
You are arguing because you feel a need to be exposed in public.
>>> I think those two are pretty damning.
>>
>> But you ill-informed and biased opinion can be easily ignored.
>>
>>
>>>> Here you have more correct predictions from MOND and more disproved
>>>> predictions from dark matter (CDM).
>>>>
>>>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB1.html
>>>>
>>>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB5.html
>>>>
>>>> See how the dark matter theorists have *now* forgotten that they
>>>> predicted the behavior ploted as orange line
>>>
>>> Predicted what? He gives no references for the prediction.
>>
>> Who care about your ignorance?
>>
>>> Besides -
>>> "The lines are the LCDM model as it existed prior to the advent of
>>> accurate, high resolution CMB data (dashed orange line)". Not changing
>>> a model once better data appears is _lunacy_.
>>
>> Hiding the FACT that the proclaimed 'good' model was wrong whereas the
>> MOND model predicted the correct value is at the best _dishonest_.
>
> The L-CDM model gets it correct, if you look at the "Implications for
> Cosmology" paper from the 5 year release I posted you'll see this. I can
> hardly comment on a page doesn't source its' claims.
You continue being dishonest :-D
The original L-CDM predicted wrong peaks. The MOND model predicted correct
peaks. After observations the MOND model continues being the same. The
L-CDM model was changed in a new exercise on curve fitting.
The problem is that recent L-CDM forces the fit to second peak
by using parameters that are in disagreement with other tests.
>>> Let's go more recent:
>>>
>>>
> http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr3/pub_papers/fiveyear/basic_results/wmap5basic.pdf
>>>
>>> The L-CDM model continues to work just fine.
>>
>> No really, the L-CDM model is pure curve fitting and some of the
>> parameters used to force the fit are not consistent. This is different
>> from a model that PREDICTED the correct data once again.
>
> Really, how do the parameters force the fit? Feel free to explain.
Very simple, you would know if you could explain the difference between
the L-CDM 1999 model and the model proposed after observations.
The question is why would I explain this elementary stuff to one arrogant
self-proclaimed expert as you Eric?
>
>>>> About clusters I already gave you links, which you snip from the
>>>> reply.
>>>>
>>>> Can MOND explain lensing? No, because MOND is not relativistic and
>>>> lensing is a relativistic phenomena, which is explained by
>>>> relativistic MOND.
>>>
>>> Which should be a surprise to nobody really, given that the essential
>>> features of gravitational lensing will be encapsulated by the GR
>>> component of "relativistic" MOND.
>>
>> No. We do not need GR to explain lensings.
>
> Well you don't really have much choice on that now do you?
Lensing can be explained by at least half dozen of theories published
in specialized literature [#]. In any case we do not need a "GR component"
as you incorrectly state :-D
>>>> MOND is not a complete theory, just as general relativity is not a
>>>> compelte theory (e.g. it lacks thermodynamics or quantum
>>>> corrections).
>>>
>>> What are you talking about? GR works with thermodynamics quite fine.
>>
>> Another instance of your ignorance.
>
> Feel free to open MTW and read the chapter on thermodynamics on curved
> spacetime if you don't believe me.
You think everything said in MTW is correct...
Also you confound research level presentation of scientific stuff with
educative level. And you still PRETEND you can discuss research level stuff
using basic textbooks, which is kind of scary :-D
The incompatibility between GR and thermodynamics is well-known for *experts*
with papers in the topic.
In fact, your pretensions are still more scary, because this incompatibility
is even know for laymens who have read best-sellers books by Penrose,
Prigogine, and others or has attended conferences on the topic.
>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>> Saying that, because MOND is not a theory, it would be ignored is
>>>> rather childish. MOND is a law extracted from observations.
>>>
>>> So was Ballmer's rule for the Hydrogen spectrum.
>>
>> There is better analogies.
>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Moreover, DM is not a theory. There is not theory of matter for DM.
>>>
>>> Are you sure?
>>
>> The standard model is well-known.
>
> But the properties of dark matter _are_ pretty well tied down even if
> there isn't a corresponding entry in the standard model. We are
> reasonably sure the standard model starts falling apart at LHC energies
> anyway.
No the properties of DM are not well-known. The models have been modified
and previous candidates to DM are not more. Learn the field!
Moreover, there is not matter theory of DM, only *speculations* beyond
HEP observations and the Standard Model.
>
>>> Folks have been describing the required properties of dark matter for
>>> quite awhile.
>>
>> Folks have been changing the required properties of dark matter for
>> each new observation ruling out them.
>
> Really? I just wrote them, please show how they have been ruled out.
Oh! you are showing your ignorance again because the history of DM is well-known.
GR people tried cold gas, dark clusters, Brown Dwarfs, Exotic stars,
non-barionic DM, Hot DM with nu, Hot DM with some hypotetical particle,
Cold DM with axions, Cold DM with wimps, Cold DM with cosmic
superstrings, neutralinos, Warm DM with gravitinos...
Dark matter has been hot, cold, and warm; massive, not so massive;
only interacting gravitationally, now supposed to be also weakly
interacting in some other misterious form; baryonic, non-baryonic, mixed;
based in SM (MACHOS) based in extensions of SM (WIMPS)...
