[B]seems to me to find it you need to illuminate it....the question is how?
1-multiple frequency energy bursts?
2-multiple frequency laser bursts?
3-firing various chemicals in a stream?
4-firing magnetically charged particles?
what methods have been tried so far?
To find it is going to be serious work. Not a simple laser blast. Now what would be cool would be to be able harness it and control it. I think we might have to be able to harness gravity to do that. I'm actually working on an experiment that do exactly that though. Ah, well. Scientists and geniuses are working on this around the clock so, sorry to burst your bubble, but I will put my money on them. Just a thought.
Questions 31 and 32.
NASA and the Department of Energy are planning a Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM), a space telescope to be launched in the middle of the coming decade. JDEM will determine the properties of the dark energy and could find out what the eventual future fate of the universe: collapsing into a big crunch or expanding forever in a big rip. The observations that are needed are statistical and very subtle. Webb's role in dark energy research will be complementary to JDEM. Although the JDEM mission is not yet well defined, it is expected to have a very large field of view and to observe hundreds or thousands of supernova and millions of galaxies. In contrast, Webb will observe fewer supernova, but by observing them at higher redshift, fainter levels and further into the infrared, it will provide important calibration and confirmation of the JDEM results.
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/faq.html
NASA and the Department of Energy are planning a Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM), a space telescope to be launched in the middle of the coming decade. JDEM will determine the properties of the dark energy and could find out what the eventual future fate of the universe: collapsing into a big crunch or expanding forever in a big rip. The observations that are needed are statistical and very subtle. Webb's role in dark energy research will be complementary to JDEM. Although the JDEM mission is not yet well defined, it is expected to have a very large field of view and to observe hundreds or thousands of supernova and millions of galaxies. In contrast, Webb will observe fewer supernova, but by observing them at higher redshift, fainter levels and further into the infrared, it will provide important calibration and confirmation of the JDEM results.
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/faq.html
Thank you for that. I was actually searching for that little treat of information. i coudn't remember what website it is on.
There, your answer.
Dark matter is proven to be there because of the way it affects the world around it.
There, your answer.
QUOTE
Look out ahead Molly, I think I see the light.
Dark matter is proven to be there because of the way it affects the world around it.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Sep 30 2009, 11:51 PM)
Questions 31 and 32.
NASA and the Department of Energy are planning a Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM), a space telescope to be launched in the middle of the coming decade. JDEM will determine the properties of the dark energy and could find out what the eventual future fate of the universe: collapsing into a big crunch or expanding forever in a big rip. The observations that are needed are statistical and very subtle. Webb's role in dark energy research will be complementary to JDEM. Although the JDEM mission is not yet well defined, it is expected to have a very large field of view and to observe hundreds or thousands of supernova and millions of galaxies. In contrast, Webb will observe fewer supernova, but by observing them at higher redshift, fainter levels and further into the infrared, it will provide important calibration and confirmation of the JDEM results.
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/faq.html
I hope I am still around to see the results.....but...seems to me that some kind of LIGHT SOURCE could illuminate this elusive Dark Matter or Energy......IF CAMERA EQUIPMENT WERE USED THAT HAS A GREATER SPECTRUM THAN OUR EYES DO.
i SUPPOSE IT IS LIKE TRYING TO ILLUMINATE NITROGEN.
NASA and the Department of Energy are planning a Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM), a space telescope to be launched in the middle of the coming decade. JDEM will determine the properties of the dark energy and could find out what the eventual future fate of the universe: collapsing into a big crunch or expanding forever in a big rip. The observations that are needed are statistical and very subtle. Webb's role in dark energy research will be complementary to JDEM. Although the JDEM mission is not yet well defined, it is expected to have a very large field of view and to observe hundreds or thousands of supernova and millions of galaxies. In contrast, Webb will observe fewer supernova, but by observing them at higher redshift, fainter levels and further into the infrared, it will provide important calibration and confirmation of the JDEM results.
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/faq.html
I hope I am still around to see the results.....but...seems to me that some kind of LIGHT SOURCE could illuminate this elusive Dark Matter or Energy......IF CAMERA EQUIPMENT WERE USED THAT HAS A GREATER SPECTRUM THAN OUR EYES DO.
i SUPPOSE IT IS LIKE TRYING TO ILLUMINATE NITROGEN.
Dear God. Shouting is good for your condition, no doubt.
Thank you for inflicting the results of your 'cure' on us, and we hope, we really do, that you'll be better in time for the next drawing for the Darwin Awards.
You will do something resonantly and unforgettably stupid for the committee, won't you?
Thank you for inflicting the results of your 'cure' on us, and we hope, we really do, that you'll be better in time for the next drawing for the Darwin Awards.
You will do something resonantly and unforgettably stupid for the committee, won't you?
You cannot illuminate dark matter. It isn't dark because its coloured black its dark because lght passes right through it without being affected and it doesn't emit light.
You can see black soot at night if you have a torch. This seems to be the interpretation the original poster is giving to the search for dark matter. That isn't how it works. Dark matter is like perfectly clear glass which you can see through without distortion and can pass through without feeling. The only hint it is there is its gravitational field. It is immune to light and thus electric fields or magnetic field. The only way a beam of light can tell you if dark matter is in a region of space is if its path is bent by the gravitational field.
Therefore all the suggestions of the original poster would fail to detect dark matter.
You can see black soot at night if you have a torch. This seems to be the interpretation the original poster is giving to the search for dark matter. That isn't how it works. Dark matter is like perfectly clear glass which you can see through without distortion and can pass through without feeling. The only hint it is there is its gravitational field. It is immune to light and thus electric fields or magnetic field. The only way a beam of light can tell you if dark matter is in a region of space is if its path is bent by the gravitational field.
Therefore all the suggestions of the original poster would fail to detect dark matter.
Hopefully a Dark Matter signature will be detected in the cosmic microwave background, in density variations from familiar matter .
See: ESA Planck Probe...Latest News for hi-res photos from first pass.
See: ESA Planck Probe...Latest News for hi-res photos from first pass.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
I hope this will add to your information on the detection of Dark Matter/Energy.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0107
Update on the Direct Detection of Dark Matter in MSSM Models with Non-Universal Higgs Masses
Authors: John Ellis, Keith A. Olive, Pearl Sandick
(Submitted on 1 May 2009)
I hope this will add to your information on the detection of Dark Matter/Energy.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0107
Update on the Direct Detection of Dark Matter in MSSM Models with Non-Universal Higgs Masses
Authors: John Ellis, Keith A. Olive, Pearl Sandick
(Submitted on 1 May 2009)
QUOTE
Abstract: We discuss the possibilities for the direct detection of neutralino dark matter via elastic scattering in variants of the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM) with non-universal supersymmetry-breaking contributions to the Higgs masses, which may be either equal (NUHM1) or independent (NUHM2). We compare the ranges found in the NUHM1 and NUHM2 with that found in the MSSM with universal supersymmetry-breaking contributions to all scalar masses, the CMSSM. We find that both the NUHM1 and NUHM2 offer the possibility of larger spin-independent dark matter scattering cross sections than in the CMSSM for larger neutralino masses, since they allow the density of heavier neutralinos with large Higgsino components to fall within the allowed range by astrophysics. The NUHM1 and NUHM2 also offer more possibilities than the CMSSM for small cross sections for lower neutralino masses, since they may be suppressed by scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs masses that are larger than in the CMSSM.
Harry Costas
You just don't get it, do you? Your sole contribution to your last post is...
...the rest is technical jargon of too high a level for you(or anyone else here, with maybe a rare exception)to understand, and of dubious quality(speculative, given that the Higgs is theoretical at best). You do not explain in your own words, comment on the cite nor do you engage in discussion. You are simply a serial copyright violator shotgunning copy/paste bon mots willy nilly all over these threads. You are an interuption to a discussion, not a participant in it and as such you do much more damage than you do construction in our understanding. And, despite all the warnings, you don't seem able to learn any better techniques or correct your bad habits. So don't be surprised when we say "Good Day, Sir!" to you.
Grumpy
You just don't get it, do you? Your sole contribution to your last post is...
QUOTE
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
I hope this will add to your information on the detection of Dark Matter/Energy.
I hope this will add to your information on the detection of Dark Matter/Energy.
...the rest is technical jargon of too high a level for you(or anyone else here, with maybe a rare exception)to understand, and of dubious quality(speculative, given that the Higgs is theoretical at best). You do not explain in your own words, comment on the cite nor do you engage in discussion. You are simply a serial copyright violator shotgunning copy/paste bon mots willy nilly all over these threads. You are an interuption to a discussion, not a participant in it and as such you do much more damage than you do construction in our understanding. And, despite all the warnings, you don't seem able to learn any better techniques or correct your bad habits. So don't be surprised when we say "Good Day, Sir!" to you.
Grumpy
G'day Grumpy
I expected that from you
nothing new
I expected that from you
nothing new
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Oct 29 2009, 08:06 PM)
G'day Grumpy
I expected that from you
nothing new
I expected that from you
nothing new
QUOTE (notes from rpenner appended to three of your posts+)
[Moderator: You do not support your claims about the movements of the stars and you have been warned repeatedly in the past of posting article abstracts without any discussion of their contents or why they relate to the thread. Therefore you are suspended 15 days. In addition, the article preprint is nearly a year old without a record of being submitted for publication -- a fatal flaw in a paper which asserts fatal flaws.]
QUOTE
[Moderator: Another post filled with nothing but sterile posturing and devoid of meaningful discussion of the purported topic. Suspended 3 days.]
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| [Moderator: Another post filled with nothing but sterile posturing and devoid of meaningful discussion of the purported topic. Suspended 3 days.] |
[Moderator: Hey, you! I have repeatedly told you not to cut and paste and not to link to articles without telling us why they are useful to the here and now. So here we are. I delete the overlong abstract, which you should have summarized in your own words and you are suspended 3 days.
QUOTE (post from rpenner replying to you+)
Stop posting in this style. It is disruptive, sterile, and duplicative.
If you have a point of view, write an essay. If you have a scientific contribution, write a paper. If you want to ask a question, supply a concise version of the context and ask the question.
If you don't have a point of view, useful contribution, or willingness to contribute to the community, don't post.
