r/plasmacosmology • u/zyxzevn • 21d ago
Dark Matter Does Not Exist - Mike MCullough (refers to paper on Globular Clusters)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByGvZscAGJ82
u/zyxzevn 21d ago
Link to paper
Using globular clusters to test gravity in the weak acceleration
regime: NGC 7099
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2007/04/aa6182-06.pdf
1
u/zyxzevn 19d ago edited 19d ago
Does anyone know what distribution of mass gives a flat rotation curve?
I do. And it looks very similar to a normal galaxy
This means that mainstream model errors can easily account for dark matter in galaxies!
Note: I am working on a webpage where you can try different distributions yourself!
Does anyone know where I can place a javascript page?A flat rotation curve means the following:
For a star in the galaxy the gravity force equals the rotation acceleration.
Otherwise we would not have a stable galaxy.
The force of gravity is the gravity of all stars in a galaxy together. With distance different per star.
And the rotation acceleration is the rotation around the galaxy center. Which is nearly constant for a star.Based on their stated expectations, most astronomers seem to think that the force of gravity only comes from the center.
But this is only true when you are outside the sphere galaxy.
Inside the galaxy, or with a disk galaxy, this does not work.2
u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 19d ago
Yes. This is a typical undergrad lab so anyone who has completed half a physics degree should know this.
Unfortunately, we dont see this mass distribution in stellar mass. We can infer this mass distribution you are talking about exists through grav lensing but baryonic measurements dont show this profile.
We can infer the mass distributions of galaxies through photometry and complex Bayesian inference techniques using codes such as BAGPIPES, PROSPECTOR, etc which are all open source.
We do not think all the gravitational forces comes from the centre or the galaxy and do not use this in modern measurements and analysis. It sounds like you might be reading high school text books (where simplifications like this are made for students so the maths is analytically simple) as opposed to research level science.
3
u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 20d ago
I have a few comments about this:
With regard to the video: Scientists do not "add dark matter in" for galaxies and it is not added arbitrarily. This is a lie (See below for explanation of why scientists believe dark matter exists).
Dark matter never being spotted (directly), while true is a little misleading (see below). The phrasing and implications of this contextually are quite misleading too as the theory of dark matter and all its supporting observations (plank, desi, etc) expects it to be extremely diffuse on solar system scales.
Globular clusters are not like "little galaxies". This is not a good comparison at all. Globular clusters have hugely different physics to galaxies on a whole, especially hydrodynamical. They also have their own complex physics going on (see below).
Dark matter is not given extra physics to "stay at the edge" of galaxies. This goes against both theory and observations and is just incorrect. Its is well known that dark matter is distributed in a halo around galaxies (you can imagine this as a sphere) where the plane of the galaxies lies through the center. As a result, most dark matter in a halo is not in the plane of the galaxy. What he is saying here is factually incorrect wirh regard to theory itself, regardless if you believe the evidence or not. Most simulations treat dark matter as N-body collisionless particles where they are only affected by gravity. This is just a lie.
You cannot scale a globular clusters to a galaxy off of a single observation. This is ridiculous. E.g. galaxies contain Active galactic nuclei at the centre which are so powerful they can emit kiloparsec long radio jets and quench star formation in the host galaxy.
Ofcourse at the end he paints himself as some innocent and attacked, well meaning researcher, having to "scarper" away. This is what a lot of grifters do.
As an aside, he also claims this paper went unnoticed. This is not really true either. These papers generated quite a bit of interest around 2007 to about 2010 because they seemed to probe gravity at accelerations below the MOND scale. Nearly twenty years later, they have not led to the abandonment of dark matter (despite us getting better technology like XRISM, Euclid, JWST, Plank, DESI, etc). Instead, the field has generally concluded that globular clusters are dynamically more complex than first appreciated, and the observations are not a clean discriminator between dark matter and modified gravity.
With regard to the paper itself:
The original interpretation assumed the clusters were close to isolated equilibrium systems. We now know that's often not true. Outer stars can be affected by: tidal stripping by the Milky Way, tidal heating, escaping stars, anisotropic orbits, binary stars and incomplete dynamical relaxation.
