Our dizzy Universe: Hubble discovers ‘wobbling galaxies’


Hubble discovers ‘wobbling galaxies’

Observations may hint at nature of dark matter

Using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers have discovered that the brightest galaxies within galaxy clusters “wobble” relative to the cluster’s centre of mass. This unexpected result is inconsistent with predictions made by the current standard model of dark matter. With further analysis it may provide insights into the nature of dark matter, perhaps even indicating that new physics is at work.

Dark matter constitutes just over 25 percent of all matter in the Universe but cannot be directly observed, making it one of the biggest mysteries in modern astronomy. Invisible halos of elusive dark matter enclose galaxies and galaxy clusters alike. The latter are massive groupings of up to a thousand galaxies immersed in hot intergalactic gas. Such clusters have very dense cores, each containing a massive galaxy called the “brightest cluster galaxy” (BCG).

The standard model of dark matter (cold dark matter model) predicts that once a galaxy cluster has returned to a “relaxed” state after experiencing the turbulence of a merging event, the BCG does not move from the cluster’s centre. It is held in place by the enormous gravitational influence of dark matter.

But now, a team of Swiss, French, and British astronomers have analysed ten galaxy clusters observed with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, and found that their BCGs are not fixed at the centre as expected [1].

The Hubble data indicate that they are “wobbling” around the centre of mass of each cluster long after the galaxy cluster has returned to a relaxed state following a merger. In other words, the centre of the visible parts of each galaxy cluster and the centre of the total mass of the cluster — including its dark matter halo — are offset, by as much as 40 000 light-years.

The giant galaxy cluster in the centre of this image contains so much dark matter mass that its gravity bends the light of more distant objects. This means that for very distant galaxies in the background, the cluster’s gravitational field acts as a sort of magnifying glass, bending and concentrating the distant object’s light towards Hubble. These gravitational lenses are one tool astronomers can use to extend Hubble’s vision beyond what it would normally be capable of observing. This way some of the very first galaxies in the Universe can be studied by astronomers. The lensing effect can also be used to determine the distribution of matter — both ordinary and dark matter — within the cluster.

“We found that the BCGs wobble around centre of the halos,” explains David Harvey, astronomer at EPFL, Switzerland, and lead author of the paper. “This indicates that, rather than a dense region in the centre of the galaxy cluster, as predicted by the cold dark matter model, there is a much shallower central density. This is a striking signal of exotic forms of dark matter right at the heart of galaxy clusters.”

The wobbling of the BCGs could only be analysed as the galaxy clusters studied also act as gravitational lenses. They are so massive that they warp spacetime enough to distort light from more distant objects behind them. This effect, called strong gravitational lensing, can be used to make a map of the dark matter associated with the cluster, enabling astronomers to work out the exact position of the centre of mass and then measure the offset of the BCG from this centre.

If this “wobbling” is not an unknown astrophysical phenomenon and in fact the result of the behaviour of dark matter, then it is inconsistent with the standard model of dark matter and can only be explained if dark matter particles can interact with each other — a strong contradiction to the current understanding of dark matter. This may indicate that new fundamental physics is required to solve the mystery of dark matter.

Co-author Frederic Courbin, also at EPFL, concludes: “We’re looking forward to larger surveys — such as the Euclid survey — that will extend our dataset. Then we can determine whether the wobbling of BGCs is the result of a novel astrophysical phenomenon or new fundamental physics. Both of which would be exciting!”



[1] The study was performed using archive data from Hubble. The observations were originally made for theCLASH and LoCuSS surveys.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Neil Jordan
October 26, 2017 5:06 pm

An observation (if verified and reproduced) of reality that is inconsistent with the model indicates that something is wrong with the model, not the other way around.

Reply to  Neil Jordan
October 26, 2017 5:11 pm

Not in post-modern, post-normal “climate science”.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Neil Jordan
October 26, 2017 5:32 pm


Reply to  Neil Jordan
October 26, 2017 5:45 pm

Hence the concern that current understandings are inconsistent with predictions. The “new physics” may be poor choice of words unless it was referring to a new revised model,which will stand until something is found that is inconsistent with it. They they will create the new new model…
Actually, this is how science is done. Observe, theorize, predict (models), set up experiments and observe, falsify or repeat.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Neil Jordan
October 26, 2017 10:10 pm

Bravo Neil!
If the theory does not match the observations. Leave the reliable observations alone (no need to add dark matter which cannot be seen of measured–it is a fudge factor to make the models work) and go back to find the flaws in the models.
Sounds like climate change theory and practice has seeped into astronomy and corrupted it.

October 26, 2017 5:11 pm

Maybe astronomers observe a time lag between the centers, and not a strictly spatial wobble. Since one center is “dark,” it would be difficult to gauge with a spectroscope.

Reply to  jonesingforozone
October 27, 2017 1:03 am

Time lag?

On a galactic scale? Watching a several hundred light year diameter galaxy ‘wobble’ should take centuries to millennia.

One wonders just how these researchers can determine galaxy wobble over extremely short periods of time, extremely shallow perspectives and relatively large areas of ignorance.

Looks and sounds like the logical fallacy ‘Argumentum ad Ignorantiam’ aka argument from ignorance.

Reply to  ATheoK
October 27, 2017 10:14 am

atmospheric lensing could cause it in a shorter time 😉

no need for invisible dark matter / black holes, nor any need to explain why the inner core of the galaxies aren’t traveling at near relativistic orbit speeds to avoid falling into the invisible math fudge.

note to folks who are unaware – our planet orbits within the suns atmosphere which extends right out to the heliopause – that’s a big lens !

David Ball
Reply to  ATheoK
October 27, 2017 12:30 pm

Great posts, gentlemen.

David Ball
Reply to  ATheoK
October 27, 2017 12:34 pm

I would also look at equipment drift. There may be a multitude of causes and the last thing to be considered would be “galactic wobble”. Thinking of microwave background. When the antenna was activate, they considered multiple causes before coming to the conclusion that the universe has a background “noise”.
I believe they even swept the pigeon poop out of the antenna.

Reply to  ATheoK
October 27, 2017 3:16 pm

Easy, by measuring the red shift.

Reply to  ATheoK
October 28, 2017 3:23 pm

“MarkW October 27, 2017 at 3:16 pm
Easy, by measuring the red shift.”

Are you yanking our leg(s), MarkW?

Reply to  jonesingforozone
October 27, 2017 1:35 am

I have the solution. The curvature of the intervening space-time is locally decreasing so that we are viewing within minutes changes which take millennia!

Reply to  jonesingforozone
October 27, 2017 1:54 am

Seriously, though. What are the odds of the closer gravitational lens not moving with respect to the distant galaxy?

Reply to  jonesingforozone
October 27, 2017 6:44 am

And not a perfect lens, and changing.

Reply to  jonesingforozone
October 28, 2017 3:29 pm

“jonesingforozone October 27, 2017 at 1:54 am
Seriously, though. What are the odds of the closer gravitational lens not moving with respect to the distant galaxy?”

Zero chance.

Nor can we be sure that we’ve been able to measure all possible movement or direction of movement for distant galaxies. Our “long distance scanners” are tedious work at pixel levels and lots of repetitive images of the same slot of sky.

October 26, 2017 5:26 pm

new fundamental physics is required to solve the mystery…so?…just make something else up then

Reply to  Latitude
October 26, 2017 5:44 pm

aether: abandoned as non-nonsensical

Dark Matter … the new improved aether: the standard model of which doesn’t work.

“Mixed Matter”: When added to dark matter (in sufficient quantity) will create an acceptable new/improved/bonus aether that can fulfill all necessary requirements (depending on the variable quantity)

Reply to  Latitude
October 26, 2017 6:11 pm

Yup. More and more garbage is made up to patch up their failing theory. Epicycles all the way down.