There is no need, ever, to claim a paper is interesting without explaining your basis for saying that. There is no need, ever, to quote the abstract of a paper verbatim. It is much better to link to the paper and explain what the paper says in your own words and explain why you think that is important for others to read. It is likewise important to explain who your audience is when you suggest some people should read the paper.
Grumpy may be engaging in the same dismissal of the validity of your posts as usual, but you are engaging in the same downright stupid behavior as usual. One more warning and you're banned permanently, yet you still persist in engaging in the same exact behavior that got you banned temporarily on at least two separate occasions. That's as close to the very definition of stupidity as anything I've seen here.
If you have a point of view, write an essay. If you have a scientific contribution, write a paper. If you want to ask a question, supply a concise version of the context and ask the question.
If you don't have a point of view, useful contribution, or willingness to contribute to the community, don't post.
There is no need, ever, to claim a paper is interesting without explaining your basis for saying that. There is no need, ever, to quote the abstract of a paper verbatim. It is much better to link to the paper and explain what the paper says in your own words and explain why you think that is important for others to read. It is likewise important to explain who your audience is when you suggest some people should read the paper.
Grumpy may be engaging in the same dismissal of the validity of your posts as usual, but you are engaging in the same downright stupid behavior as usual. One more warning and you're banned permanently, yet you still persist in engaging in the same exact behavior that got you banned temporarily on at least two separate occasions. That's as close to the very definition of stupidity as anything I've seen here.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 27 2009, 11:27 AM)
Dark matter is like perfectly clear glass which you can see through without distortion and can pass through without feeling. The only hint it is there is its gravitational field. It is immune to light and thus electric fields or magnetic field. The only way a beam of light can tell you if dark matter is in a region of space is if its path is bent by the gravitational field.
Air is perfectly clear, and you can pass through it without feeling it - at least at very slow speeds. Would interstellar air qualify as dark matter then?
Would the density of air be high enough in interstellar space to ever create enough gravity to bend light? Even at the scale of an entire galaxy's "atmosphere."
Somewhere I think I read that dark matter particles are hypothesized as being much more massive and dense than the ones in air.
Could dark matter just be atomized particles of some very heavy element that are somehow floating around and not coagulating into clumps?
Air is perfectly clear, and you can pass through it without feeling it - at least at very slow speeds. Would interstellar air qualify as dark matter then?
Would the density of air be high enough in interstellar space to ever create enough gravity to bend light? Even at the scale of an entire galaxy's "atmosphere."
Somewhere I think I read that dark matter particles are hypothesized as being much more massive and dense than the ones in air.
Could dark matter just be atomized particles of some very heavy element that are somehow floating around and not coagulating into clumps?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 29 2009, 09:38 PM)
Air is perfectly clear, and you can pass through it without feeling it - at least at very slow speeds. Would interstellar air qualify as dark matter then?
dlhgdskhglsgdlkhvcjxlhb
That line above is my head hitting the keyboard in a combination of astonishment and exasperation that you actually said that.
But okay, you said something intelligent (or at least not unintelligent) in another thread, so I'll descend to middle-school level physics and explain this to you.
Go outside during the daytime and look up. You see that blue stuff filling the whole sky? It's air. Now look at some distant mountains (or a picture of distant mountains). You see how those mountains are blue-tinted? That's air. Now go outside at night and look up. You see that deep blue color filling the whole sky? That's air. Now look at a streetlight, close one eye, and hold your thumb up to block out the light. You see that halo around your thumb? That's air.
Air is not perfectly clear. It's not even close. It's just so diffuse (not dense) that light passes through it fairly easily, but not perfectly.
Now, in space, there is this thing called a near-perfect vacuum. That means there's just a few atoms (mostly hydrogen) per cubic centimeter. If there was air in space, we wouldn't see the stars, because it would diffuse their light so much it would make them invisible. This is why the Hubble Space Telescope works so much better than land-based telescopes, because there's no air between it and the star it's observing. Normal matter interacts through electromagnetism (of which visible light is a portion of the possible spectrum), which is why we can see things. Air is composed of normal matter.
Dark matter is so named because it is invisible. It doesn't interact through electromagnetism, only through gravity. We know it's there because we see it's gravitational effects, but since it doesn't diffuse light from behind it, it's invisible (or very nearly so).
Here's some further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
The middle link contains a nice picture of air.
dlhgdskhglsgdlkhvcjxlhb
That line above is my head hitting the keyboard in a combination of astonishment and exasperation that you actually said that.
But okay, you said something intelligent (or at least not unintelligent) in another thread, so I'll descend to middle-school level physics and explain this to you.
Go outside during the daytime and look up. You see that blue stuff filling the whole sky? It's air. Now look at some distant mountains (or a picture of distant mountains). You see how those mountains are blue-tinted? That's air. Now go outside at night and look up. You see that deep blue color filling the whole sky? That's air. Now look at a streetlight, close one eye, and hold your thumb up to block out the light. You see that halo around your thumb? That's air.
Air is not perfectly clear. It's not even close. It's just so diffuse (not dense) that light passes through it fairly easily, but not perfectly.
Now, in space, there is this thing called a near-perfect vacuum. That means there's just a few atoms (mostly hydrogen) per cubic centimeter. If there was air in space, we wouldn't see the stars, because it would diffuse their light so much it would make them invisible. This is why the Hubble Space Telescope works so much better than land-based telescopes, because there's no air between it and the star it's observing. Normal matter interacts through electromagnetism (of which visible light is a portion of the possible spectrum), which is why we can see things. Air is composed of normal matter.
Dark matter is so named because it is invisible. It doesn't interact through electromagnetism, only through gravity. We know it's there because we see it's gravitational effects, but since it doesn't diffuse light from behind it, it's invisible (or very nearly so).
Here's some further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
The middle link contains a nice picture of air.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 30 2009, 02:59 AM)
dlhgdskhglsgdlkhvcjxlhb
That line above is my head hitting the keyboard in a combination of astonishment and exasperation that you actually said that.
But okay, you said something intelligent (or at least not unintelligent) in another thread, so I'll descend to middle-school level physics and explain this to you.
Go outside during the daytime and look up. You see that blue stuff filling the whole sky? It's air. Now look at some distant mountains (or a picture of distant mountains). You see how those mountains are blue-tinted? That's air. Now go outside at night and look up. You see that deep blue color filling the whole sky? That's air. Now look at a streetlight, close one eye, and hold your thumb up to block out the light. You see that halo around your thumb? That's air.
Air is not perfectly clear. It's not even close. It's just so diffuse (not dense) that light passes through it fairly easily, but not perfectly.
Now, in space, there is this thing called a near-perfect vacuum. That means there's just a few atoms (mostly hydrogen) per cubic centimeter. If there was air in space, we wouldn't see the stars, because it would diffuse their light so much it would make them invisible. This is why the Hubble Space Telescope works so much better than land-based telescopes, because there's no air between it and the star it's observing. Normal matter interacts through electromagnetism (of which visible light is a portion of the possible spectrum), which is why we can see things. Air is composed of normal matter.
Dark matter is so named because it is invisible. It doesn't interact through electromagnetism, only through gravity. We know it's there because we see it's gravitational effects, but since it doesn't diffuse light from behind it, it's invisible (or very nearly so).
Here's some further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
The middle link contains a nice picture of air.
Ok, I wasn't thinking about the visibility of air over longer distances. But I do remember being surprised to read that there is no clear delineation between the atmosphere and outer space. I did not know exactly how think the air becomes, or that it was mainly hydrogen at the rate of a few molecules per cubic cm.
But so there's no possible way that there are heavier particles floating around in interstellar space much less densely than the hydrogen? There are not, after all, any empirical measurements of interstellar low-density "air" are there? Since the heliosphere (or trope or whatever it's called) creates a barrier between the solar system and interstellar space, it would stand to reason that the solar system interplanetary "air" would consist mainly of hydrogen-type solar wind particles.
In interstellar space, however, wouldn't it be more likely for all sorts of different particles to be floating around due to the explosions of supernovas and other high energy events that generate a diversity of particles of greater weights?
If interstellar "air" consists of loads of such heavy particles at a highly sparse rate due to explosions that disperse them in all directions, would these be visible the way terrestrial air is? Could it generate enough gravitation at the scale of a galaxy to account for the dark matter observations?
Am I just making the same dumb mistake about the "air" but now with larger molecules?
That line above is my head hitting the keyboard in a combination of astonishment and exasperation that you actually said that.
But okay, you said something intelligent (or at least not unintelligent) in another thread, so I'll descend to middle-school level physics and explain this to you.
Go outside during the daytime and look up. You see that blue stuff filling the whole sky? It's air. Now look at some distant mountains (or a picture of distant mountains). You see how those mountains are blue-tinted? That's air. Now go outside at night and look up. You see that deep blue color filling the whole sky? That's air. Now look at a streetlight, close one eye, and hold your thumb up to block out the light. You see that halo around your thumb? That's air.
Air is not perfectly clear. It's not even close. It's just so diffuse (not dense) that light passes through it fairly easily, but not perfectly.
Now, in space, there is this thing called a near-perfect vacuum. That means there's just a few atoms (mostly hydrogen) per cubic centimeter. If there was air in space, we wouldn't see the stars, because it would diffuse their light so much it would make them invisible. This is why the Hubble Space Telescope works so much better than land-based telescopes, because there's no air between it and the star it's observing. Normal matter interacts through electromagnetism (of which visible light is a portion of the possible spectrum), which is why we can see things. Air is composed of normal matter.
Dark matter is so named because it is invisible. It doesn't interact through electromagnetism, only through gravity. We know it's there because we see it's gravitational effects, but since it doesn't diffuse light from behind it, it's invisible (or very nearly so).
Here's some further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
The middle link contains a nice picture of air.
Ok, I wasn't thinking about the visibility of air over longer distances. But I do remember being surprised to read that there is no clear delineation between the atmosphere and outer space. I did not know exactly how think the air becomes, or that it was mainly hydrogen at the rate of a few molecules per cubic cm.
But so there's no possible way that there are heavier particles floating around in interstellar space much less densely than the hydrogen? There are not, after all, any empirical measurements of interstellar low-density "air" are there? Since the heliosphere (or trope or whatever it's called) creates a barrier between the solar system and interstellar space, it would stand to reason that the solar system interplanetary "air" would consist mainly of hydrogen-type solar wind particles.
