Hello, Veeky Forums, No dark matter guy here again

The Schwarzschild metric is a weak-field approximation. The singularity that you're so upset about is a coordinate singularity that can be removed by choosing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates.
>changing the coordinate system doesn't make sense to me
Yeah, no shit.

>This thread

>samefag-tier responses
>10 replies 11 posters
This thread is sketchy

What you're actually saying there is that you need to change the speed of light in the field. The light cone edges you are applying by doing that come from light speed in flat spacetime. Those edges have nothing to do with the coordinates to which you are applying them. It's not merely a coordinate transformation it's applying a new constant, a different speed of light to the field.

Science is some scary shit

Don't go back in time and reverse the universe

If you do that is a dick move and you have to accommodate the past let's make a rule

>you need to change the speed of light in the field
No, the coordinate speed in E-F coordinates is constant, unlike in the Schwarzschild metric. You should really learn how to use google.

I know that EF speed of light it is constant. The Schwarzschild metric reaches zero at the event horizon. The Schwarzschild is the correct speed of light for the metric because it is the metric. The E-F speed of light does not belong in the field.

>I never get approval because I'm a giant cynic faggot

wow, one guy posted twice

>Sick and tired of people taking a mathematical equation as proof that black holes and dark matter exist.
this

I can't believe to see such an intelligent post on Veeky Forums of all boards

NICE JOB OP
I WISH MORE PEOPLE WOULD POST OC
I WOULD TOTALLY SUCK YOUR DICK

No it means nobody posted twice which could mean that OP just brought in a load of people to support his thread by posting once and leaving.

Yeah, because math is sooo faulty and like such a nerd thing to do, senpai
:^)

>I don't understand what math and science are
then why are you on this board you idiot?

What do you mean "does not belong in the field"? The E-F coordinates are adapted to a null geodesic (i.e. photon geodesics), meaning the velocity will always be c.

The field is curved. C decreases until it reaches zero at the event horizon. The E-F corresponds to c in flat space which is, yes, constant. A constant speed of light does not belong in a field where c decreases until it reaches zero.

>C decreases until it reaches zero at the event horizon
Please learn what a null geodesic is and then get back to me.

no, screw this OP.

I only posted because I was hoping some autist/physicist would get triggered.

I thought
>:^)
would make absolutely clear that I'm sarcastic. But one cant expect the depths of autism on this board

Different dude here, sarcasm doesn't carry through text and obnoxious fucks frequently use that face while baiting. Which is still baiting, but people will always fall for it so you shouldn't be surprised.

>so you shouldn't be surprised
thats really a fair point
But I thought shitface smiley and ALL CAPS were the universally accepted signs of "guys, I'm not entirely serious here". You know, not even bait, but more satirical in nature

...

Sometimes I think it's a new form of meta-bait to respond negatively to something you recognize is sarcasm.

I don't feel any need to repeat myself.

because you would be wrong for the second time

Please fuck off, nobody thinks that. Dark matter was empirically motivated by the observation of galaxy clusters.

The null geodesics to a light line at the event horizon. This makes sense as the event horizon is a light like surface.

E-F Null geodesics to not match the curvature of the field.

>I was just pretending to be retarded
>look how much better than everyone else I am
ok kid

>our observations don't match our models
>could our models be wrong?
>lol no way, reality is wrong, lets invent something invisible and undetectable and pretend that our models are right
yeah good job there

I can't believe there are people so unintelligent they genuinely believe that theoretical physics is science

>we don't have to observe reality and attempt to model it
>we create the reality in our own minds and if the observations do not fit our fantasies then reality has to change

it should become mandatory to teach childen the scientific method in school

Not my fault, that you are new and dont no obvious Veeky Forums conventions. I'm not better than everyone else, I'm just better than you

>could our models be wrong?
The models were wrong. What you ignore is that the predictions were made with gravity and with models of the mass of galaxies and clusters. In the case of dark matter the later was assumed to be wrong. People have tried the opposite. It doesn't have anywhere near the predictive power and still can't explain observations like the bullet cluster. Cold dark matter on the other hand made many predictions like the CMB powerspectrum, the growth rate and the Baryon acoustic oscillation amplitude.
>lol no way, reality is wrong
You reveal your bias. Nothing tells us all the matter in the universe is already known. That's just a baseless assumption.