>>> It is a fluid that supports no anisotropic shear, no pressure, does
>>> not has electromagnetic interactions (or any significant
>>> interactions), is decidedly nonbaryonic, is not composed of neutrinos,
>>> is thermally cold, and plays well with others.
>>>
>>>> DM is a concept. When you find discrepancies between observation and
>>>> prediction you add some ad hoc amount of DM until you can fit the
>>>> data. Nobody knows what is DM, what are its properties.... Also, in
>>>> practice DM theorists never can fit the fine data (they only do in a
>>>> coarse way)
>>>>
>>>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/fit_compare.html
>>>
>>> That might be related to the fact that past a certain point, we do not
>>> have a firm grasp of DM's actual properties or its' distribution. The
>>> coarseness of a fit might have something to do with the coarseness of
>>> the observational data.
>>
>> Do you even understand the figure?
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I understand that the dark matter prediction is sourced by an assumption
> of a spherical matter halo (baryonic *and* dark) which isn't an accurate
> model for reality.
Do you even understand the figure?
[#] Plus one if we count astronomers that do the trick of using MOND and
then multiply by a factor 2 to obtain a good estimation of lensing
before DM theorists start their curve fitting.
eric gisse
[...]
>> Did you forget?
>
> No, I remember well the laugh of that day, but it seems you forgot that
> :-D
It must have been an odd sounding laugh considering how quickly you hid it.
[...]
> But Vulcan did not exist even when many people was sure of its existence.
>
> It was a bad idea to extrapolate the previous successes.
Why? Should we extrapolate from past failures instead?
>
>>>>> Of course, nobody found Vulcan and now we know that all those
>>>>> 'experts' were wring. The same happen with those dark matter experts
>>>>> today.
>>>>
>>>> If dark matter wasn't real, it wouldn't have behaved exactly as
>>>> expected in the bullet cluster and other cluster mergers.
>>>
>>> Do you mean 'real' as Vulcan? Then I agree.
>>
>> Then why does dark matter obey the properties assigned to it before the
>> discovery of the bullet cluster?
>
> No dark matter is not "obeying the properties assigned to it". The
> properties are inffered/changed after observations of the discrepancies
> between GR and observations. In fact you are lying.
Ok, champ.
Show me how the bulk properties of dark matter have changed since Clowe
(2006).
>
>> Why does gravitational lensing behave
>> exactly as if there is dark matter there?
>
> What a surprise for you! It is so strange as Vulcan which behave exactly
> as if it there was there?
Someone isn't listening. You took the idea of Vulcan and completely ignored
the other half of the story where scientists checked out the possible orbits
and found that none of them were physically possible.
>
>>>>> Someone said that the ignorance of history obligates to repeat the
>>>>> same mistakes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Next Carroll makes all series of misguided claims about predictions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dark matter theory makes no predictions because the amount of dark
>>>>> matter is obtained *after* the data is obtained not before. The
>>>>> pressumed amount of dark matter is *obtained from* the difference
>>>>> between the prediction using general relativty and the measurements.
>>>>
>>>> Except via lensing observations which directly measure the amount of
>>>> overall matter, from which we can subtract the luminious matter and
>>>> figure out what's missing.
>>>
>>> It is just the contrary, the amount of dark matter that some people
>>> *imagine* is here, is inferred from the lensing observations, which
>>> cannot be explained by GR.
>>
>> So why is dark matter so consistent with the properties assigned to it?
>> I know of 3 cluster merger systems, 2 of which are like the bullet
>> cluster and the other is a huge multiple galaxy merger. All of which
>> show evidence of dark matter.
>
> Those consistencies and evidences are only in your mind.
And the literature. Don't forget the literature.
1E 0657-56 - Ye Olde Bullet Cluster
MACS J0025.4-1222 - Bullet Cluster mod II
Abell 520
>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>> I always liked the scary reactions to the fact that MOND works better.
>>
>> Until it is used outside of the relatively narrow regime in which it was
>> derived, in which case the magic of curve fitting diminishes somewhat.
>
> Only a bad scientist would apply a theory/model beyond its field of
> applicability. But only a dishonest pretender would critize a theory/model
> because does not work beyond its field of applicability :-D
And how are we defining 'field of applicability' today? Sure, it was derived
under the context of explaining galactic rotation curves. Hasn't stopped the
proponents from trying to make the bullet cluster work under that context
tho, or Abell 520.
Guess the field doesn't agree with you - again. Must be another full moon.
>
>>>>> Next you have the original Milgrom predictions. All again confirmed
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondpred.html
>>>>
>>>> I find it odd that Milgrom hasn't updated any of the pages in nearly 6
>>>> years, even though there have been several major WMAP data releases
>>>> and other highly significant developments in cosmology.
>>>
>>> I find it odd that you lie on this nasty way.
>>
>> s/Milgrom/McGauch/g
>
> You are still lying...
Am I? McGauch hasn't put any work into that page for many years, if the
change log on the individual pages are any indication. Or if the continual
references to the 1st year WMAP data release is any indication.
[...trim...]
>>> Who would think that a non-relativistic theory would match relativistic
>>> data?
