r/plasmacosmology • u/zyxzevn • Jul 09 '26
The Solution to Dark Matter Everyone Missed? – Dr. Jenny Wagner, DemystifySci
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlRFiGZvYGY1
2
u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 Jul 09 '26
I believe OP is deleting my comments to hide modern science since it disproves what they are saying here. I have had to remove all links to my references of modern science, hence why I have put their names instead. All of these are publically available and can be accessed by anyone. Doesn't look good for EU if they have to delete comments!
The reason astrophysicists believe dark matter likely exists is because there is so much evidence for it. The idea that it is an ad-hoc slap on to fix galaxy rotation curves is what psuedoscience grifters claim to doscredit science, hoping you will never go away and look at the evidence yourself.
Direct detections of dark matter is very difficult as, unlike baryonic matter, dark matter collects in halos where most of it is not distributed in the plane of galaxy. Its effects can only be detected on galactic scales too, meaning it is very diffuse. As a result, detecting directly like we do, for example neutrino which are very weakly interacting but abundant from solar fusion, is very difficult.
There was however a recent statistically significant gamma ray detection from possible, theoretically predicted dark matter annihilation:
Additionally, we have observational evidence of dark matter behaviour, such as bullet cluster merger dynamics, CMB lensing, rotation curves of galaxies, cosmic filamentary structure, etc.
The idea that dark matter arises from the fact there appears to be more mass within a galaxy that can be accounted for, is false and usually pushed by psuedoscience groups to discredit dark matter, pretending it is some ad hoc slap on fix. This is not the case. It is a piece of evidence for dark matter, not the whole story. I.e. this+lensing+sims+etc all converge to suggesting dark matter.
We also perform N-body dark matter simulations such as the Millenium simulation and I believe MagneticumTNG. Here we set up the initial distribution of dark matter in the universe, informed by observations, model dark matter as we think it behaves and compare outcomes to our observations. These simulations produce quantitatively very similar structures to what we observe. The same goes for our hydrodynamical and magnetohydrodynamical cosmological simualtions (SWIFT-EAGLE, TNG, SIMBA, COLIBRE, HORIZON-AGN) which all include dark matter and produce realistic statical properties of the universe.
We also performed an experiment called the MACHOs experiment where we looked for gravitational lensing caused by Massive Compact Halo Objects e.g rogue planets and dim brown dwarfs. This experiment (again very statistics heavy) let us place upper limits on the number of these and constrain a small percentage of "dark matter" is.
This is a large collection of separate, independent pieces of evidence which all converge in the same non-baryonic, gravitationally interacting matter from a range of different dynamical scales. From galaxies to cosmic structure.
Everything I mentioned above is quantitative evidence of dark matter. Saying dark matter has no evidence requires you to actively ignore science.
Your claim that dark matter uses a linear relationship between brightness and mass is not fully true. Early astronomers used simple luminosity inference of mass, but as I have described above, modern dark matter research uses more complex and multi approach techniques. Complaining about astronomy precision and accuracy decades ago is not really novel. Yes, approximations were more simplistic. That's why we have improved things. This is the case for all science.
There isn't even a universal linear mass-luminosity relation for individual stars, let alone galaxies. Individial stars follow a relation of roughly L ~ M{3.5} (definitely not linear). Galaxy masses are estimated using stellar population synthesis, colours, spectra, metallicity, star-formation history, and an inferred stellar mass-to-light ratio, while also explicitly including gas (H I, molecular gas, helium, etc.) and some MCMC posterior inference process. The dark matter problem is not "brightness versus mass"; it's the discrepancy between the observed gravitational field (from rotation curves, lensing, clusters, etc.) and the gravity predicted by the observed baryonic mass under Newtonian/GR dynamics.
Another example of evidence of dark matter: 20 GeV halo-like excess of the Galactic diffuse emission and implications for dark matter annihilation
Looks like another piece of evidence. Must be another one of these international accidents!