>theoretical physics
This is observational cosmology. Observational.

>we don't have to observe reality and attempt to model it
That's exactly what dark matter does. You don't observe the mass distribution of a galaxy, you have to model it. With dark matter the model is simply different. Dark matter isn't changing any observations.

I don't know how someone can be so ignorant. You don't understand model selection much less the scientific method.

>dark matter
>observational cosmology

Yes. As I said, it was motivated by observations.

its theoretival physics, mate. you cant even observe dark matter

It's matching models to data, that's observational astronomy.

There is no direct proof, no direct observation, for the existence of "dark matter". The effects we see could be explained by other models or simply by errors in our current models.
This whole thing works but is not elegant at all and we shouldnt assume that there is really something like "dark matter"

>There is no direct proof, no direct observation, for the existence of "dark matter".

Doesn't matter, it's still part of observational astronomy. The Hulse-Taylor binary showed the existence of gravitational waves decades before LIGO.

>The effects we see could be explained by other models or simply by errors in our current models.

That's always true in all of science, it's not a criticism of model.

>This whole thing works but is not elegant at all and we shouldnt assume that there is really something like "dark matter"

Opinion, irreverent. You can only quantify elegance when you multiple models which have the same explanatory power, then you can do model selection. No such alternative model exists. If you really feel you can do much better I suggest you build a better model, people have been trying for decades. Even after a decade of work there is no explanation for the Bullet cluster in modified gravity models.

"Elegance" shouldn't be used as a metric. What fits the observed facts should be used as a metric, what you think about the model is irrelevant.

Look, you can go ahead and make your own models that fit the observations of galaxy clusters, but until then, don't baselessly argue against the best current model.

Dark matter explains what we see, and it does it well. If your only real complaint is "hurr durr we can't observe something that is currently unobservable" than fuck outta here. We used special relativity for almost a century before finally directly observing gravity waves. We used particle physics models before we directly observed the Higgs boson. Saying that theoretical physics is "theoretical and thus worthless" ignores all the progress we have made because we assumed the best mathematical model was correct, and working off that. Direct observation in physics tends to follow theoretical prediction.

So, OP, give me an alternative solution that explains all the phenomena better than the solution that thousands of better-qualified and better funded scientists than you have worked on, or else your whole argument is a gigantic appeal to incredulity.

By elegance, I meant that this is just an ad-hoc explanation. Just a device to make our models correct again. These models should set out how the universe works and explain reality wether to just be forcefully consistent.
Just because the math works now with the concept of it in mind, doesnt mean that there really is dark matter out there.
You shouldt wave away the notion of hard scientific evidence, just because something is convenient and we already have "figured it out". Thats not how we do it.
Not OP here, btw

OP here. Completely agree.

>Just a device to make our models correct again.
You're missing the point. The inclusion of dark matter was a new model, the old model was wrong. you seem to ignore the fact that mass distributions of galaxies were models, they were built on assumptions, there was no reason to believe they were correct over gravity.

>These models should set out how the universe works and explain reality wether to just be forcefully consistent.
And how does one deduce how the universe really works? I don't think you understand science.

>doesnt mean that there really is dark matter out there.
The quark model doesn't mean that quarks are physical. All of astronomy (and particle physics) is based on models, the most powerful models are the ones that become the standard models. It doesn't mean they're physical, but we have no way of knowing what is truly physical.

Dark matter was an empirical model but it has made many confirmed predictions.

Do you have hard scientific evidence, or are you just shitposting? As the other guy and I have said, we're not dismissing any evidence, because no superior model has been given. Dark matter is the best model to fit our observations. You're right, it's entirely possible that dark matter doesn't exist, but you don't have a better solution, so stop complaining.

