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.
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.
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.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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.Quote1. 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?
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*
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.
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.
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".
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:
And, again, there is five times as much dark matter as regular matter.Again it's nothing to do with the basic heliocentric solar system "theory" but to do with "modern cosmology".
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.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.
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?
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?
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.
No, claiming that "A key tenet of RET is dark matter" is totally incorrect.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.
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.
Again it's nothing to do with the basic heliocentric solar system "theory" but to do with "modern cosmology".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.
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.
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?
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.No, claiming that "A key tenet of RET is dark-matter" is totally incorrect.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.
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.
No, modern cosmology is not RETQuote from: rabinozAgain it's nothing to do with the basic heliocentric solar system "theory" but to do with "modern cosmology".And modern cosmology is RET.
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.
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.
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".
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:
Yes, I read your post and I do not agree.Quote from: rabinozThere 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?
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.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.
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.
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?
Are you at any point going to answer the actual question or are you just going to repeat what I've already said?
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.
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.
Yes, I read your post and I do not agree.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.
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.
Fantastic post Rab. I just wanted to say. Really well written.Well written maybe, just lacking in anything new or any actual answers.
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.
ConclusionsAnd what do "Electrons and positrons" produce? Not matter, just energy.
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.
This theorized particle was of course discovered in 2008:These papers seem to ask Is the Lightest Kaluza–Klein Particle a Viable Dark Matter Candidate? Geraldine Servant and Tim M.P. Tait (https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0206071.pdf).
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
There is a explanation, dark-matter and with dark-matter there is no "contradiction with everythingIncorrect. 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.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.
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.
It has been known since 1929 that the Universe is expanding, but in 1998 two teams of astronomers showed that the Universe is expanding faster now than it was in the past. This surprising discovery—which won the Nobel Prize in 2011—cannot be explained unless the Universe is mostly made of an exotic component called dark energy. However, this interpretation relies on GR being the correct theory of gravity on cosmological scales. Testing the long distance properties of gravity is important to validate our cosmological model.
Read more at: Einstein proved right in another galaxy, June 21, 2018, University of Portsmouth/color] (https://phys.org/news/2018-06-einstein-galaxy.html#jCp)
Because I did not want to spend the time going through every last detail of why you were wrong, so I concentrated on a couple of points:QuoteI'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?
Because I did not want to spend the time going through every last detail of why you were wrong, so I concentrated on a couple of points:How about focusing on the one that actually matters? This is just tedious, how many times do I have to repeat a question to get an answer?
- The cosmology of galaxies thousands is irrelevant to the basic heliocentric solar system.
- Whatever you might claim the dark-matter hypothesis is that there is an extremely low volume density of dark matter anywhere.
So it only becomes significant in the vast regions of space between the stars.
"the total mass of dark matter within the radius of Earth's orbit around the sun . . . . . only weighs 10-18 as much as the sun".
Any dark matter that might be within the solar system so small that it couldn't be measured - even if there was some way to distinguish it from ordinary matter.- And my final point was that even if there were dark matter within the earth, it was there when the mass of the earth of the earth was measured and it was there when geologists measured the composition of rocks etc and so could never cause any discrepancy.
So, Mr Rowe, from what I can see you have never made a case to answer and no other poster seems to think you have either - end of story!
Quotei 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.QuoteYes, I read your post and I do not agree.Yet again, I know what you need to happen, my problem is why. Are you sure you read my post because it seriously feels like I am constantly repeating myself with you.
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.
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.
Short version:
1. I am focusing on the explanatory power of each model with respect to this one element. I don't care if you think RET is supported by other things, they aren't under discussion here.
2. I know you need dark matter to leave the Solar System alone, you are consistently evading the question of why it is avoiding the centers of gravity. You claim the fact it does not form molecules means it will somehow ignore the pull of gravity and remain diffuse: Why? I have been asking this since the first damn post will you answer already?!
3. Geologists developing a model of the Earth independently fo calculations of it smass and coming up short that was only one possibility. If it is as you said and geologists, before they knew dark matter existed, created a model of the Earth with all that mass, then we should have observed a major rethink of the composition of the Earth when it was realised how much of that was dark matter. I said this before as well, will you please stop ignoring every word I say?
So MACHOs and WIMPs would not be expected to gather near the Earth (nor the Sun). The other candidates I listed are so speculative as to hardly provide anything to go on at all. There you go. Asked and answered.And as I keep pointing out, that does not follow from what you are saying. You REers are the only ones that care about whether or not dark matter clumps, that's never related to what I'm saying, I've repeatedly pointed out it doesn't need to. Some fundamental particle of dark matter, whether MACHO or WIMP, would still be drawn to any nearby center of gravity. Sure, it doesn't have to stop, but as REers love to point out gravity isn't unidirectional, it pulls in from all directions. The particle gets attracted to a mass from one side, goes through, it should still be attracted back to that mass. It doesn't need to stop, it needs to obey the basic laws of RE physics. This would have been true throughout the whole formation of the universe. Dark matter would be present, dark matter would be attracted to the same centers of gravity that form each and every planet and star, and instead we go from five times the mass of regular matter to undetectable. This needs to be explained.
It's hard to really understand what you're getting at. Let's take it from an orbital mechanics point of view. We can calculate what the masses of the Sun, Earth, and Moon are based on their orbits. And by "mass" here I mean gravitational influence. This "mass" is the combined effect of baryonic matter and dark matter together. So if I'm following your logic correctly, then you think the Earth's mass is 1x baryonic and 5x dark. We know the total amount of mass is correct, so you think we've been dramatically over-estimating how much of the Earth is baryonic. Is that right so far?There are two situations to cover, I only brought up that one because Rabinoz was fixating so much on one and ignoring the other no matter how many times I explained it. If you accept the RE model of gravity, then the Earth's mass can be calculated. That's some fixed figure, let's say M.
When you weigh a ball of lead, how do you excise all the dark matter from it first? If your assertion is that dark matter permeates the Earth in a ratio of 1 to 5, then surely the lead ball is full of dark matter too?Because the Earth was meant to have formed by gravitational attraction alone, hence dark matter being attracted to the same center. It isn't going to be created when someone puts together a lead ball because it doesn't interact with matter.
Also, contrary to Jrowe’s contention Dark matter does not avoid centers of gravity. There is plenty of dark matter at the center of gravity for our galaxy and less among the weaker gravitational field of the galactic rim. It’s almost like Jrowe’s complaint is a total fabrication.Then. Why. Isn't. It. In. Our. Solar. System?!
I am thoroughly sick of you people lying to my face.I am not lying! I am saying exactly what I believe to be the truth and I do believe that you have never made a real case to answer. That is my opinion and I'm entitled to it!
Short version:And my point all along not that the Heliocentric Solar System (what you insist on labelling RET) in not at all reliant on what might be happening thousands of light years away.
1. I am focusing on the explanatory power of each model with respect to this one element. I don't care if you think RET is supported by other things, they aren't under discussion here.
2. I know you need dark matter to leave the Solar System alone, you are consistently evading the question of why it is avoiding the centers of gravity. You claim the fact it does not form molecules means it will somehow ignore the pull of gravity and remain diffuse: Why? I have been asking this since the first damn post will you answer already?!I'm not "consistently evading the question of why it is avoiding the centers of gravity". I've been giving reasons why dark matter would not necessarily "clump" around ordinary matter.
3. Geologists developing a model of the Earth independently of calculations of its mass and coming up short that was only one possibility. If it is as you said and geologists, before they knew dark matter existed, created a model of the Earth with all that mass, then we should have observed a major rethink of the composition of the Earth when it was realised how much of that was dark matter. I said this before as well, will you please stop ignoring every word I say?Do I have to repeat myself over and over again?
Then. Why. Isn't. It. In. Our. Solar. System?!
Jesus christ do I need to repeat this to you every time? That is my complaint.
And my point all along not that the Heliocentric Solar System (what you insist on labelling RET) in not at all reliant on what might be happening thousands of light years away.Yes, and it is a meaningless one. Your model of what happens in those locations is specific to your model of the shape of the Earth. Further, there are consequences to a flawed model of gravity, because you appeal to the same force on those scales and on the solar system scales.
The Heliocentric Solar System was developed and verified based on observations and measurements on earth, the solar systems and the stars only tens of light years away.
Newton's theories were developed and verified based on observations and measurements on earth and the orbiting of the moon, etc, etc.
Nothing you say can change that situation.
So, whatever you think you are proving about the cosmology of the behavior of distant stars orbiting in galaxies has no bearing on the validity of the Heliocentric Solar System.
Surely you can see the distinction.
I'm not "consistently evading the question of why it is avoiding the centers of gravity". I've been giving reasons why dark matter would not necessarily "clump" around ordinary matter.And I am thoroughly sick of pointing out that you are only people that give a damn about it clumping. I have never, ever, ever appealed to that. I have said the exact opposite. How many times have I had to repeat that fact to you, and you are still acting as though you are somehow adding something by repeating somethin I said in my first post.
Dark matter is also in motion and orbiting the galactic centres just as ordinary matter and you have never given any reason why it wouldn't.
And it's not a case of my needing "dark matter to leave the Solar System alone" but that any discussion about dark matter is irrelevant to the solar system and nearby stars.
If dark matter did form part of the mass of the earth when the mass of objects was measured that mass would include the mass of the incorporated dark matter,THAT. IS. WHAT. I. HAVE. BEEN. SAYING.
When Cavendish, indirectly and hundreds of directly, measured the gravitational constant G your hypothetically included dark matter would have been included in all the masses involved.
You keep repeating it, but that seems to be because you haven't understood my replies, or are ignoring important parts of them. Once more and then I will leave to tilt at windmills. Dark Matter is distributed evenly across the observable universe on scales larger than solar systems. On of a solar system and smaller, you will see variances in distribution, perhaps extreme ones. This is predicted by cosmological models. There is no issue with the physics, there is an issue with you thinking you know how gravity ought to work, and being wrong.If I am ignoring any part of your message, it is because you are ignoring the important part of mine. The solar system is not just some abstract spot of space, it is a star with a whole slew of planets and orbiting bodies, it is a center of gravity that should actively attract dark matter to it, and should have always been actively attracting dark matter. If it had not done that then it wouldn't exist. You cannot handwave an appeal to regular variance because that only applies in the absence of driving factors. Take, say, a jacuzzi. You're going to get ripples in the water, variations in the height, but if you drop a truck in it that's going to outweigh any variance.