>>
>> What, pray tell, is "relativistic data"? The CMB is thermally cold,
>> ~2.7K. Not at all relativistic. Why is it at all clear that MOND doesn't
>> apply to the CMB, other than the fact it doesn't work?
>
> You continue lying. Not just MOND works at galactic scale (DM fails) but
> that MOND has done predictions about CMB whereas previous DM models failed
> and were substituted by ad hoc models AFTER observations (more curve
> fitting)
That's a diversion attempt which neatly manages to not explain how the CMB
is relativistic.
Plus dark matter works at the galactic scale, though my desire to give
literature references to people with reading disabilities has diminished
over time.
>
> MOND cannot explain the *relativistic* part of the spectrum, but this is
> not a surprise for us because MOND is a non-relativistic theory.
None of the spectrum is relativistic. Try another argument.
Personally I'm rather fond of "MOND is phenomenological curve fitting with
an extremely limited domain of applicability that is far shorter than what
some of its' proponents wish to believe".
>
>>> Who would critize a theory that explain data within its field of
>>> applicability whereas alternatives (e.g. Lambda CDM 1999) were ruled
>>> out?
>>
>> I'm not clear on what the model doesn't, as every iteration of the L-CDM
>> model I have seen has fit the WMAP data releases. No literature
>> references, no coherent discussion.
>
> Liar. The literature is given. This is another of your crazy attempts to
> hide evidence on the fiasco of DM models.
I like how you blatantly advertise your bias by calling it a 'fiasco'.
>
>>>> But now that you've covered only the favorable views of MOND, let's
>>>> look at some of the unfavorable ones.
>>>>
>>>> * Completely fails in describing the bullet cluster dynamics without
>>>> further invocation of dark matter.
>>>
>>> First DM fails to explain the bullet cluster. Second MOND is not
>>> relativistic.
>>
>> DM does explain the bullet cluster.
>
> It does not.
Normally this would be solved with a literature reference but I can't even
get you to agree that a sentence says what it says without it turning into a
multi-week argument, so I'll just skip this.
>
>>
>>>> * Completely fails to get the formation of the large scale structure
>>>> of the universe correct.
>>>
>>> MOND is not relativistic. Nobody serious would apply it to the cosmos
>>> as a whole. However, DM is supposed to work at galactic scale, but it
>>> fails.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Though I'm not sure why I'm even arguing this point
>> because there's no way I can convince you given your willingness to
>> ignore literature references that disagree with you.
>
> You are arguing because you feel a need to be exposed in public.
Or maybe I'm laying on a couch bored out of my mind with a cat sitting on my
shoulder.
>
>>>> I think those two are pretty damning.
>>>
>>> But you ill-informed and biased opinion can be easily ignored.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Here you have more correct predictions from MOND and more disproved
>>>>> predictions from dark matter (CDM).
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB1.html
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB5.html
>>>>>
>>>>> See how the dark matter theorists have *now* forgotten that they
>>>>> predicted the behavior ploted as orange line
>>>>
>>>> Predicted what? He gives no references for the prediction.
>>>
>>> Who care about your ignorance?
>>>
>>>> Besides -
>>>> "The lines are the LCDM model as it existed prior to the advent of
>>>> accurate, high resolution CMB data (dashed orange line)". Not changing
>>>> a model once better data appears is _lunacy_.
>>>
>>> Hiding the FACT that the proclaimed 'good' model was wrong whereas the
>>> MOND model predicted the correct value is at the best _dishonest_.
>>
>> The L-CDM model gets it correct, if you look at the "Implications for
>> Cosmology" paper from the 5 year release I posted you'll see this. I can
>> hardly comment on a page doesn't source its' claims.
>
> You continue being dishonest :-D
>
> The original L-CDM predicted wrong peaks.
So?
The prediction of the peaks was based on inferred values for cosmological
parameters as derived from COBE and balloon-born data which was
significantly weaker than the 1st year data release from WMAP.
I wonder how the prediction would stack up against the contemporary data.
> The MOND model predicted correct
> peaks.
Other than the 3rd peak, you mean?
> After observations the MOND model continues being the same. The
> L-CDM model was changed in a new exercise on curve fitting.
Pot, Kettle, Black.
But feel free to show how MOND or TeVeS has correctly been applied to the
WMAP data releases as dark matter has.
>
> The problem is that recent L-CDM forces the fit to second peak
> by using parameters that are in disagreement with other tests.
See, that's almost an argument. Say what parameters and what tests, and you
have yourself something worth not rolling my eyes at.
>
>>>> Let's go more recent:
>>>>
>>>>
>>
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr3/pub_papers/fiveyear/basic_results/wmap5basic.pdf
>>>>
>>>> The L-CDM model continues to work just fine.
>>>
>>> No really, the L-CDM model is pure curve fitting and some of the
>>> parameters used to force the fit are not consistent. This is different
>>> from a model that PREDICTED the correct data once again.
>>
>> Really, how do the parameters force the fit? Feel free to explain.
>
> Very simple, you would know if you could explain the difference between
> the L-CDM 1999 model and the model proposed after observations.
I have my rough guess but a lack of institutional access to Nature/Science
while I'm down here makes informed argument rather difficult. Thankfully I
still retain my power of wild uninformed speculation which puts me on par
with you.
