
A Physicist Who Denies Dark Matter - elorant
http://nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/the-physicist-who-denies-dark-matter
======
RockyMcNuts
How do you explaining gravitational lensing with no visible mass, without dark
matter?

In other words situations where we see twin images of a very distant galaxy
because light curves around intervening mass, without sufficient mass
observable to explain the deflection?

I was under the impression that we could map dark matter localized to a
precision that tended to rule out measurement error or a general divergence
from Einstein's laws, unless it had a peculiar non-uniform distribution.

Edit: maybe somebody can explain these maps -
[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/scientists-unveil-
mos...](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/scientists-unveil-most-
detailed-map-dark-matter-date)

~~~
maratd
When we're confronted with something we can't explain using our existing
equations and theories, the conclusion is that there must be some mysterious
thing there that fixes our current equations and makes them work again?

A thing we can't detect or see or have any other evidence of ... other than
our equations and theories need that thing there for them to work?

> In other words situations where we see twin images of a very distant galaxy

It's entirely possible our equations do not function well on those scales.

~~~
hwillis
Dark matter is predicted at every level of astrophysics. It's not just "hey,
galaxies look weird".

The amount of visible matter only accounts for 4% of the cosmic microwave
background.

The CMB is extremely smooth, but visible matter is highly clumped up. This can
only be explained by a huge amount of matter that doesn't clump up ie non-
baryonic.

The ratio of deuterium to hydrogen rises based on the density, since there's
more pressure from gravity. There's way more deuterium than can be explained
by visible matter, so there must be some extra compression happening.

Galaxies have more kinetic energy than they can have given their visible
matter and how fast it's moving. This implies a huge amount of invisible mass.

Gravitational lensing around the edges of galaxy clusters indicates a halo of
invisible mass.

Colliding galactic clusters show their mass splits into two parts: one that
clumps up into a bright, dense blob, and another that has much higher inertia
and continues past the bright blob as if it didn't interact with it in any way
besides gravity.

We can map variations in empty space where there is more mass than is
expected, in a way that can't be explained by a self-consistent theory of
gravity but can be explained by invisible mass.

Dark matter as a theory hasn't changed for 80 years and every single one of
these discrepancies is solved _exactly_ by using the measurements of dark
matter that already existed. They all agree with each other perfectly. There
is no theory that even competes with dark matter. Nobody has come up with
another idea that explains all of those or even most of those problems.

~~~
effie
> _The amount of visible matter only accounts for 4% of the cosmic microwave
> background._

Could you explain what do you mean by 'accounts for 4% of the cosmic microwave
background'? How is one supposed to account for CMB by matter density, when
its spectrum is almost equilibrium one (thus consistent with almost any value
of matter density)?

~~~
hwillis
The CMB has a certain spectrum and temperature. The amount of energy in the
universe correlates to the amount of mass in the universe. The more energy and
mass was present in the big bang, the hotter the CMB will be. The amount of
visible matter corresponds to a CMB temperature that is far lower than what we
see.

~~~
effie
> _The amount of visible matter corresponds to a CMB temperature that is far
> lower than what we see._

Why would there be a relation between CMB temperature and amount of
(visible+invisible) matter? I suppose the CMB temperature decreases in time.
Would`s the relation you talk about imply that the mass or density of mass of
the Universe then has to decrease as well?

------
amai
MOND might explain rotation curves of galaxies. But it doesn't explain all the
other places in astrophysics, where one needs dark matter. Especially MOND
(and any modification to gravity) cannot explain the Bullet Cluster:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster#Significance_to...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster#Significance_to_dark_matter)

The Bullet Cluster is especially significant, because it shows gravitational
lensing by dark matter spatially separated from visible matter. No
modification to gravity can explain that without giving up the idea that
gravity is a
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_force)
.

~~~
knodi123
> Especially MOND (and any modification to gravity) cannot explain the Bullet
> Cluster

The creator of MOND addressed that:

[http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/moti_bullet.html](http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/moti_bullet.html)

~~~
Eyght
Your link made me very grateful for Firefox's Reader View.