In interstellar space, however, wouldn't it be more likely for all sorts of different particles to be floating around due to the explosions of supernovas and other high energy events that generate a diversity of particles of greater weights?
If interstellar "air" consists of loads of such heavy particles at a highly sparse rate due to explosions that disperse them in all directions, would these be visible the way terrestrial air is? Could it generate enough gravitation at the scale of a galaxy to account for the dark matter observations?
Am I just making the same dumb mistake about the "air" but now with larger molecules?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 30 2009, 03:21 AM)
Am I just making the same dumb mistake about the "air" but now with larger molecules?
No.
In fact, you've hit upon the very solution that cosmologists and astrophysicists have been searching for.
Right now ...
Every theoretical physicist worth more than a floating turd is scrambling to incorporate your observations into GUT's that will once and for all illuminate humanity as to the true nature of the universe.
Of course you'll get zero credit for it since you were stupid enough to postulate it on a public forum.
But congrats anyway. At least all of us here know exactly the depth of your contributions.
No.
In fact, you've hit upon the very solution that cosmologists and astrophysicists have been searching for.
Right now ...
Every theoretical physicist worth more than a floating turd is scrambling to incorporate your observations into GUT's that will once and for all illuminate humanity as to the true nature of the universe.
Of course you'll get zero credit for it since you were stupid enough to postulate it on a public forum.
But congrats anyway. At least all of us here know exactly the depth of your contributions.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 29 2009, 10:21 PM)
Ok, I wasn't thinking about the visibility of air over longer distances. But I do remember being surprised to read that there is no clear delineation between the atmosphere and outer space. I did not know exactly how think the air becomes, or that it was mainly hydrogen at the rate of a few molecules per cubic cm.
But so there's no possible way that there are heavier particles floating around in interstellar space much less densely than the hydrogen? There are not, after all, any empirical measurements of interstellar low-density "air" are there? Since the heliosphere (or trope or whatever it's called) creates a barrier between the solar system and interstellar space, it would stand to reason that the solar system interplanetary "air" would consist mainly of hydrogen-type solar wind particles.
In interstellar space, however, wouldn't it be more likely for all sorts of different particles to be floating around due to the explosions of supernovas and other high energy events that generate a diversity of particles of greater weights?
If interstellar "air" consists of loads of such heavy particles at a highly sparse rate due to explosions that disperse them in all directions, would these be visible the way terrestrial air is? Could it generate enough gravitation at the scale of a galaxy to account for the dark matter observations?
Am I just making the same dumb mistake about the "air" but now with larger molecules?
First off: You can stop using the word "Air" enclosed in quotation marks. The correct word is "Vacuum" (no need for the quotation marks), as the medium of space is close enough to a perfect vacuum to assume the moniker.
Second, the troposphere is the air we're breathing now. It goes from the Earth's surface to approximately 23,000-56,000 feet. It is the 'exosphere' which is the closest thing to a dividing line, although you are correct that there is no clear delineation.
Third and finally: Yes, you are making the same mistake. Dark matter is fundamentally different from regular matter, and so regular matter could not possibly be dark matter.
Read the links I gave you. All of the information I've given you in this post and in the last is contained within them (except the bit about my head hitting the keyboard, of course, though I suppose I could add that to one of the wiki pages...), as well as much more detailed and expansive amounts of information. If you do not understand a term being used, simply click on it if it's a link, or type it into the Wikipedia search box to find a definition and explanation. Try to stick to the first paragraph or two of any articles you find this way, to avoid being sidetracked, and because a detailed knowledge of such terms is usually (not alway, but usually) not required in order for you to understand their usage in the main article.
But so there's no possible way that there are heavier particles floating around in interstellar space much less densely than the hydrogen? There are not, after all, any empirical measurements of interstellar low-density "air" are there? Since the heliosphere (or trope or whatever it's called) creates a barrier between the solar system and interstellar space, it would stand to reason that the solar system interplanetary "air" would consist mainly of hydrogen-type solar wind particles.
In interstellar space, however, wouldn't it be more likely for all sorts of different particles to be floating around due to the explosions of supernovas and other high energy events that generate a diversity of particles of greater weights?
If interstellar "air" consists of loads of such heavy particles at a highly sparse rate due to explosions that disperse them in all directions, would these be visible the way terrestrial air is? Could it generate enough gravitation at the scale of a galaxy to account for the dark matter observations?
Am I just making the same dumb mistake about the "air" but now with larger molecules?
First off: You can stop using the word "Air" enclosed in quotation marks. The correct word is "Vacuum" (no need for the quotation marks), as the medium of space is close enough to a perfect vacuum to assume the moniker.
Second, the troposphere is the air we're breathing now. It goes from the Earth's surface to approximately 23,000-56,000 feet. It is the 'exosphere' which is the closest thing to a dividing line, although you are correct that there is no clear delineation.
Third and finally: Yes, you are making the same mistake. Dark matter is fundamentally different from regular matter, and so regular matter could not possibly be dark matter.
Read the links I gave you. All of the information I've given you in this post and in the last is contained within them (except the bit about my head hitting the keyboard, of course, though I suppose I could add that to one of the wiki pages...), as well as much more detailed and expansive amounts of information. If you do not understand a term being used, simply click on it if it's a link, or type it into the Wikipedia search box to find a definition and explanation. Try to stick to the first paragraph or two of any articles you find this way, to avoid being sidetracked, and because a detailed knowledge of such terms is usually (not alway, but usually) not required in order for you to understand their usage in the main article.
G'day from the land of ozzzzz
Dark matter dark energy is ussually defined by the particles and energy within the hidden nuclear matter. The LHC may give us some understanding.
The following link:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4765
Getting the astrophysics and particle physics of dark matter out of next-generation direct detection experiments
The link does not have all the answers, nobody has the answers, the search is on.
The 3 points at the end of the paper:
oops I forgot I meant not to post links.
I think I'll go on holidays
Dark matter dark energy is ussually defined by the particles and energy within the hidden nuclear matter. The LHC may give us some understanding.
The following link:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4765
Getting the astrophysics and particle physics of dark matter out of next-generation direct detection experiments
The link does not have all the answers, nobody has the answers, the search is on.
The 3 points at the end of the paper:
QUOTE
There are three takeaway points from this initial study.
1) It is possible to glean both particle physics and astro-
physics inferences about dark matter by analyzing exper-
iments together if a signal is seen in at least one. 2) It is
only possible to do this by doing a joint analysis of the
experiments. Each experiment has its own degeneracies,
which are broken by combining the analysis of multiple
experiments. Thus, having many different dark-matter
experiments is a necessary condition for being able to
extract both particle physics and astrophysics properties
of dark matter from data. 3) Dark-matter experiments
are the only probes of the local dark-matter DF. As we
understand in simulations what drives the evolution of
the local dark-matter DF, it should be possible to learn
something about the evolutionary history of the Milky
Way from the local dark-matter velocity distribution as
be able to explore the complementarity of ongoing and
upcoming experimental and observational programs to
determining the nature of dark matter. In addition, a
better understanding of the degeneracies in each type of
data set may help guide the design of future observations
and experiments.
1) It is possible to glean both particle physics and astro-
physics inferences about dark matter by analyzing exper-
iments together if a signal is seen in at least one. 2) It is
only possible to do this by doing a joint analysis of the
experiments. Each experiment has its own degeneracies,
which are broken by combining the analysis of multiple
experiments. Thus, having many different dark-matter
experiments is a necessary condition for being able to
extract both particle physics and astrophysics properties
of dark matter from data. 3) Dark-matter experiments
are the only probes of the local dark-matter DF. As we
understand in simulations what drives the evolution of
the local dark-matter DF, it should be possible to learn
something about the evolutionary history of the Milky
Way from the local dark-matter velocity distribution as
be able to explore the complementarity of ongoing and
upcoming experimental and observational programs to
determining the nature of dark matter. In addition, a
better understanding of the degeneracies in each type of
data set may help guide the design of future observations
and experiments.
oops I forgot I meant not to post links.
I think I'll go on holidays
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Oct 30 2009, 01:55 AM)
pops I forgot I meant not to post links.
I think I'll go on holidays
Oh, I get it. You're trying to get banned permanently. Good luck.
I think I'll go on holidays
Oh, I get it. You're trying to get banned permanently. Good luck.
G'day Mjoinrpants
No you do not get it.
If you did the response to the link would have been more productive.
Do you understand the link?
No you do not get it.
If you did the response to the link would have been more productive.
Do you understand the link?
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Oct 30 2009, 07:26 AM)
G'day Mjoinrpants
No you do not get it.
If you did the response to the link would have been more productive.
Do you understand the link?
So you think that continuing to make vapid and pointless posts which do nothing to contribute to the conversation or to effect communication between you and others are simply worth being permanently banned, then?
Oh, and I probably understand the link far better than you ever will.
No you do not get it.
If you did the response to the link would have been more productive.
Do you understand the link?
So you think that continuing to make vapid and pointless posts which do nothing to contribute to the conversation or to effect communication between you and others are simply worth being permanently banned, then?
Oh, and I probably understand the link far better than you ever will.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 30 2009, 03:48 AM)
No.
In fact, you've hit upon the very solution that cosmologists and astrophysicists have been searching for.
Right now ...
Every theoretical physicist worth more than a floating turd is scrambling to incorporate your observations into GUT's that will once and for all illuminate humanity as to the true nature of the universe.
Of course you'll get zero credit for it since you were stupid enough to postulate it on a public forum.
But congrats anyway. At least all of us here know exactly the depth of your contributions.
Despite the fact that this was meant sarcastically . . .
I got a little excitement out of the fantasy I had that was similar to the ceremony at the end of the first Star Wars movie where Luke, Leah, and Solo are awarded medals for their heroism. Wouldn't it be neat if scientist had ceremonies like this?
Oh wait, they probably do. I'll just never know about it because I'm stupid enough to use web forums as my scientific community. Oh well, guess it's back to my Star Wars fantasy life:)
In fact, you've hit upon the very solution that cosmologists and astrophysicists have been searching for.
Right now ...
Every theoretical physicist worth more than a floating turd is scrambling to incorporate your observations into GUT's that will once and for all illuminate humanity as to the true nature of the universe.
Of course you'll get zero credit for it since you were stupid enough to postulate it on a public forum.
