Dark matter fills 'empty' space, strongly interacts with visible matter and is displaced by visible matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved space-time physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the dark matter. The state of displacement of the dark matter is gravity.

A galaxy's halo is not a clumpof dark matter traveling with the visible matter. A galaxy's halo is displaced dark matter.

I cannot link other phys.org that debunk dark matter theories? funny, anyway, just a few weeks ago they discovered that the xrays from the center of the galaxy where from pulsars, not DM.
it is getting comical...

The existence of such a line is not at high significance at this time. This looks very much like the 750 GeV "detection" in the data from the LHC, which turned out to be a chimera. Further observations should be undertaken, but don't hold your breath for it to turn out to be caused by dark matter interactions since it's not even certain the line exists.

cantdrive85 - I've got a secret for all you DM fans, there is no DM.

We have another secret "Dark matter lensing is visible in normal photons and it was never observed in other way"
darkmatter is visible only in dark photons, as normal matter is visible in normal photons so who came up with the assumption that as gravitational lensing is only visible in normal photons it is darkmatter, when it is clearly normal matter emitting normal photons cantdrive85. This is the strange illogicality that has been allowed to creep into physics and to use a phrase coined by DJ – "the darkmatter wooist's"

Dark matter fills 'empty' space, strongly interacts with visible matter and is displaced by visible matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved space-time physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the dark matter. The state of displacement of the dark matter is gravity.

A galaxy's halo is not a clumpof dark matter traveling with the visible matter. A galaxy's halo is displaced dark matter.

I prefer emergent gravity theories. they seem to fit the data better but my best data point, is that all existing testable DM theories failed or still have inconclusive data. thus I have my own theory that DM does not exist based on the 100% failure rate of DM theories.

Write a god damned paper and get your Nobel prize, or shut up.

These fucking anti-dark-matter idiots are as infuriating as they are self-deluding.

just google this: DOI: 10.1038/s41550-018-0414-3
xrays where from pulsars, not from dm. why DM should be the first theory for unexplained xrays? failure of imagination?

The existence of such a line is not at high significance at this time. This looks very much like the 750 GeV "detection" in the data from the LHC, which turned out to be a chimera. Further observations should be undertaken, but don't hold your breath for it to turn out to be caused by dark matter interactions since it's not even certain the line exists.

the part that annoys me. is that unexplained observations get DM hypothesis as explanation first. never read an article about these xrays, but lump them with DM, and voila, they get published in science magazines. pfff.

The strange illogicality that has been allowed to creep into physics

"According to Esra Bulbul, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and co-author in Cappelluti's study, about 95 percent of the mass in the universe is made up of material that is unknown and invisible to scientists, that is dark matter"

The statement, "unknown and invisible to scientists, that is dark matter". 1884, Lord Kelvin described dark-matter - 134 years later and what are scientist professing to claim, dark-matter is unknown and invisible to scientists and were supposed to believe it with unquestioning faith! Darkmatter wooist's is sounding more and more appropriate with each new claim requiring unquestioning faith and devotion in this unknown and invisible to scientists that is dark-matter.

I cannot link other phys.org that debunk dark matter theories? funny, anyway, just a few weeks ago they discovered that the xrays from the center of the galaxy where from pulsars, not DM.

The galactic center excess is not the same signal as the 3.5 keV line. They are quite different. Neither are particularly convincing as a DM signal but people are studying the possibility. Ruling out these as signals of dark matter does not debunk dark matter. Standard models of dark matter do not make claims about high energy signatures.

I cannot link other phys.org that debunk dark matter theories? funny, anyway, just a few weeks ago they discovered that the xrays from the center of the galaxy where from pulsars, not DM.

The galactic center excess is not the same signal as the 3.5 keV line. They are quite different. Neither are particularly convincing as a DM signal but people are studying the possibility. Ruling out these as signals of dark matter does not debunk dark matter. Standard models of dark matter do not make claims about high energy signatures.

my point is that I learned about these xrays, actually seen a docu about the galactic center xrays, as a possible proof of DM. and in the end, they weren't. but hey, I am a mere consumer of physics news, and there are fantastic models, like the neutron star mergers, that gets confirmed with observations and data. but this DM, it is just failure after failure. I am very very
skeptical.

alternative title: "astrophysicist confirms that adding dark matter to his paper gives it popularity and funding properties."
Nico Cappelluti affirms:" with 5 sigma confidence, it is confirmed that dark matter increased by an order of magnitude the viewership of my paper. this unexpected result is clear proof for DM existance"

Lord Kelvin's unknown and invisible dark-matter

"Lord Kelvin estimated the number of dark bodies in the Milky Way from the observed velocity dispersion of the stars orbiting around the centre of the galaxy. By using these measurements, he estimated the mass of the galaxy, which he determined is different from the mass of visible stars"

The number of stars observed today and black holes were not possible in 1884, you do not create invisible matter based simply on observed matter because how was Lord Kelvin supposed to add these to the observed stars, mathematically defining his theory is still not possible today as it is still unknown and invisible to scientists and we have yet to complete the tally on normal-matter.