~~~
H4CK3RM4N
Is that part of the Pocket acquisition? I was comparing Safari and Firefox a
while ago and Safari's reader view was one of the deciding factors in my
choice.

~~~
bumblebeard
It might be; looks like they were both added in 38.0.5:

[https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/38.0.5/releasenotes/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/38.0.5/releasenotes/)

------
fpoling
What is puzzling about MOND and to lesser extent about Dark Matter is that
both uses violation of Newton mechanics to justify themselves when we know
that Newtonian mechanics is wrong. The problem is that we cannot yet model
behavior of galaxies using just General Relativity. Typically models assumes
Newtonian physics with minimal accounting for relativity. However there is no
sound proof that it is a valid approximation. The General Relativity is
extremely non-linear and even small contribution may lead to very big
consequences.

We cannot yet rule out that there are no problems with dynamic of galaxies. It
can be that we model them using wrong approximations.

~~~
Maken
There is something that always puzzles me and I would like if something could
illuminate me. How are those kind of massive scale astrophysical calculations
made? Do they take into account every visible mass aggregate in the galaxy and
simulate them, or just apply cinematic at scale assuming the galaxy centre is
a point of certain mass?

I have played a little with N body simulations and I can't but be amazed about
how numerically unstable physical simulations are, and how much the result can
change depending on trivial simplifications.

~~~
danielbarla
I'm not much of an expert on the topic, but have also played with writing
N-body simulations. At some point, obviously N^2 is unfeasible, so most
simulations seem to use some approximation, such as the Barnes-Hut approach
[1]. That approach divides the simulation space into an octtree. One can then
use said octtree to approximate the force of distant quadrants by simply using
the center of mass of an entire region. Due to the rate at which gravity drops
off over large distances, it's "accurate enough", and fortunately the majority
of "N" is "distant".

A good (but pretty shallow) overview exists on Wikipedia about other
approaches [2] (under "Calculation optimizations").

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes%E2%80%93Hut_simulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes%E2%80%93Hut_simulation)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_simulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_simulation)

EDIT: It's occurred to me that you were referring more to stability of the
simulation, rather than what optimisations are used. I have less information
to offer on that part, and I agree that it would be a huge problem, if
complete accuracy was desired. I suspect, however, that in the kinds of
simulations we're talking about, it's more about a general result such as "the
whole galaxy should be divergent", not whether a single star went left or
right when interacting with a black hole.

------
shakna
The title is irritating.

This is an interview with Milgrom, covering the man more than MOND.

But, dark matter isn't something to be denied. Because it isn't understood
yet, to the point where we can doubt its existence.

We don't have all the answers yet, where denial rejects something as patently
false.

But, "The man who has an alternative to Dark Matter", is a far less attractive
title for those clicks.

~~~
Lordarminius
> _...But, dark matter isn 't something to be denied. Because it isn't
> understood yet, to the point where we can doubt its existence...._

There is something not quite right with your logic and I am struggling to
identify what it is :/

~~~
shakna
Maybe I can expand.

I can deny the Earth is flat, because there is an abundance of evidence that
it is round.

I can't deny that there are 650 elements, because as far as I know, other
elements may be discovered. But I can certainly doubt it, and supply
alternative theories.

I can deny allegations of wrong doing, because they either happened, or
didn't.

But Dark Matter isn't assured yet. Denying it means it either exists or
doesn't. But the truth may be a mix of MOND and something different but
similar to Dark Matter. It isn't "fixed" into a yes/no situation.

~~~
badosu
Dark Matter is not just 'something we don't understand yet'.

It has predictable effects on observations and adheres to some properties,
see:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster)
.

~~~
tynpeddler
That's evidence, not proof. We still don't have enough evidence to say
conclusively that Dark matter is as we currently imagine it. And of course the
same can be said about MOND.

Here's Milgrom's interpretation of the bullet cluster:
[http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/moti_bullet.html](http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/moti_bullet.html)

~~~
badosu
I am not saying Dark Matter is something that actually exists that cannot be
ruled out by other explanations (a revision of GR would be ideal IMO), just
that this phenomenon makes the approach much trickier.

------
agentgt
This almost an exact duplicate:

[http://cosmos.nautil.us/short/144/the-physicist-who-
denies-t...](http://cosmos.nautil.us/short/144/the-physicist-who-denies-that-
dark-matter-exists)

and original HN comments here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13743439](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13743439)

Do people not search Agolia before posting? Is it acceptable to repost things?
(I'm not HN expert).

~~~
jcroll
Actually what's disturbing (and I am a paid subscriber to nautil.us) is that
nautil.us is duplicating content. They took that old interview and passed it
off as new content in their latest edition.

Not really fair to us paying readers!

