Talk:Dark matter

Template:Vital article

A really misleading article

OK, it's studded with references that make it seem iron-clad. But there's a huge difference between hypothetical and observed. The galaxy collision examples are classic. What's seen is gas, followed by empty space, followed by matter (actually, a reanalysis found no empty space usually exists, so the effect may be a 3D artifact.) The empty space, is where dark matter is supposed to end up in a collision. Even if true, empty space is not a direct observation. All that has been seen, if there is too much separation between gas and matter, is an unexplained gravitational effect.

Forget WIMPS, XENON100 and LUX were killer blows. Dark matter faces a crisis. People like Christoph Weniger, who at one time claimed he detected hints of dark matter, now say they were wrong.

It's not that matter isn't causing the gravity that must exist to exist. It's that dark matter is less and less likely to be a good model for it. Claims that "most astronomers" believe in dark matter lack references.

Brian Coyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Lorentz correction of virtual endofeynmanian particles (usually bosons)

Inside a galaxy many interaction occur among particles, virtual or actual. The final products if relativistically compared may travel faster or slower than the speed of light. Due to special relativity no particle is allowed - not even mistakenly due to a slightly different frame of reference - to be perceived as moving faster than light, because background noise of the fields inside galaxies, force both the event and the beholder to be perceived as one entity, and that endogalactic convection field forces overall cohesion. The interaction constants (coupling constants), the overall energy and the light-speed limit inside a galaxy force some "Boost matrix corrections", thus some non expressed speed gets transformed into inertia in order energy is maintained. The galactic connection field doesn't allow interaction products be perceived as superluminal (faster than the speed of light) by endogalactic observers (well statistically, because it is a probabilistic phenomenon) thus the non expressed speed, gives rise to slightly heavier or more energetic virtual endofeynmanian (inside Feynman diagrams) particles. The result is an excess of spatial endogalactic inertia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4100:8500:7491:FE0C:214C:8550 (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Does not interact with light, but still detectable through gravitational lensing? Apparent contradiction needs clarification

In the article it is stated:

"Although dark matter cannot be directly observed with conventional electromagnetic telescopes, its existence and properties are inferred from its various gravitational effects such as the motions of visible matter, via gravitational lensing..."

And in the Gravitational Lensing article, GL is defined as "a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant source and an observer, that is capable of bending the light from the source."

Please clarify what "the motions of visible matter, via gravitational lensing" means, if not the bending of light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJoeWiki (talk • contribs) 17:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"Matter" article says Dark Matter = 23% of Universe, this article says 27%

The "Matter" article repeatedly says that Dark Matter composes 23% of the mass of the universe, whereas this article repeatedly says Dark Matter composes 27% of the mass of the universe. Please resolve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJoeWiki (talk • contribs) 18:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

that isn't a major functional change, neither a mechanism.

Bosonic spin of galactic photon regions aligned as fermionic via spatiotemporal curvature

Bosons like to pile on top of each other. The bosonic spin is always an integer. At galactic scales space curves. Some polarized stellar photons prefer to align in fermionic lines at the galactic level (thus neither straight nor random), generating dark matter patches, fewer non initially polarized or depolarized photons also contribute. Can photons that are bosons due to polarization groupings produce virtual femions? Photons propagate extremely fast, so in order to bend their polarity enough to produce the effect demand galactic scale regions, the effect is negligible at lab set-up scales. What bends? Initially only polarity, not the directivity of motion, but as the virtual fermionic galactic patch gains mass, even the directivity of motion is affected due to gravity. Stellar heliopauses act as "particle grains". A single star has a negligible effect, but stellar clusters shepherd the fermionically aligned photons. Why we don't observe extreme photonic polarization then? Because a. that polarization is not extreme at stellar level, only at galactic level becomes significant, most photons aren't polarized fermionically, b. the termination shock of stellar heliospheres distort and arbitrarily stir most of the phenomenon.

. why the hot gas Bullet cluster region doesnt generate enough lensing? it's photons are disturbed and don't form the huge fermionic regions, dark matter evolves gradually. Also we should evolve a more generic endo-feynmanian alternative. In some rare cases dark matter of colliding clusters not only it doesn't correspond to the gas regions that include most of the galactic mass, but also (dark matter) may continue to travel a bit more afar than the stellar region. That fermionic huge shape has inertia and the lines evolve and move with their own pace so need time to adjust to rapid changes?

Sounds promising. I guess is simply a bullshit but we might extract some parts of that theory and try to test them via observations, calculations and formulations.

that will help you. consider galaxies and clusters as machines that generate gravity, I do not mean the gravity of the unplugged device. if you turn on that galactic device generates more gravity. way more than the original mass. galaxies and clusters seem to control some potential flow of quantum jittering, and make it seem not random. but mass like. 1. what is the particle(s) "current" inside the machine? all the endo-feynmanic (inside Feynman diagrams) virtual particles? prefer to use only discovered particles in your model, if you use non existent particles you will conclude at a dead end. 2 what is the mechanism a. main components b. pathways of that current/ field/galactic sized pseudo-particle . Analyse discovered particles that have mass and try to solve their equations at the galactic scale. Dark matter isn't a perfect particle but many and noisy in shape so we don't need solutions for a huge hyperparticle but for a grouping of huge particles.

also in the same context fermionic (classic) matter at larger scales likes to act as huge bosons that like to pile on top of each other thus we have gravity

Indirect detection

The section Indirect detection mentions the LIGO detection of gravitational waves in February 2016. This date is the public release of a detection which took place in September 2015, not February 2016, so I would be inclined to think September 2015 would be a better time stamp when signaling the detection event. Would this make sense? --66.185.60.38 (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)