*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« on: July 05, 2018, 11:27:30 PM »
A key tenet of RET is dark matter; without such an entity the whole model falls apart. And further, it is true that dark matter is supported by evidence when the world is viewed from the RE perspective, the only way to make sense of the motion of planets and stars (supposedly due to gravity) is by recourse to these dark bodies.
The earliest reference I can find to dark matter as a vague concept is 1884, though this was very slight.

So, what is dark matter? Basically, it has the following properties:
1. It exerts a gravitational force. That is, it has mass.
2. It does not interact with normal matter in any other way; it may not even interact with itself.

There is meant to be over five times as much dark matter as regular matter. And this is where it all starts to fall apart for RET.

Almost a century before 1884, Cavendish calculated a figure, using the RE model, to determine the mass of the Earth to within 1% of the figure commonly accepted today. He was not the only person to work on this problem, but he is one of the more famous, and this basic figure was considered to be accurate. Similar calculations predate his, over huge periods of time.
Another problem people worked on was the composition of the Earth. The crust, the mantle, the core of the globe Earth, the densities of all the various parts.

Now, let us look at dark matter. It is affected by gravity; it is supposed to be drawn to the same centers of gravity as normal matter. The center of stars, of planets, of galaxies... And, while it is true dark matter may behave different insofar as it does not interact with itself and so cannot form solid bodies, it is still going to be drawn towards those centers of mass in the same way any particle would be.
And, again, there is five times as much dark matter as regular matter.
So where is its impact on calculations of the Earth's mass? RET does have excuses, but none of them can explain why it is dark matter fails to be attracted to centers of mass like planets. The moon doesn't simply stop orbiting the Earth just because the Sun or Galactic Center exist. If dark matter exists, it should be drawn to stars, moons, planets, according to RET.

Thus Cavendish's figure for the mass of the Earth should have been noticed to be six times what the actual physical matter and composition allowed for. That isn't some minor figure that can be brushed over with error bars.
Where has the seismic shift in geology been? Where have the scientists that work on mapping the interior of the globe Earth accounted for the fact their mass is five sixths dark matter? How could no one notice this giant glaring flaw? Where are the historical unanswered questions, where are the major rewrites we would expect?

The establishment of figures surrounding dark matter should have shattered the RE status quo, if it is as pervasive as it is claimed. Instead we get excuses, but no credible explanations of how or why it leaves our masses alone.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2018, 08:13:45 AM »
RET does have excuses, but none of them can explain why it is dark matter fails to be attracted to centers of mass like planets. The moon doesn't simply stop orbiting the Earth just because the Sun or Galactic Center exist. If dark matter exists, it should be drawn to stars, moons, planets, according to RET.
Dark matter may or may not be attracted towards matter. We expect it would be, but since we cannot observe it, we don't know this. What we DO know is that matter is attracted to dark matter.

There is no reason to assume that the Earth should have 5 times as much dark matter in it as it has matter. The Universe may have 5 times as much dark matter as it has matter, but there is no reason to imagine they are distributed in the same way. In fact, we have mapped a lot of the dark matter around us, and it looks like this:


The establishment of figures surrounding dark matter should have shattered the RE status quo, if it is as pervasive as it is claimed. Instead we get excuses, but no credible explanations of how or why it leaves our masses alone.
It is a hallmark of good science to admit that we don't have all the answers yet. The most important thing to understand about dark matter is that it doesn't have any measurable affect within the bounds of our solar system. Dark matter was only discovered when looking at the orbits of stars around galaxies. Dark matter is seen at galactic scales - not at planetary scales. It's hard to say exactly why this is until we figure out what it is.

Some of the earliest suggestions for what dark matter might be were simply black holes or brown dwarfs. If that were the case, you can see why they would have no impact on our measurements of the mass of the Earth. The hypothesis was that there were lots of really massive dark objects out there that we simply couldn't see. We call these MACHOs (massive astrophysical compact halo objects). It looks like scientists have pretty much ruled these out...

Next up comes the idea that dark matter may be made of tiny particles streaming through the universe... sterile neutrinos or something of that sort. We call these WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particle). (Cute right? Physicists just love naming things something funny.) This theory still seems pretty strong, and the idea here is that they are many, but widely distributed. The concentration of them in our patch of space is low enough that they don't throw off our numbers, but if you add up all the WIMPs in the galaxy, they make a big difference.