~~~
s_dev
Do you pay anything more than attention to nautil.us?

I think that site gets far too much coverage on HackerNews along with atlas
obscura -- I see multiple articles everyday.

Honestly I find their content here too frequently -- there is some
manipulation going on.

~~~
jcroll
I pay money to them

------
powera
Between dark matter and the problems with inflation theory
([https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-
inflation-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-inflation-
theory-faces-challenges/)) I think there's enough evidence to show that the
Big Bang model of the universe is flawed.

As soon as somebody invents/discovers a better model, most of current research
will prove itself completely useless.

~~~
JoBrad
Whether or not inflation theory holds long-term, I highly doubt that "most of
current research will prove itself completely useless." Even if Dark Energy
process to be done yet-undiscovered property of ordinary matter, the research
on its effects and properties will still be very valuable.

We didn't throw out Galileo's research when Kepler discovered new principles,
or Newton's when Planck and Einstein performed their research.

------
chmike
A.Meessen suggest a simpler explanation. Dark matter is made of electrically
neutral elementary particles subject to scattering and a pressure. These
particles may combine and dissociate which accounts for drak energy and the
cosmological constant. The properties of all elementary particles (except
mass) are predicted by his space time quantization (STQ) theory. It provides a
blue print of all elementary particles. It predicts the neutral elementary
particles that may constitute dark matter. There is no need to call back in
question Newton's theory.

[1] "From Space-Time Quantization to Dark Matter"
[https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=...](https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=73362)

[2] "Accelerated Expansion of Space, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Big Bang
Processes"
[https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=...](https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=74430)

[3] "Astrophysics and Dark Matter Theory"
[https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=...](https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=74434)

~~~
hwillis
Yeah, he also thinks that UFOs exist. He's a nutjob

~~~
chmike
A.Meessen does pure science and studies whatever he consider of interest.
Regarding UFOs he did inductive research. A priori we don't know if the
reported phenomenon is real or not. To test the reality of the phenomenon you
have to pose the hypothesis that they exist and see if this leads us to a
logical contradiction. Even then, all we could say is we don't know if it's
real or not.

As a physicist he studied their propulsion system. There was two main reason
to do so. First, we know the physics law and their constrains well. Second,
the witness reported the side effects of a totally unknown propulsion system.
If witness were making up the data, logical contradictions would be found
quickly because most witnesses are not physicists.

For instance, a witness reported seeing a UFO moving at very low altitude
above trees. The strange thing was that the top of the trees were attracted by
the UFO. Any conventional propulsion system would result in pushing the tree
top away. If the UFO was real, how could we explain this observation ? What
underlying physic mecanism could produce such effect ? That is how he started
studying the UFO phenomenon. As a physicist he focussed in trying to identify
a possible propulsion mechanism that could produce the reported effects. The
only hypothesis he used was that UFO are real and that they may use the known
physics law in a way yet unknnown to us, an original way.

You have to initially suppose the UFO data valid to do this reserach. It can't
work by supposing UFO don't exist.

This research led him to two significant results. First the PEMP, a pulsed EM
propulsion system [1]. Second, a new type of oscillator using a
supraconducting surface that can generate very intense EM fields required for
the propulsion [2]. It may not be a coincidence that a supraconducting shell
would also protect occupants from the very intense oscillating EM field. Since
humans can't produce supraconductive materials at room temperature, there
isn't much room left to suppose a human origin of UFOs. The logical and
scientific consistency, as well as the sound theory does also point to the
reality of the UFO phenomenon. A.Meessen has data that you and scientists
don't have to make their opinion, although it is published and in open access.

The idea that UFOs are not real is just a belief supported by a few bogus
cases and, I guess, by the fear of ET with far supperior technical skills than
us. The idea that UFOs are real is now supported by scientific results. It's
just theories that are waiting experimental validation. But at this stage we
don't need to make an hypothesis about the reality or not of UFOs. These
theories can be tested today in a lab with our technology.

This is pure science, not crack potery. Sorry for your beliefs.