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.
JRowe, it's ok to admit you don't know everything. We've tried to explain, and you just don't seem to get it. I'm not sure if that's because it is beyond your comprehension or if you are deliberately missing the point. I strongly suspect the latter.
Whether deliberate or accident, your posts are an excellent characterization of a very common problem we see with FE thinking. It is a nasty combination of lack of knowledge, distrust of scientific authorities, an inflated sense of your own mastery of the material, and outright hostility towards being corrected.
If you're the only one interested in this topic, then it's a waste of time to discuss it further because you have shown no sign of understanding anything presented here. I don't mind explaining concepts to people that want to hear it, but I'm about done with the belligerent attitude.
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.Most likely yes. We can't really be certain, but we might expect dark matter to be attracted to the same masses that regular matter is. But that does not mean we will find dark matter in the same distribution as regular matter. We do not see uniformity of the distribution of regular matter, and there is simply no reason to expect uniformity in the distribution of dark matter either. This is particularly true if dark matter should turn out to be particles moving at astronomical speeds. Light is attracted by matter as well. Do we have a problem that the Earth is not full of light? Of course not.
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?We've tried and tried to explain to you that the concentration of dark matter (whatever it is) is not uniform throughout the universe. Whatever dark matter turns out to be, it cannot be found here on Earth in any significant concentrations. You simply cannot accept that, but it must be so. It must be so because dark matter is a proposed explanation for how distant stars move. The Earth and the other bodies within our solar system behave just right with purely regular matter. Adding a bunch of dark matter here wouldn't help the situation - it would screw everything up.
Why does dark matter not forming clumps mean it would not be attracted to centers of gravity? Or, if it is attracted to centers of gravity, why does it then proceed to just shoot straight past it and ignore the fact gravity would act to curve its path or pull it back?
Forget everything else, answer that. That goes for everyone. I am tired of this goddamn runaround.
A key tenet of RET is dark matter; without such an entity the whole model falls apart.
LOLBecause round earthers are the ones that insist that there's a grand unified conspiracy, rather than humans making mistakes.
RET doesn't need dark matter to tell if the earth is spherical.
If the earth was truly flat, and 'they' lied about it, why would they even invent the concept of dark matter that normal people would be unable to notice anyways?
But really, why would dark matter make any difference towards the spherical nature of earth?Because it is required for your model to work.
We've tried and tried to explain to you that the concentration of dark matter (whatever it is) is not uniform throughout the universe. Whatever dark matter turns out to be, it cannot be found here on Earth in any significant concentrations. You simply cannot accept that, but it must be so. It must be so because dark matter is a proposed explanation for how distant stars move. The Earth and the other bodies within our solar system behave just right with purely regular matter. Adding a bunch of dark matter here wouldn't help the situation - it would screw everything up.You've tried to explain that to me?! Are you kidding?! I HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT SINCE THE FIRST BLOODY POST. Yes, there cannot be any dark matter in the Solar System otherwise the whole model falls apart. That is my point. That is why I have CONSTANTLY been asking you people WHY.
I just want to point out that for all your posturing, this is the first time anyone even tried to actually answer my question. For all the talk about how it would not be perfectly uniform, for how it isn't in the Solar System etc, why is the most important question to ask there, and it is the one I have been repeating endlessly, and it is the one that was met with anger and arrogant insistence and a total lack of any response until now. So, thank you for that.Why does dark matter not forming clumps mean it would not be attracted to centers of gravity? Or, if it is attracted to centers of gravity, why does it then proceed to just shoot straight past it and ignore the fact gravity would act to curve its path or pull it back?
Forget everything else, answer that. That goes for everyone. I am tired of this goddamn runaround.
If it is neutrinos, the answer is because they move too fast. They are WAY beyond the orbital speed of the Earth. It would take a black hole (or possibly a large neutron star) to hold them in orbit. The Earth is a gravity center, but not strong enough to hold neutrinos in orbit. ok?
Jesus fucking christ you people are unbearable. Stop repeating what I say, stop insisting that it just works and explain WHY. 'It must be so' is the definition of circular illogic.Pipe it down. We do not tolerate personal attacks in the upper fora. If you want to complain about how much of an idiot someone is, do it in Angry Ranting. While in the upper, we expect you to be civil, and to address arguments, not individuals. Warned.
[...]
You are telling me WHAT you need. As I have said endlessly, I am asking WHY. Can you seriously tell me you don't see the blatant evasion there?
And you say I'm trolling? Fuck you. Just fuck you.
Dark Matter is required for our calculations and predictions to make sense on a galaxy and universe scale.LOLBecause round earthers are the ones that insist that there's a grand unified conspiracy, rather than humans making mistakes.
RET doesn't need dark matter to tell if the earth is spherical.
If the earth was truly flat, and 'they' lied about it, why would they even invent the concept of dark matter that normal people would be unable to notice anyways?QuoteBut really, why would dark matter make any difference towards the spherical nature of earth?Because it is required for your model to work.
Dark Matter is required for our calculations and predictions to make sense on a galaxy and universe scale.Which is all part of the same model. That's how science works, if you run an experiment and find it contradicts your hypothesis, you don't make excuses and keep going, you need to take a step back and rethink. If gravity does not work in situations where it should, and the only significant excuse fails too, it needs to be given a rethink.
It is not required for anything in our small solar system where we can easily tell that the earth is a sphere.
I don't get where you are getting your 'grand unified conspiracy' from, as conspiracies are flat earthers areas.Yes, and one REers stretch out of all proportion, hence assigning it to you.
We know that dark matter is an unsolved issue, yet it is something we can use to predict reality. Meanwhile scientists are working hard to figure out exactly what dark matter is and how we can test if it exists or if the observations are caused by something else.Again, there is a difference between unsolved and contradictory. I would not have dedicated so much time and passion to this thread if I was just looking for you to explain an oddity, I want an answer to a contradiction.
But it isn't a contradiction yet. It is simply an unsolved mystery at this time. Dark Matter might not even be the correct answer to the question. Hell, the question might not even be the correct one! But none of this is likely to have an effect upon the shape of the Earth. Sure, much of the present cosmology works with/upon the Earth being a sphere. BUT, that relationship doesn't fully go both ways. Newton and Einsten's gravity formula's work 100% at a local scale. The fact they don't work at a galactic scale is the issue. Dark Matter is one solution. Why isn't there a bunch in the solar system? Not fully known at present. Depending on the form of Dark Matter there's some potential answers, but we don't even know if Dark Matter is the correct answer to why things don't look right. You're making a mountain of a molehill here. Could this change the way we understand how the universe formed? Maybe. Will it change the very shape of the Earth in modern science? Less likely considering we knew the 'what' for how the Earth looked well before the 'why' it looks the way it does. 'Why' comes later. We're not there yet with Dark Matter when we aren't even positive what form it takes, much less whether it even exists.Dark Matter is required for our calculations and predictions to make sense on a galaxy and universe scale.Which is all part of the same model. That's how science works, if you run an experiment and find it contradicts your hypothesis, you don't make excuses and keep going, you need to take a step back and rethink. If gravity does not work in situations where it should, and the only significant excuse fails too, it needs to be given a rethink.
It is not required for anything in our small solar system where we can easily tell that the earth is a sphere.QuoteI don't get where you are getting your 'grand unified conspiracy' from, as conspiracies are flat earthers areas.Yes, and one REers stretch out of all proportion, hence assigning it to you.QuoteWe know that dark matter is an unsolved issue, yet it is something we can use to predict reality. Meanwhile scientists are working hard to figure out exactly what dark matter is and how we can test if it exists or if the observations are caused by something else.Again, there is a difference between unsolved and contradictory. I would not have dedicated so much time and passion to this thread if I was just looking for you to explain an oddity, I want an answer to a contradiction.
What I hear you say, correct me if I am wrong.Dark Matter is required for our calculations and predictions to make sense on a galaxy and universe scale.Which is all part of the same model. That's how science works, if you run an experiment and find it contradicts your hypothesis, you don't make excuses and keep going, you need to take a step back and rethink. If gravity does not work in situations where it should, and the only significant excuse fails too, it needs to be given a rethink.
It is not required for anything in our small solar system where we can easily tell that the earth is a sphere.QuoteI don't get where you are getting your 'grand unified conspiracy' from, as conspiracies are flat earthers areas.Yes, and one REers stretch out of all proportion, hence assigning it to you.QuoteWe know that dark matter is an unsolved issue, yet it is something we can use to predict reality. Meanwhile scientists are working hard to figure out exactly what dark matter is and how we can test if it exists or if the observations are caused by something else.Again, there is a difference between unsolved and contradictory. I would not have dedicated so much time and passion to this thread if I was just looking for you to explain an oddity, I want an answer to a contradiction.
But it isn't a contradiction yet.It is, that's the point. Gravity does not work without dakr matter, and dark matter does not work.
Could this change the way we understand how the universe formed? Maybe. Will it change the very shape of the Earth in modern science? Less likely considering we knew the 'what' for how the Earth looked well before the 'why' it looks the way it does. 'Why' comes later. We're not there yet with Dark Matter when we aren't even positive what form it takes, much less whether it even exists.I don't expect this one argument to reshape anyone's view of the world, but for those interested in study it is a plain indication that there is much that needs to be re-evaluated. What's better, a model like gravity which needs to constantly be nipped and tucked to fit in with what we see, or something that works smoothly from the get-go?
What I hear you say, correct me if I am wrong.Gravity is far more connected to RET than atomic theory is to string theory. Rather, it would be like a scientist who believed in spontaneous generation observing a beef steak in a sealed pack fail to create life. That's just one type of meat, but it still acts to contradict what the model suggests, and it should be motive to take a step back and rethink the notion for all meats. The model states one thing should happen consistently: if it fails in even one of those cases, then those are grounds to take a closer look at the model as a whole.
We should throw out and rethink the heliocentric model, even the completely answered parts about our solar system, because we have something unexplained in dark matter.