>By elegance, I meant that this is just an ad-hoc explanation. Just a device to make our models correct again.
I never understood this retarded argument. What exactly do you want? An incorrect model that ignores empirical findings? Is that better than dark matter? Until you provide a model that explains everything better than the current one, your argument is completely impotent and nonsensical.

It seems like you are missing my point.

>The quark model doesn't mean that quarks are physical
But you know we have things like the LHC and particle detectors, right? There is a different between an ad-hoc model and something we have cleat evidence for through experiments.

>Dark matter was an empirical model but it has made many confirmed predictions.
I never denied that it can make predictions. That doesnt really mean anything. I saw flat earth "theories" that could predict the movement of the moon.

>we're not dismissing any evidence,
thats not really what I'm saying. There just is no evidence for dark matter.

>You're right, it's entirely possible that dark matter doesn't exist
exactly. But some people like to pretend that its existence is certain and that we have figured it all out yet and I dont think that this is a productive attitude.

>but you don't have a better solution, so stop complaining
fair enough
But sometimes it is not wrong to admit "Well we just dont really know yet. But we can use this very helpful crutch here, lets see, maybe we are on to something"

>An incorrect model that ignores empirical findings?
No I dont want that. I never said that. Stop strawmanning.

Then why are you complaining that the model was corrected to explain empirical findings? I can't strawman an argument that doesn't exist. Why don't you explain exactly what you want to replace the current model with, and why.

>But you know we have things like the LHC and particle detectors, right? There is a different between an ad-hoc model and something we have cleat evidence for through experiments.
Clear evidence of a quark? LOL no. We have many experiments that confirm the predictions made from the model that requires quarks to exist. But we have never seen a quark. It's a good analogy.

>I never denied that it can make predictions. That doesnt really mean anything.
OK, so you don't know anything about science.

>I saw flat earth "theories" that could predict the movement of the moon.
And if the flat earth theories could explain things better and make better predictions than current theory, we would adopt it. But they don't and all suffer from several flaws. So what flaws are caused by dark matter?

>thats not really what I'm saying. There just is no evidence for dark matter.
The evidence is that predictions made by them are the best so far. Just like quarks.

>exactly. But some people like to pretend that its existence is certain and that we have figured it all out yet and I dont think that this is a productive attitude.
WHO? Name one legitimate physicist.

>But sometimes it is not wrong to admit "Well we just dont really know yet. But we can use this very helpful crutch here, lets see, maybe we are on to something"
I don't think any physicist takes dark matter for granted. You are making a huge strawman.

>It seems like you are missing my point.
It seems like you've released you're talking shit. There is no way in science to tell what is occurring in "reality".

>But you know we have things like the LHC and particle detectors, right?
They don't detect individual quarks.

>I never denied that it can make predictions. That doesnt really mean anything.
Predicting the motion of the Moon isn't a prediction, it's a postdiction. Dark matter on the other hand made true predictions before the observations were even possible. Even if you predict the motion of the Moon in the future you're just pining it to an already successful model, there was no such cosmology before CDM. Come back to me when this flat earth model makes a confirmed novel prediction that orbital theory does not.

>I can't strawman an argument that doesn't exist
yes. thats pretty much exactly what you have done. attacking a point I never made.
People can criticise things without having a better alternative. dont be silly

>Clear evidence of a quark? LOL no
You might pick up a textbook on this subject. I dont think there is any real controversy on the existence of what we call quarks

>OK, so you don't know anything about science.
Thats just namecalling. I indeed never claimed, that it cant make predictions, so I dont know whats your point here.

>And if the flat earth theories could explain things better and make better predictions than current theory, we would adopt it.
way to miss the point

>he evidence is that predictions made by them are the best so far.
we agree on the predictions part, but that doesnt make it evidence

> don't think any physicist takes dark matter for granted
so what is it? real or not? Most people itt seem to think dark matter is real without a doubt. I dared to be sceptic and there are 2-3 people jumping at me.
I am not the only one who criticises this theory.

