Intelligent Design

Is Dark Matter the 21st Century Aether?

Spread the love

No, according to this article, which states that “the aether was a theoretical idea that never found experimental support.”  It goes on to state:

Aether was a concept introduced by physicists for theoretical reasons, which died because its experimental predictions were ruled out by observation. Dark matter and dark energy are the opposite: they are concepts that theoretical physicists never wanted, but which are forced on us by the observations.

This seems to be exactly wrong.  The aether (or the “luminous aether” as it is sometimes called), was, of course, never observed.  Why then was its existence presumed?  Simple.  Certain observations (the wave-like properties of electro-magnetic radiation in particular) seemed to demand its existence.  The reasoning went like this:  Waves are propagated through a medium.  For example, the waves in the ocean are propagated through the water.  The vacuum of space is obviously not a medium through which waves can be propagated.  Therefore, we infer that there is an unknown unobserved medium out there propagating the electro-magnetic waves through space, and we’ll call that medium the aether.  The aether was never observed (obviously); rather its existence was inferred based on an assumption.

The aether did not die though experimental falsification.  It died when scientists realized (after Einstein) that their inference based on their assumption was wrong, because the assumption was unwarranted – there was no need for a medium through which electro-magnetic radiation could be propagated.

Is this like dark matter?**  Certainly the possibility cannot be ruled out.  Like aether, dark matter has never been observed.  This despite the feverish efforts of thousands of scientists spending billions of dollars over decades of research in attempts to discover even a single particle of the elusive stuff.

If dark matter has never been observed, then why do scientists insist that it exists?  Because their theoretical models demand it.  Again, like aether, the existence of the stuff is based not on direct observation but on an indirect inference from other observations.

It is obvious that one of two things is correct:

(1) Dark matter is not like the aether.  The inferences are sound because the assumptions on which those inferences are based are warranted.  Yes, dark matter is elusive and we may never actually detect a particle of it despite our best efforts, but (like the truth in the X Files) it is out there.

Or

(2) Dark matter is exactly like the aether.  The inferences are unsound because the assumptions are unwarranted, and we are waiting for the discovery of a new fundamental principle of physics, a new annus mirabilis from a new Einstein if you like, to tell us what that new, previously unknown, principle is.

My money is on (2), because for all of the elegance and explanatory power of the standard model (at large scales) and quantum mechanics (at small scales), we can be absolutely certain about one thing.  They are wrong (or at least incomplete) in at least one particular.  How can I be so sure?  Easy, because even the most ardent supporters of the theories admit that certain of their conclusions are currently irreconcilable.  This means that one is wrong or the other is correct or they are both wrong.  As a matter of simple logic, they cannot both be correct.

I predict that 50 years from now, give or take, scientists will wonder at the credulousness of today’s scientists in the same way that today’s scientists wonder at the credulousness of the scientists of the 19th century.  After all, both today’s scientists and the 19th century scientists have insisted on the existence pervasive throughout the entire universe of an invisible substance that has never been directly directed.

__________

**This post discusses dark matter.  The same analysis is applicable to dark energy.

54 Replies to “Is Dark Matter the 21st Century Aether?

  1. 1
    News says:

    Is it a bit like cooking the books in accounting?

  2. 2
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: (2) Dark matter is exactly like the aether.

    Not quite. Aether was an extraneous entity. It was never necessary to explain the observations. On the other hand, visible matter is not moving according to well-supported gravitational theory. There is also evidence from gravitational lensing and the cosmic background. Something is missing which is posited to be dark matter with a specific distribution. There is some theoretical support from quantum physics.

    It could be something else, but no other theory has been able to explain the observations.

  3. 3
    Tamara Knight says:

    Your prediction is wrong Barry, unless you intend to resort to semantics. I am reminded of a quote from the British comedy show Blackadder.

    Crone: Two things, my lord, must thee know of the Wisewoman. First, she is … a woman! …and second, she is …
    Edmund: Wise?

    Whatever science might subsequently call it, it will still be matter and will still be dark. Credulousness does not come into it. There may well indeed turn out to be no “Dark Matter”, but only in just the same way that no electric current is required to flow to get my computer to operate and post this message. Boy do those electrons move about a bit though.

  4. 4
    Axel says:

    Come back astrology, all is forgiven. This is what will be happening more and more, now that the boundary of physics at the macro level (seemingly) and the micro level (certainly) have been reached, and ‘matter’ debouches into the great spiritual matrix – in both cases.