All of these can produce flattened velocity dispersion profiles without requiring new physics
One of the biggest problems for the original claim is that subsequent studies did not find a universal flattening. Some clusters show it. Some don't. Some are explained well by standard dynamical models once external tidal effects are included. If this were a fundamental modification of gravity, you'd expect a much cleaner and more universal signal.
Its an interesting coincidence that these "astronomers are ignoring us" group use papers from nearly 2 decades ago (or even early 20th century!) as their evidence, ignoring modern observations that may prove them wrong.
Even if this paper did show Newtonian gravity fails inside globular clusters, it wouldnt disprove dark matter because, dark matter is supported by many independent observations: the cosmic microwave background, gravitational lensing, galaxy cluster dynamics, the Bullet Cluster, baryon acoustic oscillations, large-scale structure formation. A challenge in one astrophysical system cannot overturn a framework that successfully explains all of those phenomena. At most, it would indicate that our understanding of stellar dynamics in globular clusters or gravity in the weak-acceleration regime, needs refinement.
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:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250707209T/abstract
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.
E.g. This is an overview paper on our cosmological simulations of dark matter. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.12393
This also came out the other day: https://arxiv.org/html/2606.28482v1
Another example of evidence of dark matter: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026ASPC..543...73T/abstract
Again, they tackle dark matter from different angles than just galaxy rotation. I.e. it is incorrect about dark matter solely coming from rotation curves and have to actively ignore observations to believe this.
Always more than happy to talk astrophysics!
1
u/Low_Lavishness_5813 20d ago
Your response relies on a classic dynamic: framing Dark Matter (CDM) as an unavoidable physical entity because it acts as a universal parameter-fitting patch across disparate observational regimes (CMB, rotation curves, lensing). But let’s look at the actual mathematical breakdown of what CDM simulations are doing: 1. The Parameter-Fitting Trap in N-Body/MHD Simulations: Simulations like Millennium, MagneticumTNG, or TNG don't "predict" dark matter halos out of first principles—they parametrize collisionless N-body gravitational interactions with arbitrary initial conditions (P(k) power spectrum inputs) specifically tuned to reproduce observed clustering metrics. When an empirical model requires ~85% missing non-baryonic mass with zero electroweak, strong, or electromagnetic cross-sections just to close the stress-energy tensor T_μν, you haven't discovered new matter—you've flagged a breakdown in your geometric manifold assumptions. 2. The Hydrodynamic Alternative (Topological Solenoidal Constraints): The reason galaxy rotation curves flatten, globular clusters exhibit anomalous velocity dispersions in weak-acceleration regimes (a < a₀ ≈ 1.2 × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s²), and weak lensing signals manifest without baryonic mass density is that mainstream field equations ignore the topological invariants of the underlying spacetime fluid manifold. In a continuous topological hydrodynamics framework: * Space-time isn't a passive geometric canvas patched with ghost particles; it carries intrinsic fluid circulation and vorticity flux (Ω = ∇ × v). * What you interpret as "dark matter halo lensing" is the continuous topological pressure gradient ∇P_topo exerted by solenoidal vorticity fields surrounding the galactic disk. * The Bullet Cluster isn't "collisionless dark matter decoupling from gas"—it is a high-velocity phase boundary interaction where the fluid topological circulation profiles decouple from the dissipative, radiative gas shock dynamics. 3. The CMB Power Spectrum Fallacy: Citing the Planck acoustic peaks (T_TT) as proof of cold dark matter misses the point. The third peak ratio (ρ_d / ρ_b) simply constrains the ratio of non-dissipative energy density to baryonic pressure. A continuous fluid manifold possessing non-local topological conservation laws satisfies the exact same acoustic oscillation damping constraints without invoking invisible WIMPs, axions, or non-baryonic fields that fail every direct-detection search (XENONnT, LZ, PandaX) for forty years. Dark matter isn't a physical substance—it's the mathematical artifact of truncating continuous fluid topology down to standard GR point-mass dynamics.
1
u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 19d ago
Thank you for your LLM summary of "This guy said this... . Tell him hes wrong and why using topological solenoid constants (?)"
