http://www.physorg.com/news5340.html
With all the difference kind of telescope
we have and still can not find the missing
matter, perhaps we are looking at wrong direction. In my humble opinions this matter actually are located in the center of each galaxy.In the center of each galaxy,there where this matter pack together,swirling, crunching and this make this alive with lots and lots of light coming out of it.
i don't think so, if dark matter is only located in the centre of each galaxy, then the effects of dark matter would be "stronger" in the centre of the galaxy, it is believed that dark matter is everywhere, we can only measure it's effects, i reckon dark matter is much like the air, we can't see air with a telescope. maybe dark matter is particles from a different parallel universe where there is a whole world of "anti matter" but the effects are felt in our universe, or another thought is that "dark matter" is like gravtional energy, the energy is transfured by particles that have no mass or "colour" since it has no mass we can't touch it or see it. or maybe it's like a photon but that it doesn't have "color"
QUOTE (Paul Manoppo+Jul 22 2005, 12:52 AM)
http://www.physorg.com/news5340.html
With all the difference kind of telescope
we have and still can not find the missing
matter
Dark matter is a help-hypothesis that is constructed to hide the misinterpretation of the distribution of the rotation-velocities of the spiral-galaxies.
Ingvar, Sweden
http://www.theuniphysics.info
With all the difference kind of telescope
we have and still can not find the missing
matter
Dark matter is a help-hypothesis that is constructed to hide the misinterpretation of the distribution of the rotation-velocities of the spiral-galaxies.
Ingvar, Sweden
http://www.theuniphysics.info
For a while years ago there was a lot of stuff going on involving "gravitational lensing" which kind of infers the mass distribution from telescope observations. Specifically, there were big searches for MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo Objects). I believe sub-stellar masses have been ruled out as significant fraction of the halo, but stellar masses are still not constrained.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9612/9612102.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9612/9612102.pdf
If i recall this all came about because ther suposidly wasent enough matter in galaxys to hold them together. Acording to experiments caried out by Prof Francis E. Nipher in 1918 gravitation can be canceld and reversed by electrical charg and alternating curents. If gravaty can be altered by electrisity then it may not aways be a constant force. Bodies could pesumably have moor gravitational atraction than ther mass shuld alow under the right surcumstanses. Or of corse less!!! The Earth has a negative charge constantly and so are we exspeiansing it's full gavitatonal pull??
I thought it all had to do with that little thing of Hubble's constant mixed up with Einstein's "oops".
Dark matter is a logical necessity of a continuum expansion model for cosmology. A discontinuous expansion model does not have this logical necessity because the intepretation of the universe's perimeter data become different. The last reply of the topic, time shift of energy, lends further insight using an analogy.
1st I understand in the centre of the galaxy is a supermassive black hole.
2nd I understand dark matter is everywhere, as vibrations in the wrapped up dimensions by superstring theory. Like in zero point energy theory this energy flows everywhere. The problem is how to measure it! In physics if you cant measure something...efectively it doesnt exist
But how to measure an ingent number of micro vibrations on dimensions 23 orders of magnitude below our human universe?in a practical level this is SciFi. But there must be some mechanisms that concentrate this energy, and make it ready to tap.
id like to test this understanding of mine.
Thanks
2nd I understand dark matter is everywhere, as vibrations in the wrapped up dimensions by superstring theory. Like in zero point energy theory this energy flows everywhere. The problem is how to measure it! In physics if you cant measure something...efectively it doesnt exist
But how to measure an ingent number of micro vibrations on dimensions 23 orders of magnitude below our human universe?in a practical level this is SciFi. But there must be some mechanisms that concentrate this energy, and make it ready to tap.id like to test this understanding of mine.
Thanks
I thought baryonic matter made up about 10%, dark matter about 30% and dark energy 60%. The baryonic matter consisting of 5-10% matter we observe, stars, galaxies, photons etc and the dark matter ~30% - axions and neutralinos. Both of which are weakly interacting with conventional baryonic matter and unobserved at present.
I think we need to wait for more results from MAP and Sloan DSS plus the PLANCK satellite in 2007 to shed more light on the existance of dark matter.
regards
steveswin
I think we need to wait for more results from MAP and Sloan DSS plus the PLANCK satellite in 2007 to shed more light on the existance of dark matter.
regards
steveswin
Hi All,
The spiral galaxies are spinning too fast for the amount of matter they are calculated to contain. They should be "flung all over the place". It is as if the galaxies are in a bigger gravitational "trough" than they appear by just simply "adding up all the observable mass".
Hence "dark matter". It follows the contours of real matter as a "shadow" if you will. It could be exotic particles (as in that article.. but not the same), it could be cold dense matter that does not reflect or absorb light (maybe matter in a dark state) or it could be the footprint of extra dimensions. With any "luck" it will be all these and more... he he he!
Cheers
The spiral galaxies are spinning too fast for the amount of matter they are calculated to contain. They should be "flung all over the place". It is as if the galaxies are in a bigger gravitational "trough" than they appear by just simply "adding up all the observable mass".
Hence "dark matter". It follows the contours of real matter as a "shadow" if you will. It could be exotic particles (as in that article.. but not the same), it could be cold dense matter that does not reflect or absorb light (maybe matter in a dark state) or it could be the footprint of extra dimensions. With any "luck" it will be all these and more... he he he!
Cheers
They just found out that our galaxy is 2 or 3 times bigger than what we think it is. Also they just found out, recently, there is 7% more byrionic matter in our galaxy that has not been accounted before. And this could be true for every single one of the galaxies out there. The fact that each galaxy having a center that would pull all the material and keep it intact so they would stay together and not fly apart like they had predicted??. Perhaps Ingvar from Sweden was right when he said (Quote) :
Dark matter is a help-hypothesis that is constructed to hide the misinterpretation of the distribution of the rotation velocities of the spiral galixies.
Dark matter is a help-hypothesis that is constructed to hide the misinterpretation of the distribution of the rotation velocities of the spiral galixies.
^^ Be careful what you say on those topics, as not everyone always agrees with the current trends. Science is about skepticism. After all they are never 100% certain in what they claim, they are always aware that the room for error must be apparent.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 19 2005, 12:04 AM)
Hi All,
The spiral galaxies are spinning too fast for the amount of matter they are calculated to contain. They should be "flung all over the place". It is as if the galaxies are in a bigger gravitational "trough" than they appear by just simply "adding up all the observable mass".