    In Niels Bohr’s words:

    ‘We conclude [wrongly] that if religion does indeed deal with objective truths, it ought to adopt the same criteria of truth as science. But I myself find the division of the world into an objective and subjective side much too arbitrary. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer.’

    Materialists’ wilful myopia reminds me of Lloyd George’s comment on Chamberlain’s perspective on foreign policy, to the effect that it was as if he were looking at foreign policy through the wrong end of a municipal drain-pipe.

  5. 5
    Barry Arrington says:

    Zachriel

    Aether was an extraneous entity. It was never necessary to explain the observations.

    You don’t seem to understand the history of aether. Of course it was never necessary to explain the observations, but this was understood only in retrospect. At the time (for reasons explained in the OP), it was considered absolutely necessary to explain the observations. They did not make it up for no reason after all.

    Something is missing which is posited to be dark matter with a specific distribution.

    Yes, just as the 19th century scientists thought something was missing, i.e., a medium through which the waves could be propagated.

    It turned out they were wrong.

  6. 6
    Brent says:

    I thought you were going to say that dark matter is simply what the aether IS; its new name if you will. I don’t know why not. Has it been experimentally proven that waves can travel through a vacuum, by which we seem in context to mean, literally, nothing? That can’t possibly be the case. And it seems that reason says it is in fact impossible.

  7. 7
    SteRusJon says:

    Zachriel,

    The, then existing, well supported theory of wave propagation seemed to demand an aether. The, current, well supported theory of gravity seems to demand an additional source of gravity. It may be that the gravity-only perspective is the flaw. As with wave propagation requiring a medium, maybe there is more going on than just gravity driving the universe.

    Stephen

  8. 8
    Mapou says:

    Zachriel:

    On the other hand, visible matter is not moving according to well-supported gravitational theory.

    There never was a gravitational theory. Physicists still have no clue as to what causes gravity. Heck, they have no clue as to what causes everyday inertial motion. The ignorance of physicists is deep, insidious and in your face, not unlike Darwinists.

  9. 9
    Zachriel says:

    SteRusJon: The, then existing, well supported theory of wave propagation seemed to demand an aether.

    The aether added nothing to the explanation.

    SteRusJon: The, current, well supported theory of gravity seems to demand an additional source of gravity.

    Not just an additional source of gravitational force, but a specific distribution of the force subject to investigation.

    SteRusJon: It may be that the gravity-only perspective is the flaw. As with wave propagation requiring a medium, maybe there is more going on than just gravity driving the universe.

    Sure. Most anything is possible. Dark matter is just a hypothesis, though one that is subject to investigation. However, waving in the general direction of it’s something else doesn’t constitute a testable hypothesis.

    Mapou: There never was a gravitational theory.

    Centuries of scientists would disagree. But whaddatheyknow.

  10. 10
    Mung says:

    Zachriel: It could be something else, but no other theory has been able to explain the observations.

    Billions and billions of tiny little angels.

  11. 11
    Mapou says:

    Zachriel:

    Mapou: There never was a gravitational theory.

    Centuries of scientists would disagree. But whaddatheyknow.

    Exactly. What do they know? Nothing is what they know. Zilch. Nobody has the flimsiest clue as to what causes gravity. That’s right. Nobody knows the mechanism of gravity, Zachriel’s empty and pompous pretensions notwithstanding.

    Newton, unlike our modern day prevaricating relativists, had the humility (and he was not known for being very humble) to admit that he had no clue. He could only say “hypotheses non fingo.”

  12. 12
    ppolish says:

    “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”

    Aether, ether, neo-ether, dark matter.

  13. 13
    SteRusJon says:

    Zachriel,

    At the time, wave propagation was understood to require a medium. As Barry pointed out to you, a point all of you seem to want to ignore, the propagation of light without a medium was incomprehensible. The current consensus theory dispenses with the need of a medium. Alternative theories, which I am quite sure in your multitudinous opinion are pseudoscience, do postulate that wave propagation requires a medium, albeit with different properties than the former aether.

    I did not broach what it is that I think is the missing ingredient in the anomaly that has spawned the dark matter proposal, because your majesty is not interested in any non-mainstream proposals whatsoever. You are so wedded to yours faith in the current consensus science tomfoolery, it is laughable. Almost as funny as yous egotistical self-referential “we.”

