Hello, Veeky Forums, no dark matter guy here again

vera just inferred the existence of something from data on something else. like how people inferred the existence of another planet when orbit calculations were off. that isn't showing that something exists as it was never directly observed. in the planet example later observations proved it but that has not happened for dark matter. same with the others you listed.

Would you disagree that zero distance between two geodesics in one coordinate system must also be zero distance between two geodesics in all other coordinate systems? If not, then what coordinate systems would yield any distance between them?

Your mother exists beyond mathematical models.

>I think dark matter is just physicists saying "yeah we can't reconcile rotational speeds of galaxies with known gravity, so let's just pretend 99% of the matter is undetectable."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence
You're a daft cunt.
>I think I've mentioned in other videos past examples like Firmament, Phlogiston, Caloric, luminiferous aether whenever it is the case that philosophers and scientists invent, without any direct observation, a particulate matter or medium to explain that which they did not understand they were always proven wrong.
Anti-matter, quarks in general, and then after the first 3 were found the charm, then the top and bottom, the Higgs boson, gravitational lensing, black holes, neutrinos, W bosons, Z boson, Bose-Einstein condensate, fermionic condensate, anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, topological insulators, anyonic materials are ALL examples that were predicted before they were experimentally discovered.

>Anti-matter, quarks in general, and then after the first 3 were found the charm, then the top and bottom, the Higgs boson, gravitational lensing, black holes, neutrinos, W bosons, Z boson, Bose-Einstein condensate, fermionic condensate, anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, topological insulators, anyonic materials are ALL examples that were predicted before they were experimentally discovered.

Every one of which was based on mathematical models for which there were clear trends which pointed to their existence. Dark matter has no such model. Neither do any of my previous examples each one functions as a placeholder for the absolutely unknown. But you are right, I definitely did not word that post correctly.

MACHOs so far have accounted for about half (30% according to Wikipedia) of the mass discrepancy, maybe it's not some exotic WIMPs? could it be some other impossible-to-detect massive objects (baryonic matter)?
And dark matter is just a category that we place everything that interacts with other things only through gravity (we can't see it).
So a dead neutron star can be considered dark matter and we know those exist we just can't see them (except by their gravitational effects, also they block light)
Also isn't it hilarious that the argument is about WIMPS vs MACHOS? This is my favourite mystery in science by far.

Your understanding of time in relativity has a huge flaw, which is leading you to make this mistake.

You see, just because you don't have any freedom in the time, doesn't mean that you cant still have relative movement. All it means is that you can't change your current path, and have internal relative change. So when the light cone collapses, it will mean that the current path for that object has no freedom, and that it cannot change it state. It can still move as a "frozen" object in space though. So there is no issue here to begin with.

Maybe you should properly understand relativity before you try to prove physicists wrong.

Horse shit.

All world lines must pass between incoming and outgoing null geodesics. Just as they must pass within light cones in special relativity. That's not debatable. The principle is exactly equivalent.
You're trying to rewrite the rules of relativity to defend the indefensible. The black hole model is wrong.

When the light cone collapses what is left is a light like surface which cannot allow massive particles. It's the same principle as being unable to accelerate to the speed of light.

But hey, at least you used the phrase "When the light cone collapses" So I am sure we agree on that much at least.

This isn't a problem as long as the state of the object remains the same.
All elementary particles already only travel at light speed. Mass is an emergent property of their interactions. Take away any interaction(collapsed light cone) and you have zero mass particles that can only travel at light speed.

Its fun to talk about this shit even if we aren't experts, but when you start to claim you have proven physicist wrong, on something as simple as this, then may reconsider your approach to the world.

Do you think they all just missed it or? Or is the simpler answer that you don't understand why it isn't a problem?

Dark matter is just the exposed non-singular cores of evaporated primordial black holes.

You cannot arbitrarily remove mass from particles traveling along time like world lines. Black holes have mass, and the collapse of the null geodesics close such mass out from entering the black hole. It is elementary to show that no coordinate transformations exist to sidestep this fact of nature.