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  Latitude
October 27, 2017 1:33 pm

The mystery is when did the ESA have anything to do with HUBBLE?

October 26, 2017 5:28 pm

We keep finding more regular matter in space all the time. More planets, more brown dwarfs, more rogue planets flying through space, etc.

Reply to  TA
October 27, 2017 10:11 am

I see where scientists think they have found the first interstellar comet/asteriod.


“A small, recently discovered asteroid – or perhaps a comet – appears to have originated from outside the solar system, coming from somewhere else in our galaxy. If so, it would be the first “interstellar object” to be observed and confirmed by astronomers.”

end excerpt

All sorts of things are flying around out there in space.

I also read another article today claiming scientists have spotted four comets circling a distant star. It’s amazing what we are starting to be able to “see” in space.

We need a bunch of real big telescopes in orbit. There’s so much to see.

October 26, 2017 5:36 pm

I have a problem with the statement “Dark matter constitutes just over 25 percent of all matter in the Universe but cannot be directly observed”. Seems to me that it is only a theory, not yet proven. To state it as an observed fact is wrong.

Reply to  kaliforniakook
October 26, 2017 5:46 pm


Reply to  kaliforniakook
October 26, 2017 6:20 pm

Yes. Dark matter doens’t exist but as a figment made up to explain the failure of their theory to predict reality. Sure, dark matter could be one explanation, but another is just as likely. When their theory failed to predict by a huge margin the rate of galactic rotation what the scientists should have done is to have humbly said “there’s something we don’t understand at work here” instead of “all is fine because our ‘dark matter’ explains everything.”

Reply to  kaliforniakook
October 26, 2017 10:24 pm

By your definition the gravity doesn’t exist either because we don’t know what it is, all you can do is measure the observation.

See your statement is as fundementally stupid as that.

Reply to  LdB
October 27, 2017 12:37 am

The problem with Dark Matter is that it’s an ad-hoc addition to explain why observations don’t fit the standard model. It hasn’t been observed. It literally can’t be observed by its hypothesised nature, but effects are already being ascribed to it.

When you’re inventing invisible, intangible particles to prop up the existing model instead of starting over, something has gone wrong.

Sceptical lefty
Reply to  LdB
October 27, 2017 1:16 am

As you noted, LdB, all we can do with gravity is measure the observation. Gravity is not understood and ‘gravitons’ are still undetected. We still have to deal with the ‘fact’ that nothing is faster than light contradicting the observed reality that gravity is practically instantaneous in operation.

Kaliforniakook is not in lockstep with the majority of reputable scientists, but he’s still right! (He’s probably what our Warmist colleagues term, a ‘denier.’)

Reply to  LdB
October 27, 2017 2:55 am

Dark matter is not intangible for sure, since it is because of gravitational effect that it as been hypothesized.
And it can be “seen”, because of gravitational lensing. Something with a mass, but unseen per se, can be mapped (or Einstein’s Theory as a big, big, problem… while it usually work fine AFAWK)
Nothing in the standard model constrain matter to interact with/ produce/absorb radiations, although it is hard for human to imagine perfectly transparent matter

Reply to  LdB
October 27, 2017 2:57 am

Correct paq you can measure every bit as easily as you can gravity. It’s not a thought bubble it’s an observable fact and what it is well that is another story like gravity.

Reply to  kaliforniakook
October 27, 2017 4:42 am

I really dislike any theory in any part of science using a massive “correction” to keep the theory alive and workable.

Oh there’s a big chunk of invisible stuff doing that, is a pretty poor explanation for what you can’t explain with your model. I can understand why physicists are reluctant to abandon the standard model since it works so well for so much stuff, but hypothesing dark matter as the solution to a big problem is pretty unconvincing!

Reply to  kaliforniakook
October 29, 2017 12:57 pm

“Dark matter constitutes just over 25 percent of all matter in the Universe…”
That should be about 25 percent of the mass-energy in the Universe or on the order of 95 percent of the matter in the Universe.

Bill Illis
October 26, 2017 5:47 pm

If you think about it, the Sun’s movement around the galaxy is influenced by the gravity of all 300 billion stars in the Milky Way which are pulling on it in just about every direction. This is not the same as the Earth orbiting a mass like the Sun which is 99.8% of all the mass in the solar system. There are 300 billion stars and 300 billion solar masses of other gases pulling on the Sun from all directions. If anything, the Milky Way operates as a single entity in terms of gravity, not 300 billion stars orbiting a central black hole like the solar system. I think if this were properly formulated, there would not be a need for dark matter. This galaxy in the study exhibits the same issue.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Bill Illis
October 26, 2017 6:55 pm

Bill, has no one postulated a further refinement of gravitation as a possible reason? Gravity as we know it may work fine for masses and distances on the solar system scale. Einstein found Newtonian mechanics a special case of his general relativity and gravitational theory. When you go to Atomic scale a variety of forces have to be accounted for. And these are all part of the same matter. A big clockwork like a galaxy and an even bigger clockwork like a galactic cluster may be the last shell of a grander gravitational theory like nested Matryoshka dolls.comment image

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 26, 2017 7:09 pm

Picture didn’t print.
comment image

I tried to calculate such an idea using the mysterious error in the location of the pioneer space craft from the final weak signal received, I believe in 2004 when it was well out of the solar system on its way to Alpha Centauri?

After some international meetings Nasa concluded half heartedly it was wayward heat from its nuclear battery. I still have a weird hyperbolic formula on my graphing calculator (lying fallow since) although the batteries are likely dead by now.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 26, 2017 7:11 pm

Newtonian mechanics aren’t just a special case of relativity. Einstein showed Newton’s model fundamentally false.

For Newton, gravity acts instantaneously, while space and time are absolutes. For Einstein, gravity acts at the speed of light, while space-time is relative.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 26, 2017 11:49 pm

There is no mysterious error in the pioneer space craft flight the problem was solved way back in 2012.

The apparent anomaly was a matter of tremendous interest for many years, but has been subsequently explained by an anisotropic radiation pressure caused by the spacecraft’s heat loss.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 27, 2017 4:47 am

Gabro, is that right, that Einstein shows gravity acts at the speed of light? Einstein envisaged gravity as curving space-time ratehr than as a force. When matter encounters the curvature, it reacts instantaneously surely?

Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 28, 2017 3:30 pm

Phoenix44 October 27, 2017 at 4:47 am

Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicted that gravity would operate at the speed of light, not instantaneously. Observations have since, including quite recently, showed him right.

Gravity doesn’t curve spacetime. Mass does. His explanation for how gravity worked was by mass curving or denting spacetime.

Reply to  Bill Illis
October 27, 2017 10:24 am

” If anything, the Milky Way operates as a single entity in terms of gravity,”

And in terms of galaxy-spanning magnetic fields. How does this work with the speed of light as a limit?

Reply to  TA
October 28, 2017 3:19 pm

The Sun responds to the gravity field of 300 billion stars from where they were 4 years to 100,000 years ago. How do you calculate that.

Curious George
October 26, 2017 5:54 pm

The standard model of cosmology indicates that the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.

Almost like climatology. But astrophysicists don’t ring alarm bells. They just say they don’t understand completely, not that the science is settled.

Stan Robertson
Reply to  Curious George
October 26, 2017 7:11 pm

That “dark energy” fraction is a figment of a gravity theory that needs repair. Dark energy is represented by a term in general relativity known as the “cosmological constant”. Einstein is said to have considered it to be his greatest blunder because he used it to produce a static model universe when he could have ditched it and predicted the observed expansion of the universe. The cosmological constant has been resurrected as an epicycle patch for astronomy. Two years ago, I posted an article on the physics arXiv that show that it is not needed if you make a small modification to general relativity that was proposed by Huseyin Yilmaz. https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07809 Take a look at Figure 1.