But congrats anyway. At least all of us here know exactly the depth of your contributions.
Despite the fact that this was meant sarcastically . . .
I got a little excitement out of the fantasy I had that was similar to the ceremony at the end of the first Star Wars movie where Luke, Leah, and Solo are awarded medals for their heroism. Wouldn't it be neat if scientist had ceremonies like this?
Oh wait, they probably do. I'll just never know about it because I'm stupid enough to use web forums as my scientific community. Oh well, guess it's back to my Star Wars fantasy life:)
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 31 2009, 02:23 AM)
I got a little excitement out of the fantasy I had that was similar to the ceremony at the end of the first Star Wars movie where Luke, Leah, and Solo are awarded medals for their heroism.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 30 2009, 05:23 AM)
First off: You can stop using the word "Air" enclosed in quotation marks. The correct word is "Vacuum" (no need for the quotation marks), as the medium of space is close enough to a perfect vacuum to assume the moniker.
Second, the troposphere is the air we're breathing now. It goes from the Earth's surface to approximately 23,000-56,000 feet. It is the 'exosphere' which is the closest thing to a dividing line, although you are correct that there is no clear delineation.
Third and finally: Yes, you are making the same mistake. Dark matter is fundamentally different from regular matter, and so regular matter could not possibly be dark matter.
Read the links I gave you. All of the information I've given you in this post and in the last is contained within them (except the bit about my head hitting the keyboard, of course, though I suppose I could add that to one of the wiki pages...), as well as much more detailed and expansive amounts of information. If you do not understand a term being used, simply click on it if it's a link, or type it into the Wikipedia search box to find a definition and explanation. Try to stick to the first paragraph or two of any articles you find this way, to avoid being sidetracked, and because a detailed knowledge of such terms is usually (not alway, but usually) not required in order for you to understand their usage in the main article.
The reason I put "air" in "quotation marks" is because of the concept that space is a vacuum despite the fact that it is not actually a vacuum, just a very very thin "atmosphere." Before I get banned for making (false?)statements without basis, I should say that I am basing this on the idea that air-density is relative to space-time dilation. I may have this wrong, so please correct me if I do, but my understanding of space-time dilation is that it is proportional to gravity, which is the cause of the atmospheric pressure that causes air to be dense at sea level and become thinner in the higher altitudes/layers, which you named for me (thanks). So I take it that if you would control for space dilation, the relative density of particles in space would be even less vacuum-like in comparison to non-vacuum-like atmospheric air particles.
So, why shouldn't the particles floating around in outer space actually be called "air," albeit very thin air? Isn't "vacuum" or "empty space" less accurate to say? In fact, vacuum seems to be a relative concept to me, in that any compartment of matter that is not in pressure-equilibrium with the matter that surrounds it could be described as a relative vacuum, or not? E.g. a empty propane tank with less than atmospheric pressure inside the tank would be a relative vacuum - but so then could the atmosphere relative to a fully pressurized tank. Doesn't "vacuum" just depend on what is used for reference? Isn't outer space just referred to as a vacuum because it is compared with air density at sea level (or in a sealed spacecraft)? Why wouldn't the exosphere be considered a relative vacuum compared with the air at sea level?
I know this kind of relativistic defining of terms can be tiresome, but it seems relevant to the issue of light traveling through deep space, because what seems like a relative vacuum from our perspective could just be a form of low-density air within a highly dilated low-gravity region of space. If dilation allows air molecules to remain farther apart for longer periods of time, then wouldn't (more) light be able to pass between such molecules? Also, if the heat of interstellar air is very slight, wouldn't this further decrease the motion of particles?
How much of the atmosphere's visibility is due to its mass, and how much is due to motion? It seems to me that if the molecules in a gas are moving more rapidly, they would interfere with (more) light than if they are moving slowly. This sounds ridiculous because it implies that hotter air would be more opaque than colder air, which seems counterintuitive to me - although I'm not 100% from empirical observation. Logically, though, doesn't it seem like faster moving particles block more light than slower moving ones - like when you wave something fast in front of a TV screen you see more of it than when you wave it slowly?
The last thing I will say in this post is that I read wiki on dark matter (I believe I've read it before but it's been a while). Anyway, the bit about the invisible mass halos around galaxies to explain their rotational speed relative to their mass - it seems more logical to me that these galaxies just appear to be smaller than they really are. If the mass of the galaxy somehow compresses space-time more relative to distant observers, then it would follow that the outermost stars would appear much closer to the hub of the galaxy than for an observer at closer range. I think this would be a gravity-lens effect similar to when you hold a magnifying glass far away from your eye and the image appears smaller and distorted (and upside down, no?). Is this not an explanation that has already been considered?
Second, the troposphere is the air we're breathing now. It goes from the Earth's surface to approximately 23,000-56,000 feet. It is the 'exosphere' which is the closest thing to a dividing line, although you are correct that there is no clear delineation.
Third and finally: Yes, you are making the same mistake. Dark matter is fundamentally different from regular matter, and so regular matter could not possibly be dark matter.
Read the links I gave you. All of the information I've given you in this post and in the last is contained within them (except the bit about my head hitting the keyboard, of course, though I suppose I could add that to one of the wiki pages...), as well as much more detailed and expansive amounts of information. If you do not understand a term being used, simply click on it if it's a link, or type it into the Wikipedia search box to find a definition and explanation. Try to stick to the first paragraph or two of any articles you find this way, to avoid being sidetracked, and because a detailed knowledge of such terms is usually (not alway, but usually) not required in order for you to understand their usage in the main article.
The reason I put "air" in "quotation marks" is because of the concept that space is a vacuum despite the fact that it is not actually a vacuum, just a very very thin "atmosphere." Before I get banned for making (false?)statements without basis, I should say that I am basing this on the idea that air-density is relative to space-time dilation. I may have this wrong, so please correct me if I do, but my understanding of space-time dilation is that it is proportional to gravity, which is the cause of the atmospheric pressure that causes air to be dense at sea level and become thinner in the higher altitudes/layers, which you named for me (thanks). So I take it that if you would control for space dilation, the relative density of particles in space would be even less vacuum-like in comparison to non-vacuum-like atmospheric air particles.
So, why shouldn't the particles floating around in outer space actually be called "air," albeit very thin air? Isn't "vacuum" or "empty space" less accurate to say? In fact, vacuum seems to be a relative concept to me, in that any compartment of matter that is not in pressure-equilibrium with the matter that surrounds it could be described as a relative vacuum, or not? E.g. a empty propane tank with less than atmospheric pressure inside the tank would be a relative vacuum - but so then could the atmosphere relative to a fully pressurized tank. Doesn't "vacuum" just depend on what is used for reference? Isn't outer space just referred to as a vacuum because it is compared with air density at sea level (or in a sealed spacecraft)? Why wouldn't the exosphere be considered a relative vacuum compared with the air at sea level?
I know this kind of relativistic defining of terms can be tiresome, but it seems relevant to the issue of light traveling through deep space, because what seems like a relative vacuum from our perspective could just be a form of low-density air within a highly dilated low-gravity region of space. If dilation allows air molecules to remain farther apart for longer periods of time, then wouldn't (more) light be able to pass between such molecules? Also, if the heat of interstellar air is very slight, wouldn't this further decrease the motion of particles?
How much of the atmosphere's visibility is due to its mass, and how much is due to motion? It seems to me that if the molecules in a gas are moving more rapidly, they would interfere with (more) light than if they are moving slowly. This sounds ridiculous because it implies that hotter air would be more opaque than colder air, which seems counterintuitive to me - although I'm not 100% from empirical observation. Logically, though, doesn't it seem like faster moving particles block more light than slower moving ones - like when you wave something fast in front of a TV screen you see more of it than when you wave it slowly?
The last thing I will say in this post is that I read wiki on dark matter (I believe I've read it before but it's been a while). Anyway, the bit about the invisible mass halos around galaxies to explain their rotational speed relative to their mass - it seems more logical to me that these galaxies just appear to be smaller than they really are. If the mass of the galaxy somehow compresses space-time more relative to distant observers, then it would follow that the outermost stars would appear much closer to the hub of the galaxy than for an observer at closer range. I think this would be a gravity-lens effect similar to when you hold a magnifying glass far away from your eye and the image appears smaller and distorted (and upside down, no?). Is this not an explanation that has already been considered?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 31 2009, 03:04 AM)
So, why shouldn't the particles floating around in outer space actually be called "air,"
I can only think of 27 trillion reasons. Although in your specific case; you might consider referring to these particles as a brain.
I can only think of 27 trillion reasons. Although in your specific case; you might consider referring to these particles as a brain.
QUOTE (Dr Fred A Wolf+Oct 31 2009, 03:42 AM)
I can only think of 27 trillion reasons. Although in your specific case; you might consider referring to these particles as a brain.
Ok, give me just 1 trillion reasons, I dare you!
Ok, give me just 1 trillion reasons, I dare you!
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 31 2009, 03:56 AM)
Ok, give me just 1 trillion reasons, I dare you!
What, and have a post more extensive than the combined shocking verbosity of StevenA, coberst and Good Elf!
Good heavens, no.
p.s;- this site couldn't handle such volume, fucktard.
What, and have a post more extensive than the combined shocking verbosity of StevenA, coberst and Good Elf!
Good heavens, no.
p.s;- this site couldn't handle such volume, fucktard.
Heh, thats one... 
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 30 2009, 10:04 PM)
The reason I put "air" in "quotation marks" is because of the concept that space is a vacuum despite the fact that it is not actually a vacuum, just a very very thin "atmosphere." So I take it that if you would control for space dilation, the relative density of particles in space would be even less vacuum-like in comparison to non-vacuum-like atmospheric air particles.
1. Atmospheres surround heavenly bodies, they don't exist in interstellar space.
2. Air is composed of 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, trace amounts of other gases and an average of about 1% water vapor.
3. Air is macroscopically contiguous (this means the particles interact with each other) with varying levels of pressure. Interstellar space consists of a few discrete molecules which don't tend to interact with each other.
It's not air. Stop arguing.
1. Atmospheres surround heavenly bodies, they don't exist in interstellar space.
2. Air is composed of 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, trace amounts of other gases and an average of about 1% water vapor.
3. Air is macroscopically contiguous (this means the particles interact with each other) with varying levels of pressure. Interstellar space consists of a few discrete molecules which don't tend to interact with each other.
