"For decades, researchers have predicted the existence of filaments of matter between dark galaxies that act as a superstructure connecting galaxies," said Mike Hudson, professor of astronomy at the University of Waterloo. "This visualization takes us beyond predictions, to something we can see and measure"
Researchers have managed to process the first complex image of the dark matter bridge connecting the galaxies.
Researchers from the University of Waterloo managed to process the first complex image of the dark matter bridge connecting the galaxies. The scientists publish their work in a new paper in the Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society.
The image, which combines a large number of individual images, confirms predictions that galaxies across the universe are interconnected by a cosmic web connected by dark matter, which has so far remained unobserved.
Dark matter, a mysterious substance comprising about 25% of the universe, does not emit, absorb or reflect light, which has traditionally made it largely undetectable except through gravity.
"For decades, researchers have predicted the existence of filaments of matter between dark galaxies that act as a superstructure connecting galaxies," said Mike Hudson, professor of astronomy at the University of Waterloo. "This visualization takes us beyond predictions, to something we can see and measure."
As part of their research, Hudson and his collaborators used a technique called "weak gravitational lensing," which causes images of distant galaxies to be slightly distorted by the invisible mass of bodies such as planets, black holes, or in this case, dark matter. The effect was measured in comprehensive images from a multi-year sky survey at the French Canadian telescope in Hawaii.
They combined lensing images of more than 23,000 galaxy pairs located 4.5 billion light-years away to create a composite image or map showing the presence of dark matter between any two galaxies. The findings show that the dark bridge of dark matter is extremely strong between systems whose distance does not exceed 40 million light years.
"Using this technique, we can not only see these filaments of dark matter in the universe, we can see how closely these filaments connect galaxies together," said Seth Epps, a former graduate student in Hudson's lab and his research partner.
For the announcement of the University of Waterloo
28 תגובות
If it is not measured, absorbs or reflects light, why is it defined as matter?
Hail to Abgad and others
I read the link you referred us to on the Hebrew Wikipedia. The link explains in a nice and clear way the problem of incompatibility with Newton's laws in galaxies. We see that the explanation on Wikipedia refers to Newton's laws which are an excellent approximation for the purpose of the explanation and there is no need to get involved in the laws of relativity.
The only one who doesn't see this is Devilbenzo who knew how to slur his mouth when addressing me and call me all kinds of derogatory names including a liar and other derogatory epithets that this is not the place to repeat them.
Again I say that what is shown in the galaxies and on Wikipedia is not dark mass but the non-compliance with Newton's laws. This discrepancy can be explained in at least ten other ways such as correcting the measured data, correcting the formulas, replacing the formulas and more, of course only one of them will be correct. Referring only to dark matter as a possible solution is acceptable only to our dear respondent Devilbenzo. All the rest, including you Abbed, rightly understand that there are also other options that are better or less so that you certainly shouldn't dismiss them outright. The approach of a collection of black holes that will bring the solution is interesting but has already been tested, it is not sufficient to explain the deviation from Newton's laws. Even one giant black hole in the center of the galaxy will not provide the solution.
One of the possibilities I propose is the pressure difference of particle concentrations that are abundant in space such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, photons, gluons, gravitons and many others that can explain in an interesting way the problem of incompatibility with Newton's laws.
I refer you Abgad and others to my blog where in articles 75 to 82 the problem and the solution accepted by me are explained.
So you heard, dumbass, there is a discrepancy with Newton's laws here, and you can shout, brag about your knowledge and call me a liar, insult and wave your legs, but there is a discrepancy with Newton's laws here, it is obvious to anyone except insulting mouthpieces like you.
We all need to understand that this is just science and we, and we, with our little knowledge, like to be educated and even offer ideas and no one has the right to insult and slander us like our "friends" Devilbenzo did.
Good Day
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Hail to Abgad and others
I read the link you referred us to on the Hebrew Wikipedia. The link explains in a nice and clear way the problem of incompatibility with Newton's laws in galaxies. We see that the explanation on Wikipedia refers to Newton's laws which are an excellent approximation for the purpose of the explanation and there is no need to get involved in the laws of relativity.
The only one who doesn't see this is Devilbenzo who knew how to slur his mouth when addressing me and call me all kinds of derogatory names including a liar and other derogatory epithets that this is not the place to repeat them.
