[championoftruth (OP)]

No evidence for axions.

You mean "No evidence for axions yet."
The experiments are still underway.

But  you are missing the point. Even if dark mass doesn't turn out to be axions, we still know that it's real.

Are you missing it deliberately, or do you just not understand?

A compare and contrast hubble photos and JWST photos of the same galaxy found the missing mass. Its just ordinary matter glowing less brightly. no mysterious dark matter. you can see it yourself.

[Bored chemist]

No evidence for axions.

You mean "No evidence for axions yet."
The experiments are still underway.

But  you are missing the point. Even if dark mass doesn't turn out to be axions, we still know that it's real.

Are you missing it deliberately, or do you just not understand?

A compare and contrast hubble photos and JWST photos of the same galaxy found the missing mass. Its just ordinary matter glowing less brightly. no mysterious dark matter. you can see it yourself.

Ok, I will take that as saying you don't understand.
The evidence still supports missing mass.

[Kryptid]

A compare and contrast hubble photos and JWST photos of the same galaxy found the missing mass. Its just ordinary matter glowing less brightly. no mysterious dark matter. you can see it yourself.

Source?

[Origin]

A compare and contrast hubble photos and JWST photos of the same galaxy found the missing mass. Its just ordinary matter glowing less brightly. no mysterious dark matter. you can see it yourself.

I assume this is your opinion, which is some mighty flimsy 'evidence' for your side.

[championoftruth (OP)]

A compare and contrast hubble photos and JWST photos of the same galaxy found the missing mass. Its just ordinary matter glowing less brightly. no mysterious dark matter. you can see it yourself.

Source?

Nasa pictures. They showed a picture of a galaxy with dark patches between the arms by Hubble. Then superimposed one by JWST and low and behold the dark patches were no more dark patches but gas glowing less brightly due to being distant from other stars in the arms and getting less illumination/radiation. No more mysterious dark matter dark energy dark sextors dark axions.

Astronomy has been discredited by these ad hoc pitchers inventing nonsense to support a theory with so many holes now. This comedy act that astronomers have been entertaining us with for a century, and it's still about as coherent as a cat chasing a laser pointer. They've been on an interstellar scavenger hunt for a hundred years, and all they've found are cosmic rubber chickens that keep squawking when they squeeze them.

But hold on to your telescopes, because there's a new sideshow in town. Now, astronomers have conjured up the whimsical notion of dark photons and dark sectors to add to their carnival of cosmic confusion. It's like they've decided to throw an intergalactic costume party with invisible costumes and invited ghosts as their guests of honor. This cosmic circus just keeps getting zanier!

Picture this: Astronomers, peering through telescopes at the great cosmic unknown, suddenly shout, "Dark matter, axions, dark photons, dark sectors, and...I don't know, maybe some invisible circus clowns too?" as if they're playing cosmic charades with rules only they understand. It's like trying to play chess with pieces that are constantly shape-shifting and slipping through your fingers like quicksilver.

They've essentially transformed the pursuit of knowledge into a century-long cosmic vaudeville act, where the punchline is always just out of reach, and dark matter is the banana peel that keeps astronomers stumbling, while dark photons and dark sectors are the ethereal jesters making cosmic jests nobody can quite comprehend.

So, here's to our indefatigable astronomers, who've turned the universe into a never-ending cosmic comedy sketch with more surreal characters and props than a Salvador Dal? painting. Keep the popcorn handy, folks; this spectacle of cosmic absurdity shows no sign of wrapping up anytime soon.

[Kryptid]

I'm asking for a link. Give me a link to some kind of scientific publication where it was stated that the missing mass was discovered by comparing photographs.

[championoftruth (OP)]

I'm asking for a link. Give me a link to some kind of scientific publication where it was stated that the missing mass was discovered by comparing photographs.

I was assuming you could look it up yourself instead of me quoting what you would consider a biased source.

[championoftruth (OP)]

I'm asking for a link. Give me a link to some kind of scientific publication where it was stated that the missing mass was discovered by comparing photographs.

[championoftruth (OP)]

A compare and contrast hubble photos and JWST photos of the same galaxy found the missing mass. Its just ordinary matter glowing less brightly. no mysterious dark matter. you can see it yourself.

Source?

[Kryptid]

I was assuming you could look it up yourself instead of me quoting what you would consider a biased source.

She's not so biased as you might think I'd believe. She has very good points and I actually agree with her that MOND is something that is worth exploring. Moreover, dark matter and MOND aren't mutually exclusive. Some combination of the two may prove to be the solution.

