Astronomers find 19 more galaxies missing their dark matter

[Anonymous No.11221867]

Dark matter incels BTFO

>The new find, published November 26 in Nature Astronomy, bolsters the controversial recent discovery of two other galaxies without dark matter. The mysterious substance accounts for most matter in the universe, and it's thought to be the primary component of all galaxies — as well as the main driver of galaxy formation in the first place. So, finding so many galaxies without the exotic matter suggests astronomers are missing something major about how galaxies form and evolve.

>"This result is very hard to explain using the standard galaxy formation model," said lead author Qi Guo of the Chinese Academy of Science in a press release, "and thus encourages people to revisit the nature of dark matter."

When will they admit that dark matter (AND dark energy, but that's for another discussion) is not real? They jumped to conclusions on faulty data from decades ago.

[Anonymous No.11221877]

>>11221867
>20 out of tens of thousands of galaxies don’t have dark matter

have you looked up the bullet cluster lately? if anything the fact that dark matter can be kicked out of galaxies only supports the particulate dark matter hypothesis. OTOH that observation debunks MOND straightforwardly

[Anonymous No.11221879]

>>11221867
Some galaxies not having dark matter doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist in any of them.

???
Real shit thread, OP.

[Anonymous No.11221882]

>>11221867
source http://www.astronomy.com/news/2019/12/astronomers-find-19-more-galaxies-missing-their-dark-matter

[Anonymous No.11221906]

>>11221867
What are the standard techniques for measuring the dark matter content of galaxies?

[Anonymous No.11221920]

>>11221879
they've only JUST started this kind of research and they've already found this many galaxies with missing dark matter. How many more do you think they'll find as time goes on and more and more researchers start doing it too?

Face it, dark matter is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11221929]

>>11221920
>they've only JUST started this kind of research and they've already found this many galaxies with missing dark matter. How many more do you think they'll find as time goes on and more and more researchers start doing it too?

Who knows?
It doesn’t mean dark matter doesn’t exist. Just that it isn’t present in all galaxies. This observation makes the possibility of dark matter being explained away by a reformulation of gravity less likely, as this would indicate gravity mystically works differently in different places.

> Face it, dark matter is bullshit.

Face it, you’re failed to demonstrate that dark matter doesn’t exist, and it’s obvious you’re just a troll with a bait thread.

[Anonymous No.11221936]

>>11221929
>theory starts falling apart the micro-second that we get better experimental techniques
>i-it doesn't mean it's dead!
more and more physicists have been questioning dark matter recently and this new experiment is only going to make even more of them do so.

the writing's on the wall, dark matter is bullshit.

the onus is on you to prove it isn't. all recent experiments show it to be so.

[Anonymous No.11221965]

>>11221936
>theory starts falling apart the micro-second that we get better experimental techniques

Not what is happening. Why are you lying?

> more and more physicists have been questioning dark matter recently and this new experiment is only going to make even more of them do so.

My favorite kind of appeal to popularity fallacy is when the popularity being appealed to doesn’t even exist. Got a source for that claim?

> the writing's on the wall, dark matter is bullshit.

Hasn’t been demonstrated.

> the onus is on you to prove it isn't

No it isn’t, silly. You’ve claimed dark matter doesn’t exist so you have to prove such. You haven’t done so.

> all recent experiments show it to be so.

Hasn’t been demonstrated, either. Some galaxies not having dark matter does not mean all galaxies don’t have it.
I tire of your obvious trolling.

[Anonymous No.11222055]

>>11221867
>missing dark matter
Aka missing graviton flux

[Anonymous No.11222076]

>>11221965

retard you claim dark matter exist. prove it.

[Anonymous No.11222080]

>>11221965
>more and more experiments coming out showing that dark matter isn't there at all
>mouthbreather says NUH UH, IT'S STILL THERE
>ask said mouthbreather for proof
>Y-YOU'RE JUST TROLLING!
Fuck off dipshit

[Anonymous No.11222207]

>>11222076
>retard you claim dark matter exist.