There are still other hypotheses. We aren't sure yet. We learn more each year. Does that sound like excuses to you?

Scientists are working hard to unlock these mysteries, and they unlock miracles of technology along the way. Meanwhile we're still waiting for the first meaningful contribution to come out of flat Earth. So far FE can't make a map that we can use to navigate across the ocean. Can't figure out how to align a DirectTV dish let alone put the satellite it relies on into orbit.

Offline andiwd

  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2018, 08:43:22 AM »
It's actually a fascinating subject and like a lot of dark matter/ dark energy stuff a lot of the answers are still being researched. Firstly though although current estimates put most of the universe matter consists of dark matter under the current leading hypothesis it's not actually believed to be in massive clumps, like the baryonic matter we're used to instead being in large clouds orbiting galaxies. Here's an artist interpretation of how it would look compared to our galaxy, with the dark matter being the large blue cloud. In a sense you can think of it as an atmosphere around the galaxy; a lot of it but quite diffuse.



Here's a good paper on the subject which is fairly short as these things go and doesn't get too bogged down in the technicalities.

To answer your point about why it's not all attracted to the centre of the mass of an object consider why all the mass of the solar system isn't concentrated at the heart of the sun. The answer is once it's in orbit of something it'll remain there until something gets in it way. It's easy to imagine that the Earth has swept up some dark matter during it's life time, but based on the density shown in the above paper, they'll be a teaspoons full somewhere in the core of the Earth.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2018, 10:43:44 AM »
RET does have excuses, but none of them can explain why it is dark matter fails to be attracted to centers of mass like planets. The moon doesn't simply stop orbiting the Earth just because the Sun or Galactic Center exist. If dark matter exists, it should be drawn to stars, moons, planets, according to RET.
Dark matter may or may not be attracted towards matter. We expect it would be, but since we cannot observe it, we don't know this. What we DO know is that matter is attracted to dark matter.
That isn't how science works. You don't have to observe a car hitting someone at 100km/h to know that it wouldn't have gone well for them. The RE notion of gravity is defined, not exactly understood but it is defined; all matter, even quantum particles like light, is warped by it because it exists as a result of the fundamental nature of space. To propose dark matter, which must exist to some degree in spacetime, to be unaffected by gravity is the kind of wild hypothesis that should lead to a model being immediately discarded without much further proof.
There's another issue with this, but I'll cover it with the rest of your post.

Quote
There is no reason to assume that the Earth should have 5 times as much dark matter in it as it has matter. The Universe may have 5 times as much dark matter as it has matter, but there is no reason to imagine they are distributed in the same way. In fact, we have mapped a lot of the dark matter around us, and it looks like this:

It's actually a fascinating subject and like a lot of dark matter/ dark energy stuff a lot of the answers are still being researched. Firstly though although current estimates put most of the universe matter consists of dark matter under the current leading hypothesis it's not actually believed to be in massive clumps, like the baryonic matter we're used to instead being in large clouds orbiting galaxies. Here's an artist interpretation of how it would look compared to our galaxy, with the dark matter being the large blue cloud. In a sense you can think of it as an atmosphere around the galaxy; a lot of it but quite diffuse.

Quote
To answer your point about why it's not all attracted to the centre of the mass of an object consider why all the mass of the solar system isn't concentrated at the heart of the sun. The answer is once it's in orbit of something it'll remain there until something gets in it way. It's easy to imagine that the Earth has swept up some dark matter during it's life time, but based on the density shown in the above paper, they'll be a teaspoons full somewhere in the core of the Earth.

This underlies the rest of your response, and all REer response that I've seen (including andiwd) and the problem with it is simple: 'what' happens isn't special, 'why' it happens is. Yes, creating a diffuse cloud of dark matter that primarily exists away from centers of gravitational influence is what would need to happen in RET, but as I said in my OP no scientist has been able to reasonably explain why this happens.
If we take your supposition that dark matter isn't even affected by gravity, then what could govern its dispersal? Why would it not be more uniformly distributed, what would expel it out from galaxies? What could possibly do that?
And if dark matter is affected by gravity, why would it not have stayed focused around centers of gravity through the formation of the universe? Even if you want to suppose, say, half the universe's dark matter kept shooting out, that's still over twice as much dark as regular matter left behind. If you want to argue it would focus more at the Sun than the Earth then you have to reckon with the fact we have measurements of the Sun's size, and it's said to be primarily composed of hydrogen and helium, two of the lightest elements. Emphasis on lightest; given that the mass should be calculable through gravitational effect, there is no room for dark matter to be involved.