Beside, the validity (or invalidity) of his STQ theory can't be inferred from
his work on ufology because they are totally independent. If his theory on STQ
is bogus, then say in what it is bogus. Otherwise, you are in the gossip
domain, not science domain.

[1] "Pulsed EM Propulsion of Unconvnetional Flying Objects"
[http://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/#Propulsion](http://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/#Propulsion)

[2] "Production of EM Surface Waves by Superconducting Spheres: A New Type of
Harmonic Oscillators"
[http://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/#Production](http://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/#Production)

------
rileymat2
This is really great. It has always bothered me (as a non-physicist) for
precisely this point:

"Sure, if there was dark matter, the speed of stars would be greater, but the
rotation curves, meaning the rotational speed drawn as a function of the
radius, could still go up and down depending on its distribution. But they
didn’t. "

------
doener
The story was already published in February:
[http://cosmos.nautil.us/short/144/the-physicist-who-
denies-t...](http://cosmos.nautil.us/short/144/the-physicist-who-denies-that-
dark-matter-exists)

------
Animats
Dark matter is at best a hypothesis. We can't find any. We can't make any.
It's a hack to fix theory.

~~~
hwillis
It is not. Dark matter is not some smooth distribution that could be explained
by adjusting the formula for gravity. There are places where it is, and places
where it isn't. Not only that, but it has its own mass and inertia.

Not only that but dark matter is missing in a host of other ways that can't be
explained by the laws of gravity being more complex. Microwave background
radiation is 30x more powerful than can be explained by visible matter, but
matches exactly if you add in dark matter and dark energy. The ratio of
hydrogen to deuterium is inconsistent with visible matter, but matches
perfectly if you add dark matter.

Galaxy clusters collide and we can literally see dark matter pass through the
collision since it doesn't interact.

Dark matter is as well proven as the atom was when we made the bombs. We just
don't know what it's _made_ of yet. You simply don't know enough about it.

------
solotronics
the non light emitting mass could be Dyson spheres of space based computers

~~~
hwillis
Dark matter isn't just dark, it doesn't interact with normal matter. When
galaxies collide when can verify via gravitational lensing that the normal
matter smashes together while the dark matter continues unimpeded in straight
lines through each other.

~~~
marcosdumay
Stars also don't interact with other stars that way. AFAIK, the bullet cluster
is not evidence for WIMPs.

~~~
hwillis
you're correct, but it is very strong evidence for dark matter in general.

~~~
marcosdumay
Yes, but the Dyson spheres the GP talks about are "dark matter in general".
Evidence for WIMPs are elsewhere.

------
jessriedel
Almost ever sentence in this comment is wrong.

~~~
BoiledCabbage
And the second word of the only sentence in your comment is wrong.

Please provide a constructive, substantive critique or don't comment at all.

~~~
jessriedel
The fact that someone with more expertise is warning that a discussion is
going off the rails is a useful, constructive fact. Demanding that that person
explain in detail why in order to contribute is a good way to make sure they
don't bother.

~~~
BoiledCabbage
The fact that someone is knowledgeable about a subject doesn't exempt them
from being a constructive contributor to a discussion.

Additionally, no where was it "demanded that you explain in detail". I don't
mean to be too blunt here, but there is quite a huge gap of comments between a
detailed explanation and what you posted.

As an example: "There were a number of things incorrect in this post. The
largest one of them was stating X when in fact Y. For more reading on it, look
at Z."

And notably this response required fewer words than those spent defending your
initial comment.

~~~
jessriedel
1\. The proper question is "When a commenter is very wrong on a technical
topic, is it net-positive for someone with expertise to point this out even if
they don't contribute further?". I think the answer is obviously "yes". You
seem to be more concerned with whether people are pulling their fair share,
vs. being exempt/special, which I claim is the wrong question.

2\. Effort scales with detail. The example comment you give is 3 times the
effort, and I wouldn't have made the original comment if it required that much
detail. My comment took me a few seconds to write, and merely tracking down a
URL link for explanation would have made it not worth it.

3\. Rebutting the N-th confused post on HN about dark matter doesn't interest
me, but the meta point of what contributes to a discussion does interest me.