It is like saying we should discard and rethink atomic theory because we have yet to figure out gravitational waves in string theory.
If we did science like that, we would still be living in the dark ages.
I'm not saying that rethinking is a bad thing, but it is a problem to discard the best theory we have because of an anomaly we have yet to explain.
Gravity is far more connected to RET than atomic theory is to string theory. Rather, it would be like a scientist who believed in spontaneous generation observing a beef steak in a sealed pack fail to create life. That's just one type of meat, but it still acts to contradict what the model suggests, and it should be motive to take a step back and rethink the notion for all meats. The model states one thing should happen consistently: if it fails in even one of those cases, then those are grounds to take a closer look at the model as a whole.From my understanding, modern scientists are doing everything they can to make a unified theory for everything.
No one is saying to discard anything until there's a better explanation. Certainly, I believe there is one, but the fact is modern science refuses to even entertain the possibility.
There is only something there if you make the assumption gravity is what is responsible for their motion. As gone into repeatedly, dark matter as a concept does not work, and given only one person has even attempted to explain how it could (with a flawed answer) I'm feelingly increasingly confident with that conclusion.Gravity is far more connected to RET than atomic theory is to string theory. Rather, it would be like a scientist who believed in spontaneous generation observing a beef steak in a sealed pack fail to create life. That's just one type of meat, but it still acts to contradict what the model suggests, and it should be motive to take a step back and rethink the notion for all meats. The model states one thing should happen consistently: if it fails in even one of those cases, then those are grounds to take a closer look at the model as a whole.From my understanding, modern scientists are doing everything they can to make a unified theory for everything.
No one is saying to discard anything until there's a better explanation. Certainly, I believe there is one, but the fact is modern science refuses to even entertain the possibility.
If the galaxies behaved as predicted without dark matter, they wouldn't need to think about it.
But there is something there, and either the extremely simple calculations for gravity is wrong over large distances, or there is an unobservable force which provides the extra force. Since it is unobservable and only affects galaxy and universe scale calculations, it is very hard to theorize and make tests about.
Maybe now that we can simulate universal creation and show how galaxies are formed, scientists might get a better idea of dark matter, since they can better visualise the universe.
But gravity DOES work for what every normal person can observe. This is why the articles you've linked mention that 'Any new hypothesis that comes about will need to explain planetary motion at least as well as Einstein's formula' because on the local scale gravity works at nearly 100% WITHOUT the need for dark matter. Which points to either a) Dark matter exists in some fashion (which is what's currently being majorly explored as best as possible) or b) Something is flawed with our theory of gravity at galactic scales. B does not mean gravity is wrong. It means we don't know something about the interactions at larger scales. Because again, it fits correctly with all observations at the local level. Also for the record I would be heavily suspicious of any theory/hypothesis that is spot on from stage 1. That is a clear indication of someone fudging the data or similar.But it isn't a contradiction yet.It is, that's the point. Gravity does not work without dakr matter, and dark matter does not work.QuoteCould this change the way we understand how the universe formed? Maybe. Will it change the very shape of the Earth in modern science? Less likely considering we knew the 'what' for how the Earth looked well before the 'why' it looks the way it does. 'Why' comes later. We're not there yet with Dark Matter when we aren't even positive what form it takes, much less whether it even exists.I don't expect this one argument to reshape anyone's view of the world, but for those interested in study it is a plain indication that there is much that needs to be re-evaluated. What's better, a model like gravity which needs to constantly be nipped and tucked to fit in with what we see, or something that works smoothly from the get-go?
'Why' is the scientific question. 'Why' is where all of science comes in, even if the best answer is a wild hypothesis there still has to be a why. The lack of even that after so long means a model should be rejected. As the prevailing theory I focus on dark matter, both as an argument against an aspect of RET and a demonstration as to the flaws with mainstream scientists.
But gravity DOES work for what every normal person can observe. This is why the articles you've linked mention that 'Any new hypothesis that comes about will need to explain planetary motion at least as well as Einstein's formula' because on the local scale gravity works at nearly 100% WITHOUT the need for dark matter. Which points to either a) Dark matter exists in some fashion (which is what's currently being majorly explored as best as possible) or b) Something is flawed with our theory of gravity at galactic scales. B does not mean gravity is wrong. It means we don't know something about the interactions at larger scales. Because again, it fits correctly with all observations at the local level. Also for the record I would be heavily suspicious of any theory/hypothesis that is spot on from stage 1. That is a clear indication of someone fudging the data or similar.That's not true. As you've pointed out, people can fudge the data or similar; the mathematics modelling gravity were not invented in a vacuum, they were specifically designed, tailor-made, to explain what is seen. The fact it succeeds in that task is basically meaningless. The mark of a good scientific hypothesis is how it functions over multiple areas. Explaining the predictable behavior in our day-to-day is what it was designed to do, the fact it does not function when extended beyond that indicates it is a flawed theory.
Out of idle curiosity then, how do YOU explain these celestial observations in your model? Or do you just ignore them?I don't have gravity, thus I have no need to nip and tuck it. The precise details are linked in my sig, I don't feel like going through it all every time I'm asked, as with any scientific model there's a lot to explain. It doesn't refine, it replaces much of mainstream science (particulalry on cosmic scales) so as such there would be a lot I would have to explain before I could even begin on celestial movement.
There is only something there if you make the assumption gravity is what is responsible for their motion. As gone into repeatedly, dark matter as a concept does not work, and given only one person has even attempted to explain how it could (with a flawed answer) I'm feelingly increasingly confident with that conclusion.Gravity is so well defined that it accounts for everything we observe in our own solar system. It works perfectly in our own solar system.
That implication goes both ways. If gravity exists, then there needs to be something there. Thus if there is nothing there, gravity needs a rethink. Good old fashioned contraposition.
Any theory which can explain the phenomenons better would instantly trump dark matter, but no such theory has been made yet which has passed even the bare minimum of peer review.That is the idealist's perspective, but unfortunately science in the real world does not work like that. For all the lip service paid to openness and acceptance, any scientist would happily repeat the 'standing on the shoulders of giants,' cliche. If it turns out one had to go back away, alter some ancient premise to actually arrive at the truth, that avenue would never go explored. They cling on blindly to impossible hypotheses not because of elegance, but because of tradition.
Why does dark matter not forming clumps mean it would not be attracted to centers of gravity? Or, if it is attracted to centers of gravity, why does it then proceed to just shoot straight past it and ignore the fact gravity would act to curve its path or pull it back?
Any theory which can explain the phenomenons better would instantly trump dark matter, but no such theory has been made yet which has passed even the bare minimum of peer review.That is the idealist's perspective, but unfortunately science in the real world does not work like that. For all the lip service paid to openness and acceptance, any scientist would happily repeat the 'standing on the shoulders of giants,' cliche. If it turns out one had to go back away, alter some ancient premise to actually arrive at the truth, that avenue would never go explored. They cling on blindly to impossible hypotheses not because of elegance, but because of tradition.
Though this is getting off topic. I could go on for a while about the flaws with the modern scientific institution, and I'd be happy to, but I started this thread because I wanted to hear the RE answer to a question and I still want that.
I'll just repeat it here for future readers. the rest of this dicussion is veering towards other topics (which I'm happy to talk about, just not here, I hate it when topics get changed so that questions never get answered).Why does dark matter not forming clumps mean it would not be attracted to centers of gravity? Or, if it is attracted to centers of gravity, why does it then proceed to just shoot straight past it and ignore the fact gravity would act to curve its path or pull it back?
That is the idealist's perspective, but unfortunately science in the real world does not work like that. For all the lip service paid to openness and acceptance, any scientist would happily repeat the 'standing on the shoulders of giants,' cliche. If it turns out one had to go back away, alter some ancient premise to actually arrive at the truth, that avenue would never go explored. They cling on blindly to impossible hypotheses not because of elegance, but because of tradition.Our idea of how scientists think and act are different, so lets agree to disagree on that area =)
Though this is getting off topic. I could go on for a while about the flaws with the modern scientific institution, and I'd be happy to, but I started this thread because I wanted to hear the RE answer to a question and I still want that.
I'll just repeat it here for future readers. the rest of this dicussion is veering towards other topics (which I'm happy to talk about, just not here, I hate it when topics get changed so that questions never get answered).Why does dark matter not forming clumps mean it would not be attracted to centers of gravity? Or, if it is attracted to centers of gravity, why does it then proceed to just shoot straight past it and ignore the fact gravity would act to curve its path or pull it back?
No, it hasn't. As I am sick of repeating, all you do is endlessly repeat WHAT you want to happen, never WHY. The only person who has even tried to answer why used a neutrino-based model of dark matter, which did not work as it would not have allowed dark matter to influence anything.
It’s been answered a number of times. I can see you haven’t changed a bit since you last spent time here. It doesn’t matter how often you spam the OP it won’t change that an answer has been given. Perhaps you should move on? Have you tried going to physics.stackechange.com to see if you can get a physicist to give a more technical answer?
Why does dark matter not forming clumps mean it would not be attracted to centers of gravity? Or, if it is attracted to centers of gravity, why does it then proceed to just shoot straight past it and ignore the fact gravity would act to curve its path or pull it back?
Everything we observe is waves, light comes from waves, sound comes from waves, and different kinds of waves have different effects.Positing non-universal, changing laws of physics is not a scientifically tenable position. If that is believed the ability to know anything becomes non-existent.
If we are to say that all the rules of physics are derived from waves, who is to say that new rules cannot be made. What if a physics rule similar to gravity existed, but it was simply not developed in our part of the galaxy or our part of the universe. Thereby we would have increased gravitational pull from both gravity and this new force, which could be the answer to gravitational pull instead of dark matter.
Gravity would work normally, dark matter wouldn't exist, we would simply have more attraction from other parts of the universe where the laws of physics are slightly different.
String theory also works on the principle of strings making waves, which is not far off. It works in many dimensions and is hard to explore, but might work like this (I made the above thoughts before reading about string theory though, and string theory is a really complicated read).