Hence "dark matter". It follows the contours of real matter as a "shadow" if you will. It could be exotic particles (as in that article.. but not the same), it could be cold dense matter that does not reflect or absorb light (maybe matter in a dark state) or it could be the footprint of extra dimensions. With any "luck" it will be all these and more... he he he!
Cheers
You are starting to encroach upon my terrain there. Watch out you might become an ardent supporter of my work.
BTW ever wonder what happens to all of those photons that come out of the stars? They can't travel forever, infinite is not probable, so what happens to it, when it slows down, or stops.
The spiral galaxies are spinning too fast for the amount of matter they are calculated to contain. They should be "flung all over the place". It is as if the galaxies are in a bigger gravitational "trough" than they appear by just simply "adding up all the observable mass".
Hence "dark matter". It follows the contours of real matter as a "shadow" if you will. It could be exotic particles (as in that article.. but not the same), it could be cold dense matter that does not reflect or absorb light (maybe matter in a dark state) or it could be the footprint of extra dimensions. With any "luck" it will be all these and more... he he he!
Cheers
You are starting to encroach upon my terrain there. Watch out you might become an ardent supporter of my work.
BTW ever wonder what happens to all of those photons that come out of the stars? They can't travel forever, infinite is not probable, so what happens to it, when it slows down, or stops.
QUOTE (NidStyles+Aug 30 2005, 07:27 AM)
^^ Be careful what you say on those topics, as not everyone always agrees with the current trends. Science is about skepticism. After all they are never 100% certain in what they claim, they are always aware that the room for error must be apparent.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 19 2005, 12:04 AM)
Hi All,
The spiral galaxies are spinning too fast for the amount of matter they are calculated to contain. They should be "flung all over the place". It is as if the galaxies are in a bigger gravitational "trough" than they appear by just simply "adding up all the observable mass".
Hence "dark matter". It follows the contours of real matter as a "shadow" if you will. It could be exotic particles (as in that article.. but not the same), it could be cold dense matter that does not reflect or absorb light (maybe matter in a dark state) or it could be the footprint of extra dimensions. With any "luck" it will be all these and more... he he he!
Cheers
You are starting to encroach upon my terrain there. Watch out you might become an ardent supporter of my work.
BTW ever wonder what happens to all of those photons that come out of the stars? They can't travel forever, infinite is not probable, so what happens to it, when it slows down, or stops.
The photon is a misinterpretation by Max Planck of the measurings of the heat radiation that was measured as wavelengths but calculated as frequencies (to measure temperature's/energy's ratio to time).
Measurings from experiments (made by F. Paschen at the Technische Hochschule in Hannover, and, on the other hand, by O. Lummer and E. Pringsheim at the State Institution in Charlottenburg) showed that there was a constant fractional difference between the wave-units that increased fractionally proportional with the wavelengths.
Neither Max Planck nor anybody until now has understood this simple phenomenon that my empirical experiment and derivation explain.
See M. Planck's Nobel lecture at: http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/19...ck-lecture.html
Where Planck writes:
<<Either the quantum of action was a fictional quantity, then the whole deduction of the radiation law was in the main illusory and represented nothing more than an empty non-significant play on formulae, or the derivation of the radiation law was based on a sound physical conception. In this case the quantum of action must play a fundamental role in physics, and here was something entirely new, never before heard of, which seemed called upon to basically revise all our physical thinking, built as this was, since the establishment of the infinitesimal calculus by Leibniz and Newton, upon the acceptance of the continuity of all causative connections.>>
The right explanation is that the heat radiation's waves increases in wavelength depending on the entropy-effect that Rudolf Clausius defined and tried to find its mechanism's explanation. That is: Entropy is the termodynamical effect that forces the electrodynamical energy forwards towards equilibrium. The stars radiation reach equilibrium at the CBR temperature where the radiation's dissipation reach its "heat death". This thermodynamical wave-elongation is apparently interpreted as if the galaxies are running away from us proportionally faster with the distance. But it isn’t the universe that is expanding – it is the radiation’s wavelengths that is expanding depending on the entropy-effect that Clausius defined but never found.
Compare with Galilei’s sloping plane where higher dynamical energy forces the ball to accelerate by increased entropy to its lowest energy level at equilibrium.
Even Planck and other scientists searched the mechanism behind the radiation's dissipation. Clausius never accepted Boltzmann's statistical interpretation.
See the following citation on this web-page:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~histor...s/Clausius.html
<<Clausius' great legacy to physics is undoubtedly his idea of the irreversible increase in entropy, and yet we find no indication of interest in Josiah Gibbs' work on chemical equilibrium or Boltzmann's views on thermodynamics and probability, both of which were utterly dependent on his idea. It is strange that he himself showed no inclination to seek a molecular understanding of irreversible entropy or to find further applications of the idea; it is stranger yet, and even tragic, that he expressed no concern for the work of his contemporaries who were accomplishing those very tasks. >>
Dark matter is an interpretation that was a needed help hypothesis to explains the Doppler-measurings of the arms of rotating spiral galaxies that was first observed as an unintelligible anomaly and first calculated by Fritz Zwicky and rediscovered by Vera Rubin.
They found it strange that all the stars' have the same velocity. The velocity-distribution was the same. This was misinterpreted that those galaxies rotated as stiff plates with the same angular velocity over the whole galaxy’s arms. The thought that the consequences must be that the rotation's centrifugal forces should increase with the distance away from the center of the galaxy's decreasing gravity and throw away the star's out in the space.
But, the right explanation is that the orbital velocity is the same for all the stars in the galaxies’ arms. This implies that a star in the galaxy rotates two revolutions when another star in the same galaxy’s arm at the double distance rotates one revolution and both have the same velocity. This implies that the angular velocity decreases proportionally to the decreasing gravitation.
CONSEQUENTLY – NO DARK MATTER IS NEEDED – neither to explain the galaxies’ rotation-gravitation, nor the apparent expansion of the universe!!!
Ingvar Astrand, Sweden
http://www.theuniphysics.info
(I will soon update my web-pages)
Suppose that near the center of the galaxy the mass distribution consists of a superdense central mass (e.g., black hole) immersed in a smooth dark matter distribution which extends out to the outer radii. While the latter explains the overall rotation curve especially at the outermost radii, I wonder whether at the innermost radii, the stars should follow a pseudo-Keplerian behavior, since this central superdense mass dominates at innermost radii. Perhaps this scenario is ruled out by observations?
