Mainstream Journal "Science" Debunking DarkMatter

[craterchains]

Could non-homogenous CDM over the 4.5 billion year history of our solar system explain various eccentricities of our planetary system?

I highly doubt it. But that is just a personal opinion.

As for those forums Neried listed, , well lets just say you should read VERY carefully what they say and HOW they say it, and even more importantly, WHY they say it. Dr. Phil Plaitt is a lier, slanderer, and in my opinion should be stricken from the world of print and the web.

Norval L. Cunningham

[Nereid]

[snip]

As for those forums Neried listed, , well lets just say you should read VERY carefully what they say and HOW they say it, and even more importantly, WHY they say it. Dr. Phil Plaitt is a lier, slanderer, and in my opinion should be stricken from the world of print and the web.

Norval L. Cunningham

I note that you wrote "is"; to what extent do you think that, in and of itself, constitutes slander?

What do you think about inviting Dr. Phil Plaitt [sic] to write a post in response to this?

[craterchains]

I note that you wrote "is"; to what extent do you think that, in and of itself, constitutes slander?

Not going to question me about his lies huh?

What do you think about inviting Dr. Phil Plaitt [sic] to write a post in response to this?

What do I think?

[harry]

Hello Createrchains

Why do you think Phill has that form of a character?

[craterchains]

Bad upbringing?

[Nereid]

FYI, and FWIW, He Who Has Aroused The Ire Of CRATERCHAINS wrote a mere ~0.5% of the >1 million posts in the BAUT forum.

As far as I can tell, BAUT member 'craterchains' last posted in July 2004* (!), which was before BABB merged with UT to become BAUT. Anyway, as the only thing deleted on BAUT is spam, anyone with internet access can do their own research, as comprehensively (or not) as they wish.

*On page 8 of a thread entitled "Crater chains, Questioning the accepted theory?", of which the OP is {insert name here - no prizes for guessing correctly}

[craterchains]

Like I said, a lier, and a slanderer.
From the BAUT forum.

"The Bad Astronomer16-November-2004, 12:19 PM

fieryice is a sock puppet, and has been banned.
I conclude that FieryIce is either a troll or a moron.

um3k, no ad hominems here. Consider yourself strongly warned."

Edited to put that remark by the BA in quotes.

[harry]

Hello Createrchains

Sounds like you do not like them.


Mate many people become emotional over their ideas.

Stay cool

[craterchains]

May I suggest that Neried make a new thread to discuss this matter if she wants to pursue this topic?
This thread is not for such discussion and would constitute thread high jacking.

Harry, not to concern yourself mate, and I am not the originator of the crater chain = war weapons idea, just a proponent of it as a much more viable theory of crater chain creation.

I would also suggest moving the posts from here to the new thread.

[kovil]

Craterchains,

Personally I find the alien weapons concept 'less likely' rather than 'more probable', but that doesn't mean it is 'impossible' or 'it can't happen here'.

So, personal intuitions aside, what are these 'weapons' firing? Is it a physical projectile, or is it more of an 'energy weapon'?

What should we be looking for as 'on the ground' evidence when we do have a robotic explorer crawling around or hovering above a string of these craters?

[Nereid]

4. A Doomsday Question, asked somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Very large clumps of CDM, arranged loosely, can theoretically move through space without much regard for the presence or absence of baryonic matter.

Indeed, they could.

However, they would 'feel' the effects of the much more massive, more dilute, approximately spherically symmetric halo of CDM. I doubt that this doomsday CDM lump would remain coherent for very long ... at least within the Milky Way.

More generally, your question can be tackled by asking whether such a clump could arise, back in the early days of the universe, and remain coherent over ~13 billion years. This is, of course, just a small part of the wider question of how the distribution of CDM has changed over cosmological time. Simulations that are consistent with the angular power spectrum of the CMB may help answer the general questions; they do not (AFAIK) show any such dense clumps of CDM, either in the early days, or now.

What would happen to our solar system if a very large, dense clump of CDM moved through? Wouldn't orbits be disrupted? Could non-homogenous CDM over the 4.5 billion year history of our solar system explain various eccentricities of our planetary system?

Indeed, disruption would be extensive.

The details of the disruption would depend upon the details of the clump, its motion, and the solar system bodies' orbits.