It was in the same place and acting in the same manner as all the rest of the matter. Why don't we have one big giant clump of all the matter in the universe? Why do we have large empty spaces? Both of those provide clues to why Dark Matter won't necessarily congregate in the same places as regular matter.No, it hasn't. As I am sick of repeating, all you do is endlessly repeat WHAT you want to happen, never WHY. The only person who has even tried to answer why used a neutrino-based model of dark matter, which did not work as it would not have allowed dark matter to influence anything.
It’s been answered a number of times. I can see you haven’t changed a bit since you last spent time here. It doesn’t matter how often you spam the OP it won’t change that an answer has been given. Perhaps you should move on? Have you tried going to physics.stackechange.com to see if you can get a physicist to give a more technical answer?
Instead of endless telling me that you need dark matter to be out of the solar system, how about you take the time to actually say how in the hell it selectively ignores the pull of gravity? I asked a straight question there. If you are so sure it's been answered, please I am begging you, show me WHERE.
Seriously, I implore you, look at what you posted. You told me dark matter was scarcfer in the Solar System. Fine. I asked you why: you stopped posting. You eventually came back to say it is attracted to some centers of gravity: I asked you why only those and not ours, you did not answer. You appear to be postulating a universe which exists fully formed, and then dark matter gets scattered in at random, which is completely at odds with your model.
According to you, all matter begins at one point. Then bang, it accelerates outwards. All objects after that were formed by the pull of gravity, according to RET. I ask again, where was dark matter during that?
Stop telling me what you observe, and for the love of god do as I have constantly been asking and tell me whyWhy does dark matter not forming clumps mean it would not be attracted to centers of gravity? Or, if it is attracted to centers of gravity, why does it then proceed to just shoot straight past it and ignore the fact gravity would act to curve its path or pull it back?Everything we observe is waves, light comes from waves, sound comes from waves, and different kinds of waves have different effects.Positing non-universal, changing laws of physics is not a scientifically tenable position. If that is believed the ability to know anything becomes non-existent.
If we are to say that all the rules of physics are derived from waves, who is to say that new rules cannot be made. What if a physics rule similar to gravity existed, but it was simply not developed in our part of the galaxy or our part of the universe. Thereby we would have increased gravitational pull from both gravity and this new force, which could be the answer to gravitational pull instead of dark matter.
Gravity would work normally, dark matter wouldn't exist, we would simply have more attraction from other parts of the universe where the laws of physics are slightly different.
String theory also works on the principle of strings making waves, which is not far off. It works in many dimensions and is hard to explore, but might work like this (I made the above thoughts before reading about string theory though, and string theory is a really complicated read).
No, it hasn't. As I am sick of repeating, all you do is endlessly repeat WHAT you want to happen, never WHY. The only person who has even tried to answer why used a neutrino-based model of dark matter, which did not work as it would not have allowed dark matter to influence anything.
It’s been answered a number of times. I can see you haven’t changed a bit since you last spent time here. It doesn’t matter how often you spam the OP it won’t change that an answer has been given. Perhaps you should move on? Have you tried going to physics.stackechange.com to see if you can get a physicist to give a more technical answer?
Instead of endless telling me that you need dark matter to be out of the solar system, how about you take the time to actually say how in the hell it selectively ignores the pull of gravity? I asked a straight question there. If you are so sure it's been answered, please I am begging you, show me WHERE.
Seriously, I implore you, look at what you posted. You told me dark matter was scarcfer in the Solar System. Fine. I asked you why: you stopped posting. You eventually came back to say it is attracted to some centers of gravity: I asked you why only those and not ours, you did not answer. You appear to be postulating a universe which exists fully formed, and then dark matter gets scattered in at random, which is completely at odds with your model.That is not what is being postulated. I told you that at the scale larger than the solar system, dark matter appears to be spread out homogenously. Without deeper knowledge it would be dishonest in the extreme to say anyone, including yourself, knows why there is less dark matter here than in other places. That being said, there are a lot of sources of gravitational fields that dwarf our own, so I would expect to see clumping go up, the closer you get to the higher end of that scale and less the lower down you get.
According to you, all matter begins at one point. Then bang, it accelerates outwards. All objects after that were formed by the pull of gravity, according to RET. I ask again, where was dark matter during that?
Stop telling me what you observe, and for the love of god do as I have constantly been asking and tell me why
It was in the same place and acting in the same manner as all the rest of the matter. Why don't we have one big giant clump of all the matter in the universe? Why do we have large empty spaces? Both of those provide clues to why Dark Matter won't necessarily congregate in the same places as regular matter.Go back in time in the RE model and there were vast clouds of matter, not clumps. Do you think an explosion came ready made with holes in it, or would they instead have been caused? According to the RE model gravity caused these clouds to coalesce, drawing dust in. The same should have happened for dark matter. We have had billions of years, according to you, billions of years for all the matter in interstellar space to be drawn closer whenever it gets near.
Maybe Dark Matter repels itself for some reason. Perhaps it has a stronger pull towards other masses of Dark Matter than it has towards regular matter, resulting in concentrations that have only passing things to do with congregations of regular matter. Maybe it's not pulled by regular matter at all, and only exerts and influence in the opposite direction and against itself.Repelling itself- preventing it from having any sizeable gravitational pull as it would be too sparse. Variations in pull- aren't REers the ones that claim gravity isn't magic?
I've said it before, as have others. We just don't know right now. The Dark Matter hypothesis is fairly recent, and is essentially a band-aid. Work is ongoing to determine if the hypothesis has merit, or if we need to step back and look at our fundamental ideas of the universe. But until such time as the hypothesis is falsified or proven correct, it's unlikely Einstein's GR and other work will be simply abandoned when it continues to work so well at a local scale.A hypothesis I don't mind: a contradictory one I do. If there was a possible scientific explanation I would not have made this topic, even if it was only speculative. There isn't, and the fact dark matter fails on such a fundamental level, and the fact that is never even acknowledged, speaks volumes.
The main answer given, which you have refused to accept, is that we can't possibly answer this question until we have detected dark matter and studied it further. But dark matter can be absent from our solar system and also not be "selectively ignoring gravity". You are assuming that our sun is gravitationally dominant anywhere past the Oort cloud. It shouldn't be that odd that there is variance in a section of the universe 1/20,000,000,000th the diameter of the universe. It is quite simply what you would expect in large universe that is fairly, but not completely homogenous.I am not asking you for a 100% proven explanation, I am asking you for a workable hypothesis. You shouldn't need further study for that. It is the bare minimum: without appealing to magic, is there any even possible way for dark matter to behave the way it does?
That is not what is being postulated. I told you that at the scale larger than the solar system, dark matter appears to be spread out homogenously. Without deeper knowledge it would be dishonest in the extreme to say anyone, including yourself, knows why there is less dark matter here than in other places. That being said, there are a lot of sources of gravitational fields that dwarf our own, so I would expect to see clumping go up, the closer you get to the higher end of that scale and less the lower down you get.I don't care about what we see, I care about why, and I am sick to death of repeating that. Great, it's spread out more or less homogenously, still doesn't explain why there is a near-total absence all around us.
And you don't see my problem? What you are saying smacks of special pleading: that dark matter got scattered everywhere, but just happened to completely pass us by, just happened to be so far away that over billions of years it never came near our Solar System despite affecting majorly other parts in our galaxy and despite being five times as commonplace as regular matter. That is not a scientific standpoint.QuoteAccording to you, all matter begins at one point. Then bang, it accelerates outwards. All objects after that were formed by the pull of gravity, according to RET. I ask again, where was dark matter during that?Hypothetically, it was all in the same place.
Have you considered it's not acknowledged as 'contradictory' because it isn't and you just don't understand why? I would highly suggest you take your question somewhere that you can actually get answers from people closer to, or in the field. You're asking the cheap seats the best way to throw a fastball. Sure we can make guesses, but have you tried asking a pitcher? There's plenty of forums out there to ask this sort of question on, and usually get good answers. I'll continue to be boggled that so many of these are you guys asking this forum about something very high level, and then getting annoyed when most answers deal with lower level thoughts/ideas. Why aren't you out asking people who understand the material at least as well if not better than you do?I've said it before, as have others. We just don't know right now. The Dark Matter hypothesis is fairly recent, and is essentially a band-aid. Work is ongoing to determine if the hypothesis has merit, or if we need to step back and look at our fundamental ideas of the universe. But until such time as the hypothesis is falsified or proven correct, it's unlikely Einstein's GR and other work will be simply abandoned when it continues to work so well at a local scale.A hypothesis I don't mind: a contradictory one I do. If there was a possible scientific explanation I would not have made this topic, even if it was only speculative. There isn't, and the fact dark matter fails on such a fundamental level, and the fact that is never even acknowledged, speaks volumes.
Have you considered it's not acknowledged as 'contradictory' because it isn't and you just don't understand why? I would highly suggest you take your question somewhere that you can actually get answers from people closer to, or in the field. You're asking the cheap seats the best way to throw a fastball. Sure we can make guesses, but have you tried asking a pitcher? There's plenty of forums out there to ask this sort of question on, and usually get good answers. I'll continue to be boggled that so many of these are you guys asking this forum about something very high level, and then getting annoyed when most answers deal with lower level thoughts/ideas. Why aren't you out asking people who understand the material at least as well if not better than you do?I have researched it, that's the point. The best answer you get no matter where you look is going from 'doesn't clump' to 'is diffuse' with no explanation of how it avoids only certain gravitational centers.
Quick search turns up a few options. There's always Quora. But I've also found https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/ask_astro/cosmology.html as well as http://www.astroalex.com/ASK.html (this one seems weakest in that it's just one guy) as well as I thought someone posted another site earlier but I can't locate it now during a quick skim over things again. You could also try asking via the twitter linked here: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1i3a26/hi_im_dave_goldberg_cosmologist_professor_io9s/ Or look for another person doing similar.Have you considered it's not acknowledged as 'contradictory' because it isn't and you just don't understand why? I would highly suggest you take your question somewhere that you can actually get answers from people closer to, or in the field. You're asking the cheap seats the best way to throw a fastball. Sure we can make guesses, but have you tried asking a pitcher? There's plenty of forums out there to ask this sort of question on, and usually get good answers. I'll continue to be boggled that so many of these are you guys asking this forum about something very high level, and then getting annoyed when most answers deal with lower level thoughts/ideas. Why aren't you out asking people who understand the material at least as well if not better than you do?I have researched it, that's the point. The best answer you get no matter where you look is going from 'doesn't clump' to 'is diffuse' with no explanation of how it avoids only certain gravitational centers.