If dark matter interacts with itself then it should have behaved and formed objects near-identically to regular matter, hence we would expect an effect on the Earth. If it does not interact with itself then, barring ad hoc hypotheses, the only thing that should have affected it is gravity.

What is this tremendous force that somehow made dark matter go from 'six times as much' to 'a teaspoon for a planet'?

This flaw is what moves it beyond 'unanswered scientific question' to 'gaping hole.' Abiogenesis is good science, admitting they don't have all the answers; there are still hypothese as to how it could work, a multitude of them, the reason the topic isn't fully understood is that we don't yet know which is the one that occurred.
Dark matter on the other hand, I have yet to see any hypotheses whatsoever on the why, and indeed it appears that the 'why' cannot be answered without the highly unscientific step of inventing some huge, near-magical new force that was apparently never observed until we needed to explain away this irregularity in something that itself only exists to explain away an irregularity. You can see my problem.


Quote
Scientists are working hard to unlock these mysteries, and they unlock miracles of technology along the way. Meanwhile we're still waiting for the first meaningful contribution to come out of flat Earth. So far FE can't make a map that we can use to navigate across the ocean. Can't figure out how to align a DirectTV dish let alone put the satellite it relies on into orbit.
All of which are a matter of resources not science, and are completely irrelevant to dark matter. Nice attempt at distraction though.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2018, 06:00:20 PM »
I won't bother quoting it. This is an all-too-common response. It goes something like this:

I ran into something on a science topic that I don't completely understand.
It sounds wrong to me, after all, I don't completely understand it.
Therefore that science topic is clearly wrong.
I hereby declare that I know more on this subject than the leaders in the field.
If there is a science topic that is clearly wrong, then the scientists are lying.
Therefore the earth is flat.
QED

I won't bother repeating my earlier statements. If anyone would like to expand upon them or critique them, jump on in. I'll have that conversation. I'm not interested in arguing with someone who can't see the connection between scientific research and everyday technology.

Rama Set

Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2018, 06:03:26 PM »
Based on current research, Dark Matter is distributed evenly at the solar system scale, which is pretty uniform considering the scale of the universe.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2018, 06:13:36 PM »
I won't bother repeating my earlier statements. If anyone would like to expand upon them or critique them, jump on in. I'll have that conversation. I'm not interested in arguing with someone who can't see the connection between scientific research and everyday technology.
What everyday technology has anything remotely to do with dark matter?
I have taken the time to understand the topic, that is precisely the problem. If you would rather dismiss anything someone says merely because it goes against your mainstream and refuse to even attempt an answer then why are you ont his forum? I don't want you to repeat your earlier statements, as pointed out they don't answer the question. You are perfectly happy to do as your scientists do and endlessly repeat what it is that you need to be the case, but when it comes to actually explaining why it would be that way you clam up and sign off with some self-righteous retort.

Based on current research, Dark Matter is distributed evenly at the solar system scale, which is pretty uniform considering the scale of the universe.

None of which explains why the vast, vast majority of it decided to run away from centers of gravity. What exactly was the point of bringing that up when it has no relevance to the topic at hand, beyond yet another distraction?
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Rama Set

Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2018, 06:40:12 PM »
There is no evidence that it is “running away”. There is evidence of it being distributed evenly throughout the observable universe.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2018, 07:13:49 PM »
There is no evidence that it is “running away”. There is evidence of it being distributed evenly throughout the observable universe.
If you have a response to make, give it rather than ignoring everything I have said.

1. There is meant to be five times as much dark matter as regular matter.
2. We do not observe the expected gravitational distortion if it were present in centers of gravity like the Earth and the Sun.

You can talk all you want about how it's even within solar systems, but that is completely irrelevant when said evenness is drastically lower than the five times figure we would expect to see. Are you going to answer the actual question of why so much dark matter avoids the solar system, or indeed contribute anything remotely new, in your next post, or just keep wasting time?
It is not distributed evenly when there is meant to be five times as much of it. Are you going to explain why the vast majority of it leaves centers of gravity alone at any stage?
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Rama Set

Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2018, 09:22:54 PM »
There is no evidence that it is “running away”. There is evidence of it being distributed evenly throughout the observable universe.
If you have a response to make, give it rather than ignoring everything I have said.