~~~
BoiledCabbage
What you're writing shows you continue to miss the point.

~~~
jessriedel
I've engaged with the specifics of each of your points. We may disagree, but
it's not because I misunderstood your claims.

------
douche
Dark matter appears, to a layman with some historical knowledge, as nothing
more than modern day epicycles. When we can't explain something with the
models we have, and have to invent magic terms to balance the equations, that
indicates that we really don't know what the fuck is going on.

~~~
hwillis
You have a misunderstanding of the problems and evidence of dark matter:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/6488wb/i_dont_want_t...](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/6488wb/i_dont_want_to_be_anti_science_but_i_am_doubtful/dg05wx4/)

~~~
douche
I'm not seeing anything there that isn't a handwavey explanation for "reality
doesn't match the models, so DARK MATTER!"

~~~
hwillis
>One of the recent most convincing things was the bullet cluster as described
here.[1] We saw two galaxies collide where the "observed" matter actually
underwent a collision but the gravitational lensing kept moving un-impeded
which matches the belief that the majority of mass in a galaxy is
collisionless dark matter that felt no colliding interaction and passed right
on through bringing the bulk of the gravitational lensing with it.

How can you possibly even begin to explain that without dark matter?

[1] [http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2006/08/21/dark-
mat...](http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2006/08/21/dark-matter-
exists/)

~~~
douche
We don't understand how matter acrually works on a large scale. Inventing
imaginary terms that we can't observe to satisfy the equations in the models
to match the observed reality seems a poor practice.

~~~
gaius
Right it's like when people say, I don't believe in Creation, that stuff is
just nonsense. And you say, so what's your alternative theory then? And they
reply, well there was a "big bang" and everything just sort of appeared, for
no reason. Really, that's the alternative explanation?

~~~
hwillis
Well yes, if you ignore all the evidence of something then you can confidently
say there is no evidence.

Christian genesis: There was a garden of Eden, and a god.

Evidence: No garden of Eden, no evidence of angels or god, no reason those
things would suddenly stop being apparent. Direct contradictory evidence that
YHWH[1] was a minor god in the original jewish pantheon rather than an actual
creator god.

Big Bang: The universe started for an unknown reason and rapidly expanded
outward.

Evidence: The universe is visibly expanding outwards and formed in a way
consistent with an explosion.

Did you think that the big bang theory was just something someone thought of,
and then they looked for evidence? Evidence came first, then the big bang was
proposed.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh)

~~~
shakna
> Christian genesis: There was a garden of Eden, and a god.

That's a really bad example to go to.

The tale of Eden follows a poem, and if you take both literally, then you end
up with contradictions.

For why? Genre.

Neither were intended to be literal. They were designed to convey meaning.

> YHWH[1] was a minor god in the original jewish pantheon rather than an
> actual creator god.

Origins are highly disputed, but El seems to be the most likely title, who is
the head of the Caananite pantheon, and influential enough to be remembered in
Babylon. Not a minor deity.

I understand you were responding to a statement which sort of ignores the
basic premises of science, but that doesn't mean your narrative should ignore
a scholarly approach to documents whose origins predate writing.

~~~
hwillis
>Neither were intended to be literal. They were designed to convey meaning.

Even Genesis has direct geographical references to it. It has directions.
Calling it a metaphor is moving the goalposts. Ad reductio Abrahamic religion
is simply that god made whatever we can't understand.

It's not like I'm saying the world wasn't made in seven days. I'm saying that
god said we were kicked out of where we came from and would never be allowed
back, and that place doesn't exist. I'm saying god says he talks to us and
appears to us, and those things don't happen. The basic, central tenants of
the bible aren't real. These are important things, not minutia.

>Origins are highly disputed, but El seems to be the most likely title, who is
the head of the Caananite pantheon, and influential enough to be remembered in
Babylon. Not a minor deity.

That's not true. The introduction of Yahweh to the Semetic religion was very
visibly followed by a shift in personal names referencing El (eg Michael) to
names referencing Yahweh. Yahweh was an individual, entirely separate god that
aggressively replaced El, and El was relegated to an increasingly minor role.
The thing called YHWH in 1200 BC is a 4th tier divine warrior, and the thing
called YHWH now is a sole god.

Bare minimum, the Semetic religion was demonstrably polytheistic before it was
monotheistic, and that alone massively undermines the bible.

~~~
shakna
> Even Genesis has direct geographical references to it. It has directions.