>
> The question is why would I explain this elementary stuff to one arrogant
> self-proclaimed expert as you Eric?
Because you like to hear yourself speak and you like to lord stuff over me
even more. Bless your heart for trying even when you are proved wrong in
triplicate though.
>
>>
>>>>> About clusters I already gave you links, which you snip from the
>>>>> reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can MOND explain lensing? No, because MOND is not relativistic and
>>>>> lensing is a relativistic phenomena, which is explained by
>>>>> relativistic MOND.
>>>>
>>>> Which should be a surprise to nobody really, given that the essential
>>>> features of gravitational lensing will be encapsulated by the GR
>>>> component of "relativistic" MOND.
>>>
>>> No. We do not need GR to explain lensings.
>>
>> Well you don't really have much choice on that now do you?
>
> Lensing can be explained by at least half dozen of theories published
> in specialized literature [#]. In any case we do not need a "GR component"
> as you incorrectly state :-D
Oh, but you do, if you want to retain consistency with solar system tests of
lensing.
>
>>>>> MOND is not a complete theory, just as general relativity is not a
>>>>> compelte theory (e.g. it lacks thermodynamics or quantum
>>>>> corrections).
>>>>
>>>> What are you talking about? GR works with thermodynamics quite fine.
>>>
>>> Another instance of your ignorance.
>>
>> Feel free to open MTW and read the chapter on thermodynamics on curved
>> spacetime if you don't believe me.
>
> You think everything said in MTW is correct...
No. I can point out several instances where MTW is specifically wrong.
You didn't like it when I pointed out MTW's section on Newton-Cartan theory,
as it lost you an argument. You continue to not like it when I cite MTW. You
really had a hard time learning from that door stop, didn't you?
>
> Also you confound research level presentation of scientific stuff with
> educative level. And you still PRETEND you can discuss research level
> stuff using basic textbooks, which is kind of scary :-D
Not quite as scary as a person who honestly believes MTW is 'basic' and that
every researcher in gravitational physics isn't taught from that book during
their graduate studies.
>
> The incompatibility between GR and thermodynamics is well-known for
> *experts* with papers in the topic.
Did you know that black hole thermodynamics is an entire field unto itself?
You might want to tell Hawking that GR and thermodynamics don't mix, as he's
made a career out of it.
If you have any literature that shows how GR and thermodynamics are
incompatible, I'd be interested in reading it. In case I'm not being
specific, I mean specific and relevant pieces of literature as opposed to
vague waves of a hand about how mad the idea makes you.
>
> In fact, your pretensions are still more scary, because this
> incompatibility is even know for laymens who have read best-sellers books
> by Penrose, Prigogine, and others or has attended conferences on the
> topic.
You sure you aren't mixing up thermodynamics with quantum mechanics here?
What about thermodynamics is inconsistent with GR, exactly? I've worked
through thermodynamics on both flat and curved manifolds, and the concepts
are exactly the same in either event.
[...]
>> But the properties of dark matter _are_ pretty well tied down even if
>> there isn't a corresponding entry in the standard model. We are
>> reasonably sure the standard model starts falling apart at LHC energies
>> anyway.
>
> No the properties of DM are not well-known. The models have been modified
> and previous candidates to DM are not more. Learn the field!
The gross properties are well known. The finer points are model dependent
and always in flux. Learn the field.
>
> Moreover, there is not matter theory of DM, only *speculations* beyond
> HEP observations and the Standard Model.
Old news.
>
>>
>>>> Folks have been describing the required properties of dark matter for
>>>> quite awhile.
>>>
>>> Folks have been changing the required properties of dark matter for
>>> each new observation ruling out them.
>>
>> Really? I just wrote them, please show how they have been ruled out.
>
> Oh! you are showing your ignorance again because the history of DM is
> well-known.
>
> GR people tried cold gas, dark clusters, Brown Dwarfs, Exotic stars,
> non-barionic DM, Hot DM with nu, Hot DM with some hypotetical particle,
> Cold DM with axions, Cold DM with wimps, Cold DM with cosmic
> superstrings, neutralinos, Warm DM with gravitinos...
>
> Dark matter has been hot, cold, and warm; massive, not so massive;
> only interacting gravitationally, now supposed to be also weakly
> interacting in some other misterious form; baryonic, non-baryonic, mixed;
> based in SM (MACHOS) based in extensions of SM (WIMPS)...
Hot and warm dark matter don't work with observation, eg: relativistic
matter can't be bound gravitationally. Cold dark matter works the best. This
is well known.
The mass of the individual particles is unknown, the best bounds rule out
_black holes_ as opposed to atom sized particles with a stupidly large
amount of energy. This is well known.
That dark matter is weakly interacting is well known, as can be seen from
the scattering cross sections derived from the bullet cluster and other
similar constructs.
What I wrote were the gross properties of the substances as derived from
observation, not any particular model's properties. I wrote the bare minimum
to pass observational muster.
[...]
> [#] Plus one if we count astronomers that do the trick of using MOND and
> then multiply by a factor 2 to obtain a good estimation of lensing
> before DM theorists start their curve fitting.
This reads remarkably like the crank argument that "relativists" multiply
everything by a factor of two.