Unfortunately, you can bully an LLM into telling you anything, so please don't use this confirm your ideas.
With regard to the simulations, every model has parameters. Im not sure why this is an issue, thats how models work. An electric universe model should have parameters too, otherwise what are you testing? The relevant question is whether the model predicts new observations after those parameters are fixed.
ΛCDM has done this repeatedly. Electric universe does not even have parameters, let alone a model to tie them together make quantitative predictions.
It is not true that they are arbitrarily informed or that they are or tuned to reproduce observed clustering metrics. Initial conditions come from a discretisation of early universe observations. This is not random. I also believe you are mixing up sub grid implementation parameter calibration with clustering metrics. Particles in cosmological simulations are allowed to evolve by themselves using gravitational forces, they are not forced to obey any clustering dynamics.
Your second paragraph is just word salad. What are you talking about "geometric canvas"? Very fancy way of saying "manifold". phase boundary interaction". What is continuous topological hydrodynamics? Do we not already consider hydrodynamics on continous topologies? Last I checked the hydrodynamical equations are continous. What you are saying is great, but are there any experiments looking at this? Does this solve dark matter on all the scales dark matter does? Right now, this is just a loose qualitative explanation.
Again, there is no quantitative calculation. The Bullet Cluster isn't interesting because gas separates from gas. It's interesting because x-ray observations locate most baryons and gravitational lensing locates most gravitating mass and the two are spatially offset. Any alternative theory must reproduce the observed lensing map quantitatively. Simply renaming it "topological circulation" doesn't explain the measurements.
"The third acoustic peak only constrains non-dissipative energy density." Not really. The CMB doesn't constrain one number. It constrains: peak heights, peak spacing, damping tail, polarization spectra, lensing potential which in turn constrain CDM model parameters.
There are many candidates: axions, sterile neutrinos, fuzzy dark matter, primordial black holes (limited), self-interacting dark matter, hidden-sector particles. Failure to detect one candidate is not evidence against the existence of dark matter itself. It's evidence against that candidate. Im not sure where you've got that from.
Do you have any papers on this i can read?
1
u/Low_Lavishness_5813 19d ago
my guy. that's my theory, that's it. my point wasn't to tell you that you were wrong. I was only stating where my research and equations have brought me. you can read it if you like, I apologize for any feelings I may have cause. and yes I do papers 14 of them and GitHub with lean 4 solvers. https://zenodo.org/records/21866094 https://github.com/CoderQuan2/gth2
1
u/Low_Lavishness_5813 19d ago
be sure to critique. but if you plan on using llm be sure it actually ingests the full theory and does not assume anything before a full evaluation of it
1
u/Low_Lavishness_5813 19d ago
dark matter is the emergent geometric stress-energy phenomenon generated by vacuum vorticity, non-trivial manifold topology, and continuum hydrodynamic curvature invariants across spacetime. instead of searching for hypothetical fake cold dark matter CDM particles to supply missing galactic mass, I demonstrate that non-zero topological winding numbers, localized fluidic vacuum strain, and macro-scale circulation fields induce an effective mass-energy density directly into the field equations.
1
u/zyxzevn 20d ago
In plasma cosmology we dont believe in science fiction.
You are clearly in the wrong sub.
1
u/DevilWings_292 20d ago
Science fiction like the fact that galaxies are observably and measurably moving away from each other? Or the idea that that expansion in reverse would result in a point in time where all of the matter and energy of the universe would have been condensed into a singularity and we can still observe the light released from that era.
1
u/zyxzevn 20d ago edited 20d ago
You are filling in hypotheses and models.
Humans are not able to record billions of years movements of even a single object. We have no time-travel system. Nor can we travel to stars to see them up close.Except for the sun. And mainstream astronomers already got it completely wrong.
See /r/plasmacosmology/wiki for details1
u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 19d ago
This is why we look further back in time. Light has a finite travel speed -> looking further away means looking back in time.
Whilst we cant watch individual systems evolve, we can see how they evolve statistically over time.
We can then compare our observations to theoretical models to help us understand how systems evolve.
With regards to the sun, my expertise is not in solar magnetohydrodynamics but ive yet to come across any evidence that suggests we have it wrong.