    When you stated “Not just an additional source of gravitational force, but a specific distribution of the force subject to investigation.” I thought to myself, “What a bunch of jerks!” Don’t they know that the undetectable can be imagined to have any distribution that is needed to fit the data to the theory? These guys think that an undetected entity with unknown properties and unknown origin can be shown to have just the right distribution to solve the problem presented by the anomalous behavior. At the same implying that no other proposal has been put forth that can have a configuration and properties to serve as a suitable explanation.

    There is much in consensus science that is mistaken. The small voices of dissent are drowned out by the likes of the worshipful multitudinous you.

    Furthermore, Mapou is absolutely correct. Nobody knows what gravity is. Sure, mathematical calculations can pinpoint the interception of a probe with a distant celestial body with great precision, but we do not really have any idea why it works that way. Newton knew as much. Warping of space under relativity is nothing more than an interpretation of the equations that allow greater precision than Newton’s equations could provide. In fact, nobody knows what space is, much less how you can warp it. All we really have is equations that allow us to calculate with some precision what will happen in the world at some future time. We do not know what it is that makes up reality at base.

    Stephen

  14. 14
    Barry Arrington says:

    Mapau @ 11.

    Z has committed a common error. He has reified the abstract concept of gravity and attributed casual powers to the reified concept. It is easy to fall into that hole, and we should all watch out for it.

  15. 15
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: He has reified the abstract concept of gravity and attributed casual powers to the reified concept.

    Not at all. The claim is that “There never was a gravitational theory” is false. All scientists, then and now, consider Newton’s Theory of Gravity to be a scientific theory even though he didn’t propose an explanation for the existence of gravity. What Newton provided was an explanation of *how* it works.

  16. 16
    Mung says:

    We don’t know what matter is, we don’t know what energy is, we don’t know what gravity is, but we know how it all works!

    Who needs an explanation?

  17. 17
    Mapou says:

    Zachriel:

    What Newton provided was an explanation of *how* it works.

    Not true. Newton never explained how anything works. He simply used equations to precisely describe the motion of bodies under gravitational attraction.

    Newton did not consider his work on gravity to be a “theory” of gravity or even a hypothesis. This is why he said “hypotheses, non fingo.” Newton simply used math to organize the mountain of experimental data obtained from observing the movement of planets and the acceleration of bodies. This data had been accumulating for centuries before him. Newton was brilliant enough to recognize a certain pattern in the data and he invented a mathematical way to formalize it. That is all.

    Edit: typos

  18. 18
    Barry Arrington says:

    Mapou, give Z a break. He does not seem capable of understanding your point.

  19. 19
    Zachriel says:

    Mapou: This is why he said “hypotheses, non fingo.”

    Newton: “I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses.”

    That was specific to the reason why gravity acts as it does. Newton proposed a theory of only how gravity works, not why it exists. That does not mean he didn’t propose a scientific theory of gravity.

    Mapou: Newton was brilliant enough to recognize a certain pattern in the data and he invented a mathematical way to formalize it. That is all.

    Newton’s insight was far more beyond that. His theory included the notion that the same force that causes the apple to fall also explains the orbits of the planets.

    Barry Arrington: Mapou, give Z a break. He does not seem capable of understanding your point.

    Mapou’s point is clear. Newton did not explain why gravity existed. He only explained how it worked. And Mapou is correct on that point.

    Where Mapou was wrong was when he said “There never was a gravitational theory.” For centuries, Newton’s work on gravity has been considered the exemplar of a scientific theory. That suggests that Mapou is not using the term “theory” correctly, but is using a special and personal definition.

  20. 20
    Box says:

    Zach: Newton proposed a theory of only how gravity works, not why it exists. That does not mean he didn’t propose a scientific theory of gravity.

    Zach, a ‘theory of gravity’ would be an attempt to define gravity. Such a theory would state what gravity is.
    You conflate a ‘theory of the workings of gravity’ with a ‘theory of gravity’.
    IOW it’s not about ‘why gravity exists’, it’s about ‘what is gravity’.

  21. 21
    ppolish says:

    “Dark Matter” was hypothesized to account for the way galaxies spin. Hubble the man and his red shift blue shift measurements threw a spanner in the works of galaxy spin predictions. Predictions because we really don’t see them spinning.

    So now there is a new study regarding Galaxy spin. “Surprising result”:

    https://public.nrao.edu/news/pressreleases/galaxy-magnetic-field

    Maybe once we truly understand spin, “Dark Matter” will not be required? It will go the way of the aether. Or maybe it will be discovered in the current LHC run.

  22. 22
    daveS says:

    Mapou (or anyone),

    Does a theory of electromagnetism exist?