October 26, 2017 6:02 pm

Yes, I don’t completely buy this idea of ‘dark matter’ being some new exotic something we don’t understand. If all or most of the first generation very large stars after the other supposed thing, ‘the big bang’ happened, then there will be a lot of unobserved regular matter or regular black holes through out the universe. Perhaps much more dense matter if much of it was processed through the countless supernovas spewing out heavier elements that will never be seen. Just because we can’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there, or arranged the way we think it should be.

The whole theory of the cosmos and evolution of it is the best explanation we may have today, but the role of science will be to forever update any hypothesis that makes better sense. Stay tuned. Dark Energy is another kettle of fish that we really have no definitive answer for either.

Reply to  Earthling2
October 27, 2017 3:02 am

Nobody understand neutrinos, fermions, baryons or the like anymore “dark matter” or “dark energy”. Founders of quantum mechanics said themselves it was utterly nonsensical (at least for us), but, eh, it works, so, let’s use it and try to understand by using it.

old construction worker
Reply to  Earthling2
October 28, 2017 12:14 am

“Stay tuned. Dark Energy is another kettle of fish that we really have no definitive answer for either.”
May definition of “Dark Matter” Some type of something traveling faster than the speed of light.

Gary Pearse
October 26, 2017 6:19 pm

I’m concerned the loosening of the rigors of scientific enquiry in this post normal, amoral world, where not only theories become what one wants them to be but data is malleable and there to be to fitted. Statistics has become the elastic mathematics for this new activity. You can cast about to find a method that makes data out of the noise that has to be there when you are shoe-horning data to fit the preconceived theory you want or need. If the well established statistical operations don’t do the job, you can create one that serves you better, even if (especially if? ) you are not skilled in the discipline.

Was it Lord Kelvin who opined near the end of the 19th century that science pretty well had unearthed all the important laws of nature and what remained was a few refinements and small matters to tidy up? Einstein’s stuff is brought up to pooh pooh this idea and, although one could argue either way whether it was part of the refinement, Kelvin was substantially correct. Oh there were new worlds discovered and a few new elements, and we did split these or fuse them together and so on.

What happened in the following hundred years with the so little out there to do? We’ll hear from some about space exploration and the electronic revolution but this is engineering. Application of science. Like the invention of the steam locomotive. What happened was a population explosion of scientists on the loose desperate for relevance. By 2015, scientific papers numbered in a few thousands. An individual could read all the main papers of science. Today, with nothing to do, there are over 50million papers published and 2.5million added per year to nearly 24,000 journals. This is Guinness Book of Records stuff, like how many pizzas one can eat in an hour.

This gave rise to string theory, dark matter, multiple universes, theories on whether we exist or not “finding” the Higgs Boson so dear old Higgs could be cheered up before his death….stealing rocket engineering and calling it rocket science, ditto computer science because of these wondrous developments. This also gave rise, with the decline in morality, to scientific fгацд on an assembly line scale, particularly in medical research, but climate science deserves to be in the Guinness book for the depth of its согцртюи to serve the global scope of its plan of harm to humanity. If physicist’s are looking for Dark Matter, take a climate scientist from the Team to lunch.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 26, 2017 7:29 pm

There are too many government and academic “scientists”, but a great deal of now elementary science remained to be discovered in the late 19th century.

The existence of atoms was contested then. Their structure was a mystery even for those, like Einstein, who were convinced that they were real. How molecules form was also obviously unknown.

Radiation other than electromagnetic wasn’t known until the very end of the century. The transmutation of elements also awaited the 20th century. As did the expansion of the universe, its age (and the earth’s) and size, given the recognition that “nebulae” were distant galaxies. Among many other fundamental issues.

In 1900, chromosomes were not known to be the vehicles of heredity. While DNA was discovered in 1868, it wasn’t recognized as the molecule of genetic inheritance until the mid-20th century.

In 1900, continents were thought to be immobile, and that giant catastrophic floods didn’t happen.

Reply to  Gabro
October 27, 2017 4:50 am

And I have no doubt that in 2134 somebody will be writing something similar on the state of science in 2017!

Most, if not all scientific discoveries open up more questions and show us that we don’t know is far greater than what we think we don’t know. If science is a funnel, we are starting at the narrow end.

Joel O’Bryan
October 26, 2017 6:21 pm

How about a quiet, naked Super Massive black hole kicked out into inter-galactic space by the merger of two large galaxies, each with their own super BH?

Andromeda and the MilkWay each have super massive BH centers. When there merger finishes in about 3 Gy from now, one BH will get the center, the other may get the boot.

In any event, Cold Dark Matter theory has failed a key test!

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 26, 2017 6:52 pm

“…one BH will get the center, the other may get the boot.”

More likely one will swallow the other, creating a series of graviton waves that make LIGOs go ‘BING!!!’ 🙂

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Sara
October 26, 2017 8:20 pm

There are scenarios for both SMBH merger and ejection of one SMBH and retention of the other.

An estimation of the masses of each galaxy’s core SMBH is sufficiently uncertain to not be able to exclude the ejection scenario if one is much more massive than the other.

And due to the proximity, LIGO (if it’s still around those many Gyrs it would take for binary merger) would certainly go more than BING.

J Mac
October 26, 2017 6:31 pm

‘Wobbling Galaxies’…..
Analogous to the ‘spin cycle’, when you have one large bath towel in the washing machine with a load of dress shirts.

The Original Mike M
October 26, 2017 6:40 pm

Is it possible that “dark matter” of cosmology could some day become the “ether” of EM wave theory 100 years ago?

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  The Original Mike M
October 26, 2017 8:37 pm

more likely dark energy than dark matter.

But…. Space-Time is just an extension of an inflation acting on a quantum instability where mass-energy and its anti-mass-energy symmetrical partners are forced into opposing parallel universes (part of a 5 dimensional bubble). The rebound will be hell.

When can I pick up my Nobel?

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 26, 2017 8:42 pm

I’d say write it up with the appropriate equations and a method of testing your predictions, and the Nobel is yours!

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 26, 2017 8:57 pm

testing you say …. you see that’s the problem. It’s like Earth’s climate system, an n of 1 problem.

Besides, as many physicists have long noted, we are constrained because we can’t observe from outside the experiment. to see all the dimensions and the mass-energy flows between.

But magnetism, … magnetism is weird, it may hold the key though to unraveling it when I synthesize that magnetic monopole.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 26, 2017 9:02 pm


That we’re inside the experiment is indeed a problem.

A lot of smart people are however looking for a work around that problem.

Reply to  The Original Mike M
October 27, 2017 12:06 am

@ The Original Mike M
I will let you in a little dark secret of physics which most on this forum obviously don’t know. The Higgs is actually very close to the old Ether we just don’t call it that because of the history. If you want to understand it if you search the term “Higgs Ocean” it will explain you can view the higgs field for layman as an ocean. As different particles move thru the ocean they have different drag coeffiecients.

Now if asked I will deny I told you about the Higgs really being the old Ether 🙂

For layman I strongly recommend you start here:

The Higgs detail is here:

Reply to  LdB
October 27, 2017 12:14 am

Oh CERN does it version of the HIGGS ocean … blame them not me 🙂

October 26, 2017 6:50 pm

Nice lensing effect in those Hubble shots. Einstein was right about a lot of things.

Dark matter is another way of saying “i don’t know why the books are out of balance”. So far, three pairs of black holes have swallowed each other, creating graviton waves detected by the LIGO arrays, and more recently two neutron stars merged as one, creating the same thing.