Again I say that what is shown in the galaxies and on Wikipedia is not dark mass but the non-compliance with Newton's laws. This discrepancy can be explained in at least ten other ways such as correcting the measured data, correcting the formulas, replacing the formulas and more, of course only one of them will be correct. Referring only to dark matter as a possible solution is acceptable only to our dear respondent Devilbenzo. All the rest, including you Abbed, rightly understand that there are also other options that are better or less so that you certainly shouldn't dismiss them outright. The approach of a collection of black holes that will bring the solution is interesting but has already been tested, it is not sufficient to explain the deviation from Newton's laws. Even one giant black hole in the center of the galaxy will not provide the solution.
One of the possibilities I propose is the pressure difference of particle concentrations that are abundant in space such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, photons, gluons, gravitons and many others that can explain in an interesting way the problem of incompatibility with Newton's laws.
I refer you and others to my blog http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/ There in articles 75 to 82 the problem and the solution accepted by me are explained.
So you heard, dumbass, there is a discrepancy with Newton's laws here, and you can shout, brag about your knowledge and call me a liar, insult and wave your legs, but there is a discrepancy with Newton's laws here, it is obvious to anyone except insulting mouthpieces like you.
We all need to understand that this is just science and we, and we, with our little knowledge, like to be educated and even offer ideas and no one has the right to insult and slander us like our "friends" Devilbenzo did.
Good Day
Yehuda
To be honest, I don't fully understand what that extra entropy is. I do roughly understand what quantum entanglement entropy is. Bullies are particles with a clear interaction between them. Dark matter is a kind of bully. Albanzo probably understands more than them.
Thanks to Yosef for the work he put into his responses. I read it with interest and loved his words.
And a question for my fellow readers. Please see the Wikipedia article https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%94_%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%A8%D7%94
This is a nice article that explains and shows the tangential velocity in galaxies compared to the calculated velocity according to Newton/Einstein. It was found that the speed was too high and it was supposed to tear the galaxy apart. That's why they invented dark matter - as an excuse. Otherwise we are forced to state that the theory of relativity needs at least corrections if not reconstruction.
But, according to what I see in the article, there is an assumption there that seems unfounded to me. The assumption is that there is a proportion between the luminosity of a galaxy and its mass. (Something like P=KM/R^2. Where P is the illuminance, M is the mass of the galaxy, R is the distance of the observer in the galaxy, K is the constant of the equation).
I agree that there is a proportion. But on what basis do you determine that the proportion is linear?
Suppose I claim that the higher the mass of the galaxy, there is a mass of black holes growing at a non-linear rate. And as we know, black holes not only do not emit light but also absorb light. Conclusion (from my "claims") If there are 2 galaxies, one of which is 2 times more massive than the other, the intensity of the light emitted from it will not reach 2 times.
Does anyone know the official explanation?
You need to take a breath because it's hard for me to understand it too.
There is a repetition of previous ideas. To describe a quantum space with the forces in it and the states, it is customary to describe it in the state space called de Sitter space. At least that's what I understand from the explanation. This is a space in which besides coordinates a) the space-time has b) also coordinates of quantum states. And quantum information is created that is quantified by an index called entropy as if it were a material shell in itself. And the curvature of the spatial envelope is the one from which the power supposedly originates. This is how it is done in general relativity: gravity = three-state space + 1 dimension of space from which gravity originates + 1 dimension of time. This is done in string theory. Convoluted microscopic dimensions explain all the forces: electromagnetic, strong/weak nuclear.
Already in explaining gravitational entropy we see that force arises from this virtual movement in the space of states.
In such a space, the entropy of the quantum entanglement can be derived from the calculation of the area: the fact that matter and space are not in a certain state, but in a mixture of all the states with different amplitudes. And also that it is allowed for any situation to jump to any situation through any set of situations, and to do so virtually, in the blink of an eye without us feeling it, so that an effect is created from this movement. In short there is a difference between quantum microscopic space and non-quantum space.
This is where new arguments come in. There is another entropy on top of the one that was known before, this is the entropy of the horizon of the visible universe. The visible universe is the one that if information moves from it at the speed of light at most at the age of the big bang the information will reach us. More on quantum entanglement. And this entropy is strengthened a) in large volumes - according to distance scaling, b) according to Verlind, due to low acceleration (I did not understand how much) the derived gravitational force also intensifies. Residual forces are created because of it, so to speak, which are the correction to the Newtonian law of gravity.