Suppose that near the center of the galaxy the mass distribution consists of a superdense central mass (e.g., black hole) immersed in a smooth dark matter distribution which extends out to the outer radii. While the latter explains the overall rotation curve especially at the outermost radii, I wonder whether at the innermost radii, the stars should follow a pseudo-Keplerian behavior, since this central superdense mass dominates at innermost radii. Perhaps this scenario is ruled out by observations?
Just as you surmise, the rotation curve for the inner bulge is Keplerian, i.e., falling off with distance from the central Black Hole.
I see that there are quite a few posts showing skepticism of dark matter. I was thinking about this more last night, when I posted something about angular momentum of dark matter.
It occurred to me that if the visible matter has angular momentum that increases with radius that could explain the rotation curve. In other words, if the gas in the outer radii had larger angular momentum relative to the center than the gas in the inner radii during collapse, that could produce the right curve. Of course, mathematically you would have to prove this.
Another surprise, I still don't quite get, is this rotation curve plot here. Why is the velocity falling off at the inner radii? It's as if the center is much leaner than expected!
It seems the velocity curve shows apparently increasing angular momentum with increasing radius. This angular momentum if large enough would prevent concentration in the center. If dark matter is less concentrated at center, it must have larger angular momentum than visible matter.
The spiral galaxies are spinning too fast for the amount of matter they are calculated to contain. They should be "flung all over the place". It is as if the galaxies are in a bigger gravitational "trough" than they appear by just simply "adding up all the observable mass".
Hence "dark matter". It follows the contours of real matter as a "shadow" if you will. It could be exotic particles (as in that article.. but not the same), it could be cold dense matter that does not reflect or absorb light (maybe matter in a dark state) or it could be the footprint of extra dimensions. With any "luck" it will be all these and more... he he he!
Cheers
You are starting to encroach upon my terrain there. Watch out you might become an ardent supporter of my work.
BTW ever wonder what happens to all of those photons that come out of the stars? They can't travel forever, infinite is not probable, so what happens to it, when it slows down, or stops.
The photon is a misinterpretation by Max Planck of the measurings of the heat radiation that was measured as wavelengths but calculated as frequencies (to measure temperature's/energy's ratio to time).
Measurings from experiments (made by F. Paschen at the Technische Hochschule in Hannover, and, on the other hand, by O. Lummer and E. Pringsheim at the State Institution in Charlottenburg) showed that there was a constant fractional difference between the wave-units that increased fractionally proportional with the wavelengths.
Neither Max Planck nor anybody until now has understood this simple phenomenon that my empirical experiment and derivation explain.
See M. Planck's Nobel lecture at: http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/19...ck-lecture.html
Where Planck writes:
<<Either the quantum of action was a fictional quantity, then the whole deduction of the radiation law was in the main illusory and represented nothing more than an empty non-significant play on formulae, or the derivation of the radiation law was based on a sound physical conception. In this case the quantum of action must play a fundamental role in physics, and here was something entirely new, never before heard of, which seemed called upon to basically revise all our physical thinking, built as this was, since the establishment of the infinitesimal calculus by Leibniz and Newton, upon the acceptance of the continuity of all causative connections.>>
The right explanation is that the heat radiation's waves increases in wavelength depending on the entropy-effect that Rudolf Clausius defined and tried to find its mechanism's explanation. That is: Entropy is the termodynamical effect that forces the electrodynamical energy forwards towards equilibrium. The stars radiation reach equilibrium at the CBR temperature where the radiation's dissipation reach its "heat death". This thermodynamical wave-elongation is apparently interpreted as if the galaxies are running away from us proportionally faster with the distance. But it isn’t the universe that is expanding – it is the radiation’s wavelengths that is expanding depending on the entropy-effect that Clausius defined but never found.
Compare with Galilei’s sloping plane where higher dynamical energy forces the ball to accelerate by increased entropy to its lowest energy level at equilibrium.
Even Planck and other scientists searched the mechanism behind the radiation's dissipation. Clausius never accepted Boltzmann's statistical interpretation.
See the following citation on this web-page:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~histor...s/Clausius.html
<<Clausius' great legacy to physics is undoubtedly his idea of the irreversible increase in entropy, and yet we find no indication of interest in Josiah Gibbs' work on chemical equilibrium or Boltzmann's views on thermodynamics and probability, both of which were utterly dependent on his idea. It is strange that he himself showed no inclination to seek a molecular understanding of irreversible entropy or to find further applications of the idea; it is stranger yet, and even tragic, that he expressed no concern for the work of his contemporaries who were accomplishing those very tasks. >>
Dark matter is an interpretation that was a needed help hypothesis to explains the Doppler-measurings of the arms of rotating spiral galaxies that was first observed as an unintelligible anomaly and first calculated by Fritz Zwicky and rediscovered by Vera Rubin.
They found it strange that all the stars' have the same velocity. The velocity-distribution was the same. This was misinterpreted that those galaxies rotated as stiff plates with the same angular velocity over the whole galaxy’s arms. The thought that the consequences must be that the rotation's centrifugal forces should increase with the distance away from the center of the galaxy's decreasing gravity and throw away the star's out in the space.
But, the right explanation is that the orbital velocity is the same for all the stars in the galaxies’ arms. This implies that a star in the galaxy rotates two revolutions when another star in the same galaxy’s arm at the double distance rotates one revolution and both have the same velocity. This implies that the angular velocity decreases proportionally to the decreasing gravitation.
CONSEQUENTLY – NO DARK MATTER IS NEEDED – neither to explain the galaxies’ rotation-gravitation, nor the apparent expansion of the universe!!!
Ingvar Astrand, Sweden
http://www.theuniphysics.info
(I will soon update my web-pages)
yo
So what is dark matter and dark energy anyways? is it just matter we cant see and detect or is it just a new kind of matter and energy? What do you guys think of the "string theory"? i don't like the string theory but i like the idea of particles zipping across the galaxy at faster than light speeds.
QUOTE (Asimov+Sep 3 2005, 10:42 PM)
So what is dark matter and dark energy anyways? is it just matter we cant see and detect or is it just a new kind of matter and energy? What do you guys think of the "string theory"? i don't like the string theory but i like the idea of particles zipping across the galaxy at faster than light speeds.