I haven't ignored it.

1. There is meant to be five times as much dark matter as regular matter.
2. We do not observe the expected gravitational distortion if it were present in centers of gravity like the Earth and the Sun. [/quote]

According to whom?

Quote
You can talk all you want about how it's even within solar systems, but that is completely irrelevant when said evenness is drastically lower than the five times figure we would expect to see.

That is not what I said.  What I said was that on the scale of solar systems, it is uniformly distributed.  That is on a larger scale than the stellar level, which is what you appear to be fixated on.

Quote
Are you going to answer the actual question of why so much dark matter avoids the solar system, or indeed contribute anything remotely new, in your next post, or just keep wasting time?

Take a deep breath.  Where are you coming up with this idea that dark matter is avoiding anything?  It seems like a disingenous and/or baseless assertion.

Quote
It is not distributed evenly when there is meant to be five times as much of it. Are you going to explain why the vast majority of it leaves centers of gravity alone at any stage?

Again, you are going to have to provide some evidence for this assertion.  It feels like you are making this up, or drawing conclusions you are not qualified to make.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2018, 10:05:13 PM »
Quote
1. There is meant to be five times as much dark matter as regular matter.
2. We do not observe the expected gravitational distortion if it were present in centers of gravity like the Earth and the Sun.

According to whom?
That's the data I've seen. If you can give me any account that says there's less dark matter in the universe, or that there has been a seismic shift in views of the composition of the Earth and Sun when they realised matter only needed compose a sixth the mass, please do correct me.

The amount of dark matter and relative percentages are common knowledge at this point.
https://home.cern/about/physics/dark-matter
https://www.space.com/13765-dark-matter-mass-limit.html
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/dark-matter/
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

As for the rest, I can't exactly link to an absence. I can say that in all my research I have not found any account of historical scientists wondering why their models for the composition of the Earth only accounted for a sixth of the mass, or major revisions after dark matter was established. If you have evidence otherwise, please correct me.

Quote
Take a deep breath.  Where are you coming up with this idea that dark matter is avoiding anything?  It seems like a disingenous and/or baseless assertion.
*dep breath*
See above. If you are actually going to object to those statements, please do so.

Until you can give some reason for the huge quantities of dark matter in the universe to actively avoid centers of gravity, rather that just saying what you need to happen without explaining how it could, this stands. It really doesn't matter in the slightest that it's uniformly distributed in solar systems, and your fixation on that is bizarre. What matters is why such a piddling amount of it is here.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Rama Set

Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2018, 03:41:01 AM »
I never disputed the amount of dark matter, it’s your conclusions that are suspect. Why you expect there to be dark matter spread uniformly across the Earth when space is mostly a void is what I don’t understand and it is looking more and more like you are just using a faulty intuition to support this claim. Space is overwhelmingly empty of matter on average, and although dark matter is 5-6 times more abundant, in any given cubic meter of space you are more likely than not to find no matter at all. Why is it not plausible that we find ourself in a region where dark matter is scarcer?

Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2018, 05:57:10 AM »
An oddball question here. IF as you claim the Earth is flat and everything astronomer's and more spout is made up (should maybe verify, you are claiming this right? If you aren't, might I ask where all of this comes from?) what purpose does the dark matter/energy theory/hypothesis serve? You're basically proclaiming an argument from incredulity with it, but what reason does it have to exist in the first place if it's apparently so out of place? (As a note, I'm seeing nothing in any of these articles suggesting dark matter occupies the same areas as normal matter in any sense, so if the Earth is essentially solid as claimed, where would the dark matter be that you claim should throw off our measurements?)

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2018, 12:21:01 PM »
A key tenet of RET is dark matter; without such an entity the whole model falls apart.
No, claiming that "A key tenet of RET is dark matter" is totally incorrect.

Dark matter is a hypothesis put forward by Cosmologists to explain an apparent anomaly in the velocities of stars orbiting in galaxies.

It has nothing to do with the basic theory of the heliocentric solar system.

Hence, right from the start, your claim that "the whole model falls apart" is without foundation.