  23. 23
    Mapou says:

    daveS:

    Does a theory of electromagnetism exist?

    There is a semblance of an EM theory. It explains EM in terms of the interactions between certain types of charged particles (electrons, protons, photons, etc.) and in terms of their properties. Gravity (Newtonian or Einsteinian), by contrast, is not a theory of physics because it offers no such explanation. A few people conjecture about the existence of gravitons (more fluffy unicorns among the tulips) and such but none of that stuff is accepted by anybody.

    Newton could not even properly explain the concept of force. Modern physics explains force as an exchange of virtual or real particles. Not much of an explanation, true. But it can at least pass as a physical theory.

  24. 24
    bFast says:

    I find the sudden interest in dark matter to be very confusing. The thing I find cool about dark matter is that the scientific community (physicists) offers no explanation for it. It is a matter of humility on their part. If we use one method of measuring the amount of mass in the universe we get one answer, if we use another method we get a different answer. Ultimately the community of physicists say “we don’t know”. What humility. It is this humility that I would like to see in the community of evolutionary biologists. These guys have a stupid theory that does a terrible job of fitting with the data — yet they declare that they’ve got it in the bag.

  25. 25
    SteRusJon says:

    Serendipitously, ppolish posted a link about galactic magnetic fields.

    Per Maxwell’s equations, magnetic fields are always associated with electric currents. Steady magnetic fields with steady electric currents and changing magnetic fields with changing electric currents. Question: Where are the electric currents? From the link “…a magnetic field coiled around the galaxy’s main spiral arm.” Apply the right hand rule from your elementary physics course. Electromagnetic forces are 10^39 times more powerful than gravitational forces. Follow the trail.

    Zachriel- hint, hint.

    Stephen

  26. 26
    SteRusJon says:

    bFast,

    We are told all the time, with no hint of doubt or uncertainty, that the universe is mostly dark stuff. Their declarations do not spring from humility. They explode from hubris.

    Stephen

  27. 27
    Mapou says:

    Zachriel:

    Where Mapou was wrong was when he said “There never was a gravitational theory.” For centuries, Newton’s work on gravity has been considered the exemplar of a scientific theory. That suggests that Mapou is not using the term “theory” correctly, but is using a special and personal definition.

    Newtonian gravitation is a direct consequence of Newton’s earlier work on motion, forces, mass and acceleration. They are all tedious engineering work that uses math to quantify the observation and careful measurements of various types of motion.

    The main difference between Newton’s earlier work and his work on gravity is that the gravitational force accelerates all bodies equally, regardless of mass. In this light, Newton and even Galileo already had the beginning of an understanding that the gravitational attraction of a body had very little to do with its mass. So even massless light particles can be influenced by gravity. But this was not a prediction derived from Newtonian physics. Other people had already observed this phenomenon long before Newton. Newton merely formalized it.

    Saying that Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity are theories is like saying that geometry or geography are theories.

    PS. By the way, Zachriel. I am not your dog and I am not the dog of the scientific establishment. Saying “For centuries, Newton’s work on gravity has been considered the exemplar of a scientific theory.” is like saying “these people believe in unicorns and so should you.” The scientific establishment can kiss my you-know-what.

  28. 28
    55rebel says:

    “It could be something else, but no other theory has been able to explain the observations.”

    Well… except the EU theory. 😛
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

    It has yet to miss….

  29. 29
    mahuna says:

    The death of Ether had NOTHING to do with Einstein, and EVERYTHING to do with Michelson-Morley, who proved by experimentation that there was no “ether wind” and that the speed of light was constant.

    I don’t know why people want to give Einstein credit for everything. He did some VERY simply algebra with the Lorentz transformations and then offered some theoretical ideas about what the transformations as a set implied about the universe. But it was Lorentz who said that travel faster than the speed of light was impossible (because the mass of the object being accelerated would reach infinity and require infinite energy to accelerate the last kilometer per second). Einstein started by assuming Lorentz was right in all cases.

  30. 30
    Zachriel says:

    Mapou: Newtonian gravitation is a direct consequence of Newton’s earlier work on motion, forces, mass and acceleration.

    Newton had the theoretical insight about universal gravitation, then developed the maths to provide the support.

    Mapou: The main difference between Newton’s earlier work and his work on gravity is that the {a} gravitational force accelerates all bodies equally, regardless of mass.

    g = GM/R^2. It depends on the mass of the attracting body.

    Mapou: So even massless light particles can be influenced by gravity. But this was not a prediction derived from Newtonian physics.