Furthermore, if you are arguing that a mass-less particle exists when the light cone collapses, perhaps by radiation, I really have no argument because what you have just admitted is my position: Massive particles do not reach the event horizon.

You are not getting what I am saying.
There are no elementary particles with mass to begin with. Take away particles interactions with the higgs-field, and you have no mass. It's not arbitrary at all, relativity lays out why and how it happens perfectly.

That is not relevant to my argument. I have made no claims about the Higgs field, and all I care to say about it is that it endows particles with mass. Even so, as I have already stated, you wish to arbitrarily exclude particles on time-like world lines from having mass. What reason have you to take my argument of a massive particle on a timelike world line and remove it's interaction with the Higgs field?

Okay, I guess ill have to spoon feed this shit.

Any particle with mass is made up of elementary particles that have no mass. The mass comes from the elementary particles interactions with the higgs field.
Hopefully you accept this, if you don't then I don't know why you are even here having this conversation.

So take away this interaction, and you have only mass less particles. You have to realize that a particle like a proton in a frozen state isn't necessarily even a particle, all you have are quarks that are close with each other, their interaction(which only happen in time) make up the particle. A proton is not elementary.

So why is there no interaction at the event horizon? Well you already know this to some extent, its the same reason the light cones collapse, you just didn't connect the dots.

A particle's freedom in time approaches and passes 0 for the moment it passes the event horizon. We know this happens because we can detect muons(I think?) from cosmic rays at the earth's surface even though they would normally decay before they passes earths atmosphere, this is because of the same reasons any particle wont be able to change state when they have no freedom in time.

Watch this if you actually want to learn about this stuff. It doesn't go into black holes and time, but it explains mass for you pretty well.
youtube.com/watch?v=JqNg819PiZY

>So take away this interaction,

FOR
WHAT
REASON
?

Why do light cones collapse? This is just fucking relativity.

We know this happen because we know time slows in gravitational fields.

How could time be relative at all if you have this constant interaction with the higgs-field? It HAS to slow along with everything else, otherwise you get a special frame of reference that you can compare and find how much time has slowed for you.

Take a moment and try to understand this. If you actually have some understanding of relativity, you will agree with this. Common.

All of this is a very interesting side track and might be relevant if it weren't true that "proton’s and neutron’s masses do not come predominantly from the Higgs" or that "the Higgs field is not the universal giver of mass to things in the universe"

profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/

Not only that, Even with the affects of time dilation I still see no reason to remove the Higgs field from interactions as you are preposterously suggesting..

Sell your red herring somewhere else.

Okay, are you just illiterate now? Where did I say the higgs-field is responsible for gravity? Fucking show me.
It gives us mass, not gravity. I never claimed otherwise.

Are you so attached to your "theory" that you have to use fallacious tactics to try and win the argument? Fuck off, I thought you were actually interested in the topic, not just winning an internet argument.
>Sell your red herring somewhere else.
Irionic

Please don't be so obtuse as to confuse the title of a web page I am using as a source as my personal thesis statement.

Oh so it was just a side note? I'm curious how it relates to your great theory. What are you saying here buddy?

> Even with the affects of time dilation I still see no reason to remove the Higgs field from interactions as you are preposterously suggesting..
So how do you suggest keeping both; time being dilated down to 0 and letting elementary particles interact with the higgs-field? If you want to argue that both are true then, sure go ahead, otherwise either accept that it dilates along with everything else or say that it always remains as a constant(fuck relativity eh.). Can't have your cake and eat it too man.

>So how do you suggest keeping both; time being dilated down to 0 and letting elementary particles interact with the higgs-field?

Again, this will not occur unless the particles are massless. Since I am talking about timelike worldlines it is by definition dealing with massive particles, Thus a discussion of the Higgs field is not relevant to the theory as their disassociation with the Higgs will only occur if they have no mass, and furthermore as discussed in the article Protons and Neutrons to not obtain most of their mass from the Higgs field, so on all counts I see no substantiation of your objection.

If you fail to see that then we are going to get nowhere without a moderator.

>by definition dealing with massive particles
Massive particles are made up of mass-less particles, how do you not get this?

And can particles like photons just pass through freely in your view then? If they can't then what is the reason for them stopping at the horizon?

You do know that Quarks have intrinsic mass, right?

Most of the mass of a Proton comes from gluons. Again, there is no need to muddy the waters by bringing up the Higgs field and again your thesis statement of removing the Higgs field is not remotely convincing.

I'm not muddying shit. My hole argument is that an object can still move relative in space even when its time has been time dilated all the way like at an event horizon. And traveling at light-speed is the only option at that point. This was why I brought in the higgs-field to try and explain to you why this is true. But you refuse to think about this, or simply fail to understand it.

>And can particles like photons just pass through freely in your view then?
Answer this.

I'm going to bed now, ill be checking the thread tomorrow sometime.

>You do know that Quarks have intrinsic mass, right?
They get their mass from interactions with the higgs-feild, read the thread, I have gone over this.

>They get their mass from interactions with the higgs-feild, read the thread, I have gone over this.

OK, enjoy your cruise aboard the S.S. Make shit up. Have a good night.

>we know those exist
I don't think the universe isn't old enough for black dwarfs to exist. They *should* happen, eventually. But it takes a long long long long long long long time for even a small star to radiate all its energy to go dark.
And I have no fucking idea what would happen if a neutron star cooled since it's in a weird super dense highly energetic state of matter. And that's the only thing keeping the star from collapsing in on itself.
If it cooled off it would either continue to collapse to the next stable state. Possibly a Quark Star, a theoretical state where matter would be so crushed together that it could only exist as quarks. But I can only imagine that shit would be beyond weird.

I wonder myself if the interior of some Neutron stars might be quark-Gluon soup.

It makes sense to me that as you increase the density of objects their cores will increasingly resemble the state of the universe in the past, since the universe was more dense in the past. That said there is one crucial ingredient that would be missing: Heat.

Gluons are massless particles.
All mass comes from the Higgs mechanism.

99% of your mass comes from non-higgs.
black hole mass has nothing to do with higgs

1) You don't know what you're talking about.

2) Even if you did, you're not talking about the topic in this thread.

Aren't gluons just coupled Quark anti-quark pairs that have different color and anti-colors?

They have observed massive stars being thrown around a small concentration of matter at high speeds in the center of the milky way. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its a fucking duck. Of course we cant observe black holes directly because they emit no light by definition, but we have observed their effects many times over in the form of gravitational lensing and enormous gravity wells with no star at the center. Dark matter and dark energy though, i will admit, could easily be bullshit.

No, those are pions branlet and they're color neutral.

>Dark matter has no such model.
Dark matter doesn't have an analytic model because structure growth in the universe is non-linear. For the same reason you can't write down a model of all the baryonic matter in the universe, you have to simulate. What you can do however is simulate it and dark matter is incredibly well behaved because it is extremely simple. This is how people knew what to look for and this is how the standard cosmological model, Lambda Cold Dark Matter can be compared to observations. You can also write down linear models for large scales and the background evolution of the universe.

>MACHOs so far have accounted for about half (30% according to Wikipedia)
That's not even close to true. The current upper limit from microlensing surveys is 8%, that's a maximum value, not a detection.

arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607207

>maybe it's not some exotic WIMPs?
It's not believed to be normal matter because of two independent lines of evidence. Firstly primordial nucleosynthesis fails wildly to match the observed abundances of elements if one tries to force all matter to be baryonic matter. Secondly observatons of the cosmic microwave background powerspectrum (pic related) are sensitive to both the normal baryonic matter and the total matter independently, you don't fit the data if you set them as equal. Something like a neutron star is made of normal matter which would have been present in the early universe and contribute to both these tests.

Interesting, thx for the replies
I was just going off what I learned in one lecture on intro astronomy

The world is accelerating because of electromagnetic fields distort time.

More radiowaves fast the outside moves.

> saturn
> poles

not world, outerspace

Why the homophobia?

> Posting irrelevant things to disguise the fact that you are bad at science
> Non-human Animals doing something means it's good

Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you, tranny.

I swear there are only like 3 people who post this shit constantly.