To summarize: the article contains old knowledge about the space of states, which is a space for everything, and from the spatial variation of the information in which the force of gravity is derived. And there is new information - enlightenment about additional entropy that creates the image of variable gravity. That is, deepening of previous knowledge. And the last innovation of the article, is that Eric Worlind, through systematic calculations, calculates everything that particle dark matter theory calculates: a. How gravity changes depending on the scale of space d. b) Weighted density of dark matter in space, depending on distance from masses. That is, he shows that his theory is quantitative and gives systematic calculations. He then compares them to different types of observational evidence. Then comes the summary of the article.
At the end of the 51-page article, Verlind explains why most scientists support the particle dark matter theory: not because there is evidence for this matter, but because gravity changes them. He explains the variation of gravity as the elasticity of the quantum entanglement space (de Sitter). During the article he showed that he can calculate a variety of quantitative quantities in the particle theory without the need for dark matter particles which he calls bullies.
At the very least it presents an equally strong alternative theory for particle dark matter.
I took a breather and tomorrow I will explain how according to Verlind, dark matter is derived from entropic gravity.
French explanation for entropic gravity - awaiting approval from the editor. It cannot yet be said that it is accepted by the entire scientific community.
J. Ben-Ner A simple explanation as far as I understand about entropic gravity:
Relatively simple level information on entropic gravity can be found in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
Although scientists deny Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, but in my view, in spreading scientific ideas quite quickly - it is fine.
According to Worlind, entropic gravity arises from the fact that matter and the universe are fundamentally quantum. Each point in space has an uncertain energy-momentum state. If matter was classical at its root, according to this view, gravity would not arise. The claim is that then, similar to what was known about a black hole from the time of Hawking and Bekenstein, the second law of thermodynamics applies to those particles and that is that the system of particles, or points in space - strives to move in time from a state of more order to more disorder. In a classical world the law makes sense, because the number of situations to break a glass is infinite. And the number of situations to reassemble it is approximately 1. Therefore, probabilistically, the chance of disorder exceeds the chance of order. A black hole was determined by Hawking and Bekenstein in the past, the second law holds, and the system is entropic.
If the second law of thermodynamics holds, then Verlind shows that it is possible to derive: a. Einstein's equations of general relativity b. And in the non-relativistic approximation, gravity as 1 times the radius. But this gravitational force, which again is not a fundamental force but emergent from thermodynamic statistical behavior, changes depending on the distance scale. Similar to the empirical model proposed in 1983 by Mordechai Milgorm from the Weizmann Institute. He called it Modified Newtonian Dynamics - MOND. He was followed by the late Jacob Bekenstein and created a theory of general relativity called TEVES.
He corrected general relativity. In summary, gravity originates from differences in quantum information about state and energy at the microscopic level that create a pressure to move from more order to more disorder, the macroscopic translation of which is gravity. A force that arises from entropy (emergent) and not a fundamental force that must be assumed to exist.
The entropic theory of gravity is still not unquestionably accepted in the world. There are several reviews of her:
A. Applying the conditions of conservation of momentum and energy and the uniformity of the distribution of space in all directions (homogeneous and isotropic), a too limited set of solutions is obtained. That is, they do not know how to generalize the theory. B. A second claim is that entropic gravity contradicts the experiment with atoms at the temperature closest to absolute zero.
That is, most scientists in the field believe that the second law of thermodynamics works in quantum space, and that the source of gravity is thermodynamic, but the solution offered by Verlind will be very specific in order to maintain the laws of conservation of energy, momentum and the uniformity of space. third. A third criticism says that Verlind should extend his derivation to a multi-mass particle system and this has not yet been done. I mean he has another job.
In a 2016 paper, Verlind 5 years after entropic gravity, deduces dark matter in a quantitative configuration from entropic gravity. The article is still completely immature and has been cited by colleagues 32 times. I do not explain here how the black matter was derived. It requires an additional understanding effort from me. At the moment it is in the status of a possible explanation for variable gravity in the MOND style, which is required to be tested. Maybe I'll explain the second issue - you need to take some air.
A relatively simple version of deriving dark matter from gravitational entropy in the review article:
https://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html
The heavy article is found:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269.pdf
to Joseph
Thanks for your interim reply.
I will wait patiently for your answer.
A. Ben Ner - I will answer tomorrow. I will work on wording as simple as possible.
friends Avi Blizovsky's website here is a hotbed of people with good intellect and interesting discourse.
