Dark Matter and Dark Energy

[Metryq]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140611093627.htm

Map of universe questioned: Dwarf galaxies don't fit standard model

David Merritt, professor of astrophysics at Rochester Institute of Technology, co-authored "Co-orbiting satellite galaxy structures are still in conflict with the distribution of primordial dwarf galaxies," to be published in an upcoming issue of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

The study pokes holes in the current understanding of galaxy formation and questions the accepted model of the origin and evolution of the universe. According to the standard paradigm, 23 percent of the mass of the universe is shaped by invisible particles known as dark matter.

"The model predicts that dwarf galaxies should form inside of small clumps of dark matter and that these clumps should be distributed randomly about their parent galaxy," Merritt said. "But what is observed is very different. The dwarf galaxies belonging to the Milky Way and Andromeda are seen to be orbiting in huge, thin disk-like structures."

The study, led by Marcel Pawlowski at Case Western Reserve University, critiques three recent papers by different international teams, all of which concluded that the satellite galaxies support the standard model. The critique by Merritt and his colleagues found "serious issues" with all three studies.

The team of 14 scientists from six different countries replicated the earlier analyses using the same data and cosmological simulations and came up with much lower probabilities -- roughly one tenth of a percent -- that such structures would be seen in the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy.

"The earlier papers found structures in the simulations that no one would say really looked very much like the observed planar structures," said Merritt.

In their paper, Merritt and his co-authors write that, "Either the selection of model satellites is different from that of the observed ones, or an incomplete set of observational constraints has been considered, or the observed satellite distribution is inconsistent with basic assumptions. Once these issues have been addressed, the conclusions are different: Features like the observed planar structures are very rare."

The standard cosmological model is the frame of reference for many generations of scientists, some of whom are beginning to question its ability to accurately reproduce what is observed in the nearby universe. Merritt counts himself among the small and growing group that is questioning the accepted paradigm.

"Our conclusion tends to favor an alternate, and much older, model: that the satellites were pulled out from another galaxy when it interacted with the Local Group galaxies in the distant past," he said. "This 'tidal' model can naturally explain why the observed satellites are orbiting in thin disks."

Scientific progress embraces challenges to upheld theories and models for a reason, Merritt notes.

"When you have a clear contradiction like this, you ought to focus on it," Merritt said. "This is how progress in science is made."

Marcel S. Pawlowski, Benoit Famaey, Helmut Jerjen, David Merritt, Pavel Kroupa, Jörg Dabringhausen, Fabian Lüghausen, Duncan A. Forbes, Gerhard Hensler, François Hammer, Mathieu Puech, Sylvain Fouquet, Hector Flores, Yanbin Yang. Co-orbiting satellite galaxy structures are still in conflict with the distribution of primordial dwarf galaxies. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2014

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Yep, all one has to do is type the question into Google. It's that difficult.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Exactly. And yet, from the depth of their ignorance and lack of interest to educate themselves, they feel confident enough to shit of the astrophysics community, and argue that "we can't really know", and "any theory is as valid as the other". Well, no.

But I guess it's the same kind of people who argue with their physician about a therapy because they saw a facebook post telling them that sodium bicarbonate cures cancer.

 

[Metryq]

and I expect someone has a fringe theory that involves cosmic plasmas.

Define "fringe." Is that anything socially unacceptable to the cool kids of the "in" crowd? Plasma cosmology is still evolving. Charge is the most fundamental aspect of all matter, and we have over a century of laboratory experience with plasmas.

Meanwhile, "dark matter" and dark energy in all its various hypothetical forms (WIMPs, MACHOs, axions, etc.) is not even science because it cannot be tested. We are told that it makes up over 90 percent of the universe, yet is completely invisible, undetectable and does not interact with baryonic matter—except through gravity. That makes it nothing more than a placeholder to cover a serious hole in mainstream theory.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Define "fringe."

Right now? Pretty much all of your posts.

Charge is the most fundamental aspect of all matter

I must have missed the lesson at the university where they explained how electric charge keeps planets together, or atomic nuclei. Whoops.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

The trouble with plasma cosmology is that it takes on aspects of a cult or a dodgy religion when you examine it closely.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Don't forget, also a conspiracy theory:

(That's right, redshift has numerous mechanisms, but astronomers seem to be aware of only one. At least publicly.)

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Mathematics is the basis for all physics. If your physics is lacking the math to back it up, it's bad science--or rather, it's not science, just speculation if not outright crankery.

A quick google for "mathematical basis for plasma cosmology" turned up this winner:

While it is easy to be critical of the dominant role of mathematics in modern cosomology, this is not to say that math is unimportant. Far from it. The point is that empirical evidence should come first, and that mathematical modelling should follow to ensure some basis in reality. In other words, the role of mathematics should be ancillary, not dominant.

Yeah, math is just a pesky afterthought, not really necessary to the "theory"!

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Yeah, those powerful, super-rich astronomers with their funny handshakes and secret cabals.

 

[iguana_tonante]

They told me it was a secret handshake but it turned out it was just harassment.

 

[gturner]

What I find disturbing is that astronomers and astrophysicists are spending billions and billions on large telescope projects. Where did they get billions and billions of dollars? Was it from controlling large sectors of the economy, such as the diamond sector (which is star stuff), or do they have complete control of several Western nations, profiting from quasi-legal trade in all sorts of otherwise illicit goods and services? Nobody can quite explain how a gaggle of university professors can cough up ten billion for a space telescope, even if they are tenured. Obviously, most of the skyrocketing costs of a college education is probably going directly into the pockets of the astronomy professors.

 

[Metryq]

The trouble with plasma cosmology is that it takes on aspects of a cult or a dodgy religion when you examine it closely.

So far you haven't addressed any of the science. All you do is fling insults. As for "cult or dodgy religion," one could easily say the same for the dogmatic defense of the Big Bang. Some proponents seem almost desperate to prove the theory—which would account for the premature announcement recently about polarized light being due to gravity waves from the Big Bang, and then the sudden withdrawal of the claim.

Also, mainstream astronomy routinely spawns theories that violate known physics, such as neutron stars. These bizarre beasts usually boil down to one flawed assumption, in the case of neutron stars it is the assumption that pulsars are rotating like a lighthouse.

I, at least, have never claimed that plasma cosmology is the answer to everything. If you have any specific arguments you'd like to make from your close examinations—no straw man arguments, please—I'd be happy to hear it. Science thrives on ideas being tested.

 

[GalaxyX]

http://www.howmagnetswork.com/

http://www.universetoday.com/82049/how-do-magnets-work/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/magnet.htm

http://www.coolmagnetman.com/maghow.htm

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Frankly, we're way off topic.

 

[GalaxyX]

Frankly, we're way off topic.

I'm just saddened that the one man on this thread capable of enlightening us ignorants doesn't want to.

I'll stand by my belief with my current knowledge that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are simply a theory similar to the Aether (trying to fit observations with current established theories) and that most likely one day it will be replaced with a better theory, as the Aether did.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

How can I enlighten you when neither I nor anyone else knows the answer. There are no definitive experimental results. I favour certain theories as being more likely and I have prejudices against certain explanations -- such as plasma cosmology because of its lack of mathematical exposition and the attitude of its "true believers" -- but my unsubstantiated opinions are of no use to anyone else.