I would be perfectly happy with even a guess, so long as that guess worked. I'm not asking for pages of evidence, I'm asking for a way the system could even hypothetically work. If you want me to ask a different forum on top of it, sure, which would you recommend?
Quick search turns up a few options. There's always Quora. But I've also found https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/ask_astro/cosmology.html as well as http://www.astroalex.com/ASK.html (this one seems weakest in that it's just one guy) as well as I thought someone posted another site earlier but I can't locate it now during a quick skim over things again. You could also try asking via the twitter linked here: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1i3a26/hi_im_dave_goldberg_cosmologist_professor_io9s/ Or look for another person doing similar.Have you considered it's not acknowledged as 'contradictory' because it isn't and you just don't understand why? I would highly suggest you take your question somewhere that you can actually get answers from people closer to, or in the field. You're asking the cheap seats the best way to throw a fastball. Sure we can make guesses, but have you tried asking a pitcher? There's plenty of forums out there to ask this sort of question on, and usually get good answers. I'll continue to be boggled that so many of these are you guys asking this forum about something very high level, and then getting annoyed when most answers deal with lower level thoughts/ideas. Why aren't you out asking people who understand the material at least as well if not better than you do?I have researched it, that's the point. The best answer you get no matter where you look is going from 'doesn't clump' to 'is diffuse' with no explanation of how it avoids only certain gravitational centers.
I would be perfectly happy with even a guess, so long as that guess worked. I'm not asking for pages of evidence, I'm asking for a way the system could even hypothetically work. If you want me to ask a different forum on top of it, sure, which would you recommend?
Changing laws within the confines of the most basic of rules. As though there could exist many more wave forms providing more physical rules. I find it very interesting to think like that.Everything we observe is waves, light comes from waves, sound comes from waves, and different kinds of waves have different effects.Positing non-universal, changing laws of physics is not a scientifically tenable position. If that is believed the ability to know anything becomes non-existent.
If we are to say that all the rules of physics are derived from waves, who is to say that new rules cannot be made. What if a physics rule similar to gravity existed, but it was simply not developed in our part of the galaxy or our part of the universe. Thereby we would have increased gravitational pull from both gravity and this new force, which could be the answer to gravitational pull instead of dark matter.
Gravity would work normally, dark matter wouldn't exist, we would simply have more attraction from other parts of the universe where the laws of physics are slightly different.
String theory also works on the principle of strings making waves, which is not far off. It works in many dimensions and is hard to explore, but might work like this (I made the above thoughts before reading about string theory though, and string theory is a really complicated read).
If you're willing to ask questions one at a time and accept the answers without getting upset, I'm happy to help you.I've done that, I've been focusing on the one question for a while now. I only get upset when I am met with condescension and people blatantly ignoring what I have said. I have a specific dislike of people lying to my face.
Why does dark matter not forming clumps mean it would not be attracted to centers of gravity? Or, if it is attracted to centers of gravity, why does it then proceed to just shoot straight past it and ignore the fact gravity would act to curve its path or pull it back?
Why does dark matter not forming clumps mean it would not be attracted to centers of gravity? Or, if it is attracted to centers of gravity, why does it then proceed to just shoot straight past it and ignore the fact gravity would act to curve its path or pull it back?As has been stated before, we do not know what dark matter is yet. So any answers we give at this point are pretty speculative.
As has been stated before, we do not know what dark matter is yet. So any answers we give at this point are pretty speculative.As I've said, I'm happy with speculation. When it comes to arguments by contradiction you only need to establish possibility, not certainty.
One of the top candidates now is WIMPs. Possibly it is so simple as sterile neutrinos. Neutrinos would be attracted to gravity wells, but they are so fast that they won't orbit anything unless it is supremely massive. So if the particles won't orbit, they will just keep on flying through space. "...why does it then proceed to just shoot straight past it and ignore the fact gravity would act to curve its path or pull it back?" Neutrinos are plenty fast enough to escape the gravity well of our sun let alone our planet.As I said the last time you gave that answer:
Maybe we should touch on orbits just a bit. If you're moving too slow, your "orbit" is a parabola that intersects the object you are orbiting (aka you crash into the planet/star/whatever). Speed up and you'll get into a circular orbit. Speed up more and the orbit becomes an ellipse (like a comet). Speed up more, and it becomes a hyperbola which is a curve that never returns again but just speeds off into space. This depends on the speed of the orbiting body, the mass of the gravity well, and the distance from the gravity well.
Black holes have plenty of gravity to hold a neutrino at close range. If you are super curious about it, we can dig deeper and look up what the orbital mechanics of neutrinos are really like. Neutrinos move at relativistic speeds, and my orbital mechanics classes never got that advanced. But for now, the question is why don't they hang around gravity wells? As I understand it, they are attracted to gravity wells. And gravity will curve the path of the neutrinos. But the curve is typically not enough to make the neutrino turn around and come back.
However, the problem is simple. If dark matter moves so fast that it could only be captured by the likes of a black hole, then it should not be observable full stop. It would be on the fringes of the universe at every second. It would have shot away while all stars were forming and lacked their intense gravitational pull, expanded outwards with everything and faster than 'clumping' matter. Dark matter at galactic center? Impossible, it would have moved well beyond the regular matter long before there was even a galaxy. Dark matter affecting distant stars? It should have shot past them before they even existed.
You can't have it both ways. If dark matter moves so fast it can escape the gravitational pull of planets, then it should have been able to do the same in the nebulae and such that predate it all.
I'm sorry I don't know you. I don't know what you know or don't know. I don't want to sound condescending. I just want to cover the basics.One of the top candidates now is WIMPs. Possibly it is so simple as sterile neutrinos. Neutrinos would be attracted to gravity wells, but they are so fast that they won't orbit anything unless it is supremely massive. So if the particles won't orbit, they will just keep on flying through space. "...why does it then proceed to just shoot straight past it and ignore the fact gravity would act to curve its path or pull it back?" Neutrinos are plenty fast enough to escape the gravity well of our sun let alone our planet.As I said the last time you gave that answer:
Maybe we should touch on orbits just a bit. If you're moving too slow, your "orbit" is a parabola that intersects the object you are orbiting (aka you crash into the planet/star/whatever). Speed up and you'll get into a circular orbit. Speed up more and the orbit becomes an ellipse (like a comet). Speed up more, and it becomes a hyperbola which is a curve that never returns again but just speeds off into space. This depends on the speed of the orbiting body, the mass of the gravity well, and the distance from the gravity well.
Black holes have plenty of gravity to hold a neutrino at close range. If you are super curious about it, we can dig deeper and look up what the orbital mechanics of neutrinos are really like. Neutrinos move at relativistic speeds, and my orbital mechanics classes never got that advanced. But for now, the question is why don't they hang around gravity wells? As I understand it, they are attracted to gravity wells. And gravity will curve the path of the neutrinos. But the curve is typically not enough to make the neutrino turn around and come back.However, the problem is simple. If dark matter moves so fast that it could only be captured by the likes of a black hole, then it should not be observable full stop. It would be on the fringes of the universe at every second. It would have shot away while all stars were forming and lacked their intense gravitational pull, expanded outwards with everything and faster than 'clumping' matter. Dark matter at galactic center? Impossible, it would have moved well beyond the regular matter long before there was even a galaxy. Dark matter affecting distant stars? It should have shot past them before they even existed.
You can't have it both ways. If dark matter moves so fast it can escape the gravitational pull of planets, then it should have been able to do the same in the nebulae and such that predate it all.
I am well aware of what orbits are and how they work, you don't have to condescend and explain every little quirk to me. The fact I understand it is why I am asking these questions in the first place.
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.Dark matter only is only needed to explain the motion of stars within galaxies. There's absolutely no need for dark matter to explain anything in the solar system, and therefore dark matter is not a key tenet for round earth. If dark matter does not exist in any form and we actually need to revise general relativity, the new theory would have to have GR as its limit when applied to solar systems, much in the same way GR tends to newtonian gravity if we are dealing with small enough velocities and weak gravitational fields.
The earliest reference I can find to dark matter as a vague concept is 1884, though this was very slight.
There are some estimates (http://" https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5534") of dark matter density in the solar system. Even if you take the upper limits, the amount of dark matter on earth would be around 10-18 times the total mass, completely negligible and undetectable. But why didn't DM clump together as ordinary matter, you might ask?
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.
I've asked you to keep to 1 question at a time, so that I could clearly answer each in turn. Let's call question #1 satisfied. This is now question #2.It is the same question. Maybe a refinement directed at clarification, but given that if this question goes unanswered then the first remains unanswered, it can hardly be called a separate one.
Let's move onto question #2:It isn't speculation. If something moves so fast it can escape the gravity well of our Solar System, then it sure as hell moves fast enough to escape the gravity well of dust clouds with substantially less in the way of escape velocity.
"If dark matter moves so fast that it could only be captured by the likes of a black hole, then it should not be observable full stop. It would be on the fringes of the universe at every second. It would have shot away while all stars were forming and lacked their intense gravitational pull, expanded outwards with everything and faster than 'clumping' matter."
Pure speculation of course, but hopefully plausible at least...
What if the big bang created a whole bunch of neutrinos. Let's imagine those neutrinos weren't born completely uniform throughout, but with some variation to it. As the young universe expanded, these neutrinos are zooming around in all directions in expanding space. Some of these neutrinos may have been attracted to each other gravitationally and mutually attracted some hydrogen atoms. As the atoms came together, they formed the first stars, but the neutrinos won't clump (as we've discussed), so they simply remain in their orbits around the center of mass as a new galaxy forms around them.This is the point I have to stop you. What mass? How did they end up in orbit about this mass given it's long before stars could exist and that the whole thrust of your argument was that they'd escape even the mass of a planet or the Sun? As you said, they might be attracted to other particles but there's a far cry between attraction and orbit.