>
>
>
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> [...]
>
>>> Did you forget?
>>
>> No, I remember well the laugh of that day, but it seems you forgot that
>> :-D
>
> It must have been an odd sounding laugh considering how quickly you hid
> it.
It was/is a laugh as any of those you hear each time you post some of the
pearls that have done you a famous USENET figure :-D
> [...]
>
>> But Vulcan did not exist even when many people was sure of its
>> existence.
>>
>> It was a bad idea to extrapolate the previous successes.
>
> Why? Should we extrapolate from past failures instead?
Do I even need to reply this?
>>>>>> Of course, nobody found Vulcan and now we know that all those
>>>>>> 'experts' were wring. The same happen with those dark matter
>>>>>> experts today.
>>>>>
>>>>> If dark matter wasn't real, it wouldn't have behaved exactly as
>>>>> expected in the bullet cluster and other cluster mergers.
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean 'real' as Vulcan? Then I agree.
>>>
>>> Then why does dark matter obey the properties assigned to it before
>>> the discovery of the bullet cluster?
>>
>> No dark matter is not "obeying the properties assigned to it". The
>> properties are inffered/changed after observations of the discrepancies
>> between GR and observations. In fact you are lying.
>
> Ok, champ.
>
> Show me how the bulk properties of dark matter have changed since Clowe
> (2006).
"Ok, champ."
>>> Why does gravitational lensing behave exactly as if there is dark
>>> matter there?
>>
>> What a surprise for you! It is so strange as Vulcan which behave
>> exactly as if it there was there?
>
> Someone isn't listening. You took the idea of Vulcan and completely
> ignored the other half of the story where scientists checked out the
> possible orbits and found that none of them were physically possible.
Agree, someone is not listening.
>>>>>> Someone said that the ignorance of history obligates to repeat the
>>>>>> same mistakes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Next Carroll makes all series of misguided claims about
>>>>>> predictions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dark matter theory makes no predictions because the amount of dark
>>>>>> matter is obtained *after* the data is obtained not before. The
>>>>>> pressumed amount of dark matter is *obtained from* the difference
>>>>>> between the prediction using general relativty and the
>>>>>> measurements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except via lensing observations which directly measure the amount of
>>>>> overall matter, from which we can subtract the luminious matter and
>>>>> figure out what's missing.
>>>>
>>>> It is just the contrary, the amount of dark matter that some people
>>>> *imagine* is here, is inferred from the lensing observations, which
>>>> cannot be explained by GR.
>>>
>>> So why is dark matter so consistent with the properties assigned to
>>> it? I know of 3 cluster merger systems, 2 of which are like the bullet
>>> cluster and the other is a huge multiple galaxy merger. All of which
>>> show evidence of dark matter.
>>
>> Those consistencies and evidences are only in your mind.
>
> And the literature. Don't forget the literature.
>
> 1E 0657-56 - Ye Olde Bullet Cluster
> MACS J0025.4-1222 - Bullet Cluster mod II Abell 520
Those are not literature. You would not use words whose meaning you do not
know.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>> I always liked the scary reactions to the fact that MOND works
>>>> better.
>>>
>>> Until it is used outside of the relatively narrow regime in which it
>>> was derived, in which case the magic of curve fitting diminishes
>>> somewhat.
>>
>> Only a bad scientist would apply a theory/model beyond its field of
>> applicability. But only a dishonest pretender would critize a
>> theory/model because does not work beyond its field of applicability
>> :-D
>
> And how are we defining 'field of applicability' today? Sure, it was
> derived under the context of explaining galactic rotation curves. Hasn't
> stopped the proponents from trying to make the bullet cluster work under
> that context tho, or Abell 520.
>
> Guess the field doesn't agree with you - again. Must be another full
> moon.
This may explain why experts on the field ignore your bullet cluster
comments against MOND. Don't worry!
>>>>>> Next you have the original Milgrom predictions. All again confirmed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondpred.html
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it odd that Milgrom hasn't updated any of the pages in nearly
>>>>> 6 years, even though there have been several major WMAP data
>>>>> releases and other highly significant developments in cosmology.
>>>>
>>>> I find it odd that you lie on this nasty way.
>>>
>>> s/Milgrom/McGauch/g
>>
>> You are still lying...
>
> Am I? McGauch hasn't put any work into that page for many years, if the
> change log on the individual pages are any indication. Or if the
> continual references to the 1st year WMAP data release is any
> indication.
You were/are.
> [...trim...]
>
>>>> Who would think that a non-relativistic theory would match
>>>> relativistic data?
>>>
>>> What, pray tell, is "relativistic data"? The CMB is thermally cold,
>>> ~2.7K. Not at all relativistic. Why is it at all clear that MOND
>>> doesn't apply to the CMB, other than the fact it doesn't work?
>>
>> You continue lying. Not just MOND works at galactic scale (DM fails)
>> but that MOND has done predictions about CMB whereas previous DM models
>> failed and were substituted by ad hoc models AFTER observations (more
>> curve fitting)
>
> That's a diversion attempt which neatly manages to not explain how the
> CMB is relativistic.
>
> Plus dark matter works at the galactic scale, though my desire to give
> literature references to people with reading disabilities has diminished
> over time.
