Milky Way embedded in large sheet of dark matter

Regarding a recent published article on a recently published paper “The mass distribution in and around the Local Group” that claims to have found that there is a sheet of imaginary dark matter surrounding the local group of galaxies.

To start with is the claim in the above article that Hubble discovered the universe was expanding. In fact he never agreed with the expanding universe of the Big Bang theory. He always believed the cosmological redshift he discovered was due to light losing or decreasing frequency over distance. It was the relativists of the time who, being fanatical Einstein followers, pretended that Hubbles redshift did not refute Alberts photon model. Which it most obviously did. And to save Einsteins theories and their own reputations, which they had all bought into by 1929, they created the quasi religious pseudo science of an expanding universe to save the disgraced theories of photons and by association also the various disgraced relativity theories.

But to return to the main thrust of the above article and paper, the reason why theorists invoked dark matter was because they (Rubin, Zwicky) didn’t do the right maths when trying to calculate rotation curves for galaxies. They forgot to correctly include in their calculations the fact that although the mass distribution of galaxies decreases exponentially with radius, it is offset by an similar exponential  increase in volume of the disk with any increase in radius. And calculations made in this paper, that correctly take into account the mass distribution of visible mass in the spiral disc, will always give a flat galaxy rotation curve that does match the flatter rotation curves of the observed rotation speeds of stars in the spiral disks of any galaxy. No need for any dark matter. 

It’s worth pointing out here that the assumptions made in the “dark matter sheet” paper only confirms that the visible mass does correctly model any observed motions of the local group due to gravity. In that they admit in their paper that the invoked sheet of imaginary dark matter mirrors that of the existing distribution of visible matter. Now if only they could correctly calculate visible mass distributions within each disc then they wouldn’t need any dark matter at all. Inside or in a sheet echoing the local group distribution. 

What’s amazing is what lengths these obviously well qualified mathematicians will go to in their papers to try to validate the erroneous assumptions of imaginary dark matter initially made by theorists early in the 20th Century.

Excess Gamma ray halo in Milky Way possibly due to dark matter

 Usual stuff about imaginary dark matter. The image supplied in the article taken from the paper does not look like the original halo predictions for dark matter. Better fit is to a model that has gamma rays scattering off intervening dust clouds. 

We know X-ray rings show that X-rays can scatter from intervening dust or gas clouds. As can gammarays (Rayleigh scattering). If one looks at the red part of image showing the purported signs of a dark matter “halo” it seems to follow the undulations of the blue part of the image.  Most likely the blue in the image is the distribution of dust or gas and the excess gammarays are scattered as in Rayleigh scattering. 

In other words…No imaginary dark matter is needed to explain the excess gammarays observed. Not least because other research shows visible mass can accurately model the rotation curves of galaxies without invoking imaginary dark matter.

Detailed study of a rare hyperluminous rotating disk in an Einstein ring 10 billion years ago

A new paper titled “Detailed study of a rare hyper luminous rotating disk in an Einstein ring 10 billion years ago” has come to my attention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-024-02296-7

This paper is a good example of how the more pages of theory based on assumptions only, increasingly byzantine maths and a good load of devious data crunching the paper has, the more fantastical and pseudoscientific its conclusions will probably be. 

As usual the BBT theory consistently fails to explain why predictions of (the lack of) star and galaxy formation in the early universe don’t match the observations. A serious problem now for BBT theorists with the new JWST data. However the fantastical BBT can still be saved by pretending even more imaginary dark matter exists in the early universe than previously predicted. (As Narayanan et al postulated in 2015) These sort of very mature old galaxies have been recently observed in hi redshift surveys and cause a serious existential problem for the BBT. They shouldn’t exist! There’s not enough time for them to form after the beginining of time in the BBT fantasy universe. One get out for supporters of this failed theory has been that there were multiple fast occuring mergers of early galaxies. However the authors of this paper admit...no such evidence of any mergers is observed in this particular hi redshift mature galaxy studied in this paper. 

But the authors of this 2024 paper now cite Narayanan and pretend even larger than expected, or allowed, imaginary dark matter existed in the early universe and fortunately can be invoked to save the continually failing BBT. Thank heavens for brilliant mathematicians. They can turn a sows ear into a silk purse. And it is this pseudoscientific sleight of hand of that is used to save their cherished BBT. The rule seems to be: If the observation contradicts your preferred theory, then make up imaginary observations of imaginary new never before observed particles and your theory will be saved. For a few weeks at least until JWST comes up with new data that contradicts your theory once again.

When will supporters of the BBT theory admit that their favourite theory has never yet made a successful prediction. Starting with Gamows 1940’s prediction of a ridiculous 50k temp for the CMBR. (when a CMBR of 2.8K was measured in the 60’s, suddenly everyone forgot how wrong Gamow, LeMaitre or Apher and Herman’s predictions actually were) And JWST in particular has been a trying time for Big Bang fantasists. Every week some new JWST early universe data contradicts the Big Bang theory. Yet rather than admit the BBT is a quasi religious fantasy devised by a catholic priest desperate to reconcile his faith with a science that wouldn’t conform to his religion (LeMaitre) the theorists can always rely on Dark Matter. The phlogiston of the 21st C.