Astronomers weigh ancient galaxies' dark matter haloes for 1st time

[Admin]

Astronomers have weighed the halos of dark matter that surround ancient galaxies with profound implications for our understanding of cosmic evolution.

Astronomers weigh ancient galaxies' dark matter haloes for 1st time : Read more

 

[Questioner]

Again, they are measuring pure gravity/curvature/mass ONLY.
Mass is by definition the gravitational effect (presumably) 'caused' by matter.
What they failed to understand is if one tries to correlate this mass with any kind of matter one comes up with provably erroneous nonsense.
This is raw gravity without any identifiable 'cause'.
That does not mean there isn't a cause, but it could be external to the observable universe,
and the cause can NOT be is any kind of matter.

'Dark matter' is Provably Wrong.

'Dark matter' is Provably Wrong. If one thinks about it almost all galaxies behave rotationally differently than one would expect from standard gravity. In the Solar system Mercury orbits every 88 days, while the outer planets take hundreds of Earth years. That entails very different Rotations...

forums.space.com

The universe is not absolutely closed as a system as proved by Godel, because observers of the 'Universe' are a self referencing element of that same 'universe'.
Please get up to speed with the math, guys n gals.

 

[Ryan F. Mercer]

Again, they are measuring pure gravity/curvature/mass ONLY.
Mass is by definition the gravitational effect (presumably) 'caused' by matter.
What they failed to understand is if one tries to correlate this mass with any kind of matter one comes up with provably erroneous nonsense.
This is raw gravity without any identifiable 'cause'.
That does not mean there isn't a cause, but it could be external to the observable universe,
and the cause can NOT be is any kind of matter.

'Dark matter' is Provably Wrong.

'Dark matter' is Provably Wrong. If one thinks about it almost all galaxies behave rotationally differently than one would expect from standard gravity. In the Solar system Mercury orbits every 88 days, while the outer planets take hundreds of Earth years. That entails very different Rotations...

forums.space.com

The universe is not absolutely closed as a system as proved by Godel, because observers of the 'Universe' are a self referencing element of that same 'universe'.
Please get up to speed with the math, guys n gals.

What's your background? Are you a mathematician? A physicist? An astrophysics? Do you really think the trained scientists with university degrees in the related subject matter somehow forgot basic mathematic principles in their peer reviewed study? Why aren't you on the team? Why aren't you published? Why are spouting off about it in a comment section with no mathematical formulas to support your assertions? Oh wait... I think I know.

 

[Questioner]

What's your background? Are you a mathematician? A physicist? An astrophysics? Do you really think the trained scientists with university degrees in the related subject matter somehow forgot basic mathematic principles in their peer reviewed study? Why aren't you on the team? Why aren't you published? Why are spouting off about it in a comment section with no mathematical formulas to support your assertions? Oh wait... I think I know.

Sheepskins don't do logic, working brains (thinking systems) do.
Social consensus is not science.
You do understand that you are dailing it in on hearsay, without critically examining my reasoned argument.
Hearsay is anathema to science.
I figured out the four color map theorem is a graph problem,
so what have you done (of objective substance) beyond shove ad homiem inuendo at me?

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

Sheepskins don't do logic, working brains (thinking systems) do.
Social consensus is not science.
You do understand that you are dailing it in on hearsay, without critically examining my reasoned argument.
Hearsay is anathema to science.
I figured out the four color map theorem is a graph problem,
so what have you done (of objective substance) beyond shove ad homiem inuendo at me?

There isn't any reasoned, quantified analysis (argument) - or question - to examine. As Ryan noted, you present no evidence for your assertions.

In other news, we have long known that dark matter is clumpy - not at all what matter-less models predict - and that a team now observed a new type of them. ["Astronomers Observe Blobs of Dark Matter Down to a Scale of 30,000 Light-Years Across", CAROLYN COLLINS PETERSEN, Universe Today].

Nitpick: Math are constructed (axiomatic) tools, sometimes useful in science but devoid of an empiric basis. Like your comment was.

 

[Questioner]

There isn't any reasoned, quantified analysis (argument) - or question - to examine. As Ryan noted, you present no evidence for your assertions.

In other news, we have long known that dark matter is clumpy - not at all what matter-less models predict - and that a team now observed a new type of them. ["Astronomers Observe Blobs of Dark Matter Down to a Scale of 30,000 Light-Years Across", CAROLYN COLLINS PETERSEN, Universe Today].

Nitpick: Math are constructed (axiomatic) tools, sometimes useful in science but devoid of an empiric basis. Like your comment was.

They are measuring the non uniform distribution of gravity, period.
Since these are the proposed locations of this hypothesized matter its gravitational and inertia characteristics should be estimable.
'Dark matter' has self contradicting properties in terms of gravity.
Not just unusual,
but it would contradict its own response to some gravity with a different response to other gravity.
Excuse me,
but that's ridiculous.
Be wrong.
Future generations will look back at you with mirth.

 

[Questioner]

Ancillary thought,
Piling up enough fluid hydrogen to form a star seems challenging to me.
What if many/most/all stars get a starter assist from a preexisting gravity divit?
Just a thought.