    A gravitational force of an attracting body accelerates equally, regardless of the mass being attracted. Newton noted this in his Opticks in 1704.

    Mapou: Saying that Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity are theories is like saying that geometry or geography are theories.

    Forcing your personal definition onto a term doesn’t constitute an argument.

  31. 31
    Zachriel says:

    mahuna: {Einstein} did some VERY simply algebra with the Lorentz transformations and then offered some theoretical ideas about what the transformations as a set implied about the universe.

    While the algebra of Special Relativity is straightforward, E = mc^2 and time dilation are hardly trivial. Then there’s General Relativity, which is hardly simple.

  32. 32
    Mung says:

    Wait, so now gravity is a force again? When did that happen?

  33. 33
    butifnot says:

    “These galaxies are not spinning the way we say they are supposed to!”

  34. 34
    butifnot says:

    Does anyone remember the experimental hours of Michelson-Morley? I believe it was on the order of 10. Surely this level of scientific work would be a hundreds of hours, years long investigation. And they did not get a null result. There was a scientist who continued their work for I think 20 years with better equipment in different conditions such as altitude and found a consistent result. He was burned at the stake I believe JK!

  35. 35
    butifnot says:

    Some laughs for those in the EU.
    ‘Solar Wind’ lol
    ‘Bow Shock’
    ‘Magnetic Reconnection’
    ‘Nozzles in Space’
    ‘Compression Waves in Nebulae’

  36. 36
    ppolish says:

    Michelson-Morley could not detect Aether particles. Big deal. LHC could not detect Dark Matter particles. Maybe Aether is even more elusive than Dark Matter. Maybe Aether IS Dark Matter. Aether lives!

  37. 37
    SteRusJon says:

    Hello there, 55rebel!
    Hello to you as well, butifnot!

    Stephen

  38. 38
    SteRusJon says:

    Zachriel,

    “g = GM/R^2. It depends on the mass of the attracting body.”

    While that is true, Mapou’s point went whizzing right by you. Before Galileo, it was thought that the acceleration of an object depended on its weight. He demonstrated that, neglecting friction, light objects accelerated at the same rate as heavier ones. Don’t be so quick to contradict and try to understand the poster’s point.

    Stephen

  39. 39
    Mapou says:

    SteRusJon,

    Zachriel is a demon-possessed professional deceiver. He’s trying to hide the fact that, centuries after Newton, both he and the physics community are as 100% clueless about the mechanism of gravity as Newton and Aristotle were.

    The ignorance of physicists is deep, shameful and in your face. From this deep ignorance, they conjure up all sorts of voodoo crap like time travel, spacetime, wormholes, black holes, big bangs, parallel universes, accelerated expansion, dark matter, dark energy, etc. It’s painful to even think about it. And this is from a group of people who have no idea what causes something as basic as inertial motion.

    One of the funniest thing about relativists is their insistence that absolute motion is a myth and that only relative motion exists. Never mind that this immediately creates a ridiculous self-referential system for now. The other glaring problem is that, even though they accept that nothing can go faster than light, the very word ‘relative’ assumes instantaneous communication between the related entities over a distance.

    Modern physics is sitting on a mountain of shit. It’s scary. And don’t even get me started on the fact that nothing can move in spacetime.

    ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…

  40. 40
    SteRusJon says:

    Mapou,

    While I have some quibbles with some of what you have to say, I am in agreement with much of what you listed as being BS. Early in the twentieth century, physics made a number of wrong turns and now the indiscipline is way out in left field and has no clue as to how lost it is. The supercilious Zachriel seems to prefer to find some nit-picky point to contradict so as to display his intellectual prowess, rather than seek to understand and engage in a conversation. I am by nature, I believe, a gracious and forgiving person. But, he has pushed my buttons so often with his antics that I fear I am joining you on the dark side. Am I welcome there?

    Stephen

  41. 41
    skram says:

    SteRusJon,

    Could you describe your level of familiarity with the discipline of physics?

    Thank you!

  42. 42
    SteRusJon says:

    skram,

    Life-long and surely not lettered enough for most lettered people’s liking.

    Now you have all the information you need to disregard anything I have to say.

    Stephen

  43. 43
    Mung says:

    Being widely conversant should not be confused with intellectual prowess.

  44. 44
    SteRusJon says:

    re: intellectual prowess

    I was projecting his majesty’s perspective. Not my own.

  45. 45
    Mung says:

    For I here design only to give a mathematical notion of those forces, without considering their physical causes and seats.

