>>16920619
gravity

Equality

higgs boson/field

>>16920619
Well.. I had a thought from Sean Carroll about the many worlds theory, because I can jump back in time in myself to a child. He thought that meant it's true, and I agreed with him. Just it's a genie god wish, and it would be in their light, which is only one path out of 12? or something. So it's only true in part of the calculations, not in our main scope.

>>16920619
Things schizos hate that are real:
>dark matter
>dark energy
>imaginary numbers
>Copenhagen Interpretation

>>16920660
based

>>16920660
>Bro dark matter is totally real
>Bro you got to believe me
>It totally makes up 90% of the entire universe
>No we've never seen it
>No it doesn't interact with regular matter
>No there's no known way to detect it or verify it's existence
>No we don't know it's properties
>But it's totally there guys I swear. It's everywhere and makes up almost all the mass in the universe bro just trust me on this

String theory

>>16920619
i never understood, so stars around galaxies move in ways that are not explained by mass of the rest of stars in the galaxy, therefore there must be invisible undetectable mass to explain it called dark matter that causes that gravitational pull. but maybe they are not moving because of gravity at all, no?

>>16920898
>No there's no known way to detect it or verify it's existence
We detect it by weighing it. You're the equivalent of a fatass arguing that the scale's wrong.

>>16920940
There is more to it that just galactic rotation.
>maybe they are not moving because of gravity at all, no?
The only other force on this scale is electromagnetism. Electric fields don't exist on large scales because positive and negative charges cancel out. Stars have negligible charges. Magnetic fields in galaxies can be measured, and they are tiny.
You need some new force, which behaved a lot like gravity, but weirder. People have tried coming up with simple models, and nothing works on all scales.

>>16920660
>imaginary numbers
>real
Kek

>>16920660
>>16921025
Why would counting numbers like 2 or 7 be real or even natural? Are they made of atoms? Why is 1 any more natural than 0?

>>16921016
>positive and negative charges cancel out.
there are great filaments of plasma and associated currents running between galaxies and clusters and so on
you're full of shit
>You need some new force, which behaved a lot like gravity
MOND does without new forces

>>16920660
I simply refuse to acknowledge the existence of imaginary numbers. Numbers exist on a 1 dimensional line not a 2d grid

>>16921058
MOND cannot account for the variability in dark matter we see. Similar galaxies can have very variable amounts of dark matter.
MOND is a product of tuning the equation to the data rather than being predictive.

>>16921058
>there are great filaments of plasma and associated currents running between galaxies and clusters and so on
>you're full of shit
So claim the electric universe people, but where is the evidence of this? Filaments are real and accepted, but they are incredibly diffuse. Huge currents are not.
Something being plasma does not mean it isn't quasi-neutral.

>MOND does without new forces
The post specifically mentioned forced other than gravity.
Also MOND doesn't work on the other problems, it's modification isn't enough to explain the dynamics of galaxy clusters.
Much less all the other stuff cold dark matter can predict and describe.
MOND proponents are trying to rescue their own model by adding their own dark matter.

>>16921096
it just needs a few more tricks, like moving it to a Riemann-Cartan space
>tuning the equation to the data rather than being predictive
>>16921164

how ironic. dark matter itself is the ultimate fudge
"oh there's more dark matter" "less!" "it's the same but actually the even darker energy blah blah"
c'mon now

>>16921164
>where is the evidence of this?
the very existence of the filaments is evidence, they would have dissipated into nothing without a current

>>16921171
>they would have dissipated into nothing without a current
Why don't you attach your proof demonstrating this is the case?

>>16921174
are you retarded by any chance?
not being aggressive here, it's just so I know whether it's worth talking to you anymore
any gas does that if left to its own devices
gravity isn't enough to hold it together, therefore it must be electromagnetism

File: WHIM.jpg (86.8 KB)

86.8 KB JPG

>>16921171
>they would have dissipated into nothing without a current
Also wrong. The ionised filaments of the cosmic web were predicted by standard cosmology simulations, Lambda Cold Dark Matter. In which the filaments form through gravity, they are shock heated during formation, which heats some of it up to 10^5 to 10^7 Kelvin. These simulations predicted the ionised filaments long before there was any observational evidence for them, and they didn't require giant currents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm%E2%80%93hot_intergalactic_medium

>>16921175
>gravity isn't enough to hold it together
Which depends entirely about what is doing the gravitating. In models with dark matter have no issue.
>therefore it must be electromagnetism
That doesn't follow. It could be a new force. Or standard gravity could be wrong, like MOND.
If you want to claim it is electromagnetism, you need to actually show it can work.
That is where the electric universe cranks give up, because they abhor doing real physics.
>any gas does that if left to its own devices
But it's not being left to it's own devices. It's being heated by ionsing radiation and outflows from galaxies.

>>16921178
>The ionised filaments of the cosmic web were predicted by standard cosmology simulations, Lambda Cold Dark Matter
do you have ANY idea how much fine tuning it took to get something that sort of kind of spit that out of simulations?
>It could be a new force.
occam says you're a faggot. but you already believe in dark matter so...
>It's being heated
so it should disperse all the faster

>do you have ANY idea how much fine tuning it took to get something that sort of kind of spit that out of simulations?
It doesn't take any tuning to get filaments. They are a feature that was seen in the earliest simulations with only cold dark matter. They have frlew parameters, and most are fixed from the observational data.
In terms of the warm-hot intergalactic medium existing in filaments, that was a prediction from these simulations. There was nothing to tune to match. So that is nonsense.