The strange illogicality that has been allowed to creep into physics

why you think this happens? herd mentality? scientists just spicing up their research areas with DM hot sauce?

The strange illogicality that has been allowed to creep into physics

ThereIsNoDarkMatter - why you think this happens? herd mentality? scientists just spicing up their research areas with DM hot sauce?

It is the illogical way theories are being presented for your theory to be accepted, if you don't question it that is, belief has crept into science where its losing its distinction, becoming a faith based religion instead.

The strange illogicality that has been allowed to creep into physics

ThereIsNoDarkMatter - why you think this happens? herd mentality? scientists just spicing up their research areas with DM hot sauce?

It is the illogical way theories are being presented for your theory to be accepted, if you don't question it that is, belief has crept into science where its losing its distinction, becoming a faith based religion instead.

seems so. could also be the convulsions of a dying paradigm. without dm there is too much intelectual pain as scientists need to evaluate a central piece of their model and replace it with something else.

ThereIsNoDarkMatter - The Grand Unified Theory for example cannot take darkmatter into account it cannot be included in the Grand Unified Theory because its very existence is in doubt, it has to be as rock solid as the preverbal apple.
If this continues The Grand Unified Theory will include faith based theories, if it does not already do so!

ThereIsNoDarkMatter - The Grand Unified Theory for example cannot take darkmatter into account it cannot be included in the Grand Unified Theory because its very existence is in doubt, it has to be as rock solid as the preverbal apple.
If this continues The Grand Unified Theory will include faith based theories, if it does not already do so!

what about other models like verlinde emergent gravity? does not fit all data but fits quite much data with but no free parameters to make the model fit observations like in DM.
I am not sure he is right, but eventually a theory with a more simple mathematical model to explain observations will win out over a bloated model.

We have been through lensing in great detail and it is normal matter that is lensing
The next step is Dirac/Weyl/Majorana fermions, the implication is The Grand Unified Theory will include faith based theories and now have the dense Aether model Aether discredited.

Dark matter indeed exists because it has been independently observed by its gravitational lensing, In dense aether model it's represented by quasiparticles similar to those observed in solid phase (Dirac/Weyl/Majorana fermions inside superconductors for example). It's not accidental after then, that the dark matter is supposed to interact strongly just with superconductors in this model.

Quasiparticles (anapoles and anyons) are on the verge of virtual particles forming field and resonances (short living real particles). The common ripples at the water surface are analogy of such unstable "particles": they introduce a permanent net curvature into it, but they don't leave any permanent imprint to it.

In dense aether model...

reminds me of the list of DM candidates i once seen compiled in a docu. axions, wimps, and many many more. I once read that DM is organised in strands around the solar system. just recently the DM galactic disk theory got crushed. honestly, I have seen so many crazy science news when it comes to DM, that it is comical.

Dark matter indeed exists because it has been independently observed by its gravitational lensing

can't there be other explanations? mond? emergent gravity?
DM seems a convenient model that provides nearly no data on the nature of its elements and enough free parameters to fit any data.
the sure way you say DM exists makes you look like a zealot.

mackita - I am interested in Quasi particles (anapoles and anyons) are on the verge of virtual particles forming field and resonances (short living real particles). The common ripples at the water surface are analogy of such unstable "particles" I will look this up later, but not the dark – matter element and I'm suspicious of virtual particles as equally as dark - matter

These fucking anti-dark-matter idiots are as infuriating as they are self-deluding.

Please, all you DM acolytes get together and get this right once and for all. I am a "denier", that's what were called when we don't believe all the same BS you dumbasses believe. Don't believe in the holocaust? Denier! And anti-semite. Don't believe AGW? Denier! Don't slavishly believe in vaccination? Denier!
You see? If I am not as moronic as you then the correct terminology to refer to me is "denier". Same page now? Great!

ThereIsNoDarkMatter - The Grand Unified Theory for example cannot take darkmatter into account it cannot be included in the Grand Unified Theory because its very existence is in doubt, it has to be as rock solid as the preverbal apple.
If this continues The Grand Unified Theory will include faith based theories, if it does not already do so!

what about other models like verlinde emergent gravity? does not fit all data but fits quite much data with but no free parameters to make the model fit observations like in DM.
I am not sure he is right, but eventually a theory with a more simple mathematical model to explain observations will win out over a bloated model.

Anything that goes in The Grand Unified Theory cauldron is tried and tested going back 330 years old and that instantly discounts MOND, is sound, down to earth, realistic and believable! Then we have a rock to lean on.

