Light On Dark Matter?

I.
Posted by Dov Henis, Sep. 4, 2008
in
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id...3#comment_36186
"Two galaxy clusters collide to give astronomers a clue about dark matter"


II.
(Submitted 2 Nov 2007 to www.submit2science.org.), and
in
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071102/ful...s.2007.215.html


The Bullet Collision: Light On Dark Matter?

A. Back to the colliding Bullet cluster of galaxies http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...ull/2007/1031/1 The argument continues...

B. Back to a note a year ago Direct proof of dark matter? http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/H...ark_Matter.html

Notes 28 Aug 2006

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLB..._Q--?cq=1&p=268

Without background knowledge about the subject, but with plain common sense, best scientific approach, this is what I "see" in and conclude from the processed image of the event:

- In order to collide the two clusters (moving in the same spatial course/direction due to universal expansion) must have been moving at different moving rates due to differing cluster's mass and therefore acceleration values.

- As the collision progresses the two (most probably) hydrogenous clusters' atmospheres press against each other.

- what we "see" is that each of the two separate clusters' atmospheres is deformed and displaced, in extent and in shape and characteristics depending on the size of its parent cluster and on the characteristics of its H atmosphere and on the events of the evolution of the 'go-through merger' of the clusters.

- If E of the Universe = the sum of all spatial values of m(1+D), where D is the Distance of m from Big Bang point and the sum is of all spatial values of D from D=0 to D=selected value, then, following Newton (1) gravity is decreased when mass is decreased and (2) acceleration of a body is given by dividing the force acting upon it by its mass. By plain common sense the combination of those two 'laws' may explain the accelerating cosmic expansion of galaxy clusters and the 'laws' that drive it, based on the above E/ m/ D relationship...and may explain the Bullet collision...

Dov Henis

Has ‘dark matter’ really been proven?
Clarifying the clamour of claims from colliding clusters
by John Hartnett

8 September 2006

Let’s be clear here: “dark matter” is not an explanation for what we see; it’s an admission that no one has an explanation. Perhaps a more accurate headline would have been, ‘Scientists have proved that they haven’t got a clue what the universe is made of’, rather than, ‘Dark matter revealed’.6 Because it isn’t revealed. But if you give a name to an admission of gross ignorance—‘dark matter’, ‘dark energy’—then you may eventually believe you have explained something!

Galaxy Clusters Evolved By Dispersion, Not By Conglomeration

I. From "Cosmic heavyweight"

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id...mic_heavyweight

"Astronomers discover the heftiest, most distant galaxy cluster, suggesting evidence for dark energy's existence."

"Dark energy is an unexplained force that accelerates the expansion of the universe. Without this force, Lamer says, nearby clusters should be much more massive than those that are billions of light-years away. Distant clusters, he says, should be less massive because they had less time to conglomerate."


II. Galaxy Clusters Evolved By Dispersion, Not By Accretion

A. Compact Galaxies In Early Universe Pack A Big Punch

http://www.physorg.com/news128692030.html


Again, repeating an old posting of mine:

"Singularity, max density, and D-Infinity, max expansion/ cosmic energy dilution, are the two cosmic stable states. Their in-between is a metastable state, which is an everyday commonsense observation. Likewise is the observation that the denser the compacting goal of material the more energy is required, and vice versa the more thorough the disintegration of material the higher the amount of energy released. It seems that E=mC^2 is a specific case of the cosmic (and universal) process
E=Total[m(1 + D)] where D is the Distance from Big Bang point and the sum is of all spatial values of D from D=0 to D=selected value.

BTW, following Newton (1) gravity is decreased when mass is decreased and (2) acceleration of a body is given by dividing the force acting upon it by its mass. By plain common sense, best scientific approach, the combination of those two 'laws' may explain the accelerating cosmic expansion of galaxy clusters, based on the above E/ m/ D suggested relationship. "

Thus the young "condensed galaxies" are, in fact, what later evolved into galactic clusters.