There are some estimates (http://" https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5534") of dark matter density in the solar system. Even if you take the upper limits, the amount of dark matter on earth would be around 10-18 times the total mass, completely negligible and undetectable. But why didn't DM clump together as ordinary matter, you might ask?The problem is that regular matter would be subject to the same forces; as dark matter was drawn to those fluctuations, it would be too. Sure, it may be less efficient if it occurs in that sweet spot where matter's moved beyond the subatomic, but how could a galaxy form with that halo dragging everything outwards?
This is a bit of speculation (I'm no physicist, this is what I understand from reading about the subject). When the universe was hot and small, everything was nearly homogeneous, with small density fluctuations. As the universe expanded, these tended to grow by attracting matter of both kinds from regions around it. But DM is far more abundant than normal matter, so these small density flucutation were growing by pulling more and more DM. But here's the thing: DM is collisionless, and therefore exerts no pressure and it lacks an efficient way of losing energy. So as the density fluctuations grow larger, DM is pulled into it forming a dense cloud (it cannot form solids) that grows more and more, which then pulls also more ordinary matter, up until the point where the universe cooled enough so that structures could be formed. So DM clouds came BEFORE we had actual galaxies, it's ordinary matter that followed the gravitational wells of dark matter, not the other way around. And the reason that DM forms halos is because is frictionless (in addition to not being subject neither to the strong or electromagnetic force), so even if DM is being compacted or falling toward another object, it would just heat up and increase its velocity, not being bounded by the compact object being formed.
A follow-up question is great. Let's keep taking these one at a time.I've asked you to keep to 1 question at a time, so that I could clearly answer each in turn. Let's call question #1 satisfied. This is now question #2.It is the same question. Maybe a refinement directed at clarification, but given that if this question goes unanswered then the first remains unanswered, it can hardly be called a separate one.
I don't think it works that way. Orbits around our sun depend on the velocity relative to our sun. Orbits around the galaxy depend on the velocity relative to our galaxy. For example, imagine we pass a particle that is at rest relative to the galactic center. Such a particle will be in a degenerate orbit heading straight down towards the galactic center, but relative to our sun, it is moving at something like 800,000 km/hr. That is plenty of velocity to escape the sun's orbit. We often think of orbits in simplistic terms based purely on speed, but when you consider something passing from one orbit to another, you have to consider how the relative speeds change when you do this.Let's move onto question #2:It isn't speculation. If something moves so fast it can escape the gravity well of our Solar System, then it sure as hell moves fast enough to escape the gravity well of dust clouds with substantially less in the way of escape velocity.
"If dark matter moves so fast that it could only be captured by the likes of a black hole, then it should not be observable full stop. It would be on the fringes of the universe at every second. It would have shot away while all stars were forming and lacked their intense gravitational pull, expanded outwards with everything and faster than 'clumping' matter."
Pure speculation of course, but hopefully plausible at least...
"What mass?" We're imagining a vast cloud of neutrinos and hydrogen (and helium) atoms. Each individual particle in the cloud has a tiny mass. Together, the cloud has a center of mass. As the young universe rapidly expanded, little clouds of particles became separated from each other. The gravitational attraction these clouds had within them holding their particles together was enough to overcome the expansion rate. So the gaps between the clouds expanded leaving these clouds of particles.QuoteWhat if the big bang created a whole bunch of neutrinos. Let's imagine those neutrinos weren't born completely uniform throughout, but with some variation to it. As the young universe expanded, these neutrinos are zooming around in all directions in expanding space. Some of these neutrinos may have been attracted to each other gravitationally and mutually attracted some hydrogen atoms. As the atoms came together, they formed the first stars, but the neutrinos won't clump (as we've discussed), so they simply remain in their orbits around the center of mass as a new galaxy forms around them.This is the point I have to stop you. What mass? How did they end up in orbit about this mass given it's long before stars could exist and that the whole thrust of your argument was that they'd escape even the mass of a planet or the Sun? As you said, they might be attracted to other particles but there's a far cry between attraction and orbit.
"What mass?" We're imagining a vast cloud of neutrinos and hydrogen (and helium) atoms. Each individual particle in the cloud has a tiny mass. Together, the cloud has a center of mass. As the young universe rapidly expanded, little clouds of particles became separated from each other. The gravitational attraction these clouds had within them holding their particles together was enough to overcome the expansion rate. So the gaps between the clouds expanded leaving these clouds of particles.Yes, masses are present, but they are not to the degree you require. While your analogy does correctly describe the RET point of view, it is a little misleading; it would be better to say that were you to blow up the Earth until it was nothing but a sparse field of dust, existing on the edge of that field somewhere out in the orbit of Mars, were the Earth back together again the gravitational pull on you would be the same. A sparse cloud of dust exerts next to no force on its outer reachers which is, after all, where dark matter would be going in the absence of any stronger forces.
How would particles in a cloud like this move? The only appreciable force acting on these particles at first is gravity, so the particles all orbit around the center of mass of the cloud. The cloud is still zooming through space, but as they zoom along, the tiny tug of gravity bends their path slightly. The result is a swirling cloud of particles zooming through space.
You don't need stars nor any concentrated mass in order to have this effect. In fact, the theory goes that the clouds of particles form first. As the particles swirl around, some of them (the atoms - not the WIMPs) bump into each other. Gradually, this bumping causes the atoms to pile up into concentrated "clumps". When a "clump" gets big enough, fusion begins and the first star is born.
Once again, I don't want to sound condescending, but just to cover the bases... The gravity field of a sphere filled with diffuse mass is precisely the same as the gravity field of a concentrated ball of mass at the center of that sphere (assuming you are outside the sphere). For example, if we were to compress the Earth down to a little black-hole, where we are standing now (about 6000 km above the new black hole) we would still feel 9.8 m/s^2 of gravity. Our moon and satellites would happily stay in orbit around the new black hole unaffected by this. This is a silly thought experiment, but the point is, those particles left over from the big bang would indeed orbit inside clouds of particles even though stars had not begun to form yet.
"What mass?" We're imagining a vast cloud of neutrinos and hydrogen (and helium) atoms. Each individual particle in the cloud has a tiny mass. Together, the cloud has a center of mass. As the young universe rapidly expanded, little clouds of particles became separated from each other. The gravitational attraction these clouds had within them holding their particles together was enough to overcome the expansion rate. So the gaps between the clouds expanded leaving these clouds of particles.Yes, masses are present, but they are not to the degree you require. While your analogy does correctly describe the RET point of view, it is a little misleading; it would be better to say that were you to blow up the Earth until it was nothing but a sparse field of dust, existing on the edge of that field somewhere out in the orbit of Mars, were the Earth back together again the gravitational pull on you would be the same. A sparse cloud of dust exerts next to no force on its outer reachers which is, after all, where dark matter would be going in the absence of any stronger forces.
How would particles in a cloud like this move? The only appreciable force acting on these particles at first is gravity, so the particles all orbit around the center of mass of the cloud. The cloud is still zooming through space, but as they zoom along, the tiny tug of gravity bends their path slightly. The result is a swirling cloud of particles zooming through space.
You don't need stars nor any concentrated mass in order to have this effect. In fact, the theory goes that the clouds of particles form first. As the particles swirl around, some of them (the atoms - not the WIMPs) bump into each other. Gradually, this bumping causes the atoms to pile up into concentrated "clumps". When a "clump" gets big enough, fusion begins and the first star is born.
Once again, I don't want to sound condescending, but just to cover the bases... The gravity field of a sphere filled with diffuse mass is precisely the same as the gravity field of a concentrated ball of mass at the center of that sphere (assuming you are outside the sphere). For example, if we were to compress the Earth down to a little black-hole, where we are standing now (about 6000 km above the new black hole) we would still feel 9.8 m/s^2 of gravity. Our moon and satellites would happily stay in orbit around the new black hole unaffected by this. This is a silly thought experiment, but the point is, those particles left over from the big bang would indeed orbit inside clouds of particles even though stars had not begun to form yet.
I assume your overview on orbits earlier was to bring in the concept of relative speed, but given that only regular matter is going to clump (as you say, covering bases, but by conservation of momentum even in vacuum two particles lose speed in any real situation) dark matter will always outspeed it by an increasing margin, keeping it well beyond the dust cloud before anything larger than a molecule would come into existence.
Without large masses there's not going to be any orbit or any significant impact on what would, for a WIMP, have to be a straight-line path bound directly out of the cloud.
Nothing would slow WIMPs down, and it's quite a while before any significant centers of mass exist that might curve their path, if they are to end up being captured.
It's hard to take it much further if you refuse to accept the facts that seem improbable to you.I am well aware of that. I specifically quoted it. It is not that it is improbable to me, but rather that it does not mean what you are claiming it does. Yes, if you condensed the cloud to one body right at its center it would have the same effect on the WIMPs, the problem is that center is going to be a hell of a long way away. Just look at it proportionately; this is a cloud of disparate particles, maybe a handful clumped together, but it is not a solid mass. And it is the total mass of a galaxy composed of tiny specks, so that's going to be a huge size.
"Yes, masses are present, but they are not to the degree you require." You state this without saying how much mass is present and exactly what degree it is you think I require.
Let me jump in and offer that these clouds of particles would have a mass on the order of trillions of solar masses. Just how much mass do you think it requires?
"A sparse cloud of dust exerts next to no force on its outer reachers[sic]..." A sparse cloud of dust exerts precisely the same amount of force at its outer reaches as it would were the same amount of mass compressed into a single point at the center of mass of that cloud. Here is Gauss's Law. This is a rather nasty mathematical derivation, and I'd rather not get that deep into the math. If you like, work through it and prove that it is correct. Gauss came up with this to describe electric fields, but it works for any field with spherical symmetry such as gravity. https://physics.info/law-gauss/
"...given that only regular matter is going to clump (as you say, covering bases, but by conservation of momentum even in vacuum two particles lose speed in any real situation) dark matter will always outspeed it by an increasing margin, keeping it well beyond the dust cloud before anything larger than a molecule would come into existence."The WIMPS keep pace with the initial lone particles; the moment they start clumping, all through the cloud, they'll be outspeeding. Yes, initially you have relative speed, but with no significant gravitational force because, well, they're just particles. You need more of a mass for anything approaching an orbit to be even possible.
