[rabinoz]

Incorrect. Dark-matter is only hypothesised to account for the faster than expected velocities of stars towards the outer edge of galaxies. It has no effect on the solar system or even nearby stars.
It certainly does not cause the "model of gravity" to "fall apart".
I don't have to explain "the velocities of those stars" but in any case, those velocities only start to deviate some 1000 light years from galactic centres.
"Dark-matter" is simply one hypothesis for that, though is the one currently most supported. Science accepts that there are many unknowns about things far away and far back in time.

There is a difference between an unknown and a contradiction. Without an explanation, the behavior of such stars forms a contradiction with eveyrthing RET knows about how they should move.

There is a explanation, dark-matter and with dark-matter there is no "contradiction with everything RET cosmology knows about how they should move."
Must stress again, ad nauseum,
what happens thousands of light years away does not affect the reality of the heliocentric solar system and I have explained why numerous times.

Here's some very recent evidence for Einstein's GR, Physics.org, Einstein proved right in another galaxy. June 21, 2018, University of Portsmouth.
And not only is it evidence for GR but also for the dark matter distribution postulated as noted in:

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]

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?

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:

• 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!

[JRowe]

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:

• 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.

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?
I responded to both 1 and 3 in my last post, and I said 2 myself way back in my first post. That isn't a response, that's repeating my damn problem.

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!

I am thoroughly sick of you people lying to my face.

i specifically acknowledged and went over the fact dark matter would not interact with itself in my opening post, you are not adding anything new here so i fail to see why you felt the need to bring that up unless it's, like the rest, more stageplay, more pointlessness to give an illusion of victory. My point stands. Not being able to form atoms does not equal being diffuse, it is still going to be attracted to the same centers of gravity. You don't need particles for that. i notice that you completely fail to actually explain what you think connects those points.

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

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

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

Yet again, I know what you need to happen, my problem is why. Are you sure you read my post because it seriously feels like I am constantly repeating myself with you.
That would depend on how they calculated the composition of the Earth. If they used the mass as an end goal then we should have expected a major rewrite now we know how much of the mass is going to be down to dark matter, if they used other means they should have found their models based on iron and nickel etc came out with a mass that was woefully short. I'm just keeping your options open.

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?

[ICanScienceThat]

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?

It has been answered already. You aren't being ignored. Ok I'm mostly ignoring you at this point, but I'm answering you now... AGAIN.

Question: "...why [dark matter] 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?!"

Answer: Without knowing exactly what dark matter is, it's hard to give you a definitive answer. There is a lot we can say however. First, some top candidates for what we think dark matter could be:
1) If dark matter consists of MACHOs, that would mean they are large, concentrated bodies that are hard to see. These would no more concentrate inside the Earth than the other planets/stars/etc have concentrated inside the Earth. We know that black holes exist, but there isn't one inside the Earth. In fact, there's an important lesson here that you seem to have completely missed. Matter is known to form "clumps" under the force of gravity. These "clumps" come in the form of things like asteroids, comets, moons, planets, stars, and black holes. We can clearly see that these things do not all clump together into a single giant mass. Expecting dark matter to clump together into the exact same mass as the Earth is like saying, "If Mars exists, then why hasn't it clumped together with the Earth?"
2) If dark matter consists of WIMPs, that would mean that they are moving at extremely high speeds through space, and they cannot clump together at all. WIMPs would be something like sterile neutrinos or neutralinos. These are hypothetical particles with mass but no charge and no influence from the other fundamental forces except for gravity. So yes, they would be pulled by gravity, but they still cannot "clump". That "clumping" effect occurs when particles attracted together by gravity stick to one another due to the other forces. Neutrinos pass through each other as they pass through any type of matter. There are neutrinos passing through the Earth all the time. They stream on through and just keep on going. Yes they get deflected by gravity. Presumably they even get into orbit around extremely massive bodies. But they simply cannot "clump". They cannot stop moving, and their speeds are well in excess of the orbital speeds around a planetary body.
3) Some theorize that dark matter is the influence of higher order dimensions. It has been suggested that our observable universe is a 3D (or 4D if you like) projection of a higher-dimensional space. If so, perhaps gravity is capable of interacting with one of these dimensions in a way that the other forces cannot. This one seems pretty abstract to me, but I think we can agree that if this is true, it would be hard to predict how dark matter should behave. Expecting it to clump up on the Earth is asking a lot.
4) It has even been speculated that there is an aspect to gravity that we have yet to discover. Perhaps Einstein's equations are leaving out a detail that explains this behavior without the need for extra mass. I would expect the FE community to embrace this one. Newton's equations are precise enough to cover what happens in-and-around the Earth. We need Einstein's improvements to get to the more precise or the extremely fast and vast. Maybe there is yet another discovery to get us out to galactic scales.