Can you even read?
>> MOND cannot explain the *relativistic* part of the spectrum, but this
>> is not a surprise for us because MOND is a non-relativistic theory.
>
> None of the spectrum is relativistic. Try another argument.
It may be all Newtonian for you.
> Personally I'm rather fond of "MOND is phenomenological curve fitting
> with an extremely limited domain of applicability that is far shorter
> than what some of its' proponents wish to believe".
Another very misguided characterization!
(...)
>>>>> But now that you've covered only the favorable views of MOND, let's
>>>>> look at some of the unfavorable ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> * Completely fails in describing the bullet cluster dynamics without
>>>>> further invocation of dark matter.
>>>>
>>>> First DM fails to explain the bullet cluster. Second MOND is not
>>>> relativistic.
>>>
>>> DM does explain the bullet cluster.
>>
>> It does not.
>
> Normally this would be solved with a literature reference but I can't
> even get you to agree that a sentence says what it says without it
> turning into a multi-week argument, so I'll just skip this.
You would cite some reference, but it would say just the contrary that you
pretend and then for weeks you would try to convince us that the reference
does not say what it does. This is not new.
>>>>> * Completely fails to get the formation of the large scale structure
>>>>> of the universe correct.
>>>>
>>>> MOND is not relativistic. Nobody serious would apply it to the cosmos
>>>> as a whole. However, DM is supposed to work at galactic scale, but it
>>>> fails.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't. Though I'm not sure why I'm even arguing this point
>>> because there's no way I can convince you given your willingness to
>>> ignore literature references that disagree with you.
>>
>> You are arguing because you feel a need to be exposed in public.
>
> Or maybe I'm laying on a couch bored out of my mind with a cat sitting
> on my shoulder.
Is there eco?
>>>>> I think those two are pretty damning.
>>>>
>>>> But you ill-informed and biased opinion can be easily ignored.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Here you have more correct predictions from MOND and more disproved
>>>>>> predictions from dark matter (CDM).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB1.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/CMB5.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See how the dark matter theorists have *now* forgotten that they
>>>>>> predicted the behavior ploted as orange line
>>>>>
>>>>> Predicted what? He gives no references for the prediction.
>>>>
>>>> Who care about your ignorance?
>>>>
>>>>> Besides -
>>>>> "The lines are the LCDM model as it existed prior to the advent of
>>>>> accurate, high resolution CMB data (dashed orange line)". Not
>>>>> changing a model once better data appears is _lunacy_.
>>>>
>>>> Hiding the FACT that the proclaimed 'good' model was wrong whereas
>>>> the MOND model predicted the correct value is at the best
>>>> _dishonest_.
>>>
>>> The L-CDM model gets it correct, if you look at the "Implications for
>>> Cosmology" paper from the 5 year release I posted you'll see this. I
>>> can hardly comment on a page doesn't source its' claims.
>>
>> You continue being dishonest :-D
>>
>> The original L-CDM predicted wrong peaks.
>
> So?
Dishonesty, remind...
> The prediction of the peaks was based on inferred values for
> cosmological parameters as derived from COBE and balloon-born data which
> was significantly weaker than the 1st year data release from WMAP.
>
> I wonder how the prediction would stack up against the contemporary
> data.
>
>> The MOND model predicted correct
>> peaks.
>
> Other than the 3rd peak, you mean?
Yes.
>> After observations the MOND model continues being the same. The L-CDM
>> model was changed in a new exercise on curve fitting.
>
> Pot, Kettle, Black.
>
> But feel free to show how MOND or TeVeS has correctly been applied to
> the WMAP data releases as dark matter has.
There is not need to show the same twice.
>> The problem is that recent L-CDM forces the fit to second peak by using
>> parameters that are in disagreement with other tests.
>
> See, that's almost an argument. Say what parameters and what tests, and
> you have yourself something worth not rolling my eyes at.
Oh! Your ignorance of literature did not stop you from posting idiocies
before reading it!
>>>>> Let's go more recent:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
> http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr3/pub_papers/fiveyear/basic_results/wmap5basic.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> The L-CDM model continues to work just fine.
>>>>
>>>> No really, the L-CDM model is pure curve fitting and some of the
>>>> parameters used to force the fit are not consistent. This is
>>>> different from a model that PREDICTED the correct data once again.
>>>
>>> Really, how do the parameters force the fit? Feel free to explain.
>>
>> Very simple, you would know if you could explain the difference between
>> the L-CDM 1999 model and the model proposed after observations.
>
> I have my rough guess but a lack of institutional access to
> Nature/Science while I'm down here makes informed argument rather
> difficult.
Oh! Your ignorance of literature did not stop you from posting idiocies
before reading it!
>> The question is why would I explain this elementary stuff to one
>> arrogant self-proclaimed expert as you Eric?
>
> Because you like to hear yourself speak and you like to lord stuff over
> me even more. Bless your heart for trying even when you are proved wrong
> in triplicate though.
This has not settled the question.
>>>>>> About clusters I already gave you links, which you snip from the
>>>>>> reply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can MOND explain lensing? No, because MOND is not relativistic and
>>>>>> lensing is a relativistic phenomena, which is explained by
>>>>>> relativistic MOND.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which should be a surprise to nobody really, given that the
>>>>> essential features of gravitational lensing will be encapsulated by
>>>>> the GR component of "relativistic" MOND.