Once again I will bring your attention to relative speed. All the particles in the cloud are moving together as a cloud. If we imagine that the universe burst forth from a single point (just for simplicity here), all the particles in our cloud share virtually the same velocity relative to that starting point. They only differ from one another by a very tiny amount. If we change our reference frame to the center of the cloud as it zooms through space, we see that all the particles are orbiting the center of mass of their cloud. So yes, when the particles collide, they dump velocity within this reference frame and fall towards the center of mass of the cloud. But remember, our WIMPs are staying in pace with that same center of mass that our atoms are falling towards.
The problem is that regular matter would be subject to the same forces; as dark matter was drawn to those fluctuations, it would be too. Sure, it may be less efficient if it occurs in that sweet spot where matter's moved beyond the subatomic, but how could a galaxy form with that halo dragging everything outwards?First, the bold part is wrong. A hollow uniform sphere has zero gravitational force anywhere inside, not just the middle.
I'm aware of the fact that an equal gravitational pull from all directions has net force zero, but that's only going to be the case for a hollow perfect sphere, and even then only for objects right in the middle. No kind of orbit could form around anything when the dust cloud would just be pulled outwards.
I'm really trying to be patient. I'll try once more.The cloud should be significantly larger than the galaxy; after all, the outer edges need to be pulled inwards to coalesce and form even just the outermost stars. That is the point. And even then you have what the outermost edges of the galaxy is. To just use the milky way as an example, scientists can't yet fully explain how on earth a spiral galaxy is actually stable (the 'winding problem.') and that's the stars significantly closer to galactic center than the edges of the cloud would be.
The mass of our cloud of particles = the mass of a galaxy.
The size of our cloud of particles = the size of a galaxy.
Our cloud of particles is going to coalesce into a galaxy... that's why I'm choosing these dimensions for the example.
So if the eventual galaxy can hold one of these particles in its orbit, then the original cloud could hold that same particle in its orbit.
"...if a WIMP won't be captured by the Earth it isn't going to be caught up by that cloud..."There might be some terminology confusion here. Sure, it exists in the location of the cloud, but to be caught up in the gravitational influence of the forming cloud and thus be basically permanently captured by it is a whole other problem. Yes, something can be caught up in the galaxy but still escape the Sun's gravity, but if something cannot escape a significantly weaker pull than that of the Earth or Sun then it definitely wouldn't escape the Sun. As explained, a galaxy dispersed into a large cloud does not exert a large enough force, which has been shown both mathematically and logically.
The WIMP isn't "caught up" by the cloud. The WIMP was born in the cloud. It has always been a part of the cloud.
Why isn't it caught up by the Earth then? You do understand that objects can be bound to orbit within the galaxy but still have escape velocity from the sun right? So far, we've sent a few probes out of our solar system, so we understand it is possible to escape the sun's gravity. Here's an article on this question from Cornell:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/156-people-in-astronomy/space-exploration-and-astronauts/satellites-robotic-space-craft/973-will-the-pioneer-and-voyager-probes-ever-leave-the-milky-way-beginner
tl;dr: The pioneer and voyager probes are on escape trajectories from the sun, but will not escape the galaxy.
You may be thinking, "Aha! But you said WIMPs are moving super fast!" Yes. Relative to the Earth, they are likely to be too fast to be captured. But how fast do they move relative to the galactic center? How fast are they moving relative to that initial particle cloud? Remember we said the entire particle cloud was born with essentially identical velocity? Well the particles just barely on the outer edge are moving with a speed of zero away from the center. They'll begin descending in their orbits back towards the center at that point. Or if they are in perfectly circular orbits, they just chill out there going round the center.I went over that: conservation of momentum. Imagine two particles colliding and clumping together. Perhaps they're both heading directly out of the cloud, perpendicular to its local 'surface.' In that case one hits the other from behind, and then has to expend energy to accelerate it and thus decelerates. (eg: 1m+2m=2m*v, v=1.5<2 to walk through a quick conservation of momentum equation as an example, particles with mass m and velocities 1 and 2, v the velocity of the clump) and that's the ideal case. If their direction isn't directly out there's more wasted energy that doesn't head out of the galaxy.
"The WIMPS keep pace with the initial lone particles; the moment they start clumping, all through the cloud, they'll be outspeeding."
Why? What would cause the WIMPs to outspeed the cloud suddenly? When the atoms start to clump, what force will push the clumps away from the cloud?
True, I rushed that, thank you.The problem is that regular matter would be subject to the same forces; as dark matter was drawn to those fluctuations, it would be too. Sure, it may be less efficient if it occurs in that sweet spot where matter's moved beyond the subatomic, but how could a galaxy form with that halo dragging everything outwards?First, the bold part is wrong. A hollow uniform sphere has zero gravitational force anywhere inside, not just the middle.
I'm aware of the fact that an equal gravitational pull from all directions has net force zero, but that's only going to be the case for a hollow perfect sphere, and even then only for objects right in the middle. No kind of orbit could form around anything when the dust cloud would just be pulled outwards.
Now to the main part: while ordinary matter is subject to the same forces as DM, the opposite is not true. Ordinary matter has pressure, friction and is subject to the EM force, all of which are important in the process of losing energy and creating compact objects such as planets and stars. Also, the structure formation is continuous; while density fluctuations grow and attract more DM, it also attracts more baryonic matter (in smaller quantities), up until they reach a critical density and collapse. As with any gravitational collapse, the center of the collapsed object is the densest, not the outer parts. The halo will keep growing by accretion or mergers, and at some point the universe will have cooled enough so that ordinary matter can make gravitationally bound structures, and so on until the galaxy is formed. For cold DM, the structure formation is called bottom-up: first smaller structures are formed, then grow through mergers or accretion.
We can therefore expect that the density profile of ordinary and dark matter roughly matches (with DM decreasing a lot more slowly); we do not expect DM to form objects of the size of planets or stars however, and will remain diffuse in a large ellipsoidal halo
The cloud should be significantly larger than the galaxy; after all, the outer edges need to be pulled inwards to coalesce and form even just the outermost stars.Why is the cloud significantly larger than the eventual galaxy? Sure it's a little bigger. For one thing it's probably closer to spherical than the eventual disk it is destined to become. Is that really a point you want to get hung up on here?
Plus most of what objects near the edges of the galaxy orbit around are the stars themselves. Only galactic center can be modelled by the equivalence you brought up, and yes stars orbit galactic center but it's another example of why the equivalence does not perfectly translate over. Add into that the larger cloud on top of everything else...I simply do not follow you. The stars at the very outer edge of the galaxy orbit the galaxy. The combined mass of everything within the galaxy pulls on those stars, and they orbit the galactic center. We used to think that it was the combined mass of all the stars that made up the mass of a typical galaxy. Now we're starting to ponder if perhaps we were very wrong about that. What we're discussing is the idea that it isn't the stars alone providing all that mass, but something new we call dark matter.
Yes, something can be caught up in the galaxy but still escape the Sun's gravity, but if something cannot escape a significantly weaker pull than that of the Earth or Sun then it definitely wouldn't escape the Sun. As explained, a galaxy dispersed into a large cloud does not exert a large enough force, which has been shown both mathematically and logically.No it has not been shown. You keep repeating that a cloud of gas doesn't exert much gravitational force, but that is simply not correct. The cloud has as much mass as the eventual galaxy. If you accept that stars can orbit the galaxy, then those same stars will orbit the cloud just fine. The vast distances make these forces tiny, and those tiny forces make for tremendous orbits. We're talking about orbits the size of an entire galaxy.
2 particles collide during their orbits around the galaxy, and they stick. Their final velocity will presumably be the average of their previous velocities right? We had a particle going 1.0 and another going 2.0. They collide, and the new particle goes 1.5. Ok. So? Presumably both particles were in orbit around the galaxy before they collided. So at this point velocities ranging from 1.0 to 2.0 are stable orbits within this galaxy. 1.5 will still be a stable orbit for the new particle. What is your point? Your point is that the stars will fall in towards the galactic center? Especially they'll get pushed down to the galactic disk. Right? And the WIMPs won't. Yeah they will get all jostled around, but they are going to remain diffuse. They still can't escape the gravity well of the galaxy. All those stars falling down towards the center of the galaxy isn't going to let the WIMPs escape."The WIMPS keep pace with the initial lone particles; the moment they start clumping, all through the cloud, they'll be outspeeding."I went over that: conservation of momentum. Imagine two particles colliding and clumping together. Perhaps they're both heading directly out of the cloud, perpendicular to its local 'surface.' In that case one hits the other from behind, and then has to expend energy to accelerate it and thus decelerates. (eg: 1m+2m=2m*v, v=1.5<2 to walk through a quick conservation of momentum equation as an example, particles with mass m and velocities 1 and 2, v the velocity of the clump) and that's the ideal case. If their direction isn't directly out there's more wasted energy that doesn't head out of the galaxy.
Why? What would cause the WIMPs to outspeed the cloud suddenly? When the atoms start to clump, what force will push the clumps away from the cloud?
Dark matter will never be subject to that because it doesn't clump. Hence it keeps its velocity, hence my point.
