Live data from Hacker News

A Physicist Who Denies Dark Matter

nautil.us

151–160 of 182 posts

Re: A Physicist Who Denies Dark Matter

#151
post #45
post #25

This almost an exact duplicate: http://cosmos.nautil.us/short/144/the-physicist-who-denies-t... and original HN comments here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13743439 Do people not search Agolia before posting? Is it acceptable to repost things? (I'm not HN expert).

Actually what's disturbing (and I am a paid subscriber to nautil.us) is that nautil.us is duplicating content. They took that old interview and passed it off as new content in their latest edition. Not really fair to us paying readers!

Do you pay anything more than attention to nautil.us?

I think that site gets far too much coverage on HackerNews along with atlas obscura -- I see multiple articles everyday.

Honestly I find their content here too frequently -- there is some manipulation going on.

Re: A Physicist Who Denies Dark Matter

#153
post #97
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How do you explaining gravitational lensing with no visible mass, without dark matter? Black holes? The physicist says: >What struck me was some regularity in the anomaly. The rotational velocities were not just larger than expected, they became constant with radius. Why? Sure, if there was dark matter, the speed of stars would be greater, but the rotation curves, meaning the rotational speed drawn as a function of…

Can't be black holes. For one thing they would start becoming visible through Hawking radiation if they were small enough to be homogenous like dark matter. Secondly baryon acoustic oscillations set a limit on how many black holes there can be. For your second part, the constant velocity is very well explained. The dark matter is just very broadly distributed. That's a natural consequence of not interacting with anyt…

How does this dark matter have enough gravitational effect to change the structure of the universe, yet not clump together? It doesn't make sense.

Re: A Physicist Who Denies Dark Matter

#154
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your link made me very grateful for Firefox's Reader View.

Is that part of the Pocket acquisition? I was comparing Safari and Firefox a while ago and Safari's reader view was one of the deciding factors in my choice.

It might be; looks like they were both added in 38.0.5:

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/38.0.5/releasenotes/

Re: A Physicist Who Denies Dark Matter

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But dark matter is theorized to he a particle that we haven't observed yet, which sounds like "matter" to me. The specific idea to fix up the discrepancies is, there are huge clouds of invisible particles. There are competing theories on what sort of particle they might be, but dark matter theories predict that these particles are out there.

Dark matter isn't theorized to necessassrilly be a particle either (finding new symmetries in the standard model would be extremely surprising)- it's literally just a placeholder name for a massive (as in, exhibits mass) unknown.

Dark matter theories absolutely do theorize invisible mass-bearing particles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Composition_of_dar...

It might be ordinary matter hidden from us somehow (maybe inside black holes) or something new like sterile neutrinos or WIMPs.

Re: A Physicist Who Denies Dark Matter

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dark matter isn't theorized to necessassrilly be a particle either (finding new symmetries in the standard model would be extremely surprising)- it's literally just a placeholder name for a massive (as in, exhibits mass) unknown.

Dark matter theories absolutely do theorize invisible mass-bearing particles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Composition_of_dar... It might be ordinary matter hidden from us somehow (maybe inside black holes) or something new like sterile neutrinos or WIMPs.

Yes, one way to restate my post is that dark matter could or could not be a new particle. The important part is that dark matter proponents assert there is something(s) whose mass we can detect, but whose other properties we can't measure as it doesn't fit into our current physical models.

Re: A Physicist Who Denies Dark Matter

#157
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A.) God waved his finger, and the universe sprang into existence. B.) something happened, and the universe sprang into existence.

A.) God waved his finger, and the universe sprang into existence, along with a bunch of mythology. B.) something happened, and the universe exploded from a single point. And meanwhile we have no evidence of god, and a crapload of evidence that the whole universe is expanding outwards.

disingenuous.. we have zero understanding of "something happened" a lot of about everything later, you are conflating the two.