>>>>
>>>> No. We do not need GR to explain lensings.
>>>
>>> Well you don't really have much choice on that now do you?
>>
>> Lensing can be explained by at least half dozen of theories published
>> in specialized literature [#]. In any case we do not need a "GR
>> component" as you incorrectly state :-D
>
> Oh, but you do, if you want to retain consistency with solar system
> tests of lensing.
You continue plain wrong, but this is beyond your comprehension.
>>>>>> MOND is not a complete theory, just as general relativity is not a
>>>>>> compelte theory (e.g. it lacks thermodynamics or quantum
>>>>>> corrections).
>>>>>
>>>>> What are you talking about? GR works with thermodynamics quite fine.
>>>>
>>>> Another instance of your ignorance.
>>>
>>> Feel free to open MTW and read the chapter on thermodynamics on curved
>>> spacetime if you don't believe me.
>>
>> You think everything said in MTW is correct...
>
> No. I can point out several instances where MTW is specifically wrong.
>
> You didn't like it when I pointed out MTW's section on Newton-Cartan
> theory, as it lost you an argument.
Then you still think that "there is not distances in NC theory because there
is no metric". I believed that I had corrected this misunderstanding from you.
How wrong I was!
> You continue to not like it when I
> cite MTW.
The problem is not that, the problem is that you do not know how to cite.
I cannot really blame you for that, being an undergrad dropout you lack
any research ability. But your evident deficiencies do not mean we may
accept your silly points.
> You really had a hard time learning from that door stop,
> didn't you?
Why do you think that everyone had your learning problems, Eric? Do you
really think that everyone tried for 10 years to get a degree and abandoned
as you have done?
>> Also you confound research level presentation of scientific stuff with
>> educative level. And you still PRETEND you can discuss research level
>> stuff using basic textbooks, which is kind of scary :-D
>
> Not quite as scary as a person who honestly believes MTW is 'basic' and
> that every researcher in gravitational physics isn't taught from that
> book during their graduate studies.
The problem here is not about words used, but about your ignorance in the
topic and your scary citation of MTW without even understanding what I
really said.
>> The incompatibility between GR and thermodynamics is well-known for
>> *experts* with papers in the topic.
>
> Did you know that black hole thermodynamics is an entire field unto
> itself?
See? You are so terribly predictable :-D
> You might want to tell Hawking that GR and thermodynamics don't
> mix, as he's made a career out of it.
Precisely he has published *zero* relevant papers in the topic I was
refering you more some flagrantly wrong papers (even he now recognizes
some of his mistakes). But laymans as you often cite Hawking when want
to impress others.
> If you have any literature that shows how GR and thermodynamics are
> incompatible, I'd be interested in reading it. In case I'm not being
> specific, I mean specific and relevant pieces of literature as opposed
> to vague waves of a hand about how mad the idea makes you.
Oh! Your ignorance of literature did not stop you from posting idiocies
before reading it!
>> In fact, your pretensions are still more scary, because this
>> incompatibility is even know for laymens who have read best-sellers
>> books by Penrose, Prigogine, and others or has attended conferences on
>> the topic.
>
> You sure you aren't mixing up thermodynamics with quantum mechanics
> here?
(laughs)
> What about thermodynamics is inconsistent with GR, exactly? I've worked
> through thermodynamics on both flat and curved manifolds, and the
> concepts are exactly the same in either event.
(more laughs)
> [...]
>
>>> But the properties of dark matter _are_ pretty well tied down even if
>>> there isn't a corresponding entry in the standard model. We are
>>> reasonably sure the standard model starts falling apart at LHC
>>> energies anyway.
>>
>> No the properties of DM are not well-known. The models have been
>> modified and previous candidates to DM are not more. Learn the field!
>
> The gross properties are well known. The finer points are model
> dependent and always in flux. Learn the field.
It was "properties" not turns to "gross properties". What will be you
saying tomorrow?
>> Moreover, there is not matter theory of DM, only *speculations* beyond
>> HEP observations and the Standard Model.
>
> Old news.
Crude reality!
>>>>> Folks have been describing the required properties of dark matter
>>>>> for quite awhile.
>>>>
>>>> Folks have been changing the required properties of dark matter for
>>>> each new observation ruling out them.
>>>
>>> Really? I just wrote them, please show how they have been ruled out.
>>
>> Oh! you are showing your ignorance again because the history of DM is
>> well-known.
>>
>> GR people tried cold gas, dark clusters, Brown Dwarfs, Exotic stars,
>> non-barionic DM, Hot DM with nu, Hot DM with some hypotetical particle,
>> Cold DM with axions, Cold DM with wimps, Cold DM with cosmic
>> superstrings, neutralinos, Warm DM with gravitinos...
>>
>> Dark matter has been hot, cold, and warm; massive, not so massive; only
>> interacting gravitationally, now supposed to be also weakly interacting
>> in some other misterious form; baryonic, non-baryonic, mixed; based in
>> SM (MACHOS) based in extensions of SM (WIMPS)...