It was Vera Rubin who really convinced the physics world of the reality of dark matter, by carefully studying the rotation curves of spiral galaxies seen edge-on. The idea had been proposed before as a means of holding clusters of galaxies together. The classical theory is that the force of gravity on a star depends on all the mass that is inside its orbit. Since the visible mass declines in density rather rapidly after one leaves the central bulge, we would expect the rotation curves to be Keplerian. In the Keplerian solar system, those planets that are further away from the sun have a slower velocity.
While the analogy to the galaxy is not exact, the central bulge plays the role of the Sun, holding most of the mass, therefore one would expect stars in the disk to behave in a Keplerian manner, ie, to decline with distance. But they don't. The rotation curve for the disk is pretty nearly flat, in galaxy after galaxy. It even rises in some galaxies. If it rises as a function of r, then the spiral disk will rotate rigidly, as a solid plate. These rotation curves extend far beyond the visible stars to star clusters quite distant from the central bulge.
No one knows what Dark Matter is. It caught the physicists completely by surprise. While Super-Symmetric theories in physics imply that for every particle there can be a super-heavy Sparticle, but only in very high energy situations. These Sparticles are also known as WIMPs, but there was no expectation that these things would still exist. Just one more thing that might have existed for a brief moment in the big bang. Experiments have been done looking for WIMPs, but none have been found.
Just to show you how little we know about Dark Matter, I can say that there is so far absolutely no reason to think it comes in discrete particles. Its only known property is gravity. It could consist in permanent kinks or knots in the geodesics of space-time, that would distort surrounding geodesics, thus causing gravity.
It is late. I will write about Dark Energy some other time.
It was Vera Rubin who really convinced the physics world of the reality of dark matter, by carefully studying the rotation curves of spiral galaxies seen edge-on. The idea had been proposed before as a means of holding clusters of galaxies together. The classical theory is that the force of gravity on a star depends on all the mass that is inside its orbit. Since the visible mass declines in density rather rapidly after one leaves the central bulge, we would expect the rotation curves to be Keplerian. In the Keplerian solar system, those planets that are further away from the sun have a slower velocity. While the analogy to the galaxy is not exact, the central bulge plays the role of the Sun, holding most of the mass, therefore one would expect stars in the disk to behave in a Keplerian manner, ie, to decline with distance. But they don't. The rotation curve for the disk is pretty nearly flat, in galaxy after galaxy. It even rises in some galaxies. If it rises as a function of r, then the spiral disk will rotate rigidly, as a solid plate. These rotation curves extend far beyond the visible stars to star clusters quite distant from the central bulge. No one knows what Dark Matter is. It caught the physicists completely by surprise. While Super-Symmetric theories in physics imply that for every particle there can be a super-heavy Sparticle, but only in very high energy situations. These Sparticles are also known as WIMPs, but there was no expectation that these things would still exist. Just one more thing that might have existed for a brief moment in the big bang. Experiments have been done looking for WIMPs, but none have been found. Just to show you how little we know about Dark Matter, I can say that there is so far absolutely no reason to think it comes in discrete particles. Its only known property is gravity. It could consist in permanent kinks or knots in the geodesics of space-time, that would distort surrounding geodesics, thus causing gravity.It is late. I will write about Dark Energy some other time.
QUOTE
Cebrakon: While the analogy to the galaxy is not exact, the central bulge plays the role of the Sun, holding most of the mass, therefore one would expect stars in the disk to behave in a Keplerian manner, ie, to decline with distance. But they don't. The rotation curve for the disk is pretty nearly flat, in galaxy after galaxy. It even rises in some galaxies. If it rises as a function of r, then the spiral disk will rotate rigidly, as a solid plate. These rotation curves extend far beyond the visible stars to star clusters quite distant from the central bulge.
Suppose that near the center of the galaxy the mass distribution consists of a superdense central mass (e.g., black hole) immersed in a smooth dark matter distribution which extends out to the outer radii. While the latter explains the overall rotation curve especially at the outermost radii, I wonder whether at the innermost radii, the stars should follow a pseudo-Keplerian behavior, since this central superdense mass dominates at innermost radii. Perhaps this scenario is ruled out by observations?
Dark matter is an aspect of space. Space is effected by gravity because of its mass equivilency. In other words, if space has no mass but still can be effected by gravity then we would have to reformulate everything, since the implication would be that gravity can effect the distance and time of space and therefore the distance and time between matter. Changes in the distance and time between matter is force, implying that gravity can effect others forces and change their calculations with respect to distance and time. Gravity currently needs to be confined to inertial mass and space mass equivilency because distance/time pertubations get too complicated without an integrated force theory. Once the unified force is firm we may need to backtrack. But based on existing theory, space mass equivilency makes the most sense.
Where does space-mass equivilency come from? It is a product of universe particle creation and fusion; anything that causes mass burn. Some tiny aspect of matter is conserved within space to become the increasing mass equivilency of space. Galaxy center of gravity become the focal point for space-mass equivilency.
Where does space-mass equivilency come from? It is a product of universe particle creation and fusion; anything that causes mass burn. Some tiny aspect of matter is conserved within space to become the increasing mass equivilency of space. Galaxy center of gravity become the focal point for space-mass equivilency.
QUOTE (guiding_light+Sep 4 2005, 05:18 AM)
QUOTE
Cebrakon: While the analogy to the galaxy is not exact, the central bulge plays the role of the Sun, holding most of the mass, therefore one would expect stars in the disk to behave in a Keplerian manner, ie, to decline with distance. But they don't. The rotation curve for the disk is pretty nearly flat, in galaxy after galaxy. It even rises in some galaxies. If it rises as a function of r, then the spiral disk will rotate rigidly, as a solid plate. These rotation curves extend far beyond the visible stars to star clusters quite distant from the central bulge.
Suppose that near the center of the galaxy the mass distribution consists of a superdense central mass (e.g., black hole) immersed in a smooth dark matter distribution which extends out to the outer radii. While the latter explains the overall rotation curve especially at the outermost radii, I wonder whether at the innermost radii, the stars should follow a pseudo-Keplerian behavior, since this central superdense mass dominates at innermost radii. Perhaps this scenario is ruled out by observations?
Just as you surmise, the rotation curve for the inner bulge is Keplerian, i.e., falling off with distance from the central Black Hole.
The whole idea of dark matter and dark energy being this great mystery that needs to be solved, could be solved in a few minutes is we all thought about it.
It goes back to basic relativity, where Einstein puts forward the idea that time is different for every system in motion and the suggestion that gravity is not itself a force of any kind but merely an affect of a yet discovered underlying force.