>It seems like you've released you're talking shit.
No, you missed my point and now you are just namecalling. irrelevant point, mate

>They don't detect individual quarks.
strawman

>Predicting the motion of the Moon isn't a prediction
yeah
But anyway, it was an analogy to point out that a model that can predict reality doesnt really have to explain the universe.

Guys, please calm down. All I'm saying is that there is no clear evidence for the existence of dark matter, so we shouldnt take it for granted that it really exist. Thats my only criticism.

Not direct, but supposedly black holes have been observed with elevated radiation caused by dark matter crowding around and annihilating itself.

we have data that points to something that behaves like a quark that we describe in our model

that is how particle physics works, five sigma

>strawman
Not a strawman. You said they have particle detectors. I pointed out those particle detect don't detect individual quarks. The evidence for the quark model is indirect.

>yeah
If you didn't cut my reply in half I responded to this cheap dismissal. You've just ignored both of my points without counterargument.

>to point out that a model that can predict reality doesnt really have to explain the universe.
Nobody is claiming that. In fact I said that much earlier.: >You might pick up a textbook on this subject. I dont think there is any real controversy on the existence of what we call quarks
>Ehh, err, emm. Look it up idiot!
Answer the question. What is this direct evidence for quarks?

No, that was a theoretical paper suggesting in some mass ranges black holes would be the best places to look for annihilation signatures. There are many candidate signatures but none are unambiguous and all of them are treated with extreme skepticism in most of the field.

>Not a strawman
Well to me it seems, you are arguing against a point I never made. I never claimed that there was DIRECT evidence for quarks.

>ou've just ignored both of my points without counterargument
well, sorry. But that was just nitpicking at my analogy. I concede that it was a bad analogy.

But again, the point was that a model that can predict reality doesnt really have to explain the universe. Which you seem to agree with.

That's your personal view. Thing is, hard science can't really admit those observations as evidence. The dark matter hypothesis is still there, it's just extremely weak. Noone is stopping you from looking, just don't expect the mainstream scientific community to use the same standards of proof you do. This is all there is to this debate.

We have data that points to something that behaves like dark matter that we describe in our model.

How do you not get this? What is special about dark matter?

>The null geodesics to a light line at the event horizon.
>E-F Null geodesics to not match the curvature of the field.
Dislike this "make a word salad and pass it off as an argument" meme.

The null geodesics of the E-F correspond to flat spacetime. The spacetime of the Swarzschild is curved by definition. The incompatibility couldn't be more glaring or obvious. But here we are.

>yes. thats pretty much exactly what you have done. attacking a point I never made.
Can you read? I can't strawman an argument that doesn't exist. You claimed that my reply did not attack your argument. What is your argument then?

>You might pick up a textbook on this subject. I dont think there is any real controversy on the existence of what we call quarks
There is no controversy over dark matter, except among laymen who think that every new part of a model is bullshit because they don't understand it.

>Thats just namecalling. I indeed never claimed, that it cant make predictions, so I dont know whats your point here.
How is that namecalling? If you think the ability to make correct predictions is irrelevant, you don't know anything about science.

>way to miss the point
What is the point of comparing dark matter to flat earth then?

>we agree on the predictions part, but that doesnt make it evidence
That is evidence. Apparently when we observe effects that are predicted by quarks, that is clear evidence of quarks. When we observe predictions made by dark matter, that is not evidence, because... dark matter is something you don't like for some reason that you won't elucidate. Again, how can I strawman you when you won't make an argument? All I said was that saying that the model is wrong because it was corrected to account for empirical findings is ass backwards. You have not presented reasoning as to why dark matter is "wrong".