It's not air. Stop arguing.
QUOTE
Before I get banned for making (false?)statements without basis, I should say that I am basing this on the idea that air-density is relative to space-time dilation.
It's not.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Before I get banned for making (false?)statements without basis, I should say that I am basing this on the idea that air-density is relative to space-time dilation. |
It's not.
I may have this wrong, so please correct me if I do, but my understanding of space-time dilation is that it is proportional to gravity, which is the cause of the atmospheric pressure that causes air to be dense at sea level and become thinner in the higher altitudes/layers, which you named for me (thanks).
I may have this wrong, so please correct me if I do, but my understanding of space-time dilation is that it is proportional to gravity, which is the cause of the atmospheric pressure that causes air to be dense at sea level and become thinner in the higher altitudes/layers, which you named for me (thanks).
It is.
QUOTE
So, why shouldn't the particles floating around in outer space actually be called "air," albeit very thin air? Isn't "vacuum" or "empty space" less accurate to say?
No, vacuum is a more accurate word because interstellar space more closely resembles a vacuum than it does air.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So, why shouldn't the particles floating around in outer space actually be called "air," albeit very thin air? Isn't "vacuum" or "empty space" less accurate to say? |
No, vacuum is a more accurate word because interstellar space more closely resembles a vacuum than it does air.
In fact, vacuum seems to be a relative concept to me, in that any compartment of matter that is not in pressure-equilibrium with the matter that surrounds it could be described as a relative vacuum, or not?
In fact, vacuum seems to be a relative concept to me, in that any compartment of matter that is not in pressure-equilibrium with the matter that surrounds it could be described as a relative vacuum, or not?
More or less.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 31 2009, 05:09 AM)
1. Atmospheres surround heavenly bodies, they don't exist in interstellar space.
Ok, but how can you really delineate where the space "surrounding" heavenly bodies ends and the space in between "their surrounding spaces" begins?
This mixture is specific to terrestrial air, no? Martian, Venusian, or Jupiterian "air" have different ingredients and proportion, right? So would you still call the gas mixture found in the atmospheres of these planets "air?"
This mixture is specific to terrestrial air, no? Martian, Venusian, or Jupiterian "air" have different ingredients and proportion, right? So would you still call the gas mixture found in the atmospheres of these planets "air?"
3. Air is macroscopically contiguous (this means the particles interact with each other) with varying levels of pressure. Interstellar space consists of a few discrete molecules which don't tend to interact with each other.
This was what I was trying to discuss. What you are calling "macroscopic contiguity" is actually the product of kinetic energy being transferred among particles because of collisions. The time between these collisions is the result of gravity compressing the atmosphere against the Earth's surface and objects on it (and space-time dilation? Or is the dilation already counted as a factor in atmospheric compression/pressure?). BTW, If atmospheric air pressure/density is achieved in a spacecraft, as a result of volume containment instead of gravity, is the air somehow qualitatively different because of space-time dilation?
So doesn't the "macroscopic contiguity" of atmospheric gas just refer to a certain norm of kinetic energy and time between particle collisions? If air was cooled dramatically, it would reduce in volume due to collapse under pressure, unless it was protected inside a container of fixed volume, in which case I presume that the particles would only compress due to gravity and not pressure. If gravity was not present, the particles would expand more, further reducing the time between collisions
Discretion between "a few discrete molecules," can only be relative to the time between collisions, right? But since space-time is relative to gravity, isn't time going much slower for these particles anyway. In that case I wonder how the actual level of contiguity and volume of gas in low gravity, high dilation regions can best be described - i.e. in terms of an absolute index of terrestrial space-time dilation or relative to the dilation of the gravity there?
Also, do you think gaseous particles between heavenly bodies disperse homogeneously or do they form continuous clouds due to surface-tension or electrostatic attraction among molecules? What is the greatest volume of space between planets or stars that would be totally devoid of any particles?
I'm not "arguing" about what is and isn't air. I'm trying to establish what the characteristics of particulate matter in interplanetary and/or interstellar space are. Conceptualizing terrestrial air as being radically different does not help with using it as an index for comparison with interstellar particles in terms of "macroscopic contiguity," distances between particles and time between collisions, and how to integrate space-time dilation as a factor in conceptualizing.
I'm not "arguing" about what is and isn't air. I'm trying to establish what the characteristics of particulate matter in interplanetary and/or interstellar space are. Conceptualizing terrestrial air as being radically different does not help with using it as an index for comparison with interstellar particles in terms of "macroscopic contiguity," distances between particles and time between collisions, and how to integrate space-time dilation as a factor in conceptualizing.
No, vacuum is a more accurate word because interstellar space more closely resembles a vacuum than it does air.
What objective measure of distinction would there be between "air" and "vacuum?" The only possibility I would see is if there is some point where air begins to separate into to discrete contiguous "clouds" without the tendency for the clouds to further expand into each other until uniform density is reached. My assumption would be that clouds of gas would diffuse in this way throughout interplanetary/interstellar space until relatively uniform density was reached, however low the "pressure." Do you think it doesn't?
Ok, but how can you really delineate where the space "surrounding" heavenly bodies ends and the space in between "their surrounding spaces" begins?
QUOTE
2. Air is composed of 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, trace amounts of other gases and an average of about 1% water vapor.
This mixture is specific to terrestrial air, no? Martian, Venusian, or Jupiterian "air" have different ingredients and proportion, right? So would you still call the gas mixture found in the atmospheres of these planets "air?"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2. Air is composed of 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, trace amounts of other gases and an average of about 1% water vapor. |
This mixture is specific to terrestrial air, no? Martian, Venusian, or Jupiterian "air" have different ingredients and proportion, right? So would you still call the gas mixture found in the atmospheres of these planets "air?"
3. Air is macroscopically contiguous (this means the particles interact with each other) with varying levels of pressure. Interstellar space consists of a few discrete molecules which don't tend to interact with each other.
This was what I was trying to discuss. What you are calling "macroscopic contiguity" is actually the product of kinetic energy being transferred among particles because of collisions. The time between these collisions is the result of gravity compressing the atmosphere against the Earth's surface and objects on it (and space-time dilation? Or is the dilation already counted as a factor in atmospheric compression/pressure?). BTW, If atmospheric air pressure/density is achieved in a spacecraft, as a result of volume containment instead of gravity, is the air somehow qualitatively different because of space-time dilation?
So doesn't the "macroscopic contiguity" of atmospheric gas just refer to a certain norm of kinetic energy and time between particle collisions? If air was cooled dramatically, it would reduce in volume due to collapse under pressure, unless it was protected inside a container of fixed volume, in which case I presume that the particles would only compress due to gravity and not pressure. If gravity was not present, the particles would expand more, further reducing the time between collisions
Discretion between "a few discrete molecules," can only be relative to the time between collisions, right? But since space-time is relative to gravity, isn't time going much slower for these particles anyway. In that case I wonder how the actual level of contiguity and volume of gas in low gravity, high dilation regions can best be described - i.e. in terms of an absolute index of terrestrial space-time dilation or relative to the dilation of the gravity there?
Also, do you think gaseous particles between heavenly bodies disperse homogeneously or do they form continuous clouds due to surface-tension or electrostatic attraction among molecules? What is the greatest volume of space between planets or stars that would be totally devoid of any particles?
QUOTE
It's not air. Stop arguing.
I'm not "arguing" about what is and isn't air. I'm trying to establish what the characteristics of particulate matter in interplanetary and/or interstellar space are. Conceptualizing terrestrial air as being radically different does not help with using it as an index for comparison with interstellar particles in terms of "macroscopic contiguity," distances between particles and time between collisions, and how to integrate space-time dilation as a factor in conceptualizing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's not air. Stop arguing. |
I'm not "arguing" about what is and isn't air. I'm trying to establish what the characteristics of particulate matter in interplanetary and/or interstellar space are. Conceptualizing terrestrial air as being radically different does not help with using it as an index for comparison with interstellar particles in terms of "macroscopic contiguity," distances between particles and time between collisions, and how to integrate space-time dilation as a factor in conceptualizing.
No, vacuum is a more accurate word because interstellar space more closely resembles a vacuum than it does air.
What objective measure of distinction would there be between "air" and "vacuum?" The only possibility I would see is if there is some point where air begins to separate into to discrete contiguous "clouds" without the tendency for the clouds to further expand into each other until uniform density is reached. My assumption would be that clouds of gas would diffuse in this way throughout interplanetary/interstellar space until relatively uniform density was reached, however low the "pressure." Do you think it doesn't?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 30 2009, 03:23 PM)
First off: You can stop using the word "Air" enclosed in quotation marks. The correct word is "Vacuum" (no need for the quotation marks), as the medium of space is close enough to a perfect vacuum to assume the moniker.
Ergo I am asumming you mean "NEAR-Vacuum"..
As a pure Vacuum and or Void simply is nothing or better yet non existent.
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Ergo I am asumming you mean "NEAR-Vacuum"..
As a pure Vacuum and or Void simply is nothing or better yet non existent.
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
It would seem to me that dark energy is really electromagnetic radiation filling all of space. It travels at the speed of light (of course) and in all directions, at all tims and at all possible frequencies and energy levels. It comes from all the stars in the universe. If you are at any point in the universe you are bombarded by light energy from every point in the universe. .....any comments?
QUOTE (Guest_rich-cliff-han+Nov 17 2009, 07:45 PM)
It would seem to me that dark energy is really electromagnetic radiation filling all of space. It travels at the speed of light (of course) and in all directions, at all tims and at all possible frequencies and energy levels. It comes from all the stars in the universe. If you are at any point in the universe you are bombarded by light energy from every point in the universe. .....any comments?
No, your postulate is far too inane to respond to - other than in titanic hard-core abuse.
No, your postulate is far too inane to respond to - other than in titanic hard-core abuse.
G'day
It's funny how nobody has ever seen either dark matter or dark energy and yet the emotional impact they have is off this planet.
If fact without evidence, how can anybody say what they are?
It's funny how nobody has ever seen either dark matter or dark energy and yet the emotional impact they have is off this planet.
If fact without evidence, how can anybody say what they are?
Harry Costas
We see their effects, and just like Neptune, know they are there despite not yet even knowing what they are.