This is basic stuff, in that we must realize that the Universe exists as a non-simultaneous condition remaining relative to the system of reference, whereby the Universe is different for every system.
The energy associated with every system is equally different and considering that the visible Universe exists relative to our Earth as our system of reference it would appear that we misunderstand the situation.
The energy available exists as a unified field of frequency remaining relative to our Earth, whereby the energy potential decreases isometrically with distance to the non-absolute boundary of Universe.
The accelerating expansion of Universe has nothing to do with gravity as there is no gravity to speak of at the outer boudary of Universe. The rate of expansion corresponds to the rate of acceleration affecting the energy potential existing at the center of field in relation to the non-linear dynamics of field.
The rate of expansion is due to the maximum relative ratio of resistance existing at the outer boudary, in relation to a decrease in energy affecting a further increase in resistance to a further increase in energy. Therefore the Universe is forced to expand rather than contract.
And in order to understand this we have to understand the structural dynamics of field associated with our relative field system.
For more on this go to gravitycontrolidealism and go back to the posting for May 2005.
It goes back to basic relativity, where Einstein puts forward the idea that time is different for every system in motion and the suggestion that gravity is not itself a force of any kind but merely an affect of a yet discovered underlying force.
This is basic stuff, in that we must realize that the Universe exists as a non-simultaneous condition remaining relative to the system of reference, whereby the Universe is different for every system.
The energy associated with every system is equally different and considering that the visible Universe exists relative to our Earth as our system of reference it would appear that we misunderstand the situation.
The energy available exists as a unified field of frequency remaining relative to our Earth, whereby the energy potential decreases isometrically with distance to the non-absolute boundary of Universe.
The accelerating expansion of Universe has nothing to do with gravity as there is no gravity to speak of at the outer boudary of Universe. The rate of expansion corresponds to the rate of acceleration affecting the energy potential existing at the center of field in relation to the non-linear dynamics of field.
The rate of expansion is due to the maximum relative ratio of resistance existing at the outer boudary, in relation to a decrease in energy affecting a further increase in resistance to a further increase in energy. Therefore the Universe is forced to expand rather than contract.
And in order to understand this we have to understand the structural dynamics of field associated with our relative field system.
For more on this go to gravitycontrolidealism and go back to the posting for May 2005.
Cold Dark Matter is unobserveble by conventional methods, hence the words cold and dark. But since we can "observe" black holes by checking out how light gets distorted around it, then should we not be able to do the same thing with dark matter? Or am I just stupid?
Nobody is stupid.
What is being called dark cold matter is thought to represent perhaps more than 99% of Universe, which is a lot of missing material and energy.
Think of it in terms of multiverses, as most of the Universe exists as a simultaneous condition remaining relative to the non-simultaneous condition which is where we live right now.
It's invisible because it exists in both the past and future. It's simply not accessible at the present time.
Incidently, energy does not radiate, as it is always focused to the center of field.
So no, you wont find a trace of dark matter anywhere, not even a sniff.
What is actually missing is the energy, as we have yet to accept the idea of an underlying force determining the form and function of Universe.
In other words, the E as in energy is unaccounted for as yet.
The real question should be, what force sustains and perpetuates phyical matter?
So far it's magic, because no one seems to know. But I'm confident that the underlying force is in fact time in relation to time existing as a non-linear field of frequency which is continuously accelerating. In this respect it can be shown that an increase in energy affects a decrease in resistance to a further increase in energy, whereby the underlying force continues to accelerate.
Therefore the smaller mass has the higher ratio of energy per unit of mass.
So no dark matter and no dark energy.
What is being called dark cold matter is thought to represent perhaps more than 99% of Universe, which is a lot of missing material and energy.
Think of it in terms of multiverses, as most of the Universe exists as a simultaneous condition remaining relative to the non-simultaneous condition which is where we live right now.
It's invisible because it exists in both the past and future. It's simply not accessible at the present time.
Incidently, energy does not radiate, as it is always focused to the center of field.
So no, you wont find a trace of dark matter anywhere, not even a sniff.
What is actually missing is the energy, as we have yet to accept the idea of an underlying force determining the form and function of Universe.
In other words, the E as in energy is unaccounted for as yet.
The real question should be, what force sustains and perpetuates phyical matter?
So far it's magic, because no one seems to know. But I'm confident that the underlying force is in fact time in relation to time existing as a non-linear field of frequency which is continuously accelerating. In this respect it can be shown that an increase in energy affects a decrease in resistance to a further increase in energy, whereby the underlying force continues to accelerate.
Therefore the smaller mass has the higher ratio of energy per unit of mass.
So no dark matter and no dark energy.
QUOTE
Cebrakon: Just as you surmise, the rotation curve for the inner bulge is Keplerian, i.e., falling off with distance from the central Black Hole.
I see that there are quite a few posts showing skepticism of dark matter. I was thinking about this more last night, when I posted something about angular momentum of dark matter.
It occurred to me that if the visible matter has angular momentum that increases with radius that could explain the rotation curve. In other words, if the gas in the outer radii had larger angular momentum relative to the center than the gas in the inner radii during collapse, that could produce the right curve. Of course, mathematically you would have to prove this.
Another surprise, I still don't quite get, is this rotation curve plot here. Why is the velocity falling off at the inner radii? It's as if the center is much leaner than expected!
Hi,
There is some speculation that both dark matter and dark energy arise from quantum vacuum fluctuations.
The idea is that there are two types of macro-coherence of the fluctuations, giving rise to both dark matter and dark energy.
z
There is some speculation that both dark matter and dark energy arise from quantum vacuum fluctuations.
The idea is that there are two types of macro-coherence of the fluctuations, giving rise to both dark matter and dark energy.
z
QUOTE (thezman+Sep 13 2005, 07:05 PM)
There is some speculation that both dark matter and dark energy arise from quantum vacuum fluctuations...
Youre right. Please note this semiclassical Aether theory, which explains the dark matter effect (among lot of others)...
Youre right. Please note this semiclassical Aether theory, which explains the dark matter effect (among lot of others)...
QUOTE (Paul Manoppo+Jul 22 2005, 12:52 AM)
http://www.physorg.com/news5340.html
With all the difference kind of telescope
we have and still can not find the missing
matter, perhaps we are looking at wrong direction. In my humble opinions this matter actually are located in the center of each galaxy.In the center of each galaxy,there where this matter pack together,swirling, crunching and this make this alive with lots and lots of light coming out of it.