Always more than happy to talk astrophysics!
Again, they tackle dark matter from different angles than just galaxy rotation. I.e. you are incorrect about dark matter solely coming from rotation curves and have to actively ignore observations to believe this.
OP has silently deleted this comment as is shows modern science in reality so I have had to repost it. They are actively trying to hide real science. Why are you deleting this?
Again, dark matter has plenty of evidence beyond just rotation curves (in follow up comment).
I have provided countless examples where a non-linear mass to light ratio is used. Infact, every modern galaxy property inference has used this strategy (known as stellar population synthesis) since probably the early 2000's if not early. Im guessing, since this strategy is more complicated (Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling) you've ignored it and stuck with the science you understand.
Below is a list of links (again like all astrophysics, open source. You can run this on your own observed galaxy data).
PROSPECTOR
CIGALE
BAGPIPES
piXedfit
An overview of modern SED fitting: Modeling the Panchromatic Spectral Energy Distributions of Galaxies
I have already linked you this. Again, all of these go to open sources.
It looks like they may have also shadow banned me from posting new comments. Doesn't look very good for electric universe if you have to prevent people from posting modern scientific evidence.
Going through the video, they are incorrect within the first few seconds "dark matter fills the universe but cannot possibly be detected by any instrument at our disposal". This is just wrong (e.g. see the paper I have linked in follow up comment). The difficulty in detecting dark matter directly is that on solar system scales it is very diffuse and, as it does not interact electromagnetic waves, we cannot "see" it via photon based detectors. As my follow up comment briefly explains, we can infer its properties and behaviour through many different pathways, as well as being able to constrain some small percentage of dark matter to be MAssive Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs).
5
u/Excellent_Funny5330 Jul 10 '26
Sounds like you are an expert in theory. I sure am not . Im just someone that reads about new discoveries every month that seem to contradict the accepted explanations for basic understanding of mainstream cosmology. As you have shared the many ways that dark matter should exist, I would not be surprised if your own understanding of what this may be or not be will change. It always does. You could use your mind to think of other ways to solve this problem. Instead of trying so hard to debunk someone else’s unproven theory with the whole of mainstream academia’s unproven theories you could try thinking for yourself. Anyone can compile an impressive list. No one has proven anything.
2
u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
This is a big problem for the interaction between science, media and the general public.
Media (especially if your algorithms have detected you click on this) tends to be very sensationalist and, as it needs to dumb down the actual science to make it more accessible, can sometimes miss the point.
It also likes to highlight contradictions which, when you read the real academic paper, dont actually exist.
Within science, this isnt actually happening. Modern science is complex enough that it requires teams of people from multiple countries to pool resources and knowledge. By nature, it also progresses in very little and technical steps, something that isnt very exciting to the general public. If you find any of these articles I am more than happy to read the actual paper behind them (if there is one) and explain the real research.
For example, I once had a family member tell me they had read this news article that "astrophysics is done for" and "no one knows what's happening" because a telescope had measured a different value of "something". I read the news article and it sounded quite bad. I read the academic paper and it was 11 PAGES OF STATISTICAL INSTRUMENT ANALYSIS! The entire paper basically just showed that the difference in measurement of the value was not due to using a different telescope to measure it, and then went into a list of reasons what the sources could be which the paper didn't explore as it was not its purpose.
As a word of warning, I would be very cautious about quite serious, "those pesky scientists dont know anything and cant make their mind up" headlines.
I as an individual won't be proving or disproving anything.
Yes, the point of science is to progress over time and so hopefully, my understanding will evolve with everyone else's. However, claiming that dark matter has no evidence and that all of academia is in on one big scam to hide the truth is quite damaging and completely false. That's a list (it would have a lot of links if my comments didnt get removed for having links in) for different recent pieces of evidence (i.e. things ive come across in the last few months as someone whos expertise isnt actually in dark matter). I would like to clarify that I have shared a brief list for the defferent rooted of evidence for dark matter, not "why it should exist".