Even so, let's look at your claims:
Quote from: JRowe
And further, it is true that dark matter is supported by evidence when the world is viewed from the RE perspective,
No, not "viewed from the RE perspective" but viewed from modern cosmological perspective, which are not claimed yet to be certain.
Quote from: JRowe
the only way to make sense of the motion of planets and stars (supposedly due to gravity) is by recourse to these dark bodies.
No, when viewed from modern cosmological perspective dark matter has virtually no effect on planetry motion because the "average density of dark matter near the solar system is approximately 1 proton-mass for every 3 cubic centimeters, which is roughly 6 x 10-28 kg/cm3".

Quote from: JRowe
There is meant to be over five times as much dark matter as regular matter. And this is where it all starts to fall apart for RET.
Even were to accept your view that the mass of the earth and its components were "five sixths dark matter" as in:
Quote from: JRowe
And, again, there is five times as much dark matter as regular matter.
So where is its impact on calculations of the Earth's mass? RET does have excuses, but none of them can explain why it is dark matter fails to be attracted to centers of mass like planets. The moon doesn't simply stop orbiting the Earth just because the Sun or Galactic Center exist. If dark matter exists, it should be drawn to stars, moons, planets, according to RET.
Again it's nothing to do with the basic heliocentric solar system "theory" but to do with "modern cosmology".
You say, "If dark matter exists, it should be drawn to stars, moons, planets, according to RET"
but all ordinary matter is not drawn into the one place because it is in motion and is subject to inertial forces.
Dark has different properties and it unable to form atoms and particles, so cannot form planets and stars so would be expected to remain diffuse.

As a result dark matter is spread through the "empty space" of the galaxies though is more dense near masses and the galactic centre.

Quote from: JRowe
Thus Cavendish's figure for the mass of the Earth should have been noticed to be six times what the actual physical matter and composition allowed for. That isn't some minor figure that can be brushed over with error bars.
Where has the seismic shift in geology been? Where have the scientists that work on mapping the interior of the globe Earth accounted for the fact their mass is five sixths dark matter? How could no one notice this giant glaring flaw? Where are the historical unanswered questions, where are the major rewrites we would expect?
Were that even true, and I and cosmologists do not accept that, that "five sixths dark matter" would have been implicitly measured by Cavendish et al.

So in conclusion:
  • Dark matter is not a part of "RET" (the heliocentric solar system) so has no effect on its validity.
  • Dark matter is hypothesed to be spread though the "empty space" of galaxies and not concentrated in baryonic matter.
  • There are simply no "historical unanswered questions" and "major rewrites" necessary antway, whatever the properties of dark matter, because even if it were within the earth its mass would have been "measured" along with baryonic matter.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2018, 03:41:15 PM »
I never disputed the amount of dark matter, it’s your conclusions that are suspect. Why you expect there to be dark matter spread uniformly across the Earth when space is mostly a void is what I don’t understand and it is looking more and more like you are just using a faulty intuition to support this claim. Space is overwhelmingly empty of matter on average, and although dark matter is 5-6 times more abundant, in any given cubic meter of space you are more likely than not to find no matter at all. Why is it not plausible that we find ourself in a region where dark matter is scarcer?

What. Makes. it. Scarce?!

i am seriously getting sick of needing to keep asking this. it is not plausible because dark matter should be attracted to the same centers of gravity as regular matter, right from the start of the universe. As matter started to coalesce, dark matter would have been drawn to the same locations. Stars, planets, all of that.
Am i going to need to keep repeating this?

An oddball question here. IF as you claim the Earth is flat and everything astronomer's and more spout is made up (should maybe verify, you are claiming this right? If you aren't, might I ask where all of this comes from?) what purpose does the dark matter/energy theory/hypothesis serve? You're basically proclaiming an argument from incredulity with it, but what reason does it have to exist in the first place if it's apparently so out of place? (As a note, I'm seeing nothing in any of these articles suggesting dark matter occupies the same areas as normal matter in any sense, so if the Earth is essentially solid as claimed, where would the dark matter be that you claim should throw off our measurements?)
Because i'm not talking about FET, i'm talking about your model. This is not an argument from incredulity, it is a proof by contradiction. According to what it is you believe as a REer, we should have observed a massive change in models of the composition of the Earth and Sun, or major unanswered questions historically: none of this has been seen.
As for the rest, the Earth being solid doesn't prevent dark matter being there, dark matter doesn't interact with regular matter regardless of how solid it is. it should be here because it would have been attracted to the same centers of gravity, as i've had to keep repeating.