On no other site do I find a common language with people. On other sites you know that the level is... high.
Even so, we are a minority. If we fight, even this pearl will not be there for us.
We will preserve the honor of Albenzo and Albenzo will preserve the honor of others. I do not know Albenzo and to my understanding he (you) is a scientist and an academic. What we all have in common, the fight for enlightenment, and the correctness of scientific research. And that trumps everything else.
If we like the knowledge to the platform, it is important that we all stay on it and together, because the opposition outside Israel is tens of times stronger than us. There are those who think that science is based on race/religion, and that those with certain opinions are not allowed to express their opinions, and that creationism and the world was created 5000 years ago is the truth, and everything is known and there is nothing to investigate. I presented an alternative point of view and Alessandro believes in the second and it is legitimate. There were points where he criticized me in the past, and I accepted some of his criticism, despite the somewhat stinging tone.
Yehuda,
I have yet to see a more acute case of "the pussel in Momo pussel" "Unable to deal with opposing scientific opinion"? You made me laugh. First of all, you give yourself way too much credit. Your knowledge is not scientific. If it was scientific, it would have disappeared at least three or four years ago the first time I explained to you why it was experimentally disproven and tried to explain to you that all your reference to dark matter stems from ignorance and misunderstanding of the theory. Your knowledge is not scientific, it is a childish need not to feel stupid in front of things you don't understand. Second, the one who is unable to deal with criticism (that is, with a different opinion) is you. To this day, I have provided a counterargument for each of your claims - including scientific and peer-reviewed articles - and explained to you why what you say is wrong. Your way of dealing, on the other hand, ranges from ignoring, waiting for about a week and then suspecting your wrong claims, or of course what you are doing now, which is to say that I am not worth a response and wonder if it is a miracle, you do not have to deal with the fact that you do not understand anything and that everything you This is nonsense that an undergraduate student can refute in a minute.
"Hiding behind the consensus"? Say, are you kidding? First of all, I'm not hiding behind anything. Everything I have ever claimed has been reasoned, explained, and when necessary also accompanied by sources. I have a feeling that you yourself do not understand what you are saying, so I will dig for you - hiding behind the consensus is saying "it is true because everyone thinks so" without really standing for the truth of the claim. I never did. Every time I told you that you are wrong, I explained why I claim it and what physical source I rely on (at the level of theory or observational evidence).
Also, it's sad to me that after all these years you still think our argument is that you think there is no dark matter and I think there is. You don't understand that this is not what is happening here at all. I have said many times and still say that I do not know what the future holds, that I (and no one else) have direct and decisive evidence for the existence of dark matter, and that it is possible that one day we will discover that there is no dark matter. What you don't realize is that if it happens one day, it will happen because someone will look at all the evidence and observations, and the theoretical evidence, and find a phenomenon that dark matter does not explain (and another theory does). It won't happen because some idiot will decide to lie and ignore everything that doesn't fit his perception (which is based entirely on the fact that he doesn't bother to study the subject he's talking about). I have no problem with people who examine other directions and theories that do not include dark matter - I have a problem with liars and people who allow themselves to distort reality and science in order to feel good about themselves and not have to look in the mirror and admit that they do not understand what they are talking about.
Finally, I thank you for your comments regarding my level of creativity and my contribution to the world of science. In the coming days I will write letters to all the scientific newspapers in which I have published articles and ask them to print an apology and shelve the articles (despite the criticisms they have undergone and the citations they have collected over the years) because there is some unsettled grandfather from Herzliya who has decided that I cannot contribute to science because I was not nice to him on the Internet.
I may not be worth a more in-depth response, but we both know that's not the reason you won't answer me. The reason you won't answer me is because asking you for a more in-depth reference is like asking a frog to interpret Nietzsche.
A. Ben Ner I will answer your questions. give me a day I'm a bit busy today.
to Albenzo
I just saw your vile and slanderous comment. I'm sorry but you are a poor and wretched person incapable of dealing with a scientific opinion that is contrary to yours, people like you who hide behind the scientific consensus were never original and never advanced science or contributed anything to human knowledge. You don't deserve a more in-depth response. And to Tommy, I thought you had changed, but you are a wretched S.H. Devilbenzo.
Have a good week everyone
Yehuda
to Joseph
After all, the dark mass theory relies on observational evidence in a span of sg of hundreds and thousands of light-years to sg of billions and tens of billions of light-years. I understood from your words that Verlind's theory is based on the observation of about 300.000 galaxies. in K.M. Cosmological is very little.
is not it?