I actually never did. Read every post of mine, and quote me saying dark matter exists.

>more and more experiments coming out showing that dark matter isn't there at all

No, some papers are being published that discuss galaxies(considered abnormal) that don’t have any dark matter. The papers nor their authors are asserting that dark matter isn’t real.

[Anonymous No.11222390]

>>11221867
Dark matter and dark energy are just BS physicists made up because the observations contradicted their equations. They decided to come up with shit that can't be observed or falsified instead of admitting they were wrong.

[Anonymous No.11222625]

>>11222390
this

[Anonymous No.11222715]

>>11221867
>theoretical physics grant farming paper don't hold water when peer reviewed for realz
Theoretical physics should be banned.

[Anonymous No.11222716]

>>11221906
Standard American Measuring Cup.

[Anonymous No.11222782]

The ayys must be gathering dark matter from trash galaxies to build camouflage equipment

[Anonymous No.11222795]

>>11222782
Rumor is that they released a new UFO model. Coming to Earth to casually fly in the atmosphere for 30 seconds in 2020.

[Anonymous No.11222806]

>>11221867
What's a dark matter incel?

[Anonymous No.11222809]

>Chad Electric Universe 1
>Virgin Dark Matter 0
bbbut muh simulations. When will you learn that most modern "science" is a joke. If you use math to "predict" things that you CAN NOT observe you are a brainlet. Physics Chads unite.

[Anonymous No.11222854]

>>11221867
I'm a brainlet but all this dark shit seems like a justification for faulty data/calculations.

Like you could say 2 + 2 is 5 because theres a dark +1 in there

[Anonymous No.11222860]

>>11222854
>I'm a brainlet but all this dark shit seems like a justification for faulty data/calculations.

Yeah, you’re a brainlet. Actual physicists already tried checking for that. Doesn’t work.

[Anonymous No.11222879]

>>11222860
The only brainlet here is you. Adam Riess, a novel prize winner and one of the prominent physicists working on this stuff straight up admits dark matter/energy could very well be hinging on wrong assumptions and that these theories have several flimsy assumptions built into them and that is the only way they work.

Stop posting fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.11223051]

>>11222390
Precisely!

[Anonymous No.11223054]

How do they measure if a galaxy has dark matter or not? Someone? Anyone? Bueller?

[Anonymous No.11223075]

>>11223054
Gravitational lensing.

[Anonymous No.11223077]

>>11222854
Look at it this way - shortly after Uranus was discovered, astronomers noticed that its orbit was a bit off from what Newtonian gravity suggested it should be. Some astronomers suggested that gravity behaved differently further out in the solar system, while others suggested there was another yet undiscovered planet (a "dark" planet if you will) perturbing its orbit. Decades later Neptune is discovered.

Likewise, our current theories of gravity, which work well enough to let us gravity-slingshot craft around the solar system, don't match our observations of galactic rotation. We expected to find that stars around the edge of a galaxy rotated much slower than stars near the center, much like Neptune moves more slowly than Mercury. Yet, astronomers observed all the stars moving at the same speeds. Which means either our theory of gravity is wrong, or there is a bunch of really hard to see matter holding stuff together. Recently, a small number of galaxies have been discovered where the stars do rotate in the way predicted by our theory of gravity. Which of course strongly points to the "bunch of hard to see stuff" theory, as some galaxies lacking that difficult to detect matter seems more plausible than gravity working differently in different galaxies. Other observations, like the Bullet Cluster, where the gravitational lensing doesn't match the visible matter, also point to the dark matter theory.

[Anonymous No.11223085]

>>11223054
Spectrometry, calculating how fast gasses should be spinning around in the galaxies

[Anonymous No.11223111]

>>11222860
That's actually makes sense for my pea brain to grasp, thanks

[Anonymous No.11223189]

>>11223075
Thx.

[Anonymous No.11223923]

>>11221882
>Guo and her team explored the nature of 324 dwarf galaxies
>19 of them contain enough visible matter to solely explain the motions
So 19 of 324 dwarf galaxies - less than 6% are deficient in dark matter.