B. Galaxy Clusters Evolved By Dispersion, Not By Buildup

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...10&#entry337638

1. Genesis

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLB..._Q--?cq=1&p=268

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time to the early hot dense "Big Bang" phase, using general relativity, yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.

At age 10^-35 seconds the Universe begins with a cataclysm that generates space and time, as well as all the matter and energy the Universe will ever hold.


2. How have galaxy clusters evolved

http://herschel.jpl.nasa.gov/galaxies.shtml

"Among the stranger objects that appear to have populated the early universe are active galactic nuclei (AGNs)."

3. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features.../evolution.html

"How did the Universe evolve after the Big Bang?" and "How did galaxies form?" These are big questions, and they are not easy to answer: after all, these things occurred billions of years ago. Galaxy clusters provide one window into the very early Universe. They are the largest gravitationally bound objects in the Universe, and the properties of clusters can be used to place strong limits on cosmological theories of structure formation and evolution.

4. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80331122543.htm

The process of galaxy formation largely is a mystery. Current theory is that large galaxies formed over time from the interaction and merging of smaller galaxies. This process began more than 12 billion years ago, shortly after the Big Bang. Scientists have observed galaxies merging over a large range of distances and time, providing hard evidence to reinforce the theory. However, using current technology, it is difficult to detect this process at the most extreme distances, when galaxy formation was in its infancy.

Scientists believe galaxy clusters form in a similar manner. As galaxies congregate and interact in large, dense regions of space, the cluster grows with time. Witnessing this process first-hand helps scientists confirm their theory and deepen their understanding of the universe. Galaxy clusters can be detected at extreme distances with current technology because they are bright, but they are difficult to find.


C. I suggest: Galaxy Clusters Evolved By Dispersion Of "Condensed Packs",

not by accretion of smaller matter. The dispersion/breakdown of the "condensed packs"
followed the relationship E=Total[m(1 + D)] , i.e. it was accompanied by an overall decrease of mass. Accretion possibly and probably took place, too, in this and in other cosmic evolutions within and between clusters, but the primal GC evolved as D, dispersion, increased accompanied by m decreased.


Suggesting,

Dov Henis

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1

Dark Energy And Matter And The Emperor's New Clothes


A. From "Cosmic heavyweight"

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id...mic_heavyweight

"Astronomers discover the heftiest, most distant galaxy cluster, suggesting evidence for dark energy's existence."

"Dark energy is an unexplained force that accelerates the expansion of the universe. Without this force, Lamer says, nearby clusters should be much more massive than those that are billions of light-years away. Distant clusters, he says, should be less massive because they had less time to conglomerate."


B. Reflection of a commonsensible primitive mind

For a commonsensible primitive mind with a commonsensible universe E=Total[m(1 + D)] concept:

- The emperor does not have any clothes. There is no dark energy, and therefore there is no dark matter.

- The relationship between the physics of "Galaxy Clusters" and the physics of "Within Clusters" is like the relationship between classical physics and quantum physics. Galaxy Clusters are the universe's historical, and current, E-m conversion entities.

- In the standard model of cosmology dark energy currently accounts for 73% of the total mass-energy of the universe. However, bearing in the primitive commonsense mind that mass-energy is a single two-appearances entity, and that the value of E of the universe is constant, something is strange in the 73% clothing of the emperor. In the primitive commonsense mind cosmic energy is constant and there are no clothes on the emperor.


C. So what is the implication of D in the relationship between E and m ?

Ah! This, to the primitive mind, is the crux of the Dark Energy-Matter. The galaxy clusters, the "classical" universe mass units, keep moving at an ever accelerating rate, their motion "fueled" by m reverting to E in the process...and leaves behind it, and fills space, with yet undiscovered traces, a continuously strained matrix that will eventually overcome cosmic expansion and initiate its re-impansion...


Reflecting,

Dov Henis