The astronomy community keeps making discoveries of oddball stuff, like a planet so hot that its “rain” is molten glass and its sun is eroding its atmosphere. Space can be warped so that a ship can reach its destination without moving. Time travel is possible. I’m sure there is more to come that will make poor old Earth look like a refuge from insanity.

Right now, the astronomy community is also trying to get direct photos of the planet orbiting Alpha Centauri A. Least ways, I think it’s “A”. It’s only 4 light years away. Maybe we could Elon Musk to build us a warp engine and move all the Greenbeans there.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Sara
October 26, 2017 8:42 pm

Time travel into the future certainly is possible. It happens all around us. An atomic clock in orbit running slower than those here on Earth is just one example.

But travel back to the past… a causality paradox…. not enough energy in this universe for that to happen.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 26, 2017 8:44 pm

Some think there might be.

If you converted all the mass in planet Jupiter to energy, you might just be able to go back to the Cretaceous and save some nonavian dinosaurs from extinction. At least then. What happened later is another matter.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 26, 2017 10:18 pm

well schist!!
I brain tooted. An Atomic clock in orbit runs ever-so slightly faster than one located deeper in the gravity-well, that is at the surface.

I was thinking of the astronaut zipping around space at close to light speed for ~ 4 years and returning to find Earth hundreds of years older. His clock runs slower.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 27, 2017 1:06 pm

Time travel in to the past is certainly not impossible.
The best description of it for a 12-year-old kid was in ‘Have Spacesuit – Will Travel” when Mother Thing is instructed to return Kip and Peewee to the space-time from which they came. After all, Heinlein simply studied Einstein. Einstein predicted gravity waves and light being bent by gravity a long time ago.
Of course, if you’re dead set on not speculating on it, then it won’t happen in YOUR view.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Sara
October 26, 2017 10:21 pm

And on converting a Jupiter-mass equivalent to pure energy…. I think I’d like to be a few dozen lightyears away when that crowd-pleaser happens.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 27, 2017 1:14 pm

Well, you would need to feed it all into the flux capacitor.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Sara
October 27, 2017 9:46 am

Sara, twice you say graviton waves, it is gravitational waves. And those are not the same as gravity waves.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 27, 2017 1:25 pm

Tom: In quantum theory, each particle acts both as a particle AND a wave. This is called duality. So if there is a graviton, we expect it to behave both as particle and as a wave as well. The electromagnetic force, for example, is transmitted by photons, and light is nothing but a large number of photons.
Ergo, gravitons are to gravitational waves the theoretical analogue of photons for electromagnetic waves. They are the proposed carriers of the gravitational interactions at the quantum level, and are expected to appear naturally in a future theory of quantized gravity.
Please note that I did NOT say gravity wave. You did. SMOOCHES!!!!

John of Cloverdale WA
October 26, 2017 7:41 pm

Does it really matter? Sorry for the pun.

Rick C PE
Reply to  John of Cloverdale WA
October 26, 2017 9:59 pm

Just read that physicists at CERN have measured antimatter and found symmetry with matter. Apparently this means that the universe cannot actually exist. So I guess it not only doesn’t matter — it doesn’t antimatter either. 🙂

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Rick C PE
October 26, 2017 10:22 pm

maybe we are the anti-matter?

Rick C PE
Reply to  Rick C PE
October 27, 2017 8:14 pm
J Mac
October 26, 2017 7:41 pm

It would be more honest to call dark matter ‘unknown’ or ‘invisible’ matter. We have to assume and add some ‘invisible’ matter to the standard model to get it to sort of work for observable galactic scale systems. It’s a BIG fudge factor, applied to cover the nether parts of human ignorance.

Reply to  J Mac
October 27, 2017 1:32 pm

Like I said previously, it’s the excuse for why the books don’t balance.

The Original Mike M
October 26, 2017 7:42 pm

I would guess that they are playing on the hairy edge of existing computational precision given the enormous amount of time for a complete “cycle” (I’m guessing north of 10^8 years?) and the tiny amount of observation time since Hubble has been operational? If so I hope for their sake this doesn’t turn out to be the result of a some crazy processor error! Remember this? http://davefaq.com/Opinions/Stupid/Pentium.html

Another question crossed my mind – how do we time itself isn’t slowly changing as the universe ages?

The Original Mike M
Reply to  The Original Mike M
October 26, 2017 7:47 pm

… how do we know time isn’t ..

Reply to  The Original Mike M
October 26, 2017 7:53 pm

Time is relative. But we do have an estimate that it has been about 13.8 billion earth years since the Big Bang, or whatever started the expansion of the universe.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Gabro
October 26, 2017 8:09 pm

I’m suggesting that one year’s worth of time now may not have been the same duration say 10 billion years ago thus making the “10 billion year” age itself something longer or shorter than what we believe it to be using the time yardstick we are using in the present. It would appear to be the same to anyone existing that long ago and therefore be undetectable by any means I suppose but the variation would make all energy equations etc. variable over the course of the universe’s life span. Similarly, what if something like the gravitational constant or the speed of light changes over time? Is assuming such things to be constant a valid assumption?

Reply to  Gabro
October 26, 2017 8:09 pm

Would that be 13.8 billion years when the earth is now rotating about 24 hours on its axis, or a couple of hundred million years ago when a day was 22 hours long? Same for the yearly time of the transit of the Earth around the Sun. I guess it is all relative, except some ‘daze’, I really wonder what that even means.

Reply to  Gabro
October 26, 2017 8:22 pm

The 13.8 billion years would be the same amount of time whether measured in any other unit.

Space-time is a continuum, so relative to a hypothetical observer outside the continuum of our universe, time has not sped up or slowed down since the Big Bang. Or whatever initiated the expansion of our universe.

Time dilation is however an observation, ie a scientific fact. According to the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two observers, either due to a velocity difference relative to each other, or by being differently situated relative to a gravitational field. As a result of the nature of space-time, a clock that is moving relative to an observer will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer’s own frame of reference. A clock that is under the influence of a stronger gravitational field than an observer’s will also be measured to tick slower than the observer’s own clock. The predictions of this theory have been repeatedly demonstrated.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Gabro
October 26, 2017 8:31 pm

Earthling2 ” or a couple of hundred million years ago when a day was 22 hours long?”

No, I’m not talking about changes in duration due to changes in physical attributes that affect the kinematics. More like, if time was in buckets, the buckets are changing in size. How do we know time flows in a constant manner?

Reply to  Gabro
October 26, 2017 8:40 pm


What we know about time is that it goes in one direction. Its speed however is relative, based upon the observer’s position, velocity and gravitational field.

Time travel into the future is possible, since that’s where we’re headed anyway, at the speed that those of us along for the ride experience. There are ways however of changing the relative relationship, such that travel into the future at a different rate might be possible.

Some ways of getting around this fact and traveling back in time have been proposed, but most aren’t very convincing.

Reply to  Gabro
October 26, 2017 9:07 pm

We should be able to go back in time, at least on a view only basis, if we could return to the physical space x-y coordinate of where the Earth was physically located at that specific time. Of course there would be nothing there, but perhaps a ‘memory’ of what happened in that space continuum. The space isn’t moving, since we are continually moving through space-time, but all the movement of the planet, the Sun trajectory around the Milky Way, the galactic movement itself, and the empty space is still there with that information. Or a copy of that information that is available for viewing. Hence all the spiritual stuff, about the Book of Remembrance or Records, Life, Dead etc, in other cultures.

This is of course all science fiction in my head, although who knows what quantum leap we make some day in things we consider absolute, not possible. I still remember my grandmother, who was born in a covered wagon in Oklahoma Indian Territory in the late 1800’s, telling me when I was a little boy about the day they heard that an airplane had flown for the first time. Just absolutely impossible they thought.