Grumpy
QUOTE
It's funny how nobody has ever seen either dark matter or dark energy and yet the emotional impact they have is off this planet.
If fact without evidence, how can anybody say what they are?
If fact without evidence, how can anybody say what they are?
We see their effects, and just like Neptune, know they are there despite not yet even knowing what they are.
Grumpy
G'day Grumpy
Yes you are right.
But! thats not evidence of ID
We need the "THING"
Yes you are right.
But! thats not evidence of ID
We need the "THING"
G'day
I was just re reading some papers, some I read several times before I even understand the concept and the terminology.
Cosmology and Astrophysics without Dark Energy and Dark Matter
Authors: Shlomo Barak, Elia M Leibowitz
(Submitted on 14 Sep 2009)
you can search this on arXiv
They show that there is no need for the hypothetical Dark Energy (DE) and Dark Matter (DM) to explain phenomena attributed to them.
Also they show that the time derivative of the cosmological scale factor, is a constant.
They derive H(z), the Hubble parameter, as a function of the redshift, z. Based on H(z), they derive a curve of the Distance Modulus versus log(z).
They say this curve fits data from supernovae observations, without any free parameters. This fit is as good as that obtained by current cosmology, which needs the free parameters Omega_M and Omega_Lambda.
They obtained these results by using the hitherto un-noticed fact that the global gravitational energy density in our Hubble Sphere (HS) is equal to the Cosmological Microwave Background (CMB) energy density.
They derive the dynamic and kinematic relations that govern the motions of celestial bodies in and around galaxies. This derivation does not require any gravitating matter beyond the observed baryonic matter.
The theoretical Rotation Curves (RC), resulting from these relations, fit observed RCs.
They obtained these results by examining the interplay between the local gravitational energy density, around a galaxy, and the CMB energy density. This interplay causes the inhomogeneous and anisotropic space expansion around a galaxy.
and so on.
The point being is that, if dark matter and dark energy are just ad hoc theories to explain an observation. What's next?
I was just re reading some papers, some I read several times before I even understand the concept and the terminology.
Cosmology and Astrophysics without Dark Energy and Dark Matter
Authors: Shlomo Barak, Elia M Leibowitz
(Submitted on 14 Sep 2009)
you can search this on arXiv
They show that there is no need for the hypothetical Dark Energy (DE) and Dark Matter (DM) to explain phenomena attributed to them.
Also they show that the time derivative of the cosmological scale factor, is a constant.
They derive H(z), the Hubble parameter, as a function of the redshift, z. Based on H(z), they derive a curve of the Distance Modulus versus log(z).
They say this curve fits data from supernovae observations, without any free parameters. This fit is as good as that obtained by current cosmology, which needs the free parameters Omega_M and Omega_Lambda.
They obtained these results by using the hitherto un-noticed fact that the global gravitational energy density in our Hubble Sphere (HS) is equal to the Cosmological Microwave Background (CMB) energy density.
They derive the dynamic and kinematic relations that govern the motions of celestial bodies in and around galaxies. This derivation does not require any gravitating matter beyond the observed baryonic matter.
The theoretical Rotation Curves (RC), resulting from these relations, fit observed RCs.
They obtained these results by examining the interplay between the local gravitational energy density, around a galaxy, and the CMB energy density. This interplay causes the inhomogeneous and anisotropic space expansion around a galaxy.
and so on.
The point being is that, if dark matter and dark energy are just ad hoc theories to explain an observation. What's next?
Hypothesis on dark matter (is this anything less than total crank foolishness?):
Considering the fact that the universe is expanding, the process of space-time dilation is progressive, and perhaps unevenly distributed such that the intergalactic regions are dilating most rapidly as galaxies drift away from each other. If it is the case that such intergalactic areas of space are dilating progressively in this manner, then particles that approach them would also progressively lose energy, i.e. electrons slow and nuclear bonds weaken (correct me if this is an incorrect assumption).
On Earth, gravity and energy are relatively abundant enough to sustain the energy levels and therefore the integrity of most particles. Some particles are less stable and prone to fision, but these are very large and relatively rare. Logically, their scarcity and size would be function of 1) terrestrial gravity/dilation patterns and 2) the fact that larger particles already destabilized and fissioned long ago and those that can maintain a relatively long half-life, yet be radioactive enough to fission, have been decaying into smaller particles for a long time already, since Earth's gravitational situation has been presumably stable for a long time.
However, in a intergalactic situation where dilation is increasing at a high rate, particles that would be very stable on Earth may slow down to a point where they destabilize and fission into smaller particles. If this would be the case, then deep space would be the site of much weak nuclear activity with all stray particles decaying into smaller particles and releasing energy.
With all the energy released by the fission reactions, the speed of particles would be further accelerated causing more dilation and more fission. Ultimately, interstellar wind that escapes into intergalactic space may dissipate into EM radiation energy.
Now I wonder if this energy created from fission would reach galactic matter, if it would be significant enough to add energy to the galaxy great enough to explain the velocity and mass/light discrepancies observed in galaxies attributed to dark matter.
Better yet, is it possible that the stars closest to the edge of a galaxy are the source of the intergalactic wind and, as such, that the light emitted by them is distorted by the fission reaction of the particles entering into intergalactic space? Wouldn't such fission reactions generate enough energy to scatter light in the same way a mirage does with hot air? If so, much stellar mass at the outer edge of galaxies may be obscured my such mirage energy.
Probably there's some crank assumption in this somewhere that undermines the whole thing, but at least tell me if the assumption of fission of terrestrially stable atoms would occur spontaneously as a result of high dilation. Thanks.
Considering the fact that the universe is expanding, the process of space-time dilation is progressive, and perhaps unevenly distributed such that the intergalactic regions are dilating most rapidly as galaxies drift away from each other. If it is the case that such intergalactic areas of space are dilating progressively in this manner, then particles that approach them would also progressively lose energy, i.e. electrons slow and nuclear bonds weaken (correct me if this is an incorrect assumption).
On Earth, gravity and energy are relatively abundant enough to sustain the energy levels and therefore the integrity of most particles. Some particles are less stable and prone to fision, but these are very large and relatively rare. Logically, their scarcity and size would be function of 1) terrestrial gravity/dilation patterns and 2) the fact that larger particles already destabilized and fissioned long ago and those that can maintain a relatively long half-life, yet be radioactive enough to fission, have been decaying into smaller particles for a long time already, since Earth's gravitational situation has been presumably stable for a long time.
However, in a intergalactic situation where dilation is increasing at a high rate, particles that would be very stable on Earth may slow down to a point where they destabilize and fission into smaller particles. If this would be the case, then deep space would be the site of much weak nuclear activity with all stray particles decaying into smaller particles and releasing energy.
With all the energy released by the fission reactions, the speed of particles would be further accelerated causing more dilation and more fission. Ultimately, interstellar wind that escapes into intergalactic space may dissipate into EM radiation energy.
Now I wonder if this energy created from fission would reach galactic matter, if it would be significant enough to add energy to the galaxy great enough to explain the velocity and mass/light discrepancies observed in galaxies attributed to dark matter.
Better yet, is it possible that the stars closest to the edge of a galaxy are the source of the intergalactic wind and, as such, that the light emitted by them is distorted by the fission reaction of the particles entering into intergalactic space? Wouldn't such fission reactions generate enough energy to scatter light in the same way a mirage does with hot air? If so, much stellar mass at the outer edge of galaxies may be obscured my such mirage energy.
Probably there's some crank assumption in this somewhere that undermines the whole thing, but at least tell me if the assumption of fission of terrestrially stable atoms would occur spontaneously as a result of high dilation. Thanks.
Hi,
On reading your post - I noticed the reference to accelerating expansion was omitted so I hope you don't mind but that's where I Stopped reading your post, less I get infected with even more corrupted data.. Anyway here's what should have been stated from the get go
On reading your post - I noticed the reference to accelerating expansion was omitted so I hope you don't mind but that's where I Stopped reading your post, less I get infected with even more corrupted data.. Anyway here's what should have been stated from the get go
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Nov 22 2009, 09:17 AM)
Hypothesis on dark matter (is this anything less than total crank foolishness?):
Considering the fact that the universe is expanding and this expansion is accelerating,
Which if considered changes what follows to being near null and void..
I hope you don't take insult by my pointing this critical fact out and I hope you consider to catch up and perhaps even amend what you stated here, as I find your logic very sound up to where I intervened..
Thanks for hearing me out and not taking offense with my interjection with what I feel should now be more common knowledge..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Considering the fact that the universe is expanding and this expansion is accelerating,
Which if considered changes what follows to being near null and void..
I hope you don't take insult by my pointing this critical fact out and I hope you consider to catch up and perhaps even amend what you stated here, as I find your logic very sound up to where I intervened..
Thanks for hearing me out and not taking offense with my interjection with what I feel should now be more common knowledge..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 22 2009, 12:10 AM)
Hi,
On reading your post - I noticed the reference to accelerating expansion was omitted so I hope you don't mind but that's where I Stopped reading your post, less I get infected with even more corrupted data.. Anyway here's what should have been stated from the get go
Which if considered changes what follows to being near null and void..
I wasn't claiming at all (even crank-claiming) that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
What I was positing, and correct me if this is a bad deduction, is that the average constant dilation that takes place as universe-expansion is unevenly distributed through time space as a consequence of matter being unevenly distributed and "coagulated" in galaxies.
The idea is that if the mean dilation of the expanding universe is, e.g. 100m/s, then some matter, such as stars within galaxies, may be expanding away from each other at a slower speed, e.g. 50m/s, while galaxies themselves could be moving away from each other at a higher speed, e.g. 150m/s.
If galactic matter is actually converging, there could be a negative acceleration rate of expansion, which could also mean that the rate of dilation/expansion in intergalactic space is progressive/accelerating.
Is this hypothesis easily debunked?
On reading your post - I noticed the reference to accelerating expansion was omitted so I hope you don't mind but that's where I Stopped reading your post, less I get infected with even more corrupted data.. Anyway here's what should have been stated from the get go
Which if considered changes what follows to being near null and void..
I wasn't claiming at all (even crank-claiming) that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
What I was positing, and correct me if this is a bad deduction, is that the average constant dilation that takes place as universe-expansion is unevenly distributed through time space as a consequence of matter being unevenly distributed and "coagulated" in galaxies.