If the dark matter were concentrated at the center of galaxies it would not explain the velocity curves we are seeing. Based on observations of the velocity of matter orbiting a galaxy vs. its distance from the center, we know there is a lot of missing matter that is spread out across the galaxy in an isothermal distributution.
With all the difference kind of telescope
we have and still can not find the missing
matter, perhaps we are looking at wrong direction. In my humble opinions this matter actually are located in the center of each galaxy.In the center of each galaxy,there where this matter pack together,swirling, crunching and this make this alive with lots and lots of light coming out of it.
If the dark matter were concentrated at the center of galaxies it would not explain the velocity curves we are seeing. Based on observations of the velocity of matter orbiting a galaxy vs. its distance from the center, we know there is a lot of missing matter that is spread out across the galaxy in an isothermal distributution.
Thanks to all, yes all the posters above, this is stimulating to read, and I add my thoughts so stimulated, I hope you all find the contradictions, since I sense many as I try to express my visual thoughts in linear type.
Basic is notion that all 'singularties' (dots, patches, local micro to macro branes, that is phase transition formalizations such as Willard Gibbs introduced) are connected to each other by threads, strings, connections, that are so compacted as to "slice" through our ordinary everyday senses.
Some, maybe 10^54 connections to all other 'singularities" in our "universe".
Next basic, the threads transmit electromagnetic forces transversally, gravitational forces longitudinal. Think of an iron reinforcing rod, tap one end, the sound travels some 18 times the speed of sound in air. The aether is composed of such connections, total links, L=N(N-1)/2, where N=10^54.
That's some some L=10^108/2 links.
First, links must essentially pass through each other, suggesting, maybe, the threads have on the outside coating, triplet Dehmelt Conjectured electron subcharges, the 1/3 "subquarks".
Second, the triplet quarks of similar types can be layered on both Black Holes, flat, nearly, and within local nucleii.
The radius of curvatures, maybe as Albert Einstein and others have put to our attention, can run the range of scales from submicro to supermacro?
I like the following layerings of triplets:
subspace, ..., higgs, strings, positron, strings, electron, ... supramacro BH surface//(mirror) BH interior (that is triplet flat electrons connected across the interior of the BH by G-strings).
This helps me make sense of the many comments by all of you.
Thanks, rmuldavin
Basic is notion that all 'singularties' (dots, patches, local micro to macro branes, that is phase transition formalizations such as Willard Gibbs introduced) are connected to each other by threads, strings, connections, that are so compacted as to "slice" through our ordinary everyday senses.
Some, maybe 10^54 connections to all other 'singularities" in our "universe".
Next basic, the threads transmit electromagnetic forces transversally, gravitational forces longitudinal. Think of an iron reinforcing rod, tap one end, the sound travels some 18 times the speed of sound in air. The aether is composed of such connections, total links, L=N(N-1)/2, where N=10^54.
That's some some L=10^108/2 links.
First, links must essentially pass through each other, suggesting, maybe, the threads have on the outside coating, triplet Dehmelt Conjectured electron subcharges, the 1/3 "subquarks".
Second, the triplet quarks of similar types can be layered on both Black Holes, flat, nearly, and within local nucleii.
The radius of curvatures, maybe as Albert Einstein and others have put to our attention, can run the range of scales from submicro to supermacro?
I like the following layerings of triplets:
subspace, ..., higgs, strings, positron, strings, electron, ... supramacro BH surface//(mirror) BH interior (that is triplet flat electrons connected across the interior of the BH by G-strings).
This helps me make sense of the many comments by all of you.
Thanks, rmuldavin
and the G-string, like the iron reinforcing rod, appears to transmit longitudinally the gravity force at some 20-40 times the speed of light thati travels tranversely at C.
The solid disk notions of the Galixies, that makes sense, and maybe if the conjecture supported somewhat by gravity waves reaching earth before the "light" from dual black holes and the extention to recent notion a "dumb computer" dark energy shell way out there, maybe beyond where e-m transverse energies have yet to reach, maybe this can provide some neat special measurement differences to confirm these notions where speed of gravity>light??
The solid disk notions of the Galixies, that makes sense, and maybe if the conjecture supported somewhat by gravity waves reaching earth before the "light" from dual black holes and the extention to recent notion a "dumb computer" dark energy shell way out there, maybe beyond where e-m transverse energies have yet to reach, maybe this can provide some neat special measurement differences to confirm these notions where speed of gravity>light??
Ingvar Astrand,
That was very interesting stuff you linked, thanks for sharing. Perhaps you should start a thread of your own so we could discuss your theory..?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all,
Dark matter / dark energy??
Why isn't there a gray area? (is it really just low light and low energy?)
T.Roc
That was very interesting stuff you linked, thanks for sharing. Perhaps you should start a thread of your own so we could discuss your theory..?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all,
Dark matter / dark energy??
Why isn't there a gray area? (is it really just low light and low energy?)
T.Roc
QUOTE (Asimov+Sep 3 2005, 10:42 PM)
So what is dark matter and dark energy anyways? is it just matter we cant see and detect or is it just a new kind of matter and energy? What do you guys think of the "string theory"? i don't like the string theory but i like the idea of particles zipping across the galaxy at faster than light speeds.
Dark matter and dark energy are Elastoplasts over holes in the increasingly punctured and bleeding standard model. Which I believe needs to be officially dropped in favour of concentrating on a new theory which doesn't rely on so many exotics.
FLT in what medium?
And if you don't like string theory, what do you use to tie your shoes?
p.s. Hi all, back from Sri Lanka. Someone finally killed the "fear god" troll? Or does the fun baiting continue apace?
Apologise if I Macbeth there.
Dark matter and dark energy are Elastoplasts over holes in the increasingly punctured and bleeding standard model. Which I believe needs to be officially dropped in favour of concentrating on a new theory which doesn't rely on so many exotics.
FLT in what medium?
And if you don't like string theory, what do you use to tie your shoes?
p.s. Hi all, back from Sri Lanka. Someone finally killed the "fear god" troll? Or does the fun baiting continue apace?
Apologise if I Macbeth there.
QUOTE
SpidermanTUba: If the dark matter were concentrated at the center of galaxies it would not explain the velocity curves we are seeing. Based on observations of the velocity of matter orbiting a galaxy vs. its distance from the center, we know there is a lot of missing matter that is spread out across the galaxy in an isothermal distributution.