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.

On to question #3 then. "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."

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?

So from a strictly orbital mechanics point of view, we don't care. The gravitational influences are the same no matter what it's made of.

But you bring up geology. I think your point is that if the baryonic mass of the Earth is 20% what we thought it was, then the Earth cannot be made of the materials we thought it was. But why is that? Well, we can carefully measure the density of all the materials on Earth. And when we do this, we will discover that it's impossible for the Earth to weigh 20% of what we'd calculated. But back up just a second. How did you calculate the density of the materials in the first place? 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? We're starting to spiral out of control here. Everything we know must be all wrong!

Except... you forgot what dark matter is. Why is it even hypothesized to exist? Dark matter is an explanation for how distant stars move differently from what is predicted given the amount of baryonic mass we expect a galaxy to contain. That amount of galactic mass is estimated based on our own observations of the density of materials, the orbits of objects we can observe most closely, as well as some pretty high-powered physics that's way beyond our scope here. The stars at the edges of our galaxy move as if the amount of mass in our galaxy is much higher than our best estimates of the amount of baryonic mass.

Let me say that again slowly...
We made an estimate for how much we think the galaxy should weigh.
The orbits of distant stars (not the bodies within our solar system - distant stars) suggest the mass of the galaxy is much higher than our best estimates.
The bodies within our solar system (including the Earth) continue to conform to our best theories of gravity with current estimates of baryonic mass and no dark matter.
So we have a mystery. Somehow the stars at the edges of galaxies are orbiting too fast.
One possible explanation for this is that those galaxies contain a lot more matter than our best estimates. The estimates are coming up way short for some reason.

Ok? Got that? It's super simple really. Our estimates of the amount of mass in a galaxy are too low. So far, we have some interesting guesses as to why, but none of them would include adding a bunch of invisible mass to the Earth. Why not? Because the estimate of the mass of the Earth already matches observations. It is the orbits of stars around galaxies that don't match, so it is those galaxies that need some extra mass.

Got it?

[Rama Set]

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.

[JRowe]

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 doesn't need to clump, it doesn't need to form molecules. How many times does this need to be repeated?

As far as the rest goes, that is more than mere speculation, it is appealing to magic. That is the whole point of this; it is not an instance of an oddity, it is an instance of a flagrant contradiction, the supposed law of gravity ceasing to work. You need more than a minor refinement, you need a massive excuse for why gravity starts to actively repel dark matter and, more than that, why it does so selectively as it is meant to be present at galactic center etc, just... not here.

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.
Then you come onto geologists that mapped the interior of the Earth. They could have done this one of two ways.

1. Abstract. Work from separate theory, determine what would need to be there, used magnetism or whatever relevant properties to calculate how much iron and nickel there is, for example. All of that together, they'd come up with a model for the composition of the Earth independent of calculations of its mass, and would determine that the amount of baryonic matter has mass M/6. Hence, this should have been a major query or unanswered question.
2. The approach Rabinoz fixated on. They used the mass of the Earth as an end goal. They knew it would add up to that, and they added the proportions of every element and compound so that it would add up to that total mass M. Then when dark matter was discovered they'd have to quickly correct and work out how to reduce it, what elements can/can't be present, and massively change the standard for the composition of the Earth.