You should have particular physical mechanism on mind. Emergent sounds quite "aetherish", but which physical analogy it actually describes?

some entanglement density thing, and some physicists have been already exploring the idea that gravity is an emergent phenomena like a thermodynamic effect of some quantum phenomena and verlinde falls into that area.
whatever, seems elegant fits a lot of data.
the counter paper was not a debunk. I read the conclusions, and it assumed a larger scatter disk that is not observed yet for his equations to fit observation. there is not even a probability majoration.

The Grand Unified Theory cauldron; anything less and we will be like witch's squabbling round the cauldron! Sound, down to earth, realistic and believable! Massive objects into perceived deform of space-time - Space is vacuum and time does not exist, we live in the present the future does not exist and the present instantly becomes the past so does not exist except as memories, it is sad to think we only live in the present as time does not existed accept as memories.
We cannot deform an entity that does not exist, mass is not an extension of the vacuum of space and gravity is also is not an extension of the vacuum of space, there's real physical explanations on how gravity travel through space, it is not the warping of the vacuum, The reason why the theory of deform of space-time has been put forward because it side step the question how it deforms as that awkward question is deferred to the vacuum of space.

So, how the gravity works? What actually happens around massive objects and how it results into perceived deform of space-time and pseudoforce known as a gravity? Why no force carriers of this pseudoforce weren't still observed? How fast this force actually is? Why it follows inverse square law? How it's related to general relativity and its field equations? Once you can answer it, then you can speculate about dark matter extrapolation of this answer, but not before - without it your speculation will be just another regression of reality, not explanation of it.

I will not pretend I can debate physics at that level. what I can debate, is the huge amount of failed DM theories. and again, the really anoying propensity to have unexpected observations be explained as the missing DM in science articles only to fail later.

We cannot deform an entity that does not exist, mass is not an extension of the vacuum of space and gravity is also is not an extension of the vacuum of space, there's real physical explanations on how gravity travel through space, it is not the warping of the vacuum, The reason why the theory of deform of space-time has been put forward because it side step the question how it deforms as that awkward question is deferred to the vacuum of space.

meh, maybe is my data scientist knowledge talking, but what really matters is the predictability of a theory to fit observational data with the least number of free parameters.the rest is aesthetics.

Ground hog day gets a bit wearisome all the time

A vacuum is not an elastic band, unfortunately there is a whole mindset to unravel here, not being enamoured by some theories I'm immune to most mindsets, but ground hog day gets a bit wearisome all the time, not that it is wearisome but it's the repetition of constantly unravelling the mind set, its hanging your clothes on line when it raining and its explained to you so you take them in and take them out again when it stops raining, next day the clothes are taken out and put on the line when it's raining and you have to go through the same explanation again or Ground hog day!
So here we are at day two, we have unravel the mind set we unravelled yesterday!

I like how Dark Matter is becoming the scapegoat for all inexplicable observations.

Untill we unravel the mind set it is difficult to proced as we did yesterday after unravelling the mind set, as only unravelling the mind set allow new perceptions to be percieved, not that there new perceptions it s just that there relatively new amongs the baggage of the old mind set. A sign ground has come to an end it the different aproach to old baggage we still remember as we accept and amalgamate the new with old but this is not what is hapening its constantly Ground hog day.

There we are, day two; Ground hog day - amalgamating the new with the old.

mackita - The physicists already suspect that it has something to do with dimensionality of space-time and projection geometry in 3D space -

"An image of dark matter surrounding the Milky Way. Credit: University of Miami"

.......notice how cosmologists are trying to be ever more clever with how they label their ANIMATIONS? Now they call them IMAGES.

So here we are Day Three and it's still Ground hog day

One of the many faces of dark-matter physicists suspect that it has something to do with dimensionality of space-time and projection geometry in 3D space. After going over the definition of space it is a vacuum (nothing comes from nothing) the mindset still exists of dark-matter as space-time 3d space time projection.
Lord Kelvin in his original postulation of dark--matter was simply demonstrating the velocity of stars indicated gravitation inertial mass that was not visible to his Newtonian Telescope just as today blackholes are not visible to our Newtonian Telescopes
We are no closer to Lord Kelvin's Darkmatter; it is still "Unknown and Invisible to scientists" after 134years!

There we are, day two; Ground hog day - amalgamating the new with the old.

mackita - The physicists already suspect that it has something to do with dimensionality of space-time and projection geometry in 3D space -

5% which makes up 100% of everything space contains

"Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics and co-author in Cappelluti's study, about 95 percent of the mass in the universe is made up of material that is unknown and invisible to scientists"

The remaining 5% is normal matter which makes up 100% of all the galaxies, stars, planets and our selves the universe contains.
Now this is a mathematical derivation to come out of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, who runs their mathematical department because they have achieved what darkmatter has failed to achieve in 134 years because it is still unknown and invisible to scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, but they have achieved 100% of the universe out of only 5% of the universe

Maybe that 3.5 keV is the signature of some mass-produced starship engines belonging to another civilization. Maybe they belong to a robot civilization looking for us and the likes of us in order to you know what, which is why there are not many likes of us out there anyway. Maybe it's time for us to get underground and stop blinking lights out there. Just saying.