It seems the velocity curve shows apparently increasing angular momentum with increasing radius. This angular momentum if large enough would prevent concentration in the center. If dark matter is less concentrated at center, it must have larger angular momentum than visible matter.
QUOTE (TRoc+Sep 21 2005, 05:02 AM)
Ingvar Astrand,
That was very interesting stuff you linked, thanks for sharing. Perhaps you should start a thread of your own so we could discuss your theory..?
[...]
T.Roc
Thank you for your interest and intelligence.
Before January 06 I will publish a more detailed and informative PDF-paper about my empirical theory on my website.
I do so because I have sent my application to the big ESOF-2006 conference in München < http://www.esof2006.org/ >.
And my idea is that the audience can read it in god time and prepare their questions and arguments.
Till then, as you are interested, I will give you the advice to read Max Planck's Nobel-lecture and the presentation at
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/19...ck-lecture.html
where you can read about "the state of the art" at the time when theoretical speculations won over empirical experiments and insights.
Compare with Planck what I write about energy - entropy.
Read that the measurements was made on the hot-radiation's wavelengths and temperature (which Wilhelm Wien has shown are proportional to each other). Read that Planck didn't understand the meaning of the measurement.
Planck lost the understanding and contact with reality when he transformed the wave-length measurings to frequencies in search for the answer to this "fractional change" of radiation as energy per time-unit.
Planck wrote: "Either the quantum of action was a fictionally quantity, then the whole deduction of the radiation law was in the main illusory and represented nothing more than an empty non-significant play of formula ..."
Planck searched the entropy mechanism behind heat- and electro-dynamical radiation and the interpretation as Rudolf Clausius had defined his idea about entropy as dissipation of the radiation-energy.
Read that Clausius never accepted Ludwig Boltzmann's statistical interpretation of entropy (about thermodynamical equivalence) at:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~histor...s/Clausius.html
There you can read that:
Clausius' great legacy to physics is undoubtedly his idea of the irreversible increase in entropy, and yet we find no indication of interest in Josiah Gibbs' work on chemical equilibrium or Boltzmann's views on thermodynamics and probability, both of which were utterly dependent on his idea. It is strange that he himself showed no inclination to seek a molecular understanding of irreversible entropy or to find further applications of the idea; it is stranger yet, and even tragic, that he expressed no concern for the work of his contemporaries who were accomplishing those very tasks.
Read also the very interesting article by Robert Marc Friedman at http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/34/article5.pdf
about the intrigues behind the Nobel price to Einstein.
Friedman has also written a more uncovering article in Nature Vol. 292 - 27 August 1981 at Pages 793-798.
I will later give some important citations from this article.
Friedman has also written a great book The Politics of Excellence about the secret chose of the Nobel winners: Read the book-review at http://physicsweb.org/articles/review/15/4/2/1.
I will be back if you are interested
Ingvar, Sweden
http://www.theuniphysics.info
That was very interesting stuff you linked, thanks for sharing. Perhaps you should start a thread of your own so we could discuss your theory..?
[...]
T.Roc
Thank you for your interest and intelligence.
Before January 06 I will publish a more detailed and informative PDF-paper about my empirical theory on my website.
I do so because I have sent my application to the big ESOF-2006 conference in München < http://www.esof2006.org/ >.
And my idea is that the audience can read it in god time and prepare their questions and arguments.
Till then, as you are interested, I will give you the advice to read Max Planck's Nobel-lecture and the presentation at
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/19...ck-lecture.html
where you can read about "the state of the art" at the time when theoretical speculations won over empirical experiments and insights.
Compare with Planck what I write about energy - entropy.
Read that the measurements was made on the hot-radiation's wavelengths and temperature (which Wilhelm Wien has shown are proportional to each other). Read that Planck didn't understand the meaning of the measurement.
Planck lost the understanding and contact with reality when he transformed the wave-length measurings to frequencies in search for the answer to this "fractional change" of radiation as energy per time-unit.
Planck wrote: "Either the quantum of action was a fictionally quantity, then the whole deduction of the radiation law was in the main illusory and represented nothing more than an empty non-significant play of formula ..."
Planck searched the entropy mechanism behind heat- and electro-dynamical radiation and the interpretation as Rudolf Clausius had defined his idea about entropy as dissipation of the radiation-energy.
Read that Clausius never accepted Ludwig Boltzmann's statistical interpretation of entropy (about thermodynamical equivalence) at:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~histor...s/Clausius.html
There you can read that:
Clausius' great legacy to physics is undoubtedly his idea of the irreversible increase in entropy, and yet we find no indication of interest in Josiah Gibbs' work on chemical equilibrium or Boltzmann's views on thermodynamics and probability, both of which were utterly dependent on his idea. It is strange that he himself showed no inclination to seek a molecular understanding of irreversible entropy or to find further applications of the idea; it is stranger yet, and even tragic, that he expressed no concern for the work of his contemporaries who were accomplishing those very tasks.
Read also the very interesting article by Robert Marc Friedman at http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/34/article5.pdf
about the intrigues behind the Nobel price to Einstein.
Friedman has also written a more uncovering article in Nature Vol. 292 - 27 August 1981 at Pages 793-798.
I will later give some important citations from this article.
Friedman has also written a great book The Politics of Excellence about the secret chose of the Nobel winners: Read the book-review at http://physicsweb.org/articles/review/15/4/2/1.
I will be back if you are interested
Ingvar, Sweden
http://www.theuniphysics.info
An interesting article in the CERN Newsletter re. dark matter. Some physicists have re-worked galactic rotation curves using general relativity in place of a Newtonian model, and ..... poof. No need for dark matter. Here's the abstract (with a link to the paper):
http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/45/8/8
Bruce
http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/45/8/8
Bruce
Thanks birdan for the link. I was looking for it after reading an article about it at Yahoo.
g_l
g_l
I digress from this thread, as I already know that dark matter may have come from colossal galactic formative explosions, where some areas of vast matter was super-compressed.
So this had to have left a dense field of this matter, which in some ways, would still possess the liquidity of movement, however in relationship to our realization of matter, would be infinitely more dense.
This is not, "and I stress this", black hole matter.
So this had to have left a dense field of this matter, which in some ways, would still possess the liquidity of movement, however in relationship to our realization of matter, would be infinitely more dense.
This is not, "and I stress this", black hole matter.
[FONT=Arial]ok guys im sorry but i think it would be very depressing to find out something like this we need to just let it go soryr to offend anyone we need to just live life and no i dont support creataionism or big bang i could care less
that is all
that is all
Dark matter doesn't make a lot of sense...