>so what is it? real or not?
Was the Higgs boson real or not when it was part of the standard model but we had not observed it yet? The question is meaningless. Models are approximations of what is real. Science is the attempt to continuously improve the approximation of what is real. Dark matter is simply another step in this. We will use the standard model including dark matter until it needs to be corrected again. Are you just shitposting about dark matter because it makes you feel smarter?

>Most people itt seem to think dark matter is real without a doubt.
WHO? You can't name a single scientist and you can't even show a single person in this thread. Pathetic.

>I dared to be sceptic and there are 2-3 people jumping at me.
Nice persecution complex. You dared to write a barely coherent opinion that you can't even defend and others called you out on it. Are you going to cry?

>I am not the only one who criticises this theory.
There are legitimate criticisms of dark matter based on substantive reasoning. Yours does not even come close. Don't flatter yourself.

Of course we can't directly observe something that reacts arbitrarily weakly with light.

Therefore, we have to rely on indirect observation.

What is your problem with this OP?

/thread

>I never claimed that there was DIRECT evidence for quarks.
Earlier you said there was "just is no evidence for dark matter", but there is indirect evidence. So it seems reasonable you don't consider indirect evidence as evidence at all.

I'll ask again, what is this evidence you consider to be so clear?

>the point was that a model that can predict reality doesnt really have to explain the universe
Well then you're debating a strawman. No one in this thread or in science is claiming that.

>That's your personal view.
No, it's a historical fact. Dark matter was coined by Zwicky who was observing motions of galaxies in the Coma cluster.

>hard science can't really admit those observations as evidence.
They can and science does, hence the reason the standard model of cosmology is the standard model. Nobody is claiming these observations uniquely point to dark matter, no experiment in science ever uniquely points to a model. However any observation which favours a new model (no dark matter) over the null (standard M/L ratios) is evidence.

>favours a new model (*dark matter*) over the null (standard M/L ratios) is evidence.

First and last are dank.
Others are closer to garbage than good.

Most of the people who believe in "dark matter" are probably the same people who whould have believed in the "cosmic aether" back in the days.

The aether was introduced from theory, dark matter was observationally motivated.

It was introduced to explain observable electromagnetic phenomena.

Nope, it was introduced as an analogy. Mechanical waves had to propagate though a medium, therefore electromagnetic waves should also propagate though a medium. In fact aether hypothesis had a hard time explaining most electromagnetic phenomena.

>therefore electromagnetic waves should also propagate though a medium
and this assumption was made to explain observable electromagnetic phenomena, Many people believed it and now we know it isnt real.
Dark matter doesnt have an explanation for everything, too.

>Analogy
>Published in peer review

lol. It was thought to be real and that was wrong.

read a book sometime instead of proclaiming history by your gut feels

>and this assumption was made to explain observable electromagnetic phenomena

Right, but that isn't what you were saying. You're trying to say the Aether was introduced on an experimental basis, but it wasn't, it was theoretical.

>It was thought to be real and that was wrong

Correct. It was a theoretical model that couldn't fit data. However dark matter was empirical and can make additional predictions, such as the CMB powerspectrum.

That is literally why it was introduced, physics of the 19th century couldn't explain how light could propagate through a vacuum. Since other waves needed a medium, they postulated that there must also be a medium that pervades all space.

Veeky Forums really has gone to shit.

There are many things in physics which were introduced as analogies. For example the principle of least action was developed as an analogy to optics.

>Zero counter argument

>You're trying to say the Aether was introduced on an experimental basis
nope. It doenst even matter anyway. People believed it just because it explained what they saw.
I'm saying people believe in dark matter making the same mistake as people who believed in the aether

Veeky Forums has indees gone to shit

>That is literally why it was introduced, physics of the 20th century couldn't explain how galaxies behave on a large scale. Since smaller objects were moved by mass, they postulated that there must also be a "dark matter" that pervades all space.

>People believed it just because it explained what they saw.

Until it didn't then they removed it, eventually, it was a big revolution happened early in the 20th century. I doubt you've heard of it, from what I can tell you're quite uneducated. Also it didn't explain what they saw, which is why they abandoned it.