No, claiming that "A key tenet of RET is dark matter" is totally incorrect.

Dark matter is a hypothesis put forward by Cosmologists to explain an apparent anomaly in the velocities of stars orbiting in galaxies.

It has nothing to do with the basic theory of the heliocentric solar system.
But if dark matter does not exist, there are consequences. You cannot explain the velocities of those stars, your model of gravity then falls apart, and you are left without the most fundamental part of your model.

Quote
Again it's nothing to do with the basic heliocentric solar system "theory" but to do with "modern cosmology".
You say, "If dark matter exists, it should be drawn to stars, moons, planets, according to RET"
but all ordinary matter is not drawn into the one place because it is in motion and is subject to inertial forces.
Dark has different properties and it unable to form atoms and particles, so cannot form planets and stars so would be expected to remain diffuse.
And modern cosmology is RET. instead of this tedious semantic rubbish that you use to try and give yourself the illusion of superiority, drop the act and start making your posts about the actual topic. RET, like FET, proposes a model of how the whole universe works. Everything from the distances on a map to the stars themselves operates differently, it does not make the slightest bit of sense to divorce the heliocentric model from its subsequent model of the universe when we are debating the merits of the model as a whole.
i specifically acknowledged and went over the fact dark matter would not interact with itself in my opening post, you are not adding anything new here so i fail to see why you felt the need to bring that up unless it's, like the rest, more stageplay, more pointlessness to give an illusion of victory. My point stands. Not being able to form atoms does not equal being diffuse, it is still going to be attracted to the same centers of gravity. You don't need particles for that. i notice that you completely fail to actually explain what you think connects those points.

Quote
There are simply no "historical unanswered questions" and "major rewrites" necessary antway, whatever the properties of dark matter, because even if it were within the earth its mass would have been "measured" along with baryonic matter.
And would have been at odds with what geologists determined to compose the Earth, did you even read my post?
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« Reply #15 on: July 08, 2018, 01:12:52 AM »
No, claiming that "A key tenet of RET is dark-matter" is totally incorrect.

Dark-matter is a hypothesis put forward by Cosmologists to explain an apparent anomaly in the velocities of stars orbiting in galaxies.

It has nothing to do with the basic theory of the heliocentric solar system.
But if dark matter does not exist, there are consequences. You cannot explain the velocities of those stars, your model of gravity then falls apart, and you are left without the most fundamental part of your model.
Incorrect. Dark-matter is only hypothesised to account for the faster than expected velocities of stars towards the outer edge of galaxies. It has no effect on the solar system or even nearby stars.
It certainly does not cause the "model of gravity" to "fall apart".
I don't have to explain "the velocities of those stars" but in any case, those velocities only start to deviate some 1000 light years from galactic centres.
"Dark-matter" is simply one hypothesis for that, though is the one currently most supported. Science accepts that there are many unknowns about things far away and far back in time.

But this anomaly has no effect on any object within many hundreds of light years of here. Dark-matter is too sparse to have any local effect anywhere.

Quote from: JRowe
Quote from: rabinoz
Again it's nothing to do with the basic heliocentric solar system "theory" but to do with "modern cosmology".
You say, "If dark-matter exists, it should be drawn to stars, moons, planets, according to RET"
but all ordinary matter is not drawn into the one place because it is in motion and is subject to inertial forces.
Dark has different properties and it unable to form atoms and particles, so cannot form planets and stars so would be expected to remain diffuse.
And modern cosmology is RET.
No, modern cosmology is not RET

Quote from: JRowe
instead of this tedious semantic rubbish that you use to try and give yourself the illusion of superiority, drop the act and start making your posts about the actual topic.
I'm not trying to give myself any "illusion of superiority". I'm simply trying to present things as they are.

Quote from: JRowe
RET, like FET, proposes a model of how the whole universe works. Everything from the distances on a map to the stars themselves operates differently, it does not make the slightest bit of sense to divorce the heliocentric model from its subsequent model of the universe when we are debating the merits of the model as a whole.
It makes plenty of sense "to divorce the heliocentric model" from the "subsequent model of the universe".
"Distances on a map" can and have been measured directly, many using the old chain and theodolite methods of geodetic surveying. Distances to the planetary bodies have been measured, initially using "parallax" and more lately using radar and laser measurements.