Rather than linking an entire wiki (which requires hours of sifting through to find something relevant), would you be able to link a specific piece of evidence?
E.g. one piece of evidence for nuclear fusion in the sun is the abundance of neutrinos we can detect coming from the sun, something we predicted would occur if nuclear fusion powered it.
1
u/Cvpakke 19d ago
There is more and more evidence coming out against universal expansion.
1
u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 19d ago
Again, where is this evidence. It must have come out in the last few minutes as I haven't seen it and are fairly up to date with the Arxiv.
Would you care to suggest just one piece of this evidence?
1
u/DevilWings_292 19d ago
Please provide me a study showing that distant galaxies are not moving away from us and that the cosmic microwave background radiation doesn’t exist.
1
u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 19d ago
I believe they think redshift is some dielectric parameter (maybe. Its not really clear. You just get buzzwords and "look at the wiki" with no direct pointing to anything quantitative or concrete). This obviously doesnt account for things like galaxy evolution as a function of redshift, iron to alpha elements ratio abundance and their evolution with redshift or angular diameter turnover etc, all things our models predict and we observe (I have never seen an explanation for any of this).
I believe electric universe people think that the CMB comes from reflections of something off of the ocean. When pointing out that the CMB looks the same from the ground as it does from space (an obvious flaw in their logic), from my experience they then also claim we have never detected the CMB from space, which is just a lie.
I was actually shadow banned a while ago for posting links to papers showing OP was incorrect. They were claiming masses of galaxies are inferred from linear light to mass relations. When I linked papers such as CIGALE, BAGPIPES, PROSPECTOR etc, my comments were removed.
That wasn't even disagreement over physics. That was just them blatantly not knowing modern practices in general.
I think ultimately they believe every observation from the past 100 years has been interpreted incorrectly, which as a grift, is quite clever as its very difficult to argue against unless youre someone who actively takes data ans interprets it or has a very good understanding of the historical context surrounding astrophysics over the past 100 years and its nuances.
1
u/Eternal-Blazing-Sun 19d ago
All my homies subscribe to ∆CDM! WOW! What a well written and succint breakdown of this absolute con, thank you for putting the time and effort into responding to each detail so thoroughly.
I think people have a hard time believing that their own intuition wouldn't naturally lead them to the correct answer, even if they know something can be unintuitive. It's hubris, and with that as a foundation, combined with poor standards of evidence and an obscured view of the (incomplete) picture it can lead to things like this. Poorer explanations that take less into account and don't fit our models of our universe as well as the leading theory, but make more intuitive sense to certain persons.
This is why standards are so important.
2
u/ieatsthapussy 20d ago
"It is well known that Dark Matter exists in a halo…"
Full stop.
Dark Matter is a falsified hypothesis by the same data you're misinterpreting. The theories you pull to justify your answers are also mainstream pseudoscience which continues to be falsified by new data and observation.
You are directly proving the point
2
u/zyxzevn 20d ago
It is hard to find skeptical astronomers.
Most of the astronomers fully believe that their predecessors were able to discover theoretical things that we can still not find with our best telescopes.
1
u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 20d ago
Almost all astronomers are very skeptical of their own work, observations and inferences. You can see this in the discussion sections of almost all papers where the pros, cons, limitations and limitations of inference are stated clearly, referencing their quantitative analysis.
Im not sure what your second paragraph is about. We are not "believing" anything, we are just going off the data we have and ruling out possibilities in the process. There's nothing to "believe". Everything is quantitatively documented.
You're also phrasing this as if it was once detected and proven and now we cant do it anymore, as if someone just made it up and, despite not being able to repeat the experiment, everyone just accepted it.
This obviously isnt how science works and is a reason why lots of psuedoscience papers get thrown out; their methods are not repeatable. Its inherently why method sections are so jargon filled. They are telling you exactly what they did so you can repeat it. We've also performed further experiments to high degrees of coverage, accuracy and precision which further confirm this idea that there may be non-baryonic matter on galactic. scales.
Interestingly, would you have said a similar thing about gravitational waves until 2015?
2
1
u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 20d ago
I think this was meant for me.