[Anonymous No.11223935]

>>11221906
Rotational velocity versus distance from centre:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Galaxy_rotation_under_the_influence_of_dark_matter.ogv

[Anonymous No.11223943]

>>11223923
that is an absolute massive percentage and it means dark matter is bullshit. l2science.

[Anonymous No.11223952]

>>11223923
>uh actually bro 6% of photons travel faster than light and literally go back in time, BUT IT'S TOTALLY COOL BRAH, the speed of light is not wrong or anything XD

[Anonymous No.11223965]

>>11223943
>6%
>an absolute massive percentage
...in which calculus?

[Anonymous No.11223987]

>>11223943
How does the lack of dark matter in certain galaxies make dark matter as a concept bullshit?

[Anonymous No.11225488]

>>11221877
>>11223987
Dark matter is needed in order for our current understanding of gravity to fit what we observe in nature. If a galaxy can spin at the same speed with dark matter than without, it doesn't just mean that dark matter never existed, it means that our entire understanding of gravity is also at fault.

[Anonymous No.11225546]

>>11221877
This. OP is a retard, this strenghtens the Dark Matter hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.11225579]

>>11222390
But it can be observed (and has been) and it can be falsified.

[Anonymous No.11225595]

>>11225488
But these galaxies don't spin at the same speed, retard. The galaxies deficient in dark matter obey standard Newtonian dynamics. Explaining why some galaxies have dark matter and some don't seems a hell of a lot simpler than explaining why some galaxies obey standard ND and some require a MoND.

[Anonymous No.11225619]

>>11221929
>This observation makes the possibility of dark matter being explained away by a reformulation of gravity less likely, as this would indicate gravity mystically works differently in different places.
This, heterogeneity in dark matter content only makes its existence more plausible because the alternative becomes even less likely.

[Anonymous No.11225622]

If we add Dark Fluons which counter the effects of dark matter the equations work out again. Of course, there's no evidence dark fluons exist and a particle accelerator strong enough to detect them would be bigger than the solar system, but it's our best theory.

[Anonymous No.11225628]

>>11221867
They don't have Art Bell?

[Anonymous No.11225629]

To every single retard in this thread that says dark matter cannot possibly exist. Have you complete idiots ever heard about neutrinos? How can you seriously sit there and type that the existence of dark matter is impossible when not only we've discovered 6 fucking dark matter particles (three lepton flavors and three antiparticle partners), we actually USE them in our technology in a state of the art imaging technique called neutrino imaging?

[Anonymous No.11225642]

This essentially proves Dark Matter is real.

[Anonymous No.11226045]

>>11225629
To add to that, neutrinos were theorized to exist for much the same reason as we predict other, more difficult types of dark matter to exist - to make the math add up correctly. Back in 1930, Pauli noticed that Beta Decay wasn't obeying the laws of conservation; he predicted a small, hard to detect particle was carrying away the extra energy needed to make the equations balance. It took a lot of time and effort to prove that it existed, but eventually they directly detected it.

Now the big issue with dark matter is that most of it seems to be something that is really freaking hard to detect directly; for all we know it may ONLY interact by gravity, and completely ignore the other 3 forces. Which would make observing its effects on the motions of light & regular matter the only way to notice it.

[Anonymous No.11226136]

>>11225579
Dark matter has not been observed. It's a variable added as a hypothesis to the equations of gravity to fit the experimental data.

At this point the existence of dark matter is not even a theory so I'm not sure why people keep using the term.

[Anonymous No.11226519]

>>11226136
It has been observed in the sense that we can see gravitational lensing occurring in areas that have no visible matter to do the lensing.

Theorizing that there is some sort of really difficult to detect matter is causing that lensing, along with other observations, is perfectly valid.

[Anonymous No.11226639]

>>11226519
'in the sense', I.e. it hasn't been observed. Also please stop using the words theory/theorizing. Dark matter is an hypothesis. And all the work done on this hypothesis still has many problems that have yet to be resolved.