>
> Hot and warm dark matter don't work with observation, eg: relativistic
> matter can't be bound gravitationally. Cold dark matter works the best.
> This is well known.
Layman are only given news about dark matter and they believe that the
"dark matter" in the today news is the same "dark matter" in the news
from 10 years ago. If layman were explained the details about
all this...
> The mass of the individual particles is unknown, the best bounds rule
> out _black holes_ as opposed to atom sized particles with a stupidly
> large amount of energy. This is well known.
>
> That dark matter is weakly interacting is well known, as can be seen
> from the scattering cross sections derived from the bullet cluster and
> other similar constructs.
>
> What I wrote were the gross properties of the substances as derived from
> observation, not any particular model's properties. I wrote the bare
> minimum to pass observational muster.
Now you claim this but you said something different before :-D
> [...]
>
>> [#] Plus one if we count astronomers that do the trick of using MOND
>> and
>> then multiply by a factor 2 to obtain a good estimation of lensing
>> before DM theorists start their curve fitting.
>
> This reads remarkably like the crank argument that "relativists"
> multiply everything by a factor of two.
You can misread something in a million different ways if you like.
eric gisse
[...]
>>> No dark matter is not "obeying the properties assigned to it". The
>>> properties are inffered/changed after observations of the discrepancies
>>> between GR and observations. In fact you are lying.
>>
>> Ok, champ.
>>
>> Show me how the bulk properties of dark matter have changed since Clowe
>> (2006).
>
> "Ok, champ."
Can't?
Oh, sorry, I thought you were a competent researcher. I thought giving you
the official designations for the objects would be sufficient.
arXiv:0806.2320v2
Extra bonus article: http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2171
[snip rest]
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> [...]
>
>>>> No dark matter is not "obeying the properties assigned to it". The
>>>> properties are inffered/changed after observations of the
>>>> discrepancies between GR and observations. In fact you are lying.
>>>
>>> Ok, champ.
>>>
>>> Show me how the bulk properties of dark matter have changed since
>>> Clowe (2006).
>>
>> "Ok, champ."
>
> Can't?
I didn't say.
You said that above objects are literature but are not but objects!
Did you even can read?
Now you give two preprints, but, as waited, they do not provide the
"consistencies and evidences".
Those works merely interpret the deviations from GR as if were due to
dark matter. I.e. they use the hypotesis of dark matter to try to
explain some observations.
Try again, but reply to the issue this time.
> [snip rest]
Ilja
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> eric gisse wrote on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:18:03 -0800:
> > So why is dark matter so consistent with the properties assigned to it?
> > I know of 3 cluster merger systems, 2 of which are like the bullet
> > cluster and the other is a huge multiple galaxy merger. All of which
> > show evidence of dark matter.
>
> Those consistencies and evidences are only in your mind.
To illustrate this:
Assume some completely arbitrary metric g_mn(x).
Compute the Einstein tensor G_mn, the visible matter tensor T_mn,
and define
T_mn^dark = G_mn - T_mn.
and the Einstein equation holds.
but, even more, even the conservation law
nabla_n T_mn^dark = 0
holds, as a consequence of
nabla_n T_mn = 0
and the Bianchi identities.
It should be mentioned that CDM is a little more predictive:
The CDM fulfills some energy conditions and material laws.
So that the only question is why the T_mn^dark constructed
in this way fulfills the usual energy conditions for matter.
But for dark energy, even the usual energy conditions fail.
eric gisse
[...]
>
> You said that above objects are literature but are not but objects!
> Did you even can read?
Oh, extra terrible sorryness for expecting you to be able to punch the
object designations into scholar.google.com and reading the first link or
two.
>
> Now you give two preprints, but, as waited, they do not provide the
> "consistencies and evidences".
I can do very little to aid your difficulties in reading literature that
disagrees with you beyond presenting it. I can read it for you and to you,
but I cannot understand it for you.
>
> Those works merely interpret the deviations from GR as if were due to
> dark matter. I.e. they use the hypotesis of dark matter to try to
> explain some observations.
Except gravitational lensing doesn't measure "deviations" from GR. Rather it
directly measures mass.
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> [...]
>
>
>> You said that above objects are literature but are not but objects! Did
>> you even can read?
>
> Oh, extra terrible sorryness for expecting you to be able to punch the
> object designations into scholar.google.com and reading the first link
> or two.
Oh my good! This explain a lot of now.
When I write about some topic, you search in scholar get the first links
and you think the first may be the better :-D
Now if you confirm me that you followed this tactic with textbooks in
library (aka you read the first two textbooks from some list or ordering)
this may explain why you are a dropout :-D
>> Now you give two preprints, but, as waited, they do not provide the
>> "consistencies and evidences".
>
> I can do very little to aid your difficulties in reading literature that
> disagrees with you beyond presenting it. I can read it for you and to
> you, but I cannot understand it for you.
Of course, of course, recall you present yourself as the smarter guy :-D
>> Those works merely interpret the deviations from GR as if were due to
>> dark matter. I.e. they use the hypotesis of dark matter to try to
>> explain some observations.
>
> Except gravitational lensing doesn't measure "deviations" from GR.
> Rather it directly measures mass.
Sure that do not. Bad you fail even at this elementary point.