Dark Matter Hiding in the Margins, dialup warning for one picture

[HysteryDiagnosis]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090827margins.htm Rest of article at link



Astronomers and astrophysicists are so keen to identify cold dark matter that almost any argument is accepted in the physics journals and the popular science media without apparent critical reasoning.
A recently published paper in the Journal of Physics A by Adler (2008) calculates the maximum amount of cold dark matter that must be present in the space between the Laser Geodynamics Satellites (LAGEOS) and the Moon’s orbit. Adler asserts that there is at most the equivalent to 4 x 10^-9 of Earth’s mass of dark matter in that volume (2.4 x 10^16 kilograms).

This scientific journal article was reported on the Scientific American and the American Scientist websites, among others. Unfortunately, the writers and editors seem not to have read the original paper and were more concerned with sensational headlines about dark matter than responsible science reporting. Still worse, the editor of the Journal of Physics A didn’t seem to pay much attention to the paper.

What Adler does is deceptively straightforward. He uses published measurements for the gravitational parameter (GM in units of kg^3/s^2, the product of the gravitational constant G and the object’s mass) for the Earth alone, the Moon alone, and the Earth and Moon combined. After subtracting the values for the Earth alone and the Moon alone from the value of the two combined, what is left must be dark matter.

Adler's value for the combined GM parameter is 403503.2357 ± 0.0014. His value for the Earth alone is 398600.4356 ± 0.0008, and his value for the Moon alone is 4902.8000 ± 0.0003. Each of these gravitational parameters is derived using a different method with different sets of assumptions, and are then "tweaked" in different ways (with implicit assumptions) before the final calculations. In the end, Adler finds the GM for dark matter to be 0.0001±0.0016. By dividing this value by the GM for the Earth, the result is a ratio of (0.3 ± 4) x 10^-9. Based on that result, he asserts that there must be a mass of dark matter less than 4 x 10^-9 times that of the Earth in that volume of space (G assumed to be a constant).

[burrowowl]

1. Fascinating!

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. Yeah.... those cosmological heretics over at Thunderbolts sure

do spend a lot of time thinking about nothing, or at least that's what I've been told.

[truedelphi]

4. Good for them.

I remember some ten years ago, the scientists who were so very respected about "genetic material" and DNA came out with the fact that according to their analysis, much of the DNA they examined was "junk matter" that was unimportant and wasn't needed.

Boy, a few years later that all changed. The "nothing"ness stuff is important indeed.

So it is esy to imagine that the same story exists in the world of the Big "Respected"Physicists as well.

[BlueJazz]

3. Interesting article. ...although 24 trillion tons of matter seems like enough matter....

...to affect objects like satellites.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. "It’s difficult to know where to start with a critique of the Scientific American article."

I guess that's why then the Electric Universe nuts fail to come up with any real critique, besides ad hominems and non sequitors.

"Twenty-four trillion metric tons is not even a very big asteroid."

"It’s not even in the top 10 of asteroid masses."

Well, which is it? There are thousands of asteroids out there, only ten of which are the top ten.

"So how this is meant to explain spacecraft orbital anomalies is not clear. "

Um. Gravity. That explains it. It's not a lot of mass, no. But it's not a very big anomaly either.

"By definition, dark matter does not interact with “regular” matter."

By definition, dark matter has gravity, which interacts with regular matter. That's the whole point of dark matter.

"The Electric Universe model uses observational data of electrical currents in space to propose hypotheses about these temperature anomalies"

One of the number of reasons Electric Universe is wrong.

"Comparing this to Adler’s ideas, how would dark matter collisions preferentially heat the North and South poles"

Do the real scientists make this claim?

"As Wal Thornhill discussed in "A Mystery Solved," in the weak but steady electric field of the Sun negatively charged spacecraft will experience a small “anomalous” acceleration toward the Sun."

If the sun is positively charged as Thornhill claims, why do negative particles move away from the sun?

"Those employed by our scientific establishment, as well as scientific reporters, should be held to a high standard of critical thinking."

Belief in "The Electric Universe" requires the total abandonment of critical thinking.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. ...

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. How's that bar magnet thing working out for you?? Sorry, I thought

you read my sig and forgot to respond.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. I responded to your error when you spammed the science forum.

The current of a bar magnet is zero.

The claim that a magnetic field requires the flow of electricity is false.

That's why it's so easy to figure out the Electric Universe nuts know nothing about science.

Oh, here's another new error: electrons do not revolve around nuclei like planets in a fixed orbit.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

9. Moving charged particles create magnetic fields, call it what you

want, but moving particles equals flow. They might not be flowing anywhere in particular but move they do. If they stop the field does as well. Semantics can be such a trying thing for the faint of heart.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. What's the current of a stationary single electron?

It's got a magnetic field, but no current.

Your problem is that you've made a fundamental error at the beginning, and you can't admit you're wrong.

Really, did you make this up yourself, or did you actually solicit a response from one of your Electric Universe heroes who then made it up for you?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

11. Your just jealous cuz you don't have your own website full of

pseudoscientific babble. You can get a domain name pretty cheap these days.

No one mentioned stationary anything here except you. Charged particles in motion produce a magnetic field, not too hard to understand. Electrons in motion create magnetic fields. If you want to talk about stationary electrons then do so in some other thread that specifically is dedicated to stationary electrons. This thread ain't that one.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Why would I want a website full of pseudscientific babble?

"Charged particles in motion produce a magnetic field, not too hard to understand. Electrons in motion create magnetic fields. "

Agreed. There are also magnetic fields produced without any electric current whatsoever. Bar magnets, for example.

"If you want to talk about stationary electrons then do so in some other thread that specifically is dedicated to stationary electrons."

You're the one that wanted to continue the losing argument that magnetic fields require an electric current. Feel free to admit you're wrong any time you'd like.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

13. When I see parsec scale bar magnets in space I will give you

what you want. Until then, save it for those who don't know.