However, it is unlikely that there was a severe disruption, after the era of late, heavy bombardment, because its footprints would still be seen in the orbits today. OTOH, less-severe disruptions would not leave any footprints!

[goredsox]

CDM Density and CDM Homogeneity

It seems to me that if we accept the prevailing CDM model, that a lot can be inferred about it's local distribution by the behavior of our solar system, milky way, and local group. In other words, firm upper and lower limits on density can be inferred. I am curious as to how far this analysis has gone. It also appears that certain assumptions can be made about the lack of local clumpiness, (or in other words, the upper and lower bounds of expected homogeneity) since we do not believe that catastrophic changes in planetary orbits have occured for hundreds of millions of years. Or do we? I am still not sure how we know that. Any insight on how we know that the planets were orbiting 500 million years ago as they are today would be interesting to debate, as well as calculations of upper and lower bounds on homogeneity.

You did respond already to this latter concern by stating that footprints would be seen in orbits today. However, I am not sure how we would recognize a footprint of a brief, but severe, gravitational disruption, to be distinguished from, say, an eccentric orbit, which we do observe all the time; or, from say, a missing planet, that we never knew existed.

Nereid, I do appreciate your diligence in responding to the thread topic. I am also interested in hearing from any lurkers out there who want to seriously probe the implications of the CDM model.

[Nereid]

CDM Density and CDM Homogeneity

It seems to me that if we accept the prevailing CDM model, that a lot can be inferred about it's local distribution by the behavior of our solar system, milky way, and local group. In other words, firm upper and lower limits on density can be inferred. I am curious as to how far this analysis has gone.

There are, very likely, thousands of papers on this topic, and dozens of books.

The distribution and density of CDM is now well constrained, in many galaxies, both ordinary and dwarf, including our own.

It's also well constrained in many galaxy groups and clusters.

For the solar system, the best constraints are upper bounds, such as reported in papers like the Iorio paper I referenced earlier and the pulsar observations which constrain the solar system barycentre acceleration.

It also appears that certain assumptions can be made about the lack of local clumpiness, (or in other words, the upper and lower bounds of expected homogeneity) since we do not believe that catastrophic changes in planetary orbits have occured for hundreds of millions of years. Or do we? I am still not sure how we know that. Any insight on how we know that the planets were orbiting 500 million years ago as they are today would be interesting to debate, as well as calculations of upper and lower bounds on homogeneity.

I'm less familiar with the literature on this, but the stability of the solar system (orbits, etc) has been studied for several centuries now; simulations of its history have been done for decades.

One fairly strong indication that nothing major has happened in the solar system - whether due to a passing star, a giant molecular cloud, a rogue 'Jupiter', or a CDM clump - is the lack of significant bombardment once the Late Heavy Bombardment era ended (approx 3.8 billion years ago), at least in the inner solar system (there are, as yet, few constraints on the absolute dates of cratering history in the outer solar system).

You did respond already to this latter concern by stating that footprints would be seen in orbits today. However, I am not sure how we would recognize a footprint of a brief, but severe, gravitational disruption, to be distinguished from, say, an eccentric orbit, which we do observe all the time; or, from say, a missing planet, that we never knew existed.

Largely through cratering history - at least the main belt asteroids are old and numerous; any severe disruption would have caused a spike in bombardment.

The same for the Kuiper belt, though the absolute age of those objects is not as well constrained as that of the main belt ones.

Ditto for the Oort cloud objects, and ditto re considerably lower certainty.

Nereid, I do appreciate your diligence in responding to the thread topic. I am also interested in hearing from any lurkers out there who want to seriously probe the implications of the CDM model.

As I said earlier, I think you'll get more discussion, from both keen amateurs and professionals, in other fora than this one.

Now, if you ask about galaxies ...

[craterchains]

Like Nereid said, goredsox,

"As I said earlier, I think you'll get more discussion, from both keen amateurs and professionals, in other fora than this one."

If you are getting close to the truth, they will let you know for sure.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

goredsox I have been reading through the links presented by you and Neired.

Its a fantastic topic.

Darn, now I have to read up on the darn topic.
I have a few more days on Supernova papers than jump across to dark matter.

I have several hundred papers that state that dark matter and dark energy are not required. I have to get myself up to speed on this topic.

As Neired said there are a number of papers for and against, thats cosmology for you.


Imagine if we agreed on all, how boring would it get.

More time for fishing.