If you have better logical or scientific explanation than God about the actual creation I am very interested

Re: A Physicist Who Denies Dark Matter

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that someone is knowledgeable about a subject doesn't exempt them from being a constructive contributor to a discussion. Additionally, no where was it "demanded that you explain in detail". I don't mean to be too blunt here, but there is quite a huge gap of comments between a detailed explanation and what you posted. As an example: "There were a number of things incorrect in this post. The largest one of the…

1. The proper question is "When a commenter is very wrong on a technical topic, is it net-positive for someone with expertise to point this out even if they don't contribute further?". I think the answer is obviously "yes". You seem to be more concerned with whether people are pulling their fair share, vs. being exempt/special, which I claim is the wrong question. 2. Effort scales with detail. The example comment you…

What you're writing shows you continue to miss the point.

Re: A Physicist Who Denies Dark Matter

#159
post #151
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually what's disturbing (and I am a paid subscriber to nautil.us) is that nautil.us is duplicating content. They took that old interview and passed it off as new content in their latest edition. Not really fair to us paying readers!

Do you pay anything more than attention to nautil.us? I think that site gets far too much coverage on HackerNews along with atlas obscura -- I see multiple articles everyday. Honestly I find their content here too frequently -- there is some manipulation going on.

I pay money to them

Re: A Physicist Who Denies Dark Matter

#160
post #93
post #83

A.Meessen suggest a simpler explanation. Dark matter is made of electrically neutral elementary particles subject to scattering and a pressure. These particles may combine and dissociate which accounts for drak energy and the cosmological constant. The properties of all elementary particles (except mass) are predicted by his space time quantization (STQ) theory. It provides a blue print of all elementary particles. I…

Yeah, he also thinks that UFOs exist. He's a nutjob

A.Meessen does pure science and studies whatever he consider of interest. Regarding UFOs he did inductive research. A priori we don't know if the reported phenomenon is real or not. To test the reality of the phenomenon you have to pose the hypothesis that they exist and see if this leads us to a logical contradiction. Even then, all we could say is we don't know if it's real or not.

As a physicist he studied their propulsion system. There was two main reason to do so. First, we know the physics law and their constrains well. Second, the witness reported the side effects of a totally unknown propulsion system. If witness were making up the data, logical contradictions would be found quickly because most witnesses are not physicists.

For instance, a witness reported seeing a UFO moving at very low altitude above trees. The strange thing was that the top of the trees were attracted by the UFO. Any conventional propulsion system would result in pushing the tree top away. If the UFO was real, how could we explain this observation ? What underlying physic mecanism could produce such effect ? That is how he started studying the UFO phenomenon. As a physicist he focussed in trying to identify a possible propulsion mechanism that could produce the reported effects. The only hypothesis he used was that UFO are real and that they may use the known physics law in a way yet unknnown to us, an original way.

You have to initially suppose the UFO data valid to do this reserach. It can't work by supposing UFO don't exist.

This research led him to two significant results. First the PEMP, a pulsed EM propulsion system [1]. Second, a new type of oscillator using a supraconducting surface that can generate very intense EM fields required for the propulsion [2]. It may not be a coincidence that a supraconducting shell would also protect occupants from the very intense oscillating EM field. Since humans can't produce supraconductive materials at room temperature, there isn't much room left to suppose a human origin of UFOs. The logical and scientific consistency, as well as the sound theory does also point to the reality of the UFO phenomenon. A.Meessen has data that you and scientists don't have to make their opinion, although it is published and in open access.

The idea that UFOs are not real is just a belief supported by a few bogus cases and, I guess, by the fear of ET with far supperior technical skills than us. The idea that UFOs are real is now supported by scientific results. It's just theories that are waiting experimental validation. But at this stage we don't need to make an hypothesis about the reality or not of UFOs. These theories can be tested today in a lab with our technology.

This is pure science, not crack potery. Sorry for your beliefs.

Beside, the validity (or invalidity) of his STQ theory can't be inferred from his work on ufology because they are totally independent. If his theory on STQ is bogus, then say in what it is bogus. Otherwise, you are in the gossip domain, not science domain.

[1] "Pulsed EM Propulsion of Unconvnetional Flying Objects" http://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/#Propulsion

[2] "Production of EM Surface Waves by Superconducting Spheres: A New Type of Harmonic Oscillators" http://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/#Production

Post reply on HN