Also, that PDF you posted appears to be about MOND. I, on the other hand, was asking you specifically about this quote of yours:

Nasa pictures. They showed a picture of a galaxy with dark patches between the arms by Hubble. Then superimposed one by JWST and low and behold the dark patches were no more dark patches but gas glowing less brightly due to being distant from other stars in the arms and getting less illumination/radiation. No more mysterious dark matter dark energy dark sextors dark axions.

I see no mention of Hubble, JWST or photographs in that paper you linked. So again I must ask you: what study was it that revealed the source of the missing mass had been discovered by comparing NASA photographs? More specifically, how was the mass of those patches of gas measured so it could be compared to the expected missing mass value? If we had found that the missing mass really was just clouds of normal matter, there would be no need for either dark matter or MOND, so I don't know why you are linking me a MOND video and a MOND paper.

[championoftruth (OP)]

I was assuming you could look it up yourself instead of me quoting what you would consider a biased source.

She's not so biased as you might think I'd believe. She has very good points and I actually agree with her that MOND is something that is worth exploring. Moreover, dark matter and MOND aren't mutually exclusive. Some combination of the two may prove to be the solution.

Also, that PDF you posted appears to be about MOND. I, on the other hand, was asking you specifically about this quote of yours:

Nasa pictures. They showed a picture of a galaxy with dark patches between the arms by Hubble. Then superimposed one by JWST and low and behold the dark patches were no more dark patches but gas glowing less brightly due to being distant from other stars in the arms and getting less illumination/radiation. No more mysterious dark matter dark energy dark sextors dark axions.

I see no mention of Hubble, JWST or photographs in that paper you linked. So again I must ask you: what study was it that revealed the source of the missing mass had been discovered by comparing NASA photographs? More specifically, how was the mass of those patches of gas measured so it could be compared to the expected missing mass value? If we had found that the missing mass really was just clouds of normal matter, there would be no need for either dark matter or MOND, so I don't know why you are linking me a MOND video and a MOND paper.

The paper is not about MOND.

I lost the link and will post when i find it. Why dont you search for it?

[Kryptid]

The paper is not about MOND.

The paper says:

In the presented paper we have considered the possible explanation of observed galactic
rotation curves by the assumption that the observed effect of the flatness can be explained by
some alternative theory of gravity which introduces an extra term which we called �(�).

It may not be the original MOND model, but it sure sounds like a model of modified gravity to me.

I lost the link and will post when i find it. Why dont you search for it?

My searches so far have only discussed how JWST has produced better images than Hubble. I haven't seen any reports where JWST had discovered that dark matter was just dim normal matter.

[championoftruth (OP)]

Is the cosmic microwave background radiation pseudoscience as billions of light years of gas and dust of varying density between the detector and the edge of the universe which must make the measurements false?

What you are measuring is the varying temperature of that intervening gas and dust.

but you will say microwaves go thru gas and dust. Really?  gas and dust is transparent you say.


Really?

100.00000000000000000000000000% transparent?

it's nonsense.

Even the most perfect glass absorbs some fraction of the light passing threw it....

it just like dark matter.

More pseudoscience poorly thought out.

The CMB is more like astrology.

[championoftruth (OP)]

I'm asking for a link. Give me a link to some kind of scientific publication where it was stated that the missing mass was discovered by comparing photographs.

you can find links yourself.your afraid that the dark matter is just nonsense  to group think concensus

[Origin]

A compare and contrast hubble photos and JWST photos of the same galaxy found the missing mass. Its just ordinary matter glowing less brightly. no mysterious dark matter. you can see it yourself.

I almost accused you of lying, but that would be incorrect I think.  I think it is just ignorance.  The increased number of stars seen with  the JWST were not a surprise and do not account for the contribution from dark matter.

[Origin]

you can find links yourself.your afraid that the dark matter is just nonsense  to group think concensus

Uhhh, no.

[Kryptid]

I'm asking for a link. Give me a link to some kind of scientific publication where it was stated that the missing mass was discovered by comparing photographs.

you can find links yourself.your afraid that the dark matter is just nonsense  to group think concensus

As you are the one who brought it up, the onus is on you to provide the support for it.

[Kryptid]

How dense do you think interstellar gas and dust is compared to glass? Do you think radio waves behave in the same manner as visible light?

[Origin]

Is the cosmic microwave background radiation pseudoscience

No.
You should rename yourself championofantiscience.