Reply to  Gabro
October 26, 2017 9:15 pm


Going to the point in space-time occupied by earth 65 Ma, for example, wouldn’t preserve any useful information.

Only going to the actual physical earth at that point in space-time would do so. While various means of doing so have been proposed, none appear convincingly controllable.

However, for the purposes of science fiction, just being plausible or at least not impossible suffices.

Reply to  Gabro
October 27, 2017 3:53 am

“13.8 billion earth years since the Big Bang” makes no sense, and, more worrying, hints at some closed time, while it is open.
It makes no sense, because we have no apparatus to measure time (a clock) before the first atom appeared
math knows only two kind of segment end: open or closed. [ ] or ] [
not obviously (this is a major point, it theoretically could otherwise), time is of open kind ] [, meaning the big bang is an horizon, not a point: when you get closer, you start changing scale, using smaller fraction of time (increasing powers of tenth of second) until you bump at plank time (~ 10^-43 s), where you know you aren’t still at big bang, but still cannot get closer. This hint at we are using a wrong time unit, the relevant one being some logarithm (or cotangent when coming close to 0) of our time, in which the universe would be of infinite duration.

just change time scale and begin counting in smaller fraction of “second”, but you don’t really get closer, there are still

it has no begining, the closer you get from “big bang”, the further you are still from it

Reply to  Gabro
October 27, 2017 1:28 pm


Quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons at about 10^−6 seconds, so we’ve had atoms with which to mark time since the first microsecond of those 13.772 billion +/- 59 million years. Since a proton is a hydrogen nucleus, it could be considered as an atom. Or you could wait for a full second until the proton acquired an electron.

Reply to  Gabro
October 27, 2017 1:34 pm

Sorry, Gabro, but the furthest red shift protogalaxy photographed by Hubble to date is 14.2 billion light years away. It’s not 13.8 billion.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  The Original Mike M
October 26, 2017 10:24 pm

indeed, the fine structure constant may not be constant across space-time.

Wayne Townsend
October 26, 2017 7:46 pm

While I agree with some comments above that Dark Matter appears to be like the concentric circles continually added to concentric circles in order to make Ptolomaic astronomy work, it is delightful to see scientists looking at counterfactual evidence and allowing the idea that their theory is likely wrong in some manner and not storming into a tizzy over “consensus science”.

Mr Bliss
October 26, 2017 8:05 pm

“This unexpected result is inconsistent with predictions made by the current standard model of dark matter.” – Climate scientists would say “Just adjust the data ’till it fits the model”

October 26, 2017 9:35 pm

Can I point out the “standard model of dark matter” is a made up thing put out by some loose and fast Cosmology Scientists very much like Climate Science. Only that group would ever have the gaul to call it that name.

The choice of the name is so it draws authority from the actual “Standard Model” which is something that is test and proven to the nth degree and in fact we have been struggling to find any deviation from.

Cosmology at times resembles Climate Science and we put it under the category scientists behaving badly.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  LdB
October 26, 2017 10:35 pm

the problem that the dark matter solves is that every galaxy examined/observed appears to be rotating too fast for the visible matter seen. They should fly apart unless there’s 3-6 times more matter than seen. Hence dark matter was created by theorists to explain an observation.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 26, 2017 11:05 pm

It’s going to take some effort to wade through it, but the following gives some context in relation to what can or can’t be known through theories and models:


Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 26, 2017 11:51 pm

That is an argument but it isn’t why you need Dark Matter … keep reading.

Stevan Reddish
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 27, 2017 12:36 am

If every galaxy contains 3 – 6 times more matter than can be seen/detected, calculations of the rate of expansion of the universe, of the age of the universe, the question of whether the universe is closed or open, are thrown out the window. In other words, all the math supporting the Big Bang theory would be completely invalidated.

Example: The ratio of gravitational potential energy to kinetic potential energy is currently calculated to be very minutely less than 1. This ratio has to be very very close to 1, or the universe would either have dispersed completely without any stars or galaxies forming, or all matter would have collected into black holes by now. If the universe does contain dark matter to the tune of 3 – 6 times that of visible matter, the ratio is far from 1, and everything in the universe should have collected into one massive black hole long ago.

Dark matter has been proposed to explained how galaxies could have held together for billions of years despite having insufficient mass compared to rotational speed. If the error isn’t in the amount of matter detected, but instead is in the calculated age of galaxies, nothing needs to be explained. The imbalance that creates the need for dark matter to make the math balance is actually evidence for a young universe.


Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 27, 2017 3:10 am

The problem is the only other viable theory to solve the galaxy problem was MOND which is now stone dead thanks to LIGO. There are a couple of die hards who are trying to build a relativistic version of MOND and I will comment on that if they ever succeed because you are trying to balance two very different beasts.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  LdB
October 26, 2017 10:39 pm

you are confusing the Standard Model of Quantum Physics (which explains particles and their quantum properties) with a standard model of cosmology (ratios of matter, dark matter, dark energy, and gravity). The former works extremely well, far too well to be seriously wrong. The latter is still mostly conjecture with alternatives possible.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 26, 2017 11:58 pm

I am not confusing anything … Please read what I said again. Given your comments I know a heck of a lot more about the standard model than you.

I am telling you a group of Cosmologists tried to make a theory more solid than it was by trying to piggy back off the scientific strength of “The Standard Model”. They could have chosen any other name why would they choose that name?????

If you actually know physics the “Standard Model” wont be the last name because we have a couple more forces to merge. The new model will become the “XYZ Model” pick a name, and if cosmology is true to form it will then want to be the “XYZ Model of Cosmology”.

Reply to  LdB
October 27, 2017 3:42 am

The enormous and increasing loss of energy of our expanding “big bang” universe would be the rationale for a counter-balancing “dark energy.”

An alternate explanation for the red shift is that the apparent universe is spinning slightly faster now than it was in our past. Our slight acceleration, multiplied by billions of years, makes galaxies appear to be flying apart. While Special Relativity limits objects traveling in the same inertial frame to the speed of light, these galaxies that we see at a distance can not be within our inertial frame, and thus can appear to move at superluminal speeds away from us (General Relativity). Most of the universe may not be visible to us in any tethered inertial frame at any red shift.

Why would we assume that the universe does not rotate, when everything within it does?

October 26, 2017 10:47 pm

Perhaps our assumptions/assertions of “space” outside our solar system are misconceived, then Hubble is receiving adulterated signals, and we are inferring inaccurate meaning.

Reply to  nn
October 27, 2017 12:07 am

LIGO says no.

Charles Gerard Nelson
October 26, 2017 11:47 pm

They make it up as they go along.
There are now so many contradictory observations that the Big Bang Theory is in tatters.
I guess getting media coverage is the sole aim of these ‘scientists’.

October 27, 2017 12:03 am

Blame the CO2.

wayne Job
October 27, 2017 12:44 am

Maybe they should just say that the universe remains a mystery not unlike particle physics and the making up of invisible friends to make their theories work should be outlawed.

Lester via
October 27, 2017 12:52 am

I suspect that the computation of stellar masses is incorrect as it is the result of binary stars attraction for one another that doesn/t consider the speed of the atoms in the hot gas. I once read a paper published by an obscure Russian physicist describing an experiment he performed demonstrating that the gravitational attraction of a hot gas is less than a cold gas on the earth’s surface. Tthe explanation of this effect was that the increase in centrifugal force of eastbound gas molecules wasn’t the same as the decrease in centrifugal force of westbound gas molecules since the force is a function of the square of the velocity.

the effect is very small on the surface of the earth because the centrifugal force is small compared to the gravitational force. causing the weight of a given mass to be slightly less at the equator than at the poles the effect would be much stronger for something in orbit around the earth and should be easily detected by a satellite experiment.