[Anonymous No.11226651]

>>11225595
Speed has nothing to do with it. Also, they aren't entirely sure of the speeds of the galaxies, just as they aren't completely sure of the angle of the galaxies. But as always you know more than the physicists making the discoveries.

[Anonymous No.11226941]

Just MODIFY GRAVITY to give you the DARK MATTER.
DARK MATTER is just NORMAL MATTER hiding in a 4TH SPATIAL DIMENSION.

There has been zero direct detection of Dark Matter and no indirect detection can be distinguished from normal matter that we just can't see.
There is a very strong correlation between the amount of normal matter we observe and the amount of Dark Matter we predict.
The best evidence for Dark Matter comes from the areas with the highest density of normal matter.
The best evidence against Dark Matter comes from areas with the lowest density of normal matter.
A 4+1D Space-time works to explain gravity (Kaluza-Klein). So apply that version of gravity to the most obvious example of gravity not working the way we expect.

This video shows what the 4th dimension looks like:
https://youtu.be/LOVzytir7bM

The depth of the 4th dimension is determined by the amount of mass present. What's happening is that gravity is distorting space-time. The deeper in the 4th dimension something is, the smaller it appears. To normalise our observations for galaxies to account for this, we have to increase the size of objects proportionally to the amount of gravity acting on them. This will increases our estimates for mass.
We can actually see objects getting smaller, proportionally to the gravity affecting them, in the rubber-sheet experiment. It just appears negligible.

No WIMP BS, no screwing with the laws of physics.
All the observations accounted for by Dark Matter, plus that nice galaxy rotation curve that only Modified Gravity gives us.

[Anonymous No.11226965]

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/ab570f

[Anonymous No.11226987]

>>11226136
>It's a variable added as a hypothesis to the equations of gravity to fit the experimental data.
Confirmed for not having studied physics/astronomy and not even knowing what you're arguing against.

Pic related - Contours show where the gravity is strongest. The right pic shows where the visible matter is. Notice the separation between the matter and the gravity peaks

[Anonymous No.11227013]

>>11226941
>More than 3 Dems
Then please explain inverse sqaure law to me fucko. Wouldn't the drop be different

[Anonymous No.11227068]

>>11227013
I'm talking about a just a for real extra dimension. None of this compactified whatever.
The dimension I'm talking about is basically just density.
There should be no difference for anything else.

Or, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
The inverse-square law drop is different.
>Alternatively, Milgrom's law can be viewed as leaving Newton's Second Law intact and instead modifying the inverse-square law of gravity, so that the true gravitational force on an object of mass m due to another of mass M is roughly of the form...[w/e]... in this interpretation, Milgrom's modification would apply exclusively to gravitational phenomena.

Alternatively, the drop would be different, but this is cancelled out by the increase in mass present.

Happy to try again if you're more specific.

[Anonymous No.11227108]

>>11227013
What happens to the inverse square law if space-time is distorted by gravity?

[Anonymous No.11227285]

>>11221867
Nah we totally couldn't be understanding physics wrong, it's definitely this magical force we don't see that exists everywhere, except in some places, but it definitely exists because our current equations don't match up to what we observe so there must be something about what we observe that is wrong, it's definitely not that our understanding is wrong.

[Anonymous No.11227358]

>>11221867
Galaxies without dark matter are one of the proofs FOR dark matter, because it's clear SOMETHING we can't see is missing from these galaxies that most other galaxies have.

[Anonymous No.11227388]

>>11227068
>MOND

[Anonymous No.11228118]

What if dark matter went to other galaxies that had a higher population of stars and that is why it decided to leave.

[Anonymous No.11228838]

>>11227388
Imagine missing the point THIS hard.

MOND is better for galaxy rotation curve than dark matter (even if it's wrong). It works by making the inverse-square law into a linear one.
Add another dimension and you get your inverse-square law back with a working galaxy rotation and missing matter.