It supposedly acts gravitationally, yet no one seems to have considered what such an abundant mass must do to the gravitational lensing of light around galaxies and galaxy clusters. It supposedly resides in halos surrounding galaxies, right? Therefore, the lensing effects should extend farther out from the galaxy center than expected (you'd think this would be a no-brainer).
It's dark, it resides in halos, and yet galaxies viewed on edge do not appear dimmed by it? Even if it can't absorb light, it's gravity should strangely diffuse the light, right?
It acts gravitationally, yet it doesn't clump (like normal accretion disks)?
It acts gravitationally, yet it predominately hangs out in the least dense regions of galaxies--seemingly defying gravity!
It acts gravitationally, therefore colliding galaxies should seem to be falling together more rapidly than their apparent mass would indicate (another no-brainer).
It supposedly acts gravitationally, yet no one seems to have considered what such an abundant mass must do to the gravitational lensing of light around galaxies and galaxy clusters. It supposedly resides in halos surrounding galaxies, right? Therefore, the lensing effects should extend farther out from the galaxy center than expected (you'd think this would be a no-brainer).
It's dark, it resides in halos, and yet galaxies viewed on edge do not appear dimmed by it? Even if it can't absorb light, it's gravity should strangely diffuse the light, right?
It acts gravitationally, yet it doesn't clump (like normal accretion disks)?
It acts gravitationally, yet it predominately hangs out in the least dense regions of galaxies--seemingly defying gravity!
It acts gravitationally, therefore colliding galaxies should seem to be falling together more rapidly than their apparent mass would indicate (another no-brainer).
Dark energy, is it really this simple?
In theorizing about how light propagates thru a vacuum, one must understand that the vacuum of space is NOT empty. Space is filled with a continuous multidirectional stream of randomized fields or packets of quantum photonic ENERGY. This random orientation photonic bombardment propagates across the full energy spectrum in the form of quantum packages of photonic electromagnetic waves. Each of these spectral waves exists at different energy levels according to their frequency and corresponding wavelength and are arriving at any fixed point in space from an infinite number of randomized directions, Each of these multitudes of random quantum energy packets originates from some specific point source of origin in the universe and is the artifact of an electromagnetically generated energy emission process.
These various randomized electromagnetic spectral energy packets encompass the entire energy spectrum as well as their respective quantum energy levels. The E and β fields of each random quantum packet are all propagating and existing simultaneously as they cross a specific point at a specific time, but their random orientation prevents their energy field planes from being normally in phase. The fields associated with each quantum packet are not aligned along a common phase plane since they are coming from random directions and orientations. We cannot observe these quantum energy packets,
even though they exist, because their E and β fields are not directionally aligned where we can detect or observe them. There is the possibility that skewed or offset field phase interactions might occur between same frequency discrete quantum electromagnetic fields, which might generate some background noise component due to the partial phasing alignment interaction and it might cause an observable phase shift if the visible plane of observation is correct.
As long as there is a temperature above absolute zero there is energy propagation
and transmission in a vacuum. Is it possible that low energy emission/transmission acts as a conduit or quantum“lubrication” that allows higher energy propagation to occur?
Can light exist and propagate at absolute zero? Not if an electron is immobilized and locked in a fixed energy position because it cannot change energy levels which is a pre-requisite for photon emission. When electric and magnetic fields interact there is energy transfer, so a photon and quantum energy cannot propagate at absolute zero.
At absolute zero everything stops….which infers that time also stops since time and matter are interdependent.
So is dark energy merely random non oriented spurious background radiation that might be considered the ether?
------
Feel free to comment or shoot holes in this... Laserlight
In theorizing about how light propagates thru a vacuum, one must understand that the vacuum of space is NOT empty. Space is filled with a continuous multidirectional stream of randomized fields or packets of quantum photonic ENERGY. This random orientation photonic bombardment propagates across the full energy spectrum in the form of quantum packages of photonic electromagnetic waves. Each of these spectral waves exists at different energy levels according to their frequency and corresponding wavelength and are arriving at any fixed point in space from an infinite number of randomized directions, Each of these multitudes of random quantum energy packets originates from some specific point source of origin in the universe and is the artifact of an electromagnetically generated energy emission process.
These various randomized electromagnetic spectral energy packets encompass the entire energy spectrum as well as their respective quantum energy levels. The E and β fields of each random quantum packet are all propagating and existing simultaneously as they cross a specific point at a specific time, but their random orientation prevents their energy field planes from being normally in phase. The fields associated with each quantum packet are not aligned along a common phase plane since they are coming from random directions and orientations. We cannot observe these quantum energy packets,
even though they exist, because their E and β fields are not directionally aligned where we can detect or observe them. There is the possibility that skewed or offset field phase interactions might occur between same frequency discrete quantum electromagnetic fields, which might generate some background noise component due to the partial phasing alignment interaction and it might cause an observable phase shift if the visible plane of observation is correct.
As long as there is a temperature above absolute zero there is energy propagation
and transmission in a vacuum. Is it possible that low energy emission/transmission acts as a conduit or quantum“lubrication” that allows higher energy propagation to occur?
Can light exist and propagate at absolute zero? Not if an electron is immobilized and locked in a fixed energy position because it cannot change energy levels which is a pre-requisite for photon emission. When electric and magnetic fields interact there is energy transfer, so a photon and quantum energy cannot propagate at absolute zero.
At absolute zero everything stops….which infers that time also stops since time and matter are interdependent.
So is dark energy merely random non oriented spurious background radiation that might be considered the ether?
------
Feel free to comment or shoot holes in this... Laserlight
QUOTE (Draugluin+Sep 8 2005, 06:32 AM)
Cold Dark Matter is unobserveble by conventional methods, hence the words cold and dark. But since we can "observe" black holes by checking out how light gets distorted around it, then should we not be able to do the same thing with dark matter? Or am I just stupid?
Yes, we should be able to se it but the dark mater is cold thus fore it's dark blending into it universe and there is so much of it that is packs tightly arould stars, planets, comets, and just about anything else. Black holes are formed by the creation of other galexies, a.k.a. a big bang.
Yes, we should be able to se it but the dark mater is cold thus fore it's dark blending into it universe and there is so much of it that is packs tightly arould stars, planets, comets, and just about anything else. Black holes are formed by the creation of other galexies, a.k.a. a big bang.
would an electromagnetic field stabilize an anti gravity field ?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.