Apart from that, the question arises:
If Verlind's theory stems, as you say, from theoretical considerations only, what does the fact that it stems from observing 300.000 galaxies do here? Does it mean that the theory was tested and found to be correct by observing 300.000 galaxies?
And if that is the case, then the question arises, in how many observed galaxies was a discrepancy found with Verlind's theory?
to Joseph
Could you summarize, qualitatively, the gravitational entropy principles of Prof. Eric Verlind?
No wonder everyone is trying to confirm the existence of dark matter through a non-gravitational interaction. After all, dark matter was invented to justify a discrepancy between findings and theoretical gravity calculations.
Therefore, no "proof" based on gravity will be considered a strong confirmation of the existence of dark matter.
Not to mention that Joseph presents us here a new theory from the scientific avenue that does not need dark matter to explain.
To elbentzo: We are all amateur scientists at least. Some even - professional. Such, we all strive for truth. Therefore your attack on Yehuda is somewhat extreme.
Last note:
We will note who signed at the same time as Verlind on his contributions. Edward Witten - a Jewish string theory physicist, winner of the Fields Medal in 1990, and the creator of the second string revolution - unifies the super theories M-theory and showed the duality between all the super theories. Professor Dijkgraaf, a renowned giant also returned from Princeton to the Netherlands. Head of the string theory research group at the University of Amsterdam. Winner of the Spinoza Prize, and a member of the Dutch Academy of Sciences, and the American Academy of Sciences. And 2 more associations that we will not mention. And Hermann Verlinde - on the Witten–Dijkgraaf–Verlinde–Verlinde equation only a professor at Princeton.
And the last Cardy-Verlinde formula - which explains the holographic effect of the universe and entropy of black holes is today the updated model. Cardy is only a professor at Berkeley. Shamefully, he won only 6 awards:
1. Guggenheim Foundation: Annual Report 1985.
2. "Directory of Fellows and Foreign Members". The Royal Society. Retrieved 2009-11-12.
3. "Recipients of the Dirac medal of the Institute of Physics". Institute of Physics. Retrieved 2009-11-12.
4. "Prize Recipient". American Physical Society. Retrieved 2009-11-12.
5. "Boltzmann Medal". University of Melbourne. Retrieved 2010-02-08.
6.Dirac Medalists 2011″. Retrieved 2011-08-10.
And to the shame of it, only 5 of his works are considered of international academic value:
Cardy Conformal Invariance in Percolation, Self-Avoiding Walks and Related Problems, 2002
Cardy Conformal field theory and statistical mechanics, Les Houches Lectures 2008
Cardy, Pasquale Calabrese Entanglement entropy and conformal field theory, J. Phys. A, 42, 2009
Cardy Entanglement entropy in extended quantum
The twin brother Hermann Verlind has given up being close to his homeland (Holland) and is only a professor of theoretical physics at Princeton.
Eric Verlind has 5 contributions to theoretical physics so far:
2.1 Verlinde formula
2.2 Witten–Dijkgraaf–Verlinde–Verlinde equation
2.3 Cardy–Verlinde formula
2.4 Entropic gravity
2.5 Emergent gravity and the dark universe
In 2011, the Dutch government and the Scientific Research Organization (NWO) awarded him the Spinoza Prize, which includes 2.5 million euros for future research and is the highest Dutch prize that can be given.
Eric Verlind accepted a position as a professor or researcher at Princeton (I think Einstein was a professor there) in 1999. In 2003 he returned to the Netherlands voluntarily, to a position as a professor at the University of Amsterdam. His areas of expertise are string theory and pure mathematics. It takes time for the scientific world to test his theory, and that's what will happen. It is fair to say that he is in Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf's research group - and not leading it. Professor Verlind is also a permanent faculty member from the Netherlands at CERN. It means that they are looking for ways to prove the correctness of his theory, similar to the debate between the big bang theory and the static theory.
The article was submitted for peer review in 2016 and is already mentioned in the academic world, one of his 5 contributions to Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe physics.
It's nice to be able to see the deviations in gravity. Today there is a theory of Professor Eric Verlind called
gravitational entropy that was tested on photographs of 300,000 galaxies and explains the gravitational update and the holographic effect from a theoretical consideration only. Gravity changes depending on the distance scale. His work is about 10 years old. That's what it took him to explain dark matter. Before that he explored the origins of gravity. There is an article in the article archive for his colleagues
https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269
called "Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe". There is a beautiful explanation accompanied by diagrams of how in his opinion the gravitational correction was created.