>>11227358
WTF are you on about.
>These galaxies work exactly as predicted. >Therefore something is missing.
No.
The denser galaxies have something extra. More mass. Mass distorts space-time. More mass distorts space-time more. Therefore these galaxies appear smaller than their proper size and so we are underestimating their mass..

[Anonymous No.11229536]

>>11227013
Fuuuuck.
You made a good point, sorry.
For space/mass/gravity, things cancel out fine.

For luminosity, what we're observing would be the inverse-cube law. Meaning our estimates for mass based on luminosity would also be off.

Thanks for pointing this out. Obviously I haven't thought my dumb little guess through fully.
Still beats the hell out of MoND or magic particles though.

[Anonymous No.11229865]

>>11221867
>When will they admit that dark matter (AND dark energy, but that's for another discussion) is not real? They jumped to conclusions on faulty data from decades ago.
They've based so much of their current understanding of the universe on it that they refuse to change their opinion regardless of the evidence simply because it'd mean a fuckton of cleanup and damage control on their part. They'd rather just keep kicking the can down the road until it actually becomes a problem that could get people killed, and probably well past that point too.

[Anonymous No.11229880]

>>11228118
thats a good point, since dark matter can't be directly observed it is impossible to know if dark matter is sentient or not. i think its pretty good odds that dark mater is sentient, you probably have to be pretty smart to be that stealthy

[Anonymous No.11230202]

Dark dark matter.

[Anonymous No.11231155]

>>11221965
>You’ve claimed dark matter doesn’t exist so you have to prove such
wow, much universal negative. very scientific. muh burden of proof etc.

[Anonymous No.11231288]

>>11231155
What?

[Hoaxfag No.11231601]

>>11226045
Neutrinos have never been detected, they are a theoretical explanation for observations that violate earlier explanations of how matter works.
We have taken an explanation from 1900, discovered in the 1950s it doesn't work, explained away the inconsistensies with maths, and now it's 2019 and our new observations don't work with the maths from 70 years ago, so we are using more theoretical abstract maths to make it work.

How has science devolved to the state where if your prediction doesn't work with an observation you get to change the word "magic/god" to "quantum" and everyone just goes along with it.

[Anonymous No.11231606]

>>11221867

[Anonymous No.11232316]

>>11231288
You can't disprove a negative.
E.g. You can't disprove the existence of God; therefore God must exist.

>>11231155
The burden of proof IS actually on you to show that the estimates of mass resulting from gravitational lensing is not from dark matter.

Or you can save some face and agree with this.
>>11226941

[Anonymous No.11232836]

>>11221867
Wow

It's almost as if dark matter is made up bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11233386]

>>11231601
>Neutrinos have never been detected
Look up the Super-Kamiokande

[Anonymous No.11234438]

>>11221867
Look under the sofa cushions in these galaxies.

[Anonymous No.11234463]

>>11221867
Finding 19 galaxies without dark matter amongst the many thousands more found with dark matter makes the 19 anomalous, not the other way around, retard.

[Anonymous No.11234517]

>>11221906
It's based on how much of a fudge factor is needed for their gravitational models to work.
Nowhere is there a lump of stuff actually proven to be "dark matter".

[Anonymous No.11234813]

>>11222076
>>11222080
>>11231155
the triple samefag.. woah

[Anonymous No.11234842]

>>11221867
>and it's thought to be the primary component of all galaxies
I swear to god I watched a physics video on youtube that explicitly highlighted that it was already known not all galaxies have dark matter

[Anonymous No.11235082]

>>11234463
>>11234517
>>11234842
>>11232836
The amount of "Dark matter" detected, directly, indirectly or otherwise, that is not directly correlated with normal matter (and the density thereof), is
PRECISELY
FUCKING
ZERO

High density of normal matter = "Dark matter".
Low density of normal matter = no "Dark matter".

It's just normal matter tucked away in a 4th dimension.

This is practically 1+1=2 simple.
Looks like all of you are simpler still.