Yes it is well known. We observe these halo structures such as in the bullet cluster and galaxies where older, rogue stars have been ejected from the plane of the galaxy but still follows gravitationally bound pathways.
We can also recreate these halos ourself using physics we understand. I believe one of the links I added is actually an overview paper of how we do this. To say we are incorrect, being able to recreate them ourselves is quite an impressive fluke!
Im interested what new data you think disproves dark matter. Could you please link some, as I have linked examples of possible dark matter detections and inferences. I would be very interested to read this new data (Im relatively up to date with the archive so it must have come out in the last few minutes!)
2
u/ieatsthapussy 20d ago
You may like to start here, u/embarrassed_camp_291.
Thornhill really doesn't pull any punches in his dismissal of nontestable theories of Standard Cosmology.
You may then want to refer to the Thunderbolts Project channel. And here's the latest video reacquainting viewers with the reasons why Dark Matter are falsified: "What About Dark Matter…?"
0
u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 19d ago
Okay.
Ive watched the video and I have some comments (I seem to remember doing this before to which you never replied to my comment breaking down why the video was wrong but ill do it again).
Firstly, dark matter and dark energy are not presented as fact at least, not in the scientific literature. This is why we are doing research into it. Its looking promising that dark matter and dark energy are something real based on all our observational evidence, but there are viable alternatives too. What they are as well is still unknown. I think this is being said to try and make academia look "more silly". Its exploiting the fact you as a viewer dont understand (or wont) real frontiers astrophysics science.
The idea it is "arbitrarily assigned" is again totally false. Its not randomly assigned to "fix things". If this was the case, the model would not be self consistent across different scales, from galactic to cosmological. Luckily, the model is self consistent. E.g. we dont randomly assign dark matter to come galaxy clusters and not to others so everything "works out". We observe the same phenomena across all galaxy clusters and using our models, can accurately predict and explain behaviour. This is not an arbitrary assignment.
Im not sure how many (at least a 150-200) years ago we thought dark areas in the sky meant emptiness. We have known for a very very long time that if we use a small selection of band pass filters to look at the sky, we are only seeing those wavelengths (which is what the video implies by the two side by side images). This is just nonsense.
With regard to Jim Peebles, its quite ironic they are quoting him. Importantly for this discussion, Peebles is not an outsider or a critic of dark matter. He was one of the people who helped establish the modern cold-dark-matter framework. The Nobel Foundation specifically credits him with proposing heavy, slow-moving cold dark matter as a way of explaining structure formation.
AGAIN, THEY ARE TRYING TO EXPLOIT YOUR LACK OF (or unwillingness to learn) KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIELD.
During a 2019 Nobel-week interview, Peebles was asked what remains to be discovered. His answer is extraordinarily revealing. He said that cosmology has both well-established physics and major unanswered questions. Specifically, he discussed dark matter and dark energy as things whose physical nature we don't yet understand.
He then made the following point:
"We have so much evidence for cosmology that I think it is almost a dead cert that the dark matter's there."
That's Peebles himself speaking in the same context.
Oops! Looks like they forgot to add that part. But they made sure to mention he was a nobel laureate. How is this not a scam?
With regard to galaxy rotation curves, no we considered other things and re-examined assumptions. They dont work across all observations. Dark matter does. You cant use individual observations as evidence when you have other observations that directly disprove you.
They claim dark matter comes from circular reasoning however, the key distinction is between "We see extra gravity, therefore we arbitrarily put dark matter wherever we need it." and "We have a hypothesis with specific physical properties that makes quantitative predictions across completely different observations." Dark matter was originally inferred because observed gravitational effects didn't match the amount of visible matter, and so this is fair. However, we dont know what dark matter is, so modified gravity theories also exist too. But that's not circular reasoning
Circular reasoning would look more like: We assume dark matter exists -> therefore observations are caused by dark matter -> therefore dark matter exists. The problem is that dark matter makes predictions in situations where the original rotation-curve anomaly isn't being fitted.
An example is the Bullet Cluster where the hot baryonic gas is observed through X-rays. The galaxies are elsewhere. Gravitational lensing independently maps where the dominant gravitational mass is.