Eric Verlind is not a fringe scientist and his work is funded by very large sums by the Netherlands and the Union. He is a Spinoza Prize winner. He is also a physicist of string theory. He has a twin brother named Hermann Verlind and he helps him with complicated mathematics such as conformal field theory.
Verlind's results are similar to the empirical results of the general relativistic variable gravity model TEVES, of the late Yaakov Beckenstein, which originated (of TEVES) in the non-relativistic empirical model of Mordechai Milgorm MOND from 1983.
And it's beautiful because today there is a general theory of relativity TEVES that corrects Einstein's theory of relativity. This happened about 90 years after Einstein developed the theory of general relativity and it is beautiful. To the question why they don't announce Verlind as having a correct theory or give him a Nobel Prize. I see 2 reasons.
A. Because conclusive evidence is required that theory 1 yields a different result than theory 2, and it will take time for the scientific community to give up on dark matter. If I were him I'd be working on it and intergalactic calculations.
B. I understood that at the level of super-clusters of clusters of galaxies there is still a certain inconsistency.
In my opinion, simply as we expand the scale, an updated picture emerges. At the level of galaxies and between galaxies I understood that Eric tested the model on 300,000 galaxies.
Like a person who observes an image, first at a point, then in the area close to the point, then in the area of the image, then in the entire Earth from the outside, then out of the solar system, then out of the Milky Way galaxy, then out of the cluster of galaxies and more.
Ed
It may be that I misunderstood what was written, but as far as I understand, the picture is constructed so that the results of the pollution that comes from visible sources (which emit electromagnetic radiation) were removed from it.
"The "matter" that is supposed to be "dark matter" has not been observed in any way, and the truth is that we have no idea about the existence of something that is "matter" and also "dark", and what its theoretical characteristics should be (apart from the "gravity" attributed to it)."
Nor is the electron observed in any way by the standards you require here. Should we also stop calling it an electron and say that we have no idea about its existence and characteristics other than those we notice?
Yehuda,
1. "You said: "What you see in the picture is a mapping of a weak gravitational field." End quote. Here, here is the simple little mistake in your approach and that of many others!, what you see in the picture is filth. point.". I mean, you agree that you lied in your original response where you wrote that it was a picture of a "deviation from Newton-Einstein's gravitation formula", or at least you wrote it without having the slightest idea what you are really seeing in the picture (in my opinion - no less bad). It's amazing how you don't even bat an eyelid at this crazy piece of information - you're just a liar who will say whatever he wants as long as he thinks it will make his delusions seem logical. Already in the first sentence of your response you revealed exactly what your knowledge on the subject is worth, and more importantly - what is the degree of your sincerity and honesty.
2. Say, do you even know what a weak gravitational field is? I mean, you now claim that it is impossible to distinguish it from an image distortion created by the passage of light in a medium (eg gas). Do you know this, or is it just another thing you decided had to be true so you wouldn't have to face reality? And I'll ask again - do you have the slightest idea what weak gravitational fielding is exactly, how it works, how it is measured, and how it is distinguished from anything else that may cause distortion in images?
3. I don't understand. If you are trying to say that because there is someone else making claims similar to yours, then that means you are right (majority rule), then I have sad news for you: in the scientific community there is an almost complete consensus regarding the existence of dark matter. So if the majority rules, you lost in the N.C. If it is not true that the majority determines, then why should I care how many people there are who make a certain claim? Oh, yes, because when you are comfortable then you say that everyone is wrong and the minority is right, and when you are comfortable you use the fact that you are not alone as a tool to avoid the need to defend your claims or admit your mistakes.
4. In the Newtonian model, gravity is proportional to the mass of the particles between which it acts. Because light has no mass, it does not feel gravity and does not cause gravity in the Newtonian model. Newton in the twilight of his life claimed that light is *massive* particles and therefore will feel gravity. This is of course a complete error which has been known for hundreds of years (the claim that light has mass). So what are you trying to say? That because Newton said something wrong three hundred and fifty years ago, so…?