Lester via
Reply to  Lester via
October 27, 2017 2:06 am

the effect on stellar mass computation would be large because the temperature of the gas is in the millions of degrees corresponding to particle velocities much higher than the orbital velocity.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
October 27, 2017 1:04 am

Cosmologists are not like climate scientists – they are not immune to abandoning ideas that don’t work but they are dealing with problems the immensity and distance of which(in both terms of space and time) are staggering. We should be fair and remember we’ve only been at this for a few hundred years – compare that with the age of the Universe.
I find the whole concept of Dark Matter increasingly unconvincing. It has been searched for for some fifty years now with increasingly sophisticated means and has turned up Nada, zip, zero.
In terms of physics, it seems to me to contradict the most basic astrophysical truth we have – where there is the most mass , there we find the greatest luminosity. Of course, tomorrow someone may turn up clinching evidence for its existence and deserve a Nobel.

But there is an alternative – called Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) which seems much more elegant and is passing some important tests’ , providing an explanation for galactic rotation etc. Equally the Big Bang theory, which is currently being clung to like the best wreckage in sight, doesn’t seem long for this world either simply because it has to be cut up and reworked to match different incontrovertible observations.

But please let’s not underestimate the enormity of the task Cosmologists face – they are not falsifying data or trying to deceive anyone – just trying to puzzle out an extraordinarily difficult series of near impossible tasks. It might just take a little more time .

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
October 27, 2017 3:39 am

The Higgs took 50 years to discover, time has no bearing on the likely hood of a discovery.

MOND is dead thanks to LIGO you can’t have gravity waves in MOND it isn’t relativistic. If you don’t know that you shouldn’t be making comments on it.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  LdB
October 27, 2017 5:56 am

LdB : Your certainty is admirable, but seemingly not shared by all those well placed to comment on it…


Reply to  LdB
October 27, 2017 8:18 am

. . . MOND it isn’t relativistic.

There are relativistic versions of MOND, so that argument doesn’t fly.


Reply to  LdB
October 27, 2017 8:23 am

Something “higgs-like” has been discovered. Are we not still looking for the gravity force carrier, graviton, in a system where gravity is not a force but a curvature of space/time? Are we not still talking about the echoes of the big bang indicating an infinite and eternal universe that would rule out a 13.8 billion year old big bang?
There are so many internally inconsistent “facts” within the standard model but the anxiety of not knowing causes folks to cling to comfortable, in many cases ridiculous, inconsistencies as facts. These are two of many.

Reply to  LdB
October 27, 2017 8:31 am

There are no relativistic versions of MOND accepted there are a few die hards with thought bubbles. Your guys in the articles have a few chicken scratchings on a a pieces of paper. Do a scholar search of MOND papers post LIGO.

Sorry MOND is dead but some had careers that just ended by an observation and are having a hard time moving on.

Reply to  LdB
October 27, 2017 8:36 am

There are no relativistic versions of MOND accepted . . . .

Since MOND as a whole isn’t accepted, this statement is a little redundant.


Reply to  LdB
October 27, 2017 8:39 am

JimG1 there are no internal inconsistences in the Standard Model it is the most test theory we have in science. It doesn’t even cover gravity a basic wikipedia would have told you that

not including gravitational force

So again we have a comment by someone who doesn’t even understand what the Standard model covers much less but is sure there is an inconsistency.

Reply to  LdB
October 27, 2017 8:42 am

Jim rubbish it was accepted as a rough model subject to needing some more work. Even Lubos Motl who comments on here has discussed it.

Not flatteringly but it wasn’t outright rejected.

What killed it was LIGO the formulas that did work for galaxies won’t work with GR that was the whole point of the theory.

Reply to  LdB
October 27, 2017 8:46 am

I should also say I have no vested interest I couldn’t care a less what is right, or what you believe.

What I am telling you is the mathematics that was presented for the theory no longer works when you add relativity you galaxies fly apart again. So I am giving you a strict mathematical answer.

Reply to  LdB
October 27, 2017 8:53 am

October 27, 2017 at 8:23 am

What always intrigued me about the standard model was there were six leptons, six quarks, and four forces. The number of the beast in Revelations was 6-6-6, so I thought that meant there would be two more forces discovered. I forgot that the standard model was about particles. For the bosons there’s the photon, the weak force W and Z, the strong force gluon, the graviton, and now the Higgs. That makes six–the standard model is 6-6-6 after all.


Reply to  LdB
October 27, 2017 9:14 am

The devil cometh 🙂

This area of science is far less politically correct than many, nothing is really off bounds because it is all basic theoretical background. I gave a link above to Prof Matt Strasslers site, which is a really good point to at least get all the basics. Most of the answers are known with eyewatering detail because of the accuracy of the theory.

Probably of interest to this topic is the HIGGS is not the universal mass giver. There was a point we hoped it would be but the observation and experiments say it isn’t, it just makes particles behave a mass like way.

So yes gravity doesn’t even get involved and there is currently no way to bring it in, it stubbornly sits on the outside obeying it’s own rules.

Reply to  LdB
October 27, 2017 12:02 pm

“Physics beyond the Standard Model refers to the theoretical developments needed to explain the deficiencies of the Standard Model, such as the origin of mass, the strong CP problem, neutrino oscillations, … Wikipedia” . LdB, for a guy that knows everything you need to check your facts closer before you make disparaging comments about folks you know nothing about. There are many, many contradictory “beliefs” in physics including the standard model of particle physics. Newtons theory was very good at predicting experimental results, for its time, as well. Real intelligence includes realizing how much you don’t know rather than quoting generally accepted scientific dogma.

Reply to  LdB
October 27, 2017 8:44 pm

Both problems solved a very very long time ago the limits of wikipedia and layman trying to understand advanced topics. However clearly you want to believe some agenda so I will leave you with your stupidity.

Reply to  LdB
October 28, 2017 1:51 pm

You quoted Wikipedia first so I responded at a level I had hoped you would understand.
The funny thing is, I doubt that you could have even gained entrance to the school I attended and most certainly could not have graduated with me.

Reply to  LdB
October 29, 2017 1:38 am

Sure says the guy who didn’t even know the details, you really think you fool anyone reading this 🙂

Lester via
October 27, 2017 1:37 am

I also suspect that this apparent weight loss is the explanation behind several inertial propulsion systems that have been invented – such as the Dean drive and EM drive. the inventor seems to attribute this effect
to a thrust produced by his invention when it is placed on a scale

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 27, 2017 1:44 am

‘Exotic forms of dark matter’? Isn’t that just ‘normal matter’?

October 27, 2017 9:12 am

It seems that the cosmologists are far more willing to expect that their current theories are yet incomplete. In fact they welcome and embrace the mystery. I always liked when I read that two of the competing hypothesis’ that may explain dark matter were MACHOS [massively compact halo objects] and WIMPS [weakly interacting massive particles]. There is a certain welcome whimsy in that.

Kevin Schurig
October 27, 2017 9:32 am

Interesting points and conversations. But, personally, I think the galaxies are just drunk. 😉

Ed Minchau
October 27, 2017 12:00 pm

Needs more Epicycles.

Svend Ferdinandsen
October 27, 2017 2:08 pm

Seems that object wander around the universe.

October 27, 2017 3:31 pm

“This is a striking signal of exotic forms of dark matter right at the heart of galaxy clusters”

Dark matter, dark energy, dark (black) holes are as real as AGW. Mainstream astrophysicists are just another dogmatic bunch with the same symptoms as the AGW crowd. Countless observations disproves their theories, for each new observation that is made they seem to always be amazed/surprised by the results (at least a difference from the AGW crowd ;)), which none predicted, nevertheless no revision of the old theories in sight.