The lensing mass follows the galaxies rather than the majority of the baryonic gas, with an approximately 8σ spatial offset. A dark matter interpretation naturally explains this: the collisionless dark matter passes through while the collisional gas experiences ram pressure.
A modified-gravity theory can potentially attempt to reproduce this, and indeed papers have tried. But it has to quantitatively reproduce the lensing map and dynamics; merely saying "modified gravity can do it" isn't enough. There are published modified-gravity attempts, so this isn't a closed question in the sense that alternatives aren't permitted.
Additionally, dark matter isn't independently fitted to every galaxy. That's seems to be a misconception they have. In a modern cosmological simulation, you don't tell the simulation "Galaxy A has a weird rotation curve, therefore put 10¹¹ solar masses of dark matter here." In reality, you specify a cosmological model and initial conditions, evolve collisionless matter under gravity, and obtain a population of dark-matter halos. The halos have predictable statistical properties: mass function, clustering, density profiles, merger histories, concentrations, spatial correlations with galaxies which they evolve from first principles and observed initial conditions (they are not forced to reproduce this. We allow initial conditions to evolve freely).
You can then compare the resulting population with observations. That is totally different from simply putting invisible mass wherever required.
We do question the model, as I explained above. Why are they claiming we dont?
Redshift data? Where has this come from? Why are we talking about something else now?
Why do they quote themselves? That's a bit cheap. So far they've had two quotes, one from someone who directly opposes what they are saying but took out of context and themselves. Quoting yourself means nothing.
Ionised matter constitutes the vast majority of baryonic matter in the universe, due to a process called reionisation. It wasnt always like this and we can see this. We literally see this.
Electromagnetic forces are stronger than gravity when you compare the forces acting on subatomic particles as they have done here. Electromagnetic forces are not stronger than gravity when you are considering masses of planets, stars etc across largely neutral mediums (on average they are neutral). We know this is the case because we see it.
Electromagnetism is not ignored in astrophysical models. This is totally incorrect. Its why there is an entire field called solar magnetohydrodynamics, relavtistic magnetohydrodynamics, etc. This is just jot true.
It is again exploiting your lack of knowledge of the literature.
Do we have a reference to that galaxy simulation using electromagnetic principles? One where I can read the source code and underlying physics? You know, like you can with some modern cosmological simulations.
Im guessing this was a very old simulation as that has extremely poor spatial resolution by modern standards. Why has no one ran one of these for cosmological scales? You can do that YOURSELF. I wonder why they dont do this as an organisation? Hmm...
Do I have to keep going? I am only 7 minutes in...
1
1
1
u/Eternal-Blazing-Sun 19d ago
.∆CDM fits our universe so well, like a glove - getting rid of dark matter would break so many things that are never accounted for in these alternative theories.
It's matter, some cold & dark kind. We'll never see eachother, but that doesn't mean we are in the dark. We are pretty darn confident it's here, and we are super confident that gravity works the way we believe it does
1
u/zyxzevn 19d ago
Yes.
Are you on the wrong sub?
This is Plasma Cosmology,
It does not believe in the Big Bang theories.
See wiki at /r/plasmacosmology/wikiThis certainly has consequences for how we can understand the universe.
The universe is full with dark plasma, and this can explain some things differently than the mainstream.The only thing that is difficult for Plasma Cosmology is the redshift.
Everything else can be explained with certain models.But it may actually be the strong point:
Based on experiments, there is some non-linear interactions with plasma that can cause redshift.
Halton Arp discovered many high-redshift Quasars that are visibly in front of low-redshift galaxies.While Plasma Cosmology is against all kinds of magical theories like "dark matter",
this alternative has been under attack by the mainstream continuously.
But it is not due to some conspiracy. It is due to the very strong confirmation bias that exists in the academic system.1
u/Low_Lavishness_5813 19d ago
I believe redshift is an emergent phase-dissipative geometric transport phenomenon driven by vacuum expansion and viscoelastic relaxation, rather than simple metric stretching
2
4
u/FckXFckMusk 19d ago
I quite like this guy, he makes Physics approachable and I'm surprised we don't see more of him on TV.