The idea is that if the mean dilation of the expanding universe is, e.g. 100m/s, then some matter, such as stars within galaxies, may be expanding away from each other at a slower speed, e.g. 50m/s, while galaxies themselves could be moving away from each other at a higher speed, e.g. 150m/s.
If galactic matter is actually converging, there could be a negative acceleration rate of expansion, which could also mean that the rate of dilation/expansion in intergalactic space is progressive/accelerating.
Is this hypothesis easily debunked?
G'day
Go to the NASA site and observe clusters of galaxies and their formation of giant jets.
Than come back and explain their movements and formations.
You can lead a horse to water, but! you cannot make them drink.
Go to the NASA site and observe clusters of galaxies and their formation of giant jets.
Than come back and explain their movements and formations.
You can lead a horse to water, but! you cannot make them drink.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Nov 22 2009, 10:56 AM)
I wasn't claiming at all (even crank-claiming) that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
What I was positing, and correct me if this is a bad deduction, is that the average constant dilation that takes place as universe-expansion is unevenly distributed through time space as a consequence of matter being unevenly distributed and "coagulated" in galaxies.
The idea is that if the mean dilation of the expanding universe is, e.g. 100m/s, then some matter, such as stars within galaxies, may be expanding away from each other at a slower speed, e.g. 50m/s, while galaxies themselves could be moving away from each other at a higher speed, e.g. 150m/s.
If galactic matter is actually converging, there could be a negative acceleration rate of expansion, which could also mean that the rate of dilation/expansion in intergalactic space is progressive/accelerating.
Is this hypothesis easily debunked?
The hypothesis can easily be resolved by considering the problem to a closed system, why a closed system?
This way we are able to refer to a figure that is our check-sum.
In a simplistic model if we have areas expanding "density decreasing" or Potential energy is exchanged to Kinetic energy then elsewhere areas in our model need to reciprocate and compress "density increasing" or kinetic energy is exchanged to Potential energy.. having the model comply to this would also have the model comply to both general and special relativity, this method also one day will have all the forces conforming to each other, as in "TOE"
In short if your models are calculated to equate to the check sum no matter what, then it would be impossible for any one to debunk it, as mathematics is our only tool to facts..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen
What I was positing, and correct me if this is a bad deduction, is that the average constant dilation that takes place as universe-expansion is unevenly distributed through time space as a consequence of matter being unevenly distributed and "coagulated" in galaxies.
The idea is that if the mean dilation of the expanding universe is, e.g. 100m/s, then some matter, such as stars within galaxies, may be expanding away from each other at a slower speed, e.g. 50m/s, while galaxies themselves could be moving away from each other at a higher speed, e.g. 150m/s.
If galactic matter is actually converging, there could be a negative acceleration rate of expansion, which could also mean that the rate of dilation/expansion in intergalactic space is progressive/accelerating.
Is this hypothesis easily debunked?
The hypothesis can easily be resolved by considering the problem to a closed system, why a closed system?
This way we are able to refer to a figure that is our check-sum.
In a simplistic model if we have areas expanding "density decreasing" or Potential energy is exchanged to Kinetic energy then elsewhere areas in our model need to reciprocate and compress "density increasing" or kinetic energy is exchanged to Potential energy.. having the model comply to this would also have the model comply to both general and special relativity, this method also one day will have all the forces conforming to each other, as in "TOE"
In short if your models are calculated to equate to the check sum no matter what, then it would be impossible for any one to debunk it, as mathematics is our only tool to facts..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen
G'day laidback
You said
In a way simple and yet could work.
In a way simple and yet could work.
In short if your models are calculated to equate to the check sum no matter what, then it would be impossible for any one to debunk it, as mathematics is our only tool to facts..
Mathematics can be used to explain either fact or ad hoc idea.
Maths as a tool in the wrong hands is like a rubber hammer trying to hit a metal nail.
You said
QUOTE
In a simplistic model if we have areas expanding "density decreasing" or Potential energy is exchanged to Kinetic energy then elsewhere areas in our model need to reciprocate and compress "density increasing" or kinetic energy is exchanged to Potential energy.. having the model comply to this would also have the model comply to both general and special relativity, this method also one day will have all the forces conforming to each other, as in "TOE"
In a way simple and yet could work.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In a simplistic model if we have areas expanding "density decreasing" or Potential energy is exchanged to Kinetic energy then elsewhere areas in our model need to reciprocate and compress "density increasing" or kinetic energy is exchanged to Potential energy.. having the model comply to this would also have the model comply to both general and special relativity, this method also one day will have all the forces conforming to each other, as in "TOE" |
In a way simple and yet could work.
In short if your models are calculated to equate to the check sum no matter what, then it would be impossible for any one to debunk it, as mathematics is our only tool to facts..
Mathematics can be used to explain either fact or ad hoc idea.
Maths as a tool in the wrong hands is like a rubber hammer trying to hit a metal nail.
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 1 2009, 09:20 PM)
Ergo I am asumming you mean "NEAR-Vacuum"..
As a pure Vacuum and or Void simply is nothing or better yet non existent.
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Did you even bother to read what you were responding to?
What part of the phrase "close enough," did you not understand?
Yeesh...
As a pure Vacuum and or Void simply is nothing or better yet non existent.
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Did you even bother to read what you were responding to?
What part of the phrase "close enough," did you not understand?
Yeesh...
Thanks Harry.
And if we had the bare action and then said that: "this is my theory of gravity and look its asymptotically 'safe' " then we would be in the same situation as 'QCD'. Looking forward to reading your published journal.
Take care for now,
And if we had the bare action and then said that: "this is my theory of gravity and look its asymptotically 'safe' " then we would be in the same situation as 'QCD'. Looking forward to reading your published journal.
Take care for now,
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 22 2009, 02:14 AM)
In short if your models are calculated to equate to the check sum no matter what, then it would be impossible for any one to debunk it, as mathematics is our only tool to facts..
Obviously, my model does not address any kind of quantitative data. I was merely speculating about a possible matter-energy phenomenon and asking for other opinions about whether I made some fundamental logical error or overlooked some theoretical principle that would easily dismiss part or all of my thinking.
Obviously, my model does not address any kind of quantitative data. I was merely speculating about a possible matter-energy phenomenon and asking for other opinions about whether I made some fundamental logical error or overlooked some theoretical principle that would easily dismiss part or all of my thinking.
G'day
Hello O O
Thank you for the kind words.
Hello O O
Thank you for the kind words.
QUOTE (Alaxir Zoa+Sep 30 2009, 11:27 PM)
To find it is going to be serious work. Not a simple laser blast. Now what would be cool would be to be able harness it and control it. I think we might have to be able to harness gravity to do that. I'm actually working on an experiment that do exactly that though. Ah, well. Scientists and geniuses are working on this around the clock so, sorry to burst your bubble, but I will put my money on them. Just a thought.
[B]how does your experiment work?
[B]how does your experiment work?
QUOTE (Granouille+Oct 20 2009, 10:18 PM)
Dear God. Shouting is good for your condition, no doubt.
Thank you for inflicting the results of your 'cure' on us, and we hope, we really do, that you'll be better in time for the next drawing for the Darwin Awards.
You will do something resonantly and unforgettably stupid for the committee, won't you?
[B]picky picky
Thank you for inflicting the results of your 'cure' on us, and we hope, we really do, that you'll be better in time for the next drawing for the Darwin Awards.
You will do something resonantly and unforgettably stupid for the committee, won't you?
[B]picky picky
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 27 2009, 11:27 AM)
You cannot illuminate dark matter. It isn't dark because its coloured black its dark because lght passes right through it without being affected and it doesn't emit light.
You can see black soot at night if you have a torch. This seems to be the interpretation the original poster is giving to the search for dark matter. That isn't how it works. Dark matter is like perfectly clear glass which you can see through without distortion and can pass through without feeling. The only hint it is there is its gravitational field. It is immune to light and thus electric fields or magnetic field. The only way a beam of light can tell you if dark matter is in a region of space is if its path is bent by the gravitational field.
Therefore all the suggestions of the original poster would fail to detect dark matter.
So maybe they should call it invisible energy or call it what it is- an invisible gravity matrix or lattice. (yet our air lights up from the sun) and it seems strange to me that there is no gravity (OR HARDLY ANY) in the space station or shuttle when it is just a few miles out of the atmosphere........maybe they should launch a large translucent sphere with a lead ball in the center to see if the vacuum inside lit up.
You can see black soot at night if you have a torch. This seems to be the interpretation the original poster is giving to the search for dark matter. That isn't how it works. Dark matter is like perfectly clear glass which you can see through without distortion and can pass through without feeling. The only hint it is there is its gravitational field. It is immune to light and thus electric fields or magnetic field. The only way a beam of light can tell you if dark matter is in a region of space is if its path is bent by the gravitational field.
Therefore all the suggestions of the original poster would fail to detect dark matter.
So maybe they should call it invisible energy or call it what it is- an invisible gravity matrix or lattice. (yet our air lights up from the sun) and it seems strange to me that there is no gravity (OR HARDLY ANY) in the space station or shuttle when it is just a few miles out of the atmosphere........maybe they should launch a large translucent sphere with a lead ball in the center to see if the vacuum inside lit up.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Oct 29 2009, 01:02 PM)
Harry Costas
You just don't get it, do you? Your sole contribution to your last post is...
...the rest is technical jargon of too high a level for you(or anyone else here, with maybe a rare exception)to understand, and of dubious quality(speculative, given that the Higgs is theoretical at best). You do not explain in your own words, comment on the cite nor do you engage in discussion. You are simply a serial copyright violator shotgunning copy/paste bon mots willy nilly all over these threads. You are an interuption to a discussion, not a participant in it and as such you do much more damage than you do construction in our understanding. And, despite all the warnings, you don't seem able to learn any better techniques or correct your bad habits. So don't be surprised when we say "Good Day, Sir!" to you.
Grumpy
[B]but maybe one day he will stumble upon something earth shattering
You just don't get it, do you? Your sole contribution to your last post is...
...the rest is technical jargon of too high a level for you(or anyone else here, with maybe a rare exception)to understand, and of dubious quality(speculative, given that the Higgs is theoretical at best). You do not explain in your own words, comment on the cite nor do you engage in discussion. You are simply a serial copyright violator shotgunning copy/paste bon mots willy nilly all over these threads. You are an interuption to a discussion, not a participant in it and as such you do much more damage than you do construction in our understanding. And, despite all the warnings, you don't seem able to learn any better techniques or correct your bad habits. So don't be surprised when we say "Good Day, Sir!" to you.