Michael S. Kelly
October 27, 2017 10:02 pm

Using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers have discovered that the brightest galaxies within galaxy clusters “wobble” relative to the cluster’s centre of mass. This unexpected result is inconsistent with predictions made by the current standard model of dark matter.
Well, then, if it’s inconsistent with the current standard model of dark matter (accepted by 97% of cosmologists, at my last reading), then these astronomers are simply deniers, and must be incarcerated.

Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 1:58 am


Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 1:59 am

CERN admitted they found nothing.

Dark Matter is anathema to the very physics of the universe

Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 2:06 am

So lets look at Dark Matter
100% reflective yet we cannot detect what it reflects

Does not exhange information with the universe around it in any detectable way (in physics, something that does not exchange information for all intents and purposes does not exist in the physical world, EVERYTHING MUST exchange information)

All of the lensing claims.. can be just as easily calculated using refraction mathematics. (keep it simple stupid)

No evidence has ever been found for this magical matter

No one has ever shown evidence that any matter is missing.

Charge makes up most mass in the universe, the gap between nucleus (Neutron and Proton) and electrons. It is empty space inbetween. Furthermore, we cant even tell the charge of a Neutron, protons provide a charge we can measure, we have to subtract.

Without charge, the “matter” of the the universe, would be Neutrons, with no charge. Ie, the universe would not exist as we know it, and the “mass” would be so small as to not even register relative to the observable universe we see today.

Mass is almost ALL charge with nothing inbetween. Electrons and motion, without either, nearly all of the mass in the universe would disappear

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 12:03 pm

You could not possibly be more wrong.

Most of the mass of baryonic matter is in protons and neutrons of atomic nuclei. The charged proton is slightly less massive than the neutron. Thus whatever “mass” charge has is tiny.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Gabro
October 28, 2017 1:33 pm

You completely miss the point, I said almost all mass is empty space between charged Proton Neutron and electron. The nucleus is also mass, but very little, I clearly made that point below

So your post doesn’t even challenge what i am saying, you better get back to google, unlike you this is coming straight from the noggin, reflection in knowedge of current theory, and an examination of it.

Are you saying the area between nucleus and electron is not mass? 😀 I hope not.

I am also pondering what happens to a neutron and proton that has charge removed.

Your replies denote some personal investment in this

and you dont even understand the topic

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Gabro
October 28, 2017 1:34 pm

you should have read the other post relating to this below.

0 for 2 now, you better get back to google search. Out of your depth

Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 2:10 am

So tired of BAD philosophy converted into equations and used to create physical objects. The abuse of mathematics in this context makes me want vomit.

mathematics has become somewhat of a sacred cow to create things, mathematics was never for that application. Mathematics are there to work out what we can see, what we can interact with, not to create things we cannot see, or interact with.

This is true for climate science too.

Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 2:16 am

even space time curvature is complete bunk. I am meant to believe there are different space time curvatures around different parts of my body, I am not one mass, but many masses, and not uniform, how would that look in a graphical representation of space time curvature?

The geomotry of two objects, one massive and one small, in space time is bollocks.
When one object falls into the curvature of another object, it does not have a pulling effect on the object that created the well to fall into, Einstein’s theory is diametrically opposed to Neuton’s. It is Neutron that requires two masses to create an attraction, Einstein’s theory only requires one.

Yet…… they use Einstein’s thoery for space time curvature and at the same time use Neutron for force, but you cannot do that, the theories fundamentally disagree.

Jesus, how moronic can you get when you follow mathematis down the rabbit hole.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 2:16 am

Newton ugh lol

Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 2:17 am

Neutrons from the last post, freudian slips apenty 😀

Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 2:23 am

comment image

See that empty space, that makes up most of the universe, now, how do we know that distance between nucleus and electrons is uniform throughout the universe?
How do we know charge is uniform thoughout the universe

And if mass is charge, and charge can change, then GRAVITY can change

Charge = mass = gravity

Probem solved

You are welcome

Where is my Nobel 😀

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 2:26 am

Gravity is proton charge and the resulting EM. This allows for the fundamental building blocks to connect, and othe processes build larger blocks, like temperature, forces, biology.

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 12:05 pm

No, gravity is not charge.

Just cuz you don’t understand how spacetime works in the general theory of relativity doesn’t mean that there is no gravitation.

Predictions made by the general theory of relativity have been confirmed over and over and over again.

I’d urge you to study physics before presuming to comment thereupon.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 1:09 pm

“just cos you dont understand”

Clearly this is a depth you should not wave in

There is no such physical thing as space. It is a human concept, a set of coordinates around an area.
Time is nothing but a measurement of a procession of an already determined physical process.

Your whole argument falls over from there.

I have demonstrated that most of the matter in the universe is the space between proton and electron. Are you saying that is incorrect?
and if most of the mass is between proton and electron and mass is coupled to gravity then charge is mass. No charge no mass, just neutrons floating around. no charge and no proton, and in fact, Neutrons have a charge, so no neutron either, no mass.

Mass seems to be mostly the distance between charded proton neutron and electron

all you have is copy paste of the same junk science that has been around for decades

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 1:35 pm

*wade in, I have no time for “google” scholars.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 1:38 pm

Let make it really simpy so it fits into your cranium

What creates the space between the nucleus and electron?

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 1:45 pm

you shoud read my explanation of NNFs sometimes too, if the topic ever comes up here, it’s very simplistic actually, keep it simple stupid, too much junk science comes from self determined intellectual people who like to make things as complicated as possible purely to feel smart

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 1:56 pm

Oh I can’t wait until you reply:D

The space is caused by different charges you numpty 😀

So, almost all mass is repulsion between pos and neg change

and if gravity can be derived by mass\denisty, then gravity is almost all charge.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 2:26 am

* Gravity is proton And electron charge

Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 2:27 am

All “in my opinion” of course 🙂 No fits thrown please

Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 2:30 am

Wave particle duality debunked too. At last, waited for 2 decades for that nonsense to be debunked. bad philosophy that is central to Quantum mechanics.

Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 2:33 am

There is no probability, there is only precise cause driven effect. If you CAN factor in all values, you can predict the future evolution of a system right down to the location of each particle.

We can’t know due to technical limitations, so we have to use probability

Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 2:34 am

The universe doesn’t know what probability is, it is merely a human concept for things they cannot determine an accurate outcome of

Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 2:37 am

Also no such thing as chaos either, which is the same reasoning as probability, we do not have the ability to know all values, and cannot predict a system, and it is “chaotic” to our understanding, but physically, in the phsyical world, that outcome was decided by it’s initial values and evolves precisely as those starting conditions dictated

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 4:36 pm

Perhaps you should sit down and take a breath, gather your thoughts into one post, instead of posting over and over and over…

Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 2:58 am

Let me elaborate on the fallacy of space time curvature, loaded the dishwasher and thought about it. 😀

When you have two objects in spacetime.. one larger than the other. Say sun and earth.
Earth falls into the geometric distortion created by the sun, any geometric distortion by the smaller earth mass will be canceled out, it will NOT affect the Sun physically at all, because they according to Einstein are not pulling each other (THAT IS NEWTON). The alleged earth space time curvature geometric distortion will have no effect on the larger body at all, it will just fall in (if both bodies are stationary)

It is Newton’s forces that cause the earth to have pull on the sun and vice versa.
But.. we have to completely opposed theories being mashed together to make the spacetime curvature work in the pysical world, beause as I said, with Relativity only, it would not work at all, because we see the stars being affected by maller masses

Geomotry does not allow for this to happen, the larger distortion will completely cancel out any effect of the smaller distortion on the larger body. If the distortion is exactly the same, the bodies would do NOTHING.