DARK MATTER ????
If the night is dark, because there is no light, and this is your dark matter, which is dark? THERE IS NO EXISTENCE !!!
Mackita constantly mentions some model of dense ether. Whether it was his model, or he saw it somewhere in some magazines. He needs to explain what ETHER is doing for him.
From all the previous discussions and all possible scientific journals, it is evident that nobody knows what gravity is and how it arises. Also, nobody knows what matter and magnetism are and how they arise. Is there any logical conclusion that the conclusions of any kind are true, if the above elements are not known?
Why are you persistent and believe in the completely unnatural Einstein's price that space and time in the universe make some net curvature, and that these are the causes of the emergence of gravity and many other fabricated phenomena. The same is the case with dark matter, which has entangled most of those who do not know the structure of the universe, because t

which is the immense power of forming everything in the observer entity of the universe (MEEU). Why get away from the truth? Understand and accept the natural law, by which the universe is infinite and filled with substance, which has electromagnetic properties and is stable and homogeneous, and from that substance, which I call AETHER, matter forms and it returns to the form of Aether through black holes .
I intend to try to restore science to the path of realizing natural and logical phenomena and to understand them in a simple way, using our consciousness and intuition that leads us to the true causes of the phenomenon. To date, several billion pages of explanations for these phenomena have been written, but without success. I can do it on a few dozen pages.
Do not be puzzled by this exposure, because I have reason to be curious about all of these fatamorgas, which are disgraceful to natural laws and SEU.

By taking mystic-meg out of the windmills of your mind and get back to where it all started, Sir Isaac Newton and his proverbial apple, the mathematics describe a force as a point with its coordinates, proof its particle because of the inverse square law, particles spreading out spherically You have a head start, all you need to do is continue without mystic-meg your Nobel prize is waiting, when you find gravities solution it will be no longer be Ground hog day mystic meg will have been thrown to the four winds!

mackita> Isn't the gravity a way more mystic by itself? The fact it follows inverse square law isn't explanation of it at all - it actually brings another layer of mystery for it: why it works so well?.

Aps news Sir Isaac Newton
The son of a yeoman farmer in Lincolnshire, England, Isaac Newton was educated in science and mathematics at Cambridge University, earning his BA in 1665. He then returned home on account of the plague until 1666, and while there made several brilliant discoveries that would lay the groundwork for his monumental opus. For example, he thought out the fundamental principles of his theory of gravitation-namely, that every particle of matter attracts every other particle-and worked out the elements of fluxional calculus. He applied fluxions to find the tangent and radius of curvature at any point on a curve in November 1665, and used them to solve several problems in the theory of equations in October 1666. He also devised instruments for grinding lenses into particular forms other than spherical, which would later serve him in his study of optics https://www.aps.o...tory.cfm

List of the Cosmic Fairies:

1. Dark Matter Fairy
2. Dark Energy Fairy
3. Black Hole Fairy

All the above have one thing in common with the Tooth Fairy.......no one's ever seen one.

@mackita,
how do you imagine that your aether? What does it represent, where it is located, stops mucus, does something get from it? You were even more complicated this question than Einstein. Einstein invented and gave his fatamorgana: space time and their entanglement, and you put it in and dense aether, dark matter and fabric space time. First explain what time is, and what is the space behind this evidence and explain how they met, fell in love, and "marry." Who was their godfather? Was it Einstein? And this one dies aether, as it can be thick, when you know what it is. ?

The space is three-dimensional and is formed to serve for the accommodation and movement of matter and all its components and the substance from which matter is formed. Time is just a measure of movement and nothing more. We human beings have determined the unit of time, which is the duration of one rotation of the Earth around its axis (spin), or one rotation of the Earth around the sun (year). And from these sizes we have come to smaller sizes, depending on the size of the angle of rotation.
To live on Matsu, our time would correspond to the rotation of Mars, as it is for Earth. This Einstein's invention is a strong intensity because it has destroyed the basis of consciousness that you have received from the one who formed both the space and the matter and the substance from which matter is formed.

Too much dirty and pollute natural laws and return yourself to the level of instinct. Science, of course, does not possess the level of intellect, even if we are not talking about intuition.

We already discussed this concept here many times in context of this old well forgotten article.

That may be an interesting article, but it doesn't say much.

I could not find something definitive about Stary, Soldatenko or the Kiev Institute of quantum physics. Also, I found a similar article in Pravda. My hunch is the article is bogus and it is weird it has appeared on phys.org (and it has no author or source).