The cloud has enough mass as the eventual galaxy over a larger area. That isn't me being pedantic, it's a huge factor here and absolutely worth getting 'hung up on.' Gravity is meant to form the stars and galaxy by drawing dust inwards to certain points, not out to the border of the cloud. You have to account for everything moving inwards as they settle into dubiously stable orbits around galactic center, on top of moving inwards to form the outermost stars, and all that's under the assumption that the edges of the cloud always had a stable orbit and never shot off anyway (which after all is the origin of the whole thing).The cloud should be significantly larger than the galaxy; after all, the outer edges need to be pulled inwards to coalesce and form even just the outermost stars.Why is the cloud significantly larger than the eventual galaxy? Sure it's a little bigger. For one thing it's probably closer to spherical than the eventual disk it is destined to become. Is that really a point you want to get hung up on here?Plus most of what objects near the edges of the galaxy orbit around are the stars themselves. Only galactic center can be modelled by the equivalence you brought up, and yes stars orbit galactic center but it's another example of why the equivalence does not perfectly translate over. Add into that the larger cloud on top of everything else...I simply do not follow you. The stars at the very outer edge of the galaxy orbit the galaxy. The combined mass of everything within the galaxy pulls on those stars, and they orbit the galactic center. We used to think that it was the combined mass of all the stars that made up the mass of a typical galaxy. Now we're starting to ponder if perhaps we were very wrong about that. What we're discussing is the idea that it isn't the stars alone providing all that mass, but something new we call dark matter.Yes, something can be caught up in the galaxy but still escape the Sun's gravity, but if something cannot escape a significantly weaker pull than that of the Earth or Sun then it definitely wouldn't escape the Sun. As explained, a galaxy dispersed into a large cloud does not exert a large enough force, which has been shown both mathematically and logically.No it has not been shown. You keep repeating that a cloud of gas doesn't exert much gravitational force, but that is simply not correct. The cloud has as much mass as the eventual galaxy. If you accept that stars can orbit the galaxy, then those same stars will orbit the cloud just fine. The vast distances make these forces tiny, and those tiny forces make for tremendous orbits. We're talking about orbits the size of an entire galaxy.
So if the cloud has a mass of trillions of solar masses, and we've agreed that it has sufficient mass to hold atoms in orbit, why can it not hold WIMPs in orbit?
2 particles collide during their orbits around the galaxy, and they stick. Their final velocity will presumably be the average of their previous velocities right? We had a particle going 1.0 and another going 2.0. They collide, and the new particle goes 1.5. Ok. So? Presumably both particles were in orbit around the galaxy before they collided. So at this point velocities ranging from 1.0 to 2.0 are stable orbits within this galaxy. 1.5 will still be a stable orbit for the new particle. What is your point? Your point is that the stars will fall in towards the galactic center? Especially they'll get pushed down to the galactic disk. Right? And the WIMPs won't. Yeah they will get all jostled around, but they are going to remain diffuse. They still can't escape the gravity well of the galaxy. All those stars falling down towards the center of the galaxy isn't going to let the WIMPs escape.My point is that you cannot use relative speed because the speed of regular matter is constantly going to be decreasing, while the mass is not going to be increasing. The WIMPs outspeed, and even if I granted your claim that they were somehow captured at the start, they won't remain as such.
Now to the main part: while ordinary matter is subject to the same forces as DM, the opposite is not true. Ordinary matter has pressure, friction and is subject to the EM force, all of which are important in the process of losing energy and creating compact objects such as planets and stars. Also, the structure formation is continuous; while density fluctuations grow and attract more DM, it also attracts more baryonic matter (in smaller quantities), up until they reach a critical density and collapse. As with any gravitational collapse, the center of the collapsed object is the densest, not the outer parts. The halo will keep growing by accretion or mergers, and at some point the universe will have cooled enough so that ordinary matter can make gravitationally bound structures, and so on until the galaxy is formed. For cold DM, the structure formation is called bottom-up: first smaller structures are formed, then grow through mergers or accretion.Dark matter has no limitations on its movement, I agree with that.
We can therefore expect that the density profile of ordinary and dark matter roughly matches (with DM decreasing a lot more slowly); we do not expect DM to form objects of the size of planets or stars however, and will remain diffuse in a large ellipsoidal halo
1) You don't agree that a particle cloud can exert gravity upon itself.No. I have no idea how you could possibly say that given how much I've been talking about particle clouds exerting gravity on themselves under the RE model. I think gravity exerted by a complete galaxy on its edges is going to be far lower than the gravity exerted by either a less massive cloud on its edges, or an equally massive and significantly larger cloud on its edges. I explained both how we can tell the cloud would be larger, and pointed out that actually the dominant model on galaxy formation these days is smaller clouds merging so you aren't even going to have the mass of a galaxy in play.
2) You keep saying that anything with enough speed to escape the sun has enough speed to escape the galaxy.Again, no. A dust cloud is not a galaxy and you should stop equating the two. The only situation where that is remotely valid is if the dust cloud has both equal mass and equal radius to the galaxy which is not the case. Anything with the speed to escape the Sun is going to have to the speed to escape a dust cloud that has not yet condensed to have all its mass in the same volume as the galaxy.
3) Finally, you imagine that the clumping up of matter makes it "slow down".The cloud is composed of those particles, and the dark matter is going to move faster than the regular. That's all.
The kinetic energy of the system does slow down as objects coalesce, but you seem to be mistakenly applying that kinetic energy to the speed of the objects when compared to the speed of the cloud they are travelling with. The easiest way to avoid that trap is to simply imagine that this particular cloud is stationary. The particles are orbiting around a central point that is the one true fixed point in space. All other galaxy clouds are speeding away from this one, but this one is holding still. I'm just applying Galilean relativity here... the old "pour a cup of tea while you're on a speeding train" bit.
Now, when 2 particles collide, and they lose energy, does the rest of the cloud speed away from them? Of course not, the cloud isn't going anywhere. The cloud is just orbiting a fixed central point. So maybe the 2 particles drop to a lower orbit within the cloud... and thus the cloud contracts a little. But they stay with the cloud.
I think we've taken things about as far as we can. If anyone else wants to try go for it.Lose the goddamn self-righteousness already. My point of contention is that the cloud that formed the galaxy is either going to be less massive (if multiple clouds were involved) or significantly larger (given it would need to condense to form matter) than the galaxy. I have brought this up twice now and you have completely ignored it both times to go on condescending rants.
You've asked your questions, I've given the answers. I believe you are mistaken about certain areas, and I've tried to explain them to you. I get the distinct impression that you don't want to concede any of these points, and nothing will change your mind.
Even so, I'm not sure why you'd be so fixated on it. We made some observations, we found some mysteries, we're searching for answers. So far nothing has totally panned out. Scientists are currently betting on WIMPs as a likely candidate for this mystery, but nobody is certain. There are issues with that model to work out. Why would that be such a calamity?As I have said before, it is not an oddity, it is a contradiction. A detail that needs to be explained and that questions are asked about - fine. A gaping hole that means a major part of the model does not work and that gets brushed under the carpet - not fine. The fact dark matter, especially the WIMP model, are still openly discussed without any mention of the problems speaks volumes about the closed-minded nature of modern mainstream science.
You seem fixated that our inability to explain the phenomenon of dark matter means the entire RE model is wrong. That isn't how it works. We know some stuff really well. Every time we answer one question, three new questions pop up. We learn more and refine the model as we go.
You got it, DM has no efficient way of losing energy, that's why it's more diffuse. I still don't understand why the fixation with earth; if anything it would be attracted to the sun in the solar system, not the earth (or earth-moon). Besides that, there are millions of other stars way more massive than the sun. Given the collisionless nature of DM, it would most likely follow the denser regions. And models of structure formation predict that there are subhalos within the halo, exactly what you are saying. And we see that the distribution is not totally uniform. But, as we both agreed that DM is collisionless, the substructures formed are larger than that of ordinary matter.
Dark matter has no limitations on its movement, I agree with that.
My issue still has to be with the effect of gravity on dark matter though. It would not need to form any actual structure, particularly if it collisionless. Take the RE moon and its orbit around the Earth's core; why not have dark matter do the same within the Earth? You could have tonnes of the stuff in the same location. That's a halo, the same structure you're talking about, just less diffuse.
The only reason I can see for it to be as diffuse as you've said is that it lacks an efficient way to lose energy, though they overlaps with the discussion I've had with ScienceThat; it needs to lose energy if it's to be present at all to affect the galaxy, especially galactic center.
I may be misunderstanding what you're saying, but it still doesn't quite seem to work.
You got it, DM has no efficient way of losing energy, that's why it's more diffuse. I still don't understand why the fixation with earth; if anything it would be attracted to the sun in the solar system, not the earth (or earth-moon). Besides that, there are millions of other stars way more massive than the sun. Given the collisionless nature of DM, it would most likely follow the denser regions. And models of structure formation predict that there are subhalos within the halo, exactly what you are saying. And we see that the distribution is not totally uniform. But, as we both agreed that DM is collisionless, the substructures formed are larger than that of ordinary matter.The same point works for the Sun too, added mass is even less likely there given it's primarily said to be composed of the lightest elements (and the only way to do away with that is to lose a gaseous Sun altogether, which RET can't do without a lot of revision) so there's no room to remove any as dark matter.
The (possible) reason that there's more DM in the center it's because the halo was formed by gravitational collapse. It grew later on by mergers or pure accretion.
The milky way is composed mostly of dark matter. If anything, ordinary matter should follow, not the other way around. And it actually does, the density profiles for both baryonic and dark matter are similar (DM halo extends way beyond the visible disk for reasons we have already discussed).There's no gap anywhere, DM is present. It's just that the sun is at the outer edge of the galaxy and therefore the density is lower (for both kinds, compared to regions closer to the center).You got it, DM has no efficient way of losing energy, that's why it's more diffuse. I still don't understand why the fixation with earth; if anything it would be attracted to the sun in the solar system, not the earth (or earth-moon). Besides that, there are millions of other stars way more massive than the sun. Given the collisionless nature of DM, it would most likely follow the denser regions. And models of structure formation predict that there are subhalos within the halo, exactly what you are saying. And we see that the distribution is not totally uniform. But, as we both agreed that DM is collisionless, the substructures formed are larger than that of ordinary matter.The same point works for the Sun too, added mass is even less likely there given it's primarily said to be composed of the lightest elements (and the only way to do away with that is to lose a gaseous Sun altogether, which RET can't do without a lot of revision) so there's no room to remove any as dark matter.
The (possible) reason that there's more DM in the center it's because the halo was formed by gravitational collapse. It grew later on by mergers or pure accretion.
I agree dark matter would form larger haloes with this model, but it's when you get within that that there starts to be an issue. The dark matter that aggregated in areas that affect us, I don't agree that those haloes would be stable. You use the example of one collapsing at galactic center, but what about elsewhere? All the subhalos seem as though they should end up attracted to other massive bodies, and vice versa; for that to instead leave a gap with only one type of matter is headscratching. Sure, regular matter loses energy faster but that's a lot of time for their mutual gravitational pulls to not interact.