This is why the opposing theory of Newton is used, to overtcome this complete fallacy of spacetime curvature.

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 8:50 am

“Geomotry does not allow for this to happen, the larger distortion will completely cancel out any effect of the smaller distortion on the larger body. If the distortion is exactly the same, the bodies would do NOTHING.

This is why the opposing theory of Newton is used, to overtcome this complete fallacy of spacetime curvature.”

No, that is not the theory at all. Think of this analogy – spacetime is like a rubber sheet. You have a large marble on the sheet and it creates a depression. Put a smaller marble on the sheet and it also creates a depression but a smaller one. The depression of the first does not cancel out the depression of the second. If the two marbles are close together, the two depressions may seem to merge. The combination of the two marbles even make a larger depression. But looked at closely and measured, the depressions do not merge. There are two distinct depressions. The rubber sheet is a poor analogy to spacetime but it is useful as a thought experiment.

“There is no probability, there is only precise cause driven effect. If you CAN factor in all values, you can predict the future evolution of a system right down to the location of each particle.”

Probability theory is a human invention and a branch of mathematics. Even if the quantum nature of the universe didn’t exist and every aspect of the universe was pre-ordained and there was no uncertainty principle or quantum mechanics and everything was predictable – the branch of mathematics called probability theory would still exist and would still be very useful. That is because there is no way to know or factor in every value, every object state and the physics of how everything reacts. But the uncertainty principle does exist and so does quantum mechanics.

What I think you are trying to express is frustration with the idea of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle which apparently you don’t agree with. I don’t think this is a good forum for attacking those two.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Bobby Graham
October 28, 2017 1:03 pm

Space: is nothing but a defined area inside a set of coordinates
Time: is nothing but a measurement of procession of an already predermined physical process outcome (lets not mix this up with human decision making altering outcomes, the meat of much quantum reality drivel)

They mean nothing to the actual physical universe, time is not a real thing, it is a concept. Space is a concept, an relative and subjective one.

There is no quantum nature to the universe, there is no probability of outcome, the claim came from the philosophy of wave particle duality, and uncertainty thereof when the truth was, the very method of observation physically interfered with the dual slit experiment and altered the result, whereas the philosophy states that merely observing (watching) the experiment changed the outcome, which is just complete nonsense.

You are confusing philosophy with actuality. Confusing concept with physical reality

probability being useful has nothing to do with my post. If a probable outcome is enough for fit pupose, that is fine, that has nothing to do with the fact the universe does not work on probability, the universe is exactly precise.

when a concept enters the room, reality exits, as proven in your post.

I have tied my ramblings to the real world, the universe and every physical process in it is precise, exactly precise, no deviation.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 1:14 pm

and what I say about geometric distortions cancelling each other out is factual.

They cannot overlap in the same space, it’s physically impossible
To make this nonsense seem physically real, they take theory that completely disagrees with it and splice it on like Mann did with his thermometor record..:D

YOU CANNOT APPLY NEWTON TO EINSTEIN’s spacetime cuvature because they are diametrically opposed..

it seems this goes over the head of many, but some do understand this very simple problem with current astonomy.

You cant have space time curvature and mutual attraction at the same time because they are completely different things, space time curvature says bodies to not mutually attract at all.

Newton’s theory says the opposite, that objects attract each other.

einstein states a static spacetime field exists without matter being present, Newton says there is no attraction if there is 0 or 1 mass.

I suggest you think about this for a month first before replying

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 29, 2017 10:28 am

Mark – Helsinki, I don’t see many trying to debunk your comments probably as they don’t want to spend the time to do so given how many comments most will consider wrong you made. I’ll just work on the first 4 comments you made after my comment even though I think most of your comments are wrong in order to save time.
Mark – Helsinki: “Space: is nothing but a defined area inside a set of coordinates
Time: is nothing but a measurement of procession of an already predermined physical process outcome (lets not mix this up with human decision making altering outcomes, the meat of much quantum reality drivel).”

Re: Space. Space has many definitions. The one that seems appropriate here is that with respect to wobbling galaxies is the definition of spacetime which can be found with a search tool like Bing. Space is not just the defined area inside of a set of coordinates. By definition, it is also the area outside the set of coordinates.

Mark – Helsinki:”They mean nothing to the actual physical universe, time is not a real thing, it is a concept. Space is a concept, an relative and subjective one.”

This is a rather odd comment. What we call time does in fact exist and is as real to humans as is the universe. It is true that there are various conceptual ideas of time. Concepts can apply to that which is real. Space is also real. And there are many conceptual ideas about space.

Mark – Helsinki: “There is no quantum nature to the universe, there is no probability of outcome, the claim came from the philosophy of wave particle duality, and uncertainty …”

“Quantum mechanics” is a very well supported scientific theory. It is a theory from which many predictions were made. The predictions turned out to be both true and useful in the physical world that we human live and work in. Modern electronics is in part based on the quantum nature of reality. From what I can tell, you object to the quantum mechanics theory based on your philosophy. You have not posted anything that would cause most people to doubt the theory of quantum mechanics – certainly, you have not cast doubt in a scientific manner. Your comment that there is no “probability of outcome” appears to be more of your philosophy. If I pick up a fair 6 sided dice, with each side numbered starting with 1 and ending with 6, before I roll it, the probability of the outcome of the roll being any particular number from 1 to 6 is 1/6. From your philosophical viewpoint, where you assume everything must be known and preordained, than how the dice will land is preordained and there is no probability that it will land on anything other than the preordained side. But as a human, I don’t know which side the dice will land on. I don’t know if something is preordained or not. All humans can know is that the probability of this 6 sided fair dice landing on any particular number when it is rolled is 1/6. Probability theory is useful to those of us that are not “divine” and don’t know what is preordained and don’t even know if anything is preordained. As to quantum nature of reality which works mainly on the very small scale such as photons or electrons, that is something that is well supported by prediction and experiment.

This is all I have time to comment on.

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 29, 2017 11:54 pm

What is to debunk … all experiments falsify his answer, nobody would waste time they already know it’s wrong 🙂

Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 3:00 am

I rest my case

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 6:24 pm

I’m always impressed by how much we have learned since Rutherford’s time. Then I read Mark Helsinki’s nonsense and realize he doesn’t even know what Rutherford knew. Tsk, tsk!


Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 3:08 am

If I hear another hack invoke near infinity I will lose my **** 😀

Near infinity is exactly the same nonsense concept as infinity, there is NO difference between “near infinity”and “infinity”

October 28, 2017 11:40 am

If the vast majority of mass is far from the center of the cluster why would the gravity vector be anything but outward from the center? Like being weightless at the gravitational center of a planet?

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  dp
October 28, 2017 1:25 pm

The vector of attraction\gravity is relative to the position of an object being attracted.

if you are in the center of the cluster, gravity pulls on all sides. If you are outside obviously the vector is toward the cluster but as you move closer to the cluster, more and more vectors of attraction will come into play.

Inside the cluster, the area of the cluster with the highest density will pull on the surrounding parts, and becomes the center of gravity\attraction and throw in psuedo force of centrigugal force, ie force directed away from the axis of rotation by the spinning of the cluster, it creates a wobble.

inequal distribution of matter creating a non centered attractive force on the whole, and force directed away from the axis of rotation is a wobbly cluster 🙂

on earth, it’s physically fixed, non centered distribution of weight + spin. Like a bady made fidget spinner that has an “off center” center rotation point.

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 28, 2017 6:00 pm

Lagrangian points are locations where the outward pull of gravity is equal in all directions. And that is also why they’re unstable. The center of a sparse galactic cluster is such a point. Nothing need be there.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights