Dark matter denialists BTFO!!!!

spacetelescope.org/news/heic1806/
Dark matter denialists BTFO!!!!

Attached: heic1806a.jpg (733x300, 73K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/_P1xKh_kZFU?t=599
space.com/40119-ghostly-galaxy-almost-no-dark-matter.html
space.com/33850-weird-galaxy-is-mostly-dark-matter.html

>Scientists discover Galaxy without Dark Matter
Wait, how the fuck do they even know that when we don't even know what Dark Matter is supposed to be?

>we
yikes...

We don't know what dark matter is but we can measure its effects.

Клёвый peвepc бpaтaн.

Give me one good reason why dark matter is not exactly like luminiferous aether (i.e. fake)

Because its effect have been measured over and over. Attempts to detect the effect of aether failed every time. Read a book, retard.

Give me one good reason why Dark Energy isn't just Zero-Point Energy

There isn't enough energy in Zero-Point Energy.

Because the predicted gravitational effect of vacuum energy is much greater than the observed effect of dark energy.

Give me one good reason why Dark Matter isn't just the Aether reloaded?

dark matter is real because you touch yourself at night

youtu.be/_P1xKh_kZFU?t=599

I thought dark matter was auppose to explain how a galaxy can even stay together. This new galaxy does not challenge the idea at all so whats the autism about?

If there werent a force keeping it together, it wouldn't even be a blob. In fact it probably should have more dark matter than not.

Alternatively it could be a galaxy who's black hole had evaporated, thereby ejecting everything that has ever fallen into it. This seems suspect though, since it would have needed to be a small galaxy initially, as galactic black holes are predicted to last [math]1 × 10^100[/math] years, not really within the timescale of even the current age of the universe.

So what, is it more likely this is just an extremely young galaxy that does not have a noteable galactic center?

Or more likely its just fake nasa photoshop bullshit like all the other times it's always been because liars are fucking shit at keeping their stories straight.

>I thought dark matter was auppose to explain how a galaxy can even stay together. This new galaxy does not challenge the idea at all so whats the autism about?
>If there werent a force keeping it together, it wouldn't even be a blob. In fact it probably should have more dark matter than not.
Sorta.
You could look at this galaxy as even more evidence for Dark Matter as the galaxy hasn't congealed. It's lacking a lot of mass that most other galaxies have which means it is also lacking a lot of gravity. Because the force of gravity is much weaker than usual the galaxy hasn't pulled together, and is an example of what other galaxies would be like if there was no Dark Matter that was adding to their mass.

Dark Matter is just the label for the gravitational effects we can see in galaxies that are not covered by the amount of visible mass we can see. Just recently, like this last week, there have been announcements that a galaxy with almost no Dark Matter effects has been found, along with a galaxy that shows, like, 99% of it is dark matter. SO... the big point of this is... it seems on the surface that it is not missing mathematical term in our current physical equations. It may really be something that is physically present (or missing) in galaxies that we just haven't been able to detect with our instruments yet.

Both ends of the scale are being represented now. New mysteries, new clues!

a galaxy with almost no dark matter (march 28, 2018)
space.com/40119-ghostly-galaxy-almost-no-dark-matter.html

a galaxy whose gravity is almost 99.99% dark matter (august 26, 2016)
space.com/33850-weird-galaxy-is-mostly-dark-matter.html

>This new galaxy does not challenge the idea at all so whats the autism about?
Why don't you read the fucking article before commenting, you retarded faggot?
> Although counterintuitive, the existence of a galaxy without dark matter negates theories that try to explain the Universe without dark matter being a part of it [3]: The discovery of NGC 1052-DF2 demonstrates that dark matter is somehow separable from galaxies. This is only expected if dark matter is bound to ordinary matter through nothing but gravity.

>it seems on the surface that it is not missing mathematical term in our current physical equations. It may really be something that is physically present (or missing) in galaxies that we just haven't been able to detect with our instruments yet.
Precisely this.

someone get mike mculloch some tissues he's going to be butthurt after this

>Our models and empirical observations have no relationship to each other
>let's just make up numbers until they do

We'll there's nothing wrong with postulating theories user...

are you telling me there is a galaxy with three orders of magnitude more gravity than it should have by current models?

Only real scientists like me can see this is a real image, way too hard to fake trust me.

Attached: itsreal.jpg (1257x512, 59K)

This is really strange. Seems like the next thing to do would be to index galaxies by their ratio of normal matter to dark matter and start looking for correlations.

Is there a black hole at the "core" of this galaxy?

Of course.
A super massive one at that.

I mean that's what DM is, a fudge factor that's literally the difference between what we predict vs observations. It's entirely plausible that our observations are at fault, not the models.

>It's entirely plausible that our observations are at fault, not the models.
It's entirely plausible that our observations are at fault because we cannot observe some of the material yet.
And now we're back to dark matter.

Yes, pretty cool, eh?
Yours is an excellent idea!