Either way, we would have noticed consequences. That's all this is, an example of what we would expect to see if dark matter were real.

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?!
Jesus christ do I need to repeat this to you every time? That is my complaint.

[rabinoz]

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!
I am far from being infallible so I may be mistaken and I may be wrong but I am not lying.

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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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?
The distribution of dark matter would follow most of the same laws as ordinary matter and much of ordinary is in the form of interstellar gas and nebulae as:

Now, this is quite hypothetical because dark matter does not "clump" around ordinary matter but:
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,
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.

Here's some relevant reading:
          New Scientist, Is dark matter normal stuff in disguise?
          New Scientist, Half the universe’s missing matter has just been finally found
And, of course, you carefully read:
         Einstein proved right in another galaxy, June 21, 2018, University of  Portsmouth/color]

Neither you nor I are cosmologists and simply do not have the training, mathematics and experience to make pronouncements on topics like this anyway so stop pretending that you know more than you do.
But, in the end, I'm not all concerned with happens out there and way back then. It's all very interesting, but like it or not there is always a degree of "speculation" involved.

I'm much more concerned about the things we can verify more easily here and now.

Bye bye.

[Rama Set]

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.

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.

[JRowe]

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.
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.

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.

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.
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.

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.
Stop. Evading. The. Question.

Discussion of dark matter is NOT irrelevant to the Solar System until you can explain why its attraction to centers of gravity completely bypasses us. It does not need to 'clump' to be attracted to centers of gravity, for the love of all that is holy stop making me repeat that.
I haven't the foggiest why you're acting as though I would have any objection to dark matter orbiting galactic center.

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,
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.

THAT. IS. WHAT. I. HAVE. BEEN. SAYING.

Seriously, what is your problem?! You are repeating what I've been saying constantly and acting as though it somehow refutes my point.

Are you trying to drive me insane? You are doing a damn good job at it.

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.
The physics does not check out. Dark matter should always have been attracted to centers of gravity, there is no way for our Solar System to have even formed without dragging it in.

[ICanScienceThat]

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.

[JRowe]

I'm just going to reblog the OP again because at this stage I'm just repeating it and it's tiring. This is why I lose my temper so frequently on the other site; when I am put in a situation where I am frankly talking to a brick wall, people acting as though they are refuting or responding when they are either blatantly ignoring me, or inexplicably saying the exact same thing as me, but acting snide and superior and acting like it's some kind of victory. If I can respond to you by just copy-pasting my OP, that is one of the ways I can start to loathe particular users.

If you are going to post a supposed answer, at least read the bloody OP, emphasis on the bold.

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]

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.

Are you kidding? You didn't add anything. What you call 'belligerence' I call 'justifiable annoyance' at someone blatantly ignoring every word I have said.

Seriously. Look at what you've all been posting, look at how much you keep touting 'dark matter can't clump!' like you are informing me of something new. Then actually read the OP where I explicitly said as much. I have no 'hostility towards being corrected,' I have hostility towards people saying the exact same thing I did and acting like they are telling me something new.
Yes, I am going to get annoyed when people act like that. I am human. I understand what's been presented, what's been presented does not answer the question.
Instead of your smug 'oh, you're just too stupid to understand this despite the fact we're just repeating things you already said,' drop the REer arrogance, drop the showmanship, drop the cheap tricks and answer the bloody question rather than evading. Do you have any idea how sick I am of tactics like that?

Everyone believes a REer. "Look, this FEer is just too dumb to understand, but we answered, honest!" Everyone goes ahead, reads that, believes you, doesn't bother to actually take notice of the fact that you never answered the damn question. I try so goddamn hard to have an honest conversation with you people and every time it ends like this. Cheap tricks and blatant lies.
Belligerence annoys you? Then stop being a condescending, dishonest asshole.