>'m saying people believe in dark matter making the same mistake as people who believed in the aether

Let meme arrow this for you, really get down to your level:
>Observation doesn't match model
>Adapt model to fit observations
>Holy shit, new model is even more powerful than before

Contrast with:
>I can't explain that
>Well let's just suppose that something exists, that makes it explainable
>Model now can't explain observations or conflicting theory
>Create ad hoc additions to model to force it conform to observations
>Model has literally 0 predictive power

Can you really not see how these two things are different? Are you that dense?

>Veeky Forums has indees gone to shit

It's gone to shit because of people like you. You can't even put forth a substantive argument beyond "science was wrong before". Please if you've got a better model then show how it can predict what user here pointed out to you See above. All you've got is "science has been wrong before". It's a model that can make predictions, that's why it's still around.

>his bullshit got pointed out and now he starts to throw baseless assumptions and insults around

oh boy.
If you believe hard enough, maybe it becomes real.

>I can't explain that
>Well let's just suppose that something exists, that makes it explainable
thats literally what happened with "dark matter".
Of course you can call it "adapting the model to fit observations", but in the end they literally made up an unobservable matter nobody knows shit about, just so that the model fits the observations.

>No arguments

I'm shocked. When can we have simple problems for Captcha, weed out the brainlets.

>Dark matter has impressive predictive power
>DARC MATER DONT REAL BECUZ MUH FEELS!!1!!!

Brainlets, both irritating and amusing.

>No arguments
Oh the irony. What "FEELS" exactly? You are the one who is upset and throws around insults as if they are arguments.

>All you've got is "science has been wrong before"
NOPE. All you got is "lol, the math works"

That is literally why it was introduced, physics of the 20th century couldn't explain how galaxies behave on a large scale. Since smaller objects were moved by mass, they postulated that there must also be a "dark matter" that pervades all space.

>What "FEELS" exactly?

What else can it be other than you being emotionally invested in proving something wrong? If not why not just layout why you think we should give up on a model with good predictive power.

>ITT: OP doesnt realize science will never directly reflect the underlying universe and doesnt understand the need for intermediary approximations in a scientific model, dozens fall for his memes

Never change, /x/

dark matter faggots getting BTFO in this thread

>I can't explain that
>Well let's just suppose that something exists, that makes it explainable
You ignored the last bit which covers the last 40 years of cosmology.
>We have the hypothesis, now lets test it.

And tested it has been. The CMB powerspectrum, one halo and two halo clustering, the bullet cluster, the amplitude of the BAO peak in the modern universe. These predictions were made before the measurements could be made.

Thanks for the commentary from the mentally disabled.

Take note. Nobody in this thread has made any scientific criticism of dark matter. Nobody has claimed it can't fit galaxy-galaxy lensing from SDSS, nobody has claimed they have a 5 parameter fit for the CMB TT powerspectrum. All the people are arguing about here is the philosophy of science, it has no impact on dark matter as a scientific model.

>not using M.O.N.D.

>Newtonian gravity
>2016

MOND doesn't explain galaxy clusters, galaxy clustering or cosmology. Even Moti Milgrom admits it needs dark matter. It's just not comparable. It's also deeply ugly, it simply fixed their modification to gravity to existing observational results, the model itself can take any form fitting function within given boundary conditions. The fitting functions used have been shown not to work simultaneously in red and blue galaxies ot the milky way and other galaxies.

So how does dark matter explain the surprisingly uniform rotation speed of galaxies? Is is it precisely distributed to archive that effect in every galaxy we observe? How do you know?

Was there ever even a single dark matter particle detected? Does it consist of a variety of different particles? What is it made of? Are there counterparts to those particles (like anti matter) How is it possible to have the properties it needs to have in order for the hypothesis to work? How do you know?

How does dark matter interact with regular matter? Does it interact in the same way with itself? If not, why?

Why is there seemingly no dark matter close to our solar system?