So the heliocentric model can be observed and measured with sufficient accuracy to predict closely (but not perfectly) where planetary bodies will be for a significant time in the future.

The distance to stars a few light years away can be measured with fairly good accuracy but once distances get over a few hundred light years even the distances have to be inferred by other means.
There is a massive distinction between the heliocentric solar system, which can be observed and accurately measured, and the distant galaxies that I, at least, class as part of "modern Cosmology".

It could be called a distinction between "what we are", the local region that we can study in detail, and "where we can from", the region far away and far back in time.

Quote from: JRowe
I specifically acknowledged and went over the fact dark matter would not interact with itself in my opening post, you are not adding anything new here so i fail to see why you felt the need to bring that up unless it's, like the rest, more stageplay, more pointlessness to give an illusion of victory. My point stands. Not being able to form atoms does not equal being diffuse, it is still going to be attracted to the same centers of gravity. You don't need particles for that. i notice that you completely fail to actually explain what you think connects those points.
Now, I don't pretend to be a cosmologist and you certainly are not one, so this a case of the "blind" debating the "blind" but still:
Dark-matter cannot form atoms and molecules and hence cannot form planetary bodies. Neither you nor I know what velocity that dark is moving at but presumably, it is at the velocity of the stars in that region.
Dark-matter is a hypothesis to explain the apparent missing (unseen) mass in galaxies and the distribution is inferred from where that mass needs to be.
You haven't explained why dark-matter should gather around the individual planets and stars any more than the stars of the various systems, say the stars and planets in the Solar System and the Centaurus Constellation don't all collapse into one big mass.

Quote from: JRowe
Quote from: rabinoz
There are simply no "historical unanswered questions" and "major rewrites" necessary anyway, whatever the properties of dark-matter, because even if it were within the earth its mass would have been "measured" along with baryonic matter.
And would have been at odds with what geologists determined to compose the Earth, did you even read my post?
Yes, I read your post and I do not agree.
In the hypothetical event that dark-matter was incorporated into the ordinary matter of planets etc it would then simply be part of ordinary matter and when geologists determined the composition of the Earth it would have been included.
So why would there be any discrepancy.

But and it's a big BUT, your scenario of dark-matter being concentrated in or about ordinary matter completely defeats the purpose of the hypothesis.
The hypothesis is that dark-matter is placed where it is needed to explain the rotational velocities of stars far from the galactic centres and that dark-matter is moving at the observed velocities of these stars.


Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« Reply #16 on: July 08, 2018, 07:33:19 AM »
Fantastic post Rab. I just wanted to say. Really well written.

Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2018, 08:11:37 AM »
Fantastic post Rab. I just wanted to say. Really well written.


Dark-matter cannot form atoms and molecules and hence cannot form planetary bodies.


https://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/10750/slac-pub-10882.pdf (Stanford University/Oxford University)

Published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2005/07/001

Kaluza-Klein Dark Matter, being a boson, is not similarly suppressed and can annihilate directly to e+ e-, µ+ µ- and τ+ τ-, each of which yield a generous number of high energy electrons and positrons.

This theorized particle was of course discovered in 2008:

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/19nov_cosmicrays/


Dark matter consists of KK particles:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.2801.pdf

https://archive.org/stream/arxiv-0902.0593/0902.0593#page/n0/mode/2up (published by the Fermi National Accelerator Lab)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0206071.pdf

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2018, 09:50:58 AM »
Incorrect. Dark-matter is only hypothesised to account for the faster than expected velocities of stars towards the outer edge of galaxies. It has no effect on the solar system or even nearby stars.
It certainly does not cause the "model of gravity" to "fall apart".
I don't have to explain "the velocities of those stars" but in any case, those velocities only start to deviate some 1000 light years from galactic centres.
"Dark-matter" is simply one hypothesis for that, though is the one currently most supported. Science accepts that there are many unknowns about things far away and far back in time.
There is a difference between an unknown and a contradiction. Without an explanation, the behavior of such stars forms a contradiction with eveyrthing RET knows about how they should move.

Quote
I'm not trying to give myself any "illusion of superiority". I'm simply trying to present things as they are.
Then why is your whole post completely irrelevant complaining based on ignoring eveyrthing I said rather than simply focusing on making an actual point?