5. Wait, wait. In addition to the fact that I don't understand at all why you remind me that MOND is an observationally wrong theory (because I've been telling you that for years), I have to understand something: you know that it is observationally wrong (in your words, "struck a death blow" ) but you still use it as an alternative explanation for dark matter (as you explicitly wrote in your original comment)? Is there no limit to your dishonesty?
6. Oh, not 100? So 80? 20? 6? 1? To remind you, one refutation of a theory is enough for it to go to waste. Unless the bandman who is trying to push her by force is the type of person whose connection to reality is strictly coincidental. Both I and other commenters (at least Nissim and Israel Shapira as I recall) tried to help you understand in one way or another that your explanation has contradictions, gaps, or simply inconsistencies with reality. If 3 flaws are found in your theory or 3000 it doesn't matter.
to Albenzo
You said: "What you see in the picture is a mapping of a weak gravitational field." End quote. Here, here is the simple little mistake in your approach and that of many others!, what you see in the picture is filth. point. "Gravitational" is a true or false explanation for this Idus! , and between us, Albanzo, with all the gas clouds that are moving around in space, don't you think that there could also be a non-gravitational cloud?
Secondly, for the first time after many years a "righteous man in Sodom" appears who thinks like me. A guy named Ed. I ask "this dear Ed" to identify himself. I also ask him to prepare for a difficult future where he will be accused of lies and that he is probably just an implant of mine and he is generally as dark as the dark matter, but dear Ed hold back and together.... we will change the world.
In addition, Albanzo, why does it seem to me that Newton also talked about pollution? After all, Newton treated light as particles, so they are also affected by gravitation, and it seems to me that the difference is only in the size of pollution. From memory, and I could be wrong. It seems to me that the difference is that the attribution is double. But then again, maybe I'm wrong.
Another thing Albanzo I read our comments from the past, do you remember "Shaul Galaxy"? (I remembered M94), after all we both know that it gave a death blow to the MOND theory.
And last but not least regarding the 100 shades of refutations they gave to my theory, allow me to doubt a little, at least in quantity.
Good night everyone
Yehuda
The image depicts the intensities of the bingalactic gravitational force actually acting in a defined region of the universe.
The pretense of mapping and characterizing the power of "dark matter" as a proven fact is a deception, and it is amazing to be proven and it is a shame that the authors of the picture talk about the mapping of "dark matter" as if it were a matter of course.
The dark matter theory is speculation. The "matter" that is supposed to be "dark matter" has not been observed in any way, and the truth is that we have no idea about the existence of something that is "matter" and also "dark", and what its theoretical characteristics should be (besides the "gravity" attributed to it).
The fact that there is currently no conventional theory that provides an explanation for the strength of gravity in space
The bingalactic - it does not justify the belief in the actual existence of "dark matter". It is not rational, and certainly not justified according to the principle of Ockham's razor. Scientific speculation should remain so until it finds empirical justifications, or at least a reasonable theory.
Yehuda,
You just have no shame. You don't even try, you just lie without batting an eyelid. The picture is in no way a "deviation from Newton-Einstein's gravitation formula". Let's start with the fact that such a formula simply does not exist. There is Newtonian gravity, which is one model, and there is general relativity, which is another model. The two models contradict each other. Only in some cases (which are not the cases you see in the picture), Newton's model is a good approximation of Einstein's model.
What you see in the picture is a mapping of a weak gravitational field. That is, you photograph a certain star (or a certain system) for a very long time and see how the image distorts. This is a purely relativistic phenomenon that is in no way related to Newton's model because it is caused by the interaction of light with gravity, which according to Newton cannot happen at all. According to the nature of the distortion, so-called, of the location of the galaxy, it is possible to understand which interaction the light made where. What the researchers did was to take a lot of such data from a lot of buildings and build a single image from them that shows where there is something that distorts the paths of the light rays even though it is invisible. In Hebrew it is called dark matter.
And by the way, just a side note (although of course you already know it) - there is no other model that explains the observations. Not MOND that has failed time and time again in the experiment for many years (and every time they try to fix it, so far without success), and certainly not your stupid model that even people who are not physicists here on the site have already given you a hundred refutations of it and you just close your ears.
Although the article confidently talks about dark matter, what they did was to make a map with the magnitude of the deviation from the Newton-Einstein gravitation formula. That is, what we see is only the deviation, and it can be explained in many ways starting from the dark matter as explained in the article. Or Professor Milgrom's MOND theory and including the pressure differences that exist in the vastness of space in the universe. There are more than ten possibilities.