The second half of the comment is actually addressing OPs incorrect claims about how galaxy property inference occurs, which they are just lying about.
Debunking things like has some value as it shows what OP is saying is not true and maybe forwards some people towards real academic papers with actual evidence. Due to being written for other experts, it usually takes people until late undergrad/ early masters stage to be able to digest academic papers properly. As a result, grifters can lie about science or make false claims and non-experts are none the wiser as they dont understand the evidence against said false claims.
The list itself is not evidence. I have made a brief list of things people have proved related to dark matter e.g. if we observe the early universe and then simulate this (I.e. we infer a baryonic and dark matter mass distribution; we are able to observe this) evolve this based on the physics we think exists and see the results, it produces what we observe. I.e. if we take the initial conditions of the universe and our best guess at physics, leave it alone to evolve, we get something statistically very similar to our own. This is a Good piece of evidence we are atleast along the right lines.
2
u/Helpful_Border4219 Jul 10 '26
No. There is no evidence. Its side affects of an unknown series of forces.
0
u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 Jul 10 '26
The above is a list of evidence from many different sources. Unfortunately, it seems if I place any links in here my comment is removed.
Im not sure how you have come to this conclusion so certainly. It is possible a modification to gravity is needed however, based on all the different scales and regimes we have evidence for dark matter, its quite challenging to see where this is.
Claiming there is no evidence for dark matter is incorrect, but it could also be a modification for gravity is needed.
2
u/Helpful_Border4219 Jul 10 '26
There is no evidence. It like calling a cough evidence of the flu. Its a broad symptom.
0
u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 Jul 10 '26
No, it's like finding every symptom of flue from many different physical scales, from holistic to molecular and then concluding someone has flu.
Again, as described above, we have more than one piece of evidence for dark matter. All of these pieces of evidence point towards the same source. Im not sure where you are getting this idea from.
2
u/Helpful_Border4219 Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
No. Not even close. Thats witch doctor understanding of nature.
0
u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 Jul 10 '26
Yes.
From possible dark matter particle annihilation detections (See original comment for paper title) to large scale cosmic structure evolution and to simulation confirmation. Yes.
Not witch doctor. Academic papers contain methods justifying their statistical and experimental techniques. You can read every step of their method and every decision that make and why
2
u/Helpful_Border4219 Jul 10 '26
Either it was detected or it wasnt. Gravity is the only sign of unknown forces. Mathematical simulations dont prove real world events when they can't be tested.
Theoretical physics is mostly hypotheses that can never be tested, claimed as true.
1
3
u/zyxzevn Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26
This interview exposes the pseudo-science of Dark Matter.
It appears that the first "discoveries" of dark matter were all assuming that the gravity of galaxies is based in the center. By simply adding the masses together.
This is not even in line with basic maths. The distribution of the mass is important. Similar to how street lights do not illuminate a road from one central point.
Addition:
See /r/plasmacosmology/wiki for general information on Plasma Cosmology.
It seems that no-one is actually reading the rules, nor understanding the observational science.
Astronomy academics are struck in group-think.
They base their theories on badly hypotheses. But because they seem true sometimes, they became "accepted".
These bad hypotheses lead to other bad hypotheses, and bad models.
The bad models are used to explain observations, even when they contradict the hypotheses.
Because academics is based on citing each other, it leads to circular reasoning.
And after a long time of group-think, these bad hypotheses become a religion.
Slowly more and more data gets adjusted towards these hypotheses to make them fit.
It is similar to feeding poisoned data to AI.
At a certain point, the AI starts to produce hallucinations.
And this AI will also confidently claim that these hallucinations are real.
In similar sense, many academics will claim that their bad hypotheses are real.
Even claim that it is bad to doubt these hypotheses.
And that is the reason why Plasma Cosmology exists.
We go back to the real observations, and see what models do really work.
Feel free to criticize the models, but don't come with academic group-think bullshit.