    – Isaac Newton

  46. 46
    Zachriel says:

    SteRusJon: Early in the twentieth century, physics made a number of wrong turns and now the indiscipline is way out in left field and has no clue as to how lost it is.

    Early twentieth century physics means Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory, both highly successful scientific theories. Physicists just recently confirmed the 1960s predictions of the Higgs boson.
    http://press.web.cern.ch/press.....iggs-boson

  47. 47
    Mapou says:

    Zachriel:

    Early twentieth century physics means Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory, both highly successful scientific theories.

    That’s because only the successes are mentioned in the textbooks. The failures are rarely talked about. Relativity makes all kinds of not so hidden but silly predictions that are complete howlers. For examples:

    1. Gravity inside a particle is infinite (inverse square law). Wrong.
    2. A block universe, i.e., motion does not exist. Laughable.
    3. 100% deterministic reality. Not even wrong.
    4. 100% continuous reality. Wronger.
    5. Time travel within a wormhole inside a block universe. Silly does not do it justice.
    6. Singularities. Stupid is as stupid does.

    PS. ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…

  48. 48
    Mung says:

    Is Dark Matter the 21st Century Aether?

    Aether it is, or it aethern’t

  49. 49
    Mapou says:

    Paul Feyerabend was right when he wrote in Against Method, “the most stupid procedures and the most laughable result in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down to size and to give them a lower position in society.”

    No more brie and goose liver pate for you, Zachriel. 😀

  50. 50
    skram says:

    SteRusJon,

    I don’t care about letters after your name, I am wondering how well you understand that which you criticize.

    Can you explain what is wrong with Newton’s theory of gravity? Let’s compare it to electrostatics, a very similar theory that also postulates an inverse-square-law for forces between electric charges.

    Similarly, what is wrong with Einstein’s theory of gravity? Compare it to classical electrodynamics, which has a similar structure: charges interact with a field.

    Thanks.

  51. 51
    SteRusJon says:

    skram,

    I do not have time to provide all the rational for my conclusions about the deficiencies of modern physics. I am already way behind on a paying gig. So just a brief comment.

    Newton’s formulation of a “law” of gravity is excellent. He was insightful in connecting the local phenomenon of falling objects in his immediate environment with the celestial motions as tracked by Tycho and formulated by Kepler. It is not, however, a theory that explains the “Why?” bodies attract each other. It was not meant to be. It is valuable as a predictive tool since it allows for the calculation of the energies and motions of interacting bodies.

    I think, when the dust settles on what the “Why?” is, it will be found that gravity is a lower order effect of electrodynamics. That will leave the root question of “Why electrodynamics?”

    I can never write enough, well enough, to convince you or anyone else that there some errors in the foundation of modern physics. I simply think that, if you are willing to investigate, you will find there are many very bright people, working well out of the mainstream, that are picking away at the foundations of the edifice. There are enough ignored anomalies and surprising observations to justify some doubt. There are under-explored alternatives to the current scheme that explain the anomalies and expect the observations that should be considered. That may mean that, instead of sewing on another dark patch, modern physics may need revisit some of the early twentieth century decisions.

    Back to work for me,
    Stephen

  52. 52
    cantor says:

    Consider two spherical particles of identical radius “r” and constant density “d” touching each other.

    The volume “v” of each particle is (4/3)*pi*r^3.

    The mass “m” of each particle is d*(4/3)*pi*r^3.

    The distance “x” between the centers of mass of the two particles is 2*r.

    The gravitational force “f” between the two particles, per Newton, is given by:

    f = G*m*m/x^2 = G*(4/9)*pi^2*r^4

    … so as you consider particles of smaller and smaller radius, the gravitational force between them vanishes.

    There is no singularity.

  53. 53
    M. E. Ismaeel says:

    You can see both the solid theoretical proof as well as the experimental proof that show the Aether is the dark matter. Also, you can see the density of Aether or the dark matter. All those are in the presentation of my book titled; “The Last Chapter of the Symphony of Existence”. You can download this presentation free from the following link; http://slideplayer.com/slide/6277813/
    My E-mail: m.e.ismaeel@gmail.com
    I am ready to answer any question.

  54. 54
    Me_Think says:

    M. E. Ismaeel @ 53
    Don’t be ridiculous. Aether was supposed to be luminous medium pervading entire space, not localized , non-interacting particle – which is what dark matter is. Please read through Michelson & Morley experiments.

Leave a Reply