Grumpy
[B]but maybe one day he will stumble upon something earth shattering
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 30 2009, 02:38 AM)
Air is perfectly clear, and you can pass through it without feeling it - at least at very slow speeds. Would interstellar air qualify as dark matter then?
Would the density of air be high enough in interstellar space to ever create enough gravity to bend light? Even at the scale of an entire galaxy's "atmosphere."
Somewhere I think I read that dark matter particles are hypothesized as being much more massive and dense than the ones in air.
Could dark matter just be atomized particles of some very heavy element that are somehow floating around and not coagulating into clumps?
it is said that the atom is held together by electric fields BUT i think they are really magnetic fields. I think the study of Electronics is actually the study of magnetism renamed simply because electrons can be bumped from one atom to another making temporary ions for nano seconds
so maybe dark matter is a bunch of spread out ions wiating for an electron to spark them
Would the density of air be high enough in interstellar space to ever create enough gravity to bend light? Even at the scale of an entire galaxy's "atmosphere."
Somewhere I think I read that dark matter particles are hypothesized as being much more massive and dense than the ones in air.
Could dark matter just be atomized particles of some very heavy element that are somehow floating around and not coagulating into clumps?
it is said that the atom is held together by electric fields BUT i think they are really magnetic fields. I think the study of Electronics is actually the study of magnetism renamed simply because electrons can be bumped from one atom to another making temporary ions for nano seconds
so maybe dark matter is a bunch of spread out ions wiating for an electron to spark them
QUOTE (billyandtherockets+Nov 25 2009, 09:20 AM)
it is said that the atom is held together by electric fields BUT i think they are really magnetic fields. I think the study of Electronics is actually the study of magnetism renamed simply because electrons can be bumped from one atom to another making temporary ions for nano seconds
so maybe dark matter is a bunch of spread out ions wiating for an electron to spark them
so maybe dark matter is a bunch of spread out ions wiating for an electron to spark them
G'day
It seems that dark matter can be used in what ever context one wants to use.
Theere's paper written by Guido D’Amico, Marc Kamionkowski and Kris Sigurdson and the title is "Dark Matter Astropysics" worth reading.
I have read it and hold back my opinion in fear of influenceing the reader.
You can search it on arXiv and also ADS
I would post the link and the ABS, but! they get deleted.
It seems that dark matter can be used in what ever context one wants to use.
Theere's paper written by Guido D’Amico, Marc Kamionkowski and Kris Sigurdson and the title is "Dark Matter Astropysics" worth reading.
I have read it and hold back my opinion in fear of influenceing the reader.
You can search it on arXiv and also ADS
I would post the link and the ABS, but! they get deleted.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Nov 27 2009, 12:56 AM)
You can search it on arXiv and also ADS
I would post the link and the ABS, but! they get deleted.
Unfortunately, I don't think everyone who uses this forum has access to such archives, and some of us can't even read articles written in full academic style.
So any scraps of knowledge you can translate into vernacular English and throw to us peasants is appreciated. Speaking for myself, at least, we learn lots from discussions we can follow:) Not that it's anyone responsibility to communicate in a way other than is most convenient to them and the discussion they are trying to have.
I would post the link and the ABS, but! they get deleted.
Unfortunately, I don't think everyone who uses this forum has access to such archives, and some of us can't even read articles written in full academic style.
So any scraps of knowledge you can translate into vernacular English and throw to us peasants is appreciated. Speaking for myself, at least, we learn lots from discussions we can follow:) Not that it's anyone responsibility to communicate in a way other than is most convenient to them and the discussion they are trying to have.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Nov 26 2009, 10:02 PM)
So any scraps of knowledge you can translate into vernacular English and throw to us peasants is appreciated. Speaking for myself, at least, we learn lots from discussions we can follow:) Not that it's anyone responsibility to communicate in a way other than is most convenient to them and the discussion they are trying to have.
Do you think that you could explain how to use Google to a 15th century English peasant?
Jargon and verbose language are absolutely necessary to fully explain complicated ideas.
Do you think that you could explain how to use Google to a 15th century English peasant?
Jargon and verbose language are absolutely necessary to fully explain complicated ideas.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 27 2009, 02:09 AM)
Do you think that you could explain how to use Google to a 15th century English peasant?
Jargon and verbose language are absolutely necessary to fully explain complicated ideas.
I'm sure you're right. I just know that there are some things that I do understand that are posted by people who seem to understand jargon and verbose language that I can't. Just like there are complicated concepts in other sciences that I do understand the jargon and I can communicate on a certain level about those issues with people who don't fully understand scholarly articles written on those topics. I don't think there are any absolute disciplinary boundaries, just relative levels of complexity.
Jargon and verbose language are absolutely necessary to fully explain complicated ideas.
I'm sure you're right. I just know that there are some things that I do understand that are posted by people who seem to understand jargon and verbose language that I can't. Just like there are complicated concepts in other sciences that I do understand the jargon and I can communicate on a certain level about those issues with people who don't fully understand scholarly articles written on those topics. I don't think there are any absolute disciplinary boundaries, just relative levels of complexity.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Nov 20 2009, 07:58 AM)
I was just re reading some papers, some I read several times before I even understand the concept and the terminology.
You obviously didn't understand the paper you linked to about dark matter in the MSSM with non-universal Higgs. That's the kind of paper colleagues of mine read as part of their research. It takes concentration for them to follow it. It takes considerable effort for me to follow it and that includes asking a lot of questions to them. New 1st year postgrads don't follow it in much detail at all. You don't know any physics so its utterly beyond your comprehension other than the summaries and often in such papers the end result is something extremely technical and not meaningful to someone who doesn't know the area of research. The summary the last work I did is meaningless to anyone who doesn't do pretty much exactly what I do. Give it a rest Harry.
You obviously didn't understand the paper you linked to about dark matter in the MSSM with non-universal Higgs. That's the kind of paper colleagues of mine read as part of their research. It takes concentration for them to follow it. It takes considerable effort for me to follow it and that includes asking a lot of questions to them. New 1st year postgrads don't follow it in much detail at all. You don't know any physics so its utterly beyond your comprehension other than the summaries and often in such papers the end result is something extremely technical and not meaningful to someone who doesn't know the area of research. The summary the last work I did is meaningless to anyone who doesn't do pretty much exactly what I do. Give it a rest Harry.
QUOTE (billyandtherockets+Nov 20 2009, 07:58 AM)
it is said that the atom is held together by electric fields BUT i think they are really magnetic fields. I think the study of Electronics is actually the study of magnetism renamed simply because electrons can be bumped from one atom to another making temporary ions for nano seconds
No, it's held together by electric fields. Magnetic fields are something else. If you had ever bothered to learn basic electromagnetism you'd have done questions where you calculate electric and magnetic effects on atoms. You're basically trying to say that the entire interpretation of the atom is wrong because you think electronics is about something else.....
And lightinthetunnel, dark matter CANNOT be normal matter, heavy or not, which just has not clumped up yet because that would don't be dark. It would still affect light, just as very thin clouds of dust between us and stars or galaxies do. 'Dark matter' has zero interaction with light. Normal matter interacts with light, so dark matter is not normal matter, irrespective of how diffuse it might be.
And lightinthetunnel, dark matter CANNOT be normal matter, heavy or not, which just has not clumped up yet because that would don't be dark. It would still affect light, just as very thin clouds of dust between us and stars or galaxies do. 'Dark matter' has zero interaction with light. Normal matter interacts with light, so dark matter is not normal matter, irrespective of how diffuse it might be.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Nov 26 2009, 09:02 PM)
Unfortunately, I don't think everyone who uses this forum has access to such archives,
http://adswww.harvard.edu/
http://arxiv.org/
Do you know how stupid it makes you look to say that you don't have access to free, public databases?
http://adswww.harvard.edu/
http://arxiv.org/
Do you know how stupid it makes you look to say that you don't have access to free, public databases?
QUOTE (Harry+)
I would post the link and the ABS, but! they get deleted.
This is because he consistently posts links and abstracts without commenting on it, or post links to papers which contradict or are irrelevant to his commentary. Don't listen to anything he has to say.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 27 2009, 06:41 PM)
http://adswww.harvard.edu/
http://arxiv.org/
Do you know how stupid it makes you look to say that you don't have access to free, public databases?
"Assume" makes an "***" out of "u" and "me." Looks like I am the *** this time. I assumed they were not free databases because no academic articles seem to be free anymore if you're not accessing them through a university portal. I still probably wouldn't understand most articles archived but if it's free maybe I'll take a look sometime just to study the grammar and why it doesn't make sense to me:)
http://arxiv.org/
Do you know how stupid it makes you look to say that you don't have access to free, public databases?
"Assume" makes an "***" out of "u" and "me." Looks like I am the *** this time. I assumed they were not free databases because no academic articles seem to be free anymore if you're not accessing them through a university portal. I still probably wouldn't understand most articles archived but if it's free maybe I'll take a look sometime just to study the grammar and why it doesn't make sense to me:)
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 27 2009, 09:01 AM)
And lightinthetunnel, dark matter CANNOT be normal matter, heavy or not, which just has not clumped up yet because that would don't be dark. It would still affect light, just as very thin clouds of dust between us and stars or galaxies do. 'Dark matter' has zero interaction with light. Normal matter interacts with light, so dark matter is not normal matter, irrespective of how diffuse it might be.
I was just trying to speculate about different configurations of normal mass/energy configurations that could potentially effect the types of observations accounted for with reference to "dark matter."
Here's something: what if intergalactic wind sometimes travels close to the speed of light such that light traveling behind it does not get absorbed into it. I guess the light would reach it but I wonder how the high speed of the particles relative the light traveling through it would affect its appearance.
I was just trying to speculate about different configurations of normal mass/energy configurations that could potentially effect the types of observations accounted for with reference to "dark matter."
Here's something: what if intergalactic wind sometimes travels close to the speed of light such that light traveling behind it does not get absorbed into it. I guess the light would reach it but I wonder how the high speed of the particles relative the light traveling through it would affect its appearance.
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.