Quote

Now, I don't pretend to be a cosmologist and you certainly are not one, so this a case of the "blind" debating the "blind" but still:
Dark-matter cannot form atoms and molecules and hence cannot form planetary bodies. Neither you nor I know what velocity that dark is moving at but presumably, it is at the velocity of the stars in that region.
Dark-matter is a hypothesis to explain the apparent missing (unseen) mass in galaxies and the distribution is inferred from where that mass needs to be.
You haven't explained why dark-matter should gather around the individual planets and stars any more than the stars of the various systems, say the stars and planets in the Solar System and the Centaurus Constellation don't all collapse into one big mass.
Are you at any point going to answer the actual question or are you just going to repeat what I've already said?
i specifically acknowledged and went over the fact dark matter would not interact with itself in my opening post, you are not adding anything new here so i fail to see why you felt the need to bring that up unless it's, like the rest, more stageplay, more pointlessness to give an illusion of victory. My point stands. Not being able to form atoms does not equal being diffuse, it is still going to be attracted to the same centers of gravity. You don't need particles for that. i notice that you completely fail to actually explain what you think connects those points.

I even pointed out the specific area you needed to explain and you completely refused to do so. Stop wasting time.

Quote
Yes, I read your post and I do not agree.
In the hypothetical event that dark-matter was incorporated into the ordinary matter of planets etc it would then simply be part of ordinary matter and when geologists determined the composition of the Earth it would have been included.
So why would there be any discrepancy.

But and it's a big BUT, your scenario of dark-matter being concentrated in or about ordinary matter completely defeats the purpose of the hypothesis.
The hypothesis is that dark-matter is placed where it is needed to explain the rotational velocities of stars far from the galactic centres and that dark-matter is moving at the observed velocities of these stars.
Yet again, I know what you need to happen, my problem is why. Are you sure you read my post because it serioulsy feels like I am constantly repeating myself with you.
That would depend on how they calculated the composition of the Earth. If they used the mass as an end goal then we should have expected a major rewrite now we know how much of the mass is going to be down to dark matter, if they used other means they should have found their models based on iron and nickel etc came out with a mass that was woefully short. I'm just keeping your options open.


Fantastic post Rab. I just wanted to say. Really well written.
Well written maybe, just lacking in anything new or any actual answers.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter
« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2018, 09:59:40 AM »
Fantastic post Rab. I just wanted to say. Really well written.
Dark-matter cannot form atoms and molecules and hence cannot form planetary bodies.


https://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/10750/slac-pub-10882.pdf (Stanford University/Oxford University)
Published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2005/07/001

Kaluza-Klein Dark Matter, being a boson, is not similarly suppressed and can annihilate directly to e+ e-, µ+ µ- and τ+ τ-, each of which yield a generous number of high energy electrons and positrons.
Quote from: Edward A. Baltz and Dan Hooper
Conclusions
Electrons and positrons produced directly in Kaluza-Klein Dark Matter (KKDM) annihilations
can result in a discontinuity in the diffuse spectrum observed by gamma ray telescopes both on
the ground (ACTs such as HESS, VERITAS, or MAGIC) and in space (GLAST). We have shown
that this feature can be observed at statistically significant levels in either ACTs or GLAST for
KKDM particles with masses of up to 600 GeV, if several years are spent accumulating data.
And what do "Electrons and positrons" produce? Not matter, just energy.
Quote from: sandokhan
This theorized particle was of course discovered in 2008:
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/19nov_cosmicrays/
Dark matter consists of KK particles:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.2801.pdf
https://archive.org/stream/arxiv-0902.0593/0902.0593#page/n0/mode/2up (published by the Fermi National Accelerator Lab)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0206071.pdf
These papers seem to ask Is the Lightest Kaluza–Klein Particle a Viable Dark Matter Candidate? Geraldine Servant and Tim M.P. Tait.
As yet there seems no definitive answer but I am no cosmologist and can have no opinion on that.

The KK particle might be dark matter, but that doesn't seem to alter the distribution of dark matter in the slightest and that has been the question raised in this thread.
Also, the gist of those papers seems be that KK particles decay into electrons and positrons which "cannot form atoms and molecules and hence cannot form planetary bodies".

So, sandokhan, while your input is much appreciated, it does not seem to affect the discussion at all.