Treating Genesis as a single book is insane. Its a collection of oral
traditions. Multiple authours, genres, and hundreds of years separate each
tale.

> geographical references to it. It has directions. Calling it a metaphor is
> moving the goalposts. Ad reductio Abrahamic religion is simply that god made
> whatever we can't understand.

Eden isn't a metaphor, its an allegory, using as its basis a common
Mesopotamian myth, as was common at the time. Its origin lies in the story of
Lilitu.

The directions to the Euphrates are in Babylonian and Egyptian myths too. It
was an area considered symbolic of the spiritual world. You get similar
directions to forests that never existed in Japanese myths.

And as a people, the Caananites, and their descendants, were incredibly
symbolic. See Kabbalah's number system, and references to it throughout the
Bible.

> The introduction of Yahweh to the Semetic religion was very visibly followed
> by a shift in personal names referencing El (eg Michael) to names
> referencing Yahweh.

Firstly, "Yahweh" was a best guess about an unspoken name that wasn't allowed
to be written in complete form. We are fairly certain that guess was wrong,
and the actual name was "Elohim". They're the same name, and yes, the same
spelling. (We transliterate to English using sounds in this case).

El wasn't replaced, nor were his attributes. The Caananites set out to seize
their promised land, backed by their warrior god.

> the thing called YHWH is a sole god.

Not to begin with, in Biblical record. Or commands such as:

> I am a jealous god, you will have no gods before me

Wouldn't make sense. Nor would the Caananites hospitality to those of the
Ba'al religions.

The Biblical record shows this, and it doesn't undermine the record. The
Psalms frequently reference belief in other gods.

The first reference to monotheism comes in the Davidic era, after Israel has
been established, but it isn't entirely fixed, and instead is something that
slowly took hold over a great deal of time.

Different scholars and theologians have different theories on the why of that.

> that alone massively undermines the bible.

I wasn't arguing for or against it. I was simply explaining a couple of
documents in a large collection have different intended meaning than that
which you gave it.

We don't simply lift out parts of Herodotus and think that we should take his
mentions of Achilles literally.

The Bible is a collection of documents. The meaning ascribed to them doesn't
exempt them from treating them as ancient documents.

I'm sure they seem insane to you, but no moreso than our ancient Greek
records, or the Roman ones either.

~~~
hwillis
There is no evidence that locations such as that were meant as allegories.
They grew from real sacred places, as appear in other religions. As cultures
grew the religions simply grew with them and was re-interpreted. The metaphor
is not the original meaning.

>Firstly, "Yahweh" was a best guess about an unspoken name that wasn't allowed
to be written in complete form. We are fairly certain that guess was wrong,
and the actual name was "Elohim". They're the same name, and yes, the same
spelling. (We transliterate to English using sounds in this case).

I have no idea where you're getting this from. They are quite different. Aleph
lamed he yud mem vs. yud he waw he. There was heavy redaction in the 5th
century BC in favor of "Elohim" but YHWH definitely existed first. Elohim in
ugaritic originally meant "children of god" ie the pantheon under El, which
Yahweh was a part of. Later, with the revisionist history, Elohim became "God
of gods". What's more, YHWH is forbidden to speak aloud whereas elohim is not.

There was an outright movement as YHWH became more important and El became
less important. It wasn't just a name change. They literally switched, and
even after Yahweh became the most important god he still didn't fully absorb
El's traits until later.

>Wouldn't make sense. Nor would the Caananites hospitality to those of the
Ba'al religions. The Biblical record shows this, and it doesn't undermine the
record. The Psalms frequently reference belief in other gods. The first
reference to monotheism comes in the Davidic era, after Israel has been
established, but it isn't entirely fixed, and instead is something that slowly
took hold over a great deal of time. Different scholars and theologians have
different theories on the why of that.

I dropped a "now", that was meant to say "the thing now called YHWH is a sole
god". But even in Kings, Baal and others are no more than false idols eg Ahab,
Jezebel and Elijah.

>The Bible is a collection of documents. The meaning ascribed to them doesn't
exempt them from treating them as ancient documents.

I did not mean to imply that. Certainly it is not nothing. However it is not
realistic evidence for a god any more than the Greek pantheon. We know that
there are no gods on top of Olympus. The hyperbolic and contradicted aspects
of the bible are likewise not real.

