Dark matter: Good news, everyone! We've found ... NOTHING AT ALL

The Emperor's New Clothes

So because gravitational models of galaxies do not work a predicted (isn't that called "falsification"?), we make up something called dark matter, which is not only invisible, it isn't even made of ordinary matter. And to detect it, we have to find hypothetical WIMPs.

The emperor's new clothes?

It's not there guys...

Dark matter is needed to make the maths work for what we are observing.

The maths makes assumptions (flat universe, etc..)

Come on guys, the drawing board is calling.

Let the whole dark matter, dark energy thing go, it's had it's time.

Didn't Hawking say the universe was saddle shaped or something, how does the maths look for that?

Why would the universe be flat and at rest, it just had a huge big bang, that we still do not know the cause of.

What caused that could have left the universe in a right state.

Big Bang, Black Hole, Dark Matter and the entire money wheel circus is the product of academic delerium.

Black holes have no basis in General Relativity or in Newton's theory.

All alleged black hole solutions to Einstein's field equations

actually contain no mass. A mass is simply inserted post hoc into the

alleged solutions by sticking in Newton's expression for escape

velocity. But this is entirely arbitrary and is done to satisfy

Einstein's false claim that Ric = 0 describes his gravitational field

"outside" a body such as a star. Newton's expression for escape

velocity is an implicit two-body relation, but all alleged black hole

'solutions' contain only one mass, the mass "outside" of which the

gravitational allegedly exists. Einstein removes all material sources

at the outset by setting his energy-momentum tensor to zero to get Ric

= 0. In the next breath he reinstates the presence of a material

source (a mass) by the deceitful words "outside a body such as a star,

because he must have a mass to be the source, to be the star. But all

the equations of Ric = 0 contain no material source terms. Not only

that, de Sitter's cosmological static solution is acknowledged by

Einstein and his followers to be entirely empty, hence de Sitter's

'empty universe'. But de Sitter's static solution is for Ric = lambda

g_{ij} where lambda is the so-called 'cosmological constant'. The

energy-momentum tensor is zero here too. Thus a zero energy-momentum

tensor both precludes and includes a material source (mass). This is

impossible. Ric = 0 contains no matter by mathematical construction.

de Sitter's empty universe contains no matter by mathematical

construction. Thus General Relativity does not even predict the black

hole at all. Newton's theory does not predict black holes either.

Einstein's "outside" a body such as a star is doubletalk - utter

nonsense.

-Stephen Crothers

Dark Matter doesn't exist ..

> The most sensitive dark matter detector ever built has failed to detect any dark matter.

Dark Matter doesn't exist, the reason it is proposed is to explain the shape of galaxies and their dispersal through out the universe. A much simpler explanation is that gravity decays faster over large distances. As in time flows slower that farther away from a strong gravitational source.

How do I get a career doing nothing on a government paycheck? Probably just memorize some big words to sound smart and call it basic research, because no business would waste its time with me. :)

Seriously, this stuff is as ignorant as a flat world theory, when you can see a curve on the horizon. Back a 1000 years ago somebody probably used a little bit of sense to know that the world wasn't flat, and there was more to the story. Same today with bosom particles, dark matter, string theory, ect... Aren't these technically hypothesis not theories?

I've always suspected dark matter is residual gravity from a parallel universe...

too much?

Hooray! We have found nothing! Let's see if we can spend a couple million more and still find nothing! Then we will keep spending money until we find...NOTHING!!!

Xenon

All these posts and nobody spotting that the sole object of this experiment was obviously to achieve the utter scientific coolness of having so much cold Xenon in one place.

At parties: "Yes, I've got a third of a tonne of liquid xenon. At -100C. How cool is that? Very cool indeed."

Obviously the council has been blinded because the darth baddie dude is to well politically connected. Happens all the time.

I'm off to live in a swamp until an angstie teenager suffering from parental neglect comes to find me.

How to find "nothing".

...stop looking for it. Its impossible to find "nothing" using instruments, definitions, words, feelings, emotions, etch-a-sketches, or speak n spells since using "something" to find "nothing" inevitably invalidates the meaning of "nothing".

where did the one originate from?

The reason for not being able to find anything is because the science is based on "theories" and not "actuals".

Science first has to explain where the "one" comes from.

Yet science, theology (religion) or philosophy cannot truly explain where "one" came from.

Saying it always existed is not a definitive answer, and to say all came from "nothing" is also incorrect.

Because if "nothing" was truly "nothing", why call it NOTHING and even then it's given seven letters.

For it takes more than "one" to even make up "one" of anything, as even a single atom has more than one component.

As how can one of anything exist without it's "negative counterpart of space" that the "one" occupies within?

A.E.I.O.U - Absolute Energy = Input, Output Utilization.

As "one" of anything equals the I.O.U of AE, as does the next "one"

It has been said that to know the secrets of the universe think - Energy, frequency, reverberation.

And if there is/was "one" to begin with, it could only divide itself, thus multiplying itself.

And the answer will still only be "one" because no matter how many times "one" multiplies or divides by "one" the answer is always one, which makes "one" and infinite number or better still "the whole".

Paging Dunning and Kruger

"There's enough material here for a whole conference."

No dark matter to find, obviously.

There is no dark matter, and no dark energy either. Newton got it wrong, gravity is not a property of mass.

Gravity is the motion (velocity) of empty space. It affects mass, obviously, but it is not a property of mass. In our gravity well, it might be difficult to establish this, but probably not impossible.

No, I am not a physicist.

Plasma, MHD and 'let there be light' big bang

The antipathy towards plasma cosmology continues to puzzle me. Magnetohydrodynamics is widely accepted in explanations of, inter alia, the outward transfer of momentum when stellar systems form; similar outward transfer of momentum when galaxies form; the acceleration of huge plasma jets, some of which are of galactic scale; and a range of observable solar phenomena. Equally, observations of the rotation of polarised light show that non-negligible magnetic fields exists within most galaxies.

Yet any mention that electromagnetism may play a part in holding galaxies together is met with scorn, disdain and opprobrium.

I sometimes wonder that the electric universe idea, the notion that stars are a sort of light bulb powered by cosmic currents, is actually a straw man set up against plasma cosmology, spawned and promoted by the dogmatically religious supporters of orthodoxy in a similar manner to the way that creationists are said to conjure up bogus research in order to discredit regular scientific discovery.