>occam says you're a faggot. but you already believe in dark matter so...
Occam's razor says that of two hypotheses which have the same explanatory and predictive power, the simpler one is preferred.
So let's see. Do you have a quantitative explanation for the filaments? No. Do you have a quantitative explanation for quantitative model for the galactic rotation? No. So there is no alternative with equal weight.
Occams Razor isn't an excuse to be lazy. Maybe you do the claculation of the required current and you find it would produce a huge magnetic field, which would easily be detected via synchroton or faraday rotation, and so it can be rejected. Or you find the currents just cannot propigate. You are guessing about how it might work. But that has absolutely no scientific value. You cry about simultions being "tuned", while making your hypothesis out of thin air and refusing do do any serious anaysis.

>so it should disperse all the faster
Why would they disperse if it formed through gravity? Gravity gets stronger as it collapses. Not weaker.
Why don't you calculate the timeacale of dispersal for us?

>>16921206
>simulations with only cold dark matter
except plasma is not dark matter innit
>most are fixed from the observational data
yea that's called fine tuning

>>16921217
>except plasma is not dark matter innit
But it follows the dark matter. My point was that the filaments show up in simple simulations without normal matter, and those with the normal matter included.

>yea that's called fine tuning
No it's not. Tuning is playing with the variables to get a desired result. They didn't do that. The values come from other observations. When the simulation I posted was run, no one knew the WHIM existed. It was a prediction. Which cannot be tuned.
Let's see your simulation with fewer parameters.

>>16921222
>it follows the dark matter.
that doesn't exist tho
>Do you have a quantitative explanation for quantitative model for the galactic rotation?
don't need one, galactic rotation is just fine in Einstein-Cartan models of gravity
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387730645_Explanation_of_the_Galactic_Rotation_Curve_Anomaly_via_the_Unified_Field_Equation_of_the_General_Singularity
you just call everything you don't know how to explain an effect of dark matter or dark energy, life's easy, you don't need to learn how to deal with 4-torsors

>>16921031
>Why is 1 any more natural than 0?
Because it's natural to fuck at least one member of your species and unnatural to die fucking zero

>>16921228
>that doesn't exist tho
And how do you know for certain that there are zero new particles to be found? You don't.
>don't need one, galactic rotation is just fine in Einstein-Cartan models of gravity
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387730645_Explanation_of_the_Galactic_Rotation_Curve_Anomaly_via_the_Unified_Field_Equation_of_the_General_Singularity

Okay great. Now go an apply this to all the other situations which need dark matter. Clusters, strucutre formation, gravitational lensing, baryon accoustic oscilations,
Rotation curves are nearly half a centyr old. There are plenty of explanations which have been proposed. As you said "fine tuned" to match the data. To show something is a vaible alternative it needs to go a lot futher. Have you got a simulation showing the filaments in this model?

>>16921228
AI slop paper, into the trash it goes.

>>16921233
You are responding to a bot just so you know.

>>16921236
>>16921238
ah. the duality of /sci/

>>16921233
except you don't need to fine-tune the Riemann-Cartan space to get these torsion effects, they just are there in the maths already
>but why haven't you solved ALL the problems already? my dark Russel teapot with dark tea inside solves everything neener neener
lol

>>16921016
>You need some new force, which behaved a lot like gravity, but weirder. People have tried coming up with simple models, and nothing works on all scales.
ok, that was my point. but it doesn't need to work on all scales, only for stars and galaxies. it can be any unknown force that has a 1e-30 or something cosmological constant for small scales

>>16921459
>we'll just make up even more shit to cover up for how we don't understand the shit we have already

>>16921294
>except you don't need to fine-tune the Riemann-Cartan space to get these torsion effects, they just are there in the maths already
Except the theory was only proposed in 2024, when the rotation curve issue was very well established. If you know the answer it's not difficult to work backwards to create a model which explains the data after the fact. There are dozens of such models, MOND is one of them. To actually show your theory makes any sense you have to apply it to something new. Hence, why I asked about the other things. If all dark matter could do was fit rotation curves, no one would care.

>>16921459
>ok, that was my point. but it doesn't need to work on all scales, only for stars and galaxies. it can be any unknown force that has a 1e-30 or something cosmological constant for small scales
It is absolutely needed in galaxy clusters. And on larger scales dark matter is critical for forming large scale structure. You also have to rewrite cosmology .

>>16920660
Show me what i things look like.

>>16921551
> the theory was only proposed in 2024
Einstein-Cartan theory is a bit older than that ackchually

File: Screenshot 2026-02-27 194546.png (186.9 KB)

186.9 KB PNG

>>16921563
The model proposed in that link is not just Einstein-Cartan. If it was this behavior would have been deprived 100 years ago. And not now. The model proposed there is an extension.

Also, you lied to me. You said there were no tuning in this. But that paper only shows the differential equation. It has no way of using calculating the velocity from the observed mass distribution of the galaxy. The author chooses solutions he likes (not defined or derived anywhere) and scales them to the radius and velocity of rotation curves. He also only shows the curves in the flat parts. A flat line won't hold in the center, you actually have to do some physics. So this paper has nothing of substance, it has no explanatory power at all.

You'd have to be missing large parts of your brain to find this compelling. It is clearly LLM slop. And the key figures are missing the model "prediction".

>>16920660
Everyone acknowledges that imaginary numbers are fake. That's why they're called "imaginary", because the entire idea is that they're a way to hack math into doing what you want for practical (i.e. real) purposes. Nobody decided imaginary numbers existed and then searched with how they could be applied, there was a real life problem with what normal math could and couldn't do and imaginary numbers were the solution.
But do you want to know the real secret? Math itself is fake. It's all just an abstraction.