Let's make this simple.

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.

[ICanScienceThat]

This will be my final attempt. After this, troll me all you like. I will not respond again.

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.

Space is not evenly filled with matter. In general, we do see correlations between the locations of matter and dark matter. On the largest scales of the observable universe, we see a matter distribution that looks kind of like a web or a foam. It is sometimes conjectured that the lattice of this foam may be made mostly of dark matter, and these concentrations of dark matter helped to attract the regular matter to form the galaxies.

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.

One last time. There cannot be any significant amount of dark matter here on Earth. Whatever it turns out to be, it must come along with an explanation for why it doesn't happen to be here. Maybe we'll discover there's no such thing as dark matter at all. But however you slice it, we're looking for something that changes the orbits of stars around galaxies and something that causes gravitational lensing out where we don't see a source of gravity.

So with that made crystal clear, we should see why geologists don't give a hoot about dark matter. There isn't any dark matter here for them to worry about. There cannot be any.

You can get your panties all in a bunch over why that is, but your panties are irrelevant. Whether you like it or not, whatever dark matter ultimately turns out to be, it cannot be found in large quantities on Earth. All explanations put forth for this so far are purely hypothetical. Can't understand why MACHOs aren't here on Earth? Can't understand why WIMPs aren't here on Earth (in large quantites)? Guess what? The universe really doesn't care what you think it should or should not do. We observe the universe doing its thing, and we're searching for new and better models to explain these observations.

[ICanScienceThat]

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?

[SphericalEarther]

A key tenet of RET is dark matter; without such an entity the whole model falls apart.

LOL

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?

Dark matter hasn't been figured out yet, and is only a theory which we can use to predict with. We have not been able to verify dark matter to any degree, and it is still an unknown, just like it is unknown but theorized that our universe is just 1 of an infinite amount in the cosmos.

But really, why would dark matter make any difference towards the spherical nature of earth?

[JRowe]

LOL

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?

Because round earthers are the ones that insist that there's a grand unified conspiracy, rather than humans making mistakes.

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.
Stop repeating what I say, stop insisting that it just works and explain WHY. 'It must be so' is the definition of circular illogic. RET works because you want it to work, even when it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for it to do so.
If you cannot explain why is is absent, just bloody say so, drop this ridiculous pretence that it's anything higher.

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 have the audacity to accuse me of trolling when you act like 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?

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.
This is what I have been waiting for, and this is why the other posts were obviously a waste of time. They did not explain anything, they did not provide any more than the closed minded insistence that RET was right, therefore what RET needs has to be right, even when it makes no sense. This gives a why, a reason for the behavior you need.

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.

Instead of dismissing what I say just because I'm a FEer who dares to ask RET to explain itself, respond to the simple logic I have presented rather than evading constantly. Two pages in and that's the first time anyone actually bothered to add something that I hadn't already explained in my OP.

(EDIT: toning down)

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[...]

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.

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.

[SphericalEarther]

LOL

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?

Because round earthers are the ones that insist that there's a grand unified conspiracy, rather than humans making mistakes.

But 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.
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.
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.

[JRowe]

Dark Matter is required for our calculations and predictions to make sense on a galaxy and universe scale.
It is not required for anything in our small solar system where we can easily tell that the earth is a sphere.

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.

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.

[Curious Squirrel]

Dark Matter is required for our calculations and predictions to make sense on a galaxy and universe scale.
It is not required for anything in our small solar system where we can easily tell that the earth is a sphere.

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.

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.

[SphericalEarther]

Dark Matter is required for our calculations and predictions to make sense on a galaxy and universe scale.
It is not required for anything in our small solar system where we can easily tell that the earth is a sphere.

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.

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.

What I hear you say, correct me if I am wrong.
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.

And again, the shape of the earth does not depend on dark matter, FEers like you just wish to throw out the heliocentric model because it is not fully developed yet in areas far beyond what we need to answer the shape of earth and the solar system.