could it be possible that trillions of failed stars, all kinds of dwarf stars, and micro black holes could make up all the "missing" matter....or would that not be enough?
<edit> what if we counted dead galaxies too.....if there is such a thing....
The way I heard it, dead star carcasses and such pull together and recombine to make new stars.
There seems to be all sorts of ideas about dark matter/energy or whatever. But the latest thing I read about was when I read Stephen Hawking's book UNIVERSE IN A NUTSHELL. He seemed to think that there must be some hidden gravity lurking about someplace. There is some sort of dark dimension or brane next to this one. It has some surplus gravity or dark stuff. It is probably the weirdest idea I have heard, but since he is a known physicist, I believe him.
In fact, I hope some more knowledgeable person on this board elaborate on this one. Can anyone better describe this dark brane?
There seems to be all sorts of ideas about dark matter/energy or whatever. But the latest thing I read about was when I read Stephen Hawking's book UNIVERSE IN A NUTSHELL. He seemed to think that there must be some hidden gravity lurking about someplace. There is some sort of dark dimension or brane next to this one. It has some surplus gravity or dark stuff. It is probably the weirdest idea I have heard, but since he is a known physicist, I believe him.
In fact, I hope some more knowledgeable person on this board elaborate on this one. Can anyone better describe this dark brane?
QUOTE
dead star carcasses and such pull together and recombine to make new stars.
good one Empress
... absolutely trueand thus the cycle is complete
The concept of unseen matter is a feeble attempt to explain a lack of cosmic understanding
[ as much as 'daemon possession' was an attempt to explain many incomprehensible "sicknesses"]
Unseen matter all comes from Dr E's failure to remain in the realm of reality and all the followers just driveling. eg mathematical division by zero produced "black holes" instead of failure in mathematics..... then came expansion, then came dark energy and dark matter..... all hogwash with no empirical or experimental evidence.
Cosmology was set forward in the right direction by Newton and then set back hundred's of years by Dr E and his crap.
IMO and from math and from experiment.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 22 2008, 02:36 AM)
<nonsensical parts snipped for brevity>
what i meant by failed stars was gas giants, and i know dead stars combine to create new stars......but it doesn't happen overnight, it takes millions of years...so the matter would effect other matter.
it was just a question, not a statement, hence the question marks
also i have read a few of Hawking's books, although i didn't understand all of it (if i did, i would be writing them, and not reading them) so i know about the brane theory, although i couldn't wrap my brain around it.
it was just a question, not a statement, hence the question marks
also i have read a few of Hawking's books, although i didn't understand all of it (if i did, i would be writing them, and not reading them) so i know about the brane theory, although i couldn't wrap my brain around it.
QUOTE (Mind Fodder+Mar 22 2008, 11:49 AM)
also i have read a few of Hawking's books, although i didn't understand all of it (if i did, i would be writing them, and not reading them) so i know about the brane theory, although i couldn't wrap my brain around it.
String/Brane/M Theory is contemplated completely only by a very few. The best more ordinary folks can hope for is some sort of approximate understanding.
It sure has inspired science fiction.
In the hunt for the "missing matter" some are looking to other dimensions and such, but I do not think it is everyone. When I was young, the idea of other dimensions overlapping this one and having some sort of effect on it was purely science fiction, but it seems serious physicists are weighing the idea.
I like it. It intrigues me. Yes, it is hard to wrap one's mind around it.
QUOTE (Mind Fodder+Mar 21 2008, 08:18 PM)
could it be possible that trillions of failed stars, all kinds of dwarf stars, and micro black holes could make up all the "missing" matter....or would that not be enough?
<edit> what if we counted dead galaxies too.....if there is such a thing....
To take your question to the next level:
When did the matter go missing?
(BB time line)
<edit> what if we counted dead galaxies too.....if there is such a thing....
To take your question to the next level:
When did the matter go missing?
(BB time line)
Hi Paul,
Good to bring this discussion back to basics. As I understand it there are 2 issues which may be getting confused here. The first concerns the "missing matter" that would enable the universe to achieve an equilibrium between expansion and contraction. Current observational evidence suggests that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up - so, in this case there is no missing matter.
The second issue concerns the observed behaviour of some galaxies which would suggest that there is some gravitational influence beyond what can be explained by observed visible matter - I suppose , for the present, a search for dark matter to explain this latter phenomenon can be regarded as a valid scientific pursuit.
regards
edward 3
Good to bring this discussion back to basics. As I understand it there are 2 issues which may be getting confused here. The first concerns the "missing matter" that would enable the universe to achieve an equilibrium between expansion and contraction. Current observational evidence suggests that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up - so, in this case there is no missing matter.
The second issue concerns the observed behaviour of some galaxies which would suggest that there is some gravitational influence beyond what can be explained by observed visible matter - I suppose , for the present, a search for dark matter to explain this latter phenomenon can be regarded as a valid scientific pursuit.
regards
edward 3
1: The BB time line always shows an expansion.
2: The expansion to any given size of the universe and an amount of matter at any given time. should be an ratio of the expansion rate.
3: the ratio of matter and size should remain steady. (when adjusted for expansion rate)
For matter to now be missing, there had to be a time, size and expansion rate when it was not missing.
Or one of these three things are now been measured incorrectly.
2: The expansion to any given size of the universe and an amount of matter at any given time. should be an ratio of the expansion rate.
3: the ratio of matter and size should remain steady. (when adjusted for expansion rate)
For matter to now be missing, there had to be a time, size and expansion rate when it was not missing.
Or one of these three things are now been measured incorrectly.
I suggest the use of the word "missing" is causing confusion - beyond our current capability to observe sound better. It is out there and always was , so nothing is actually missing.
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 22 2008, 03:01 PM)
I suggest the use of the word "missing" is causing confusion - beyond our current capability to observe sound better. It is out there and always was , so nothing is actually missing.
Very true it may not be "missing" at all, just not found yet.
Or it may never have been "missing at all and just looks that way due to what may turn out to be a mistake in how much "Should " be there.
Very true it may not be "missing" at all, just not found yet.
Or it may never have been "missing at all and just looks that way due to what may turn out to be a mistake in how much "Should " be there.
Missing matter composed of star-sized obscure bodies:
This explanation is abandoned because one experiment tailored to this disprove it.
The experiment (run for 15 years in Arizona by Vatican's astronomers if memory serves) observed the brightness of many (really many) stars simultaneously in our Milky Way. If a body having the mass of a dead star, or even a brown dwarf, passed between the bright star and us, we'd have seen a small and short increase in luminosity, by the effect called "gravitational microlensing".
And the net result was: the number of lensing events observed was fully compatible with the number of objects we already know. Though we miss about 90% of the total mass and would need 10 times more dark objects than visible ones.
So the missing mass - if any - must consist of chunks too small to create a lensing effect, or maybe too big and then too scarce to have been observed in significant numbers.
This explanation is abandoned because one experiment tailored to this disprove it.
The experiment (run for 15 years in Arizona by Vatican's astronomers if memory serves) observed the brightness of many (really many) stars simultaneously in our Milky Way. If a body having the mass of a dead star, or even a brown dwarf, passed between the bright star and us, we'd have seen a small and short increase in luminosity, by the effect called "gravitational microlensing".
And the net result was: the number of lensing events observed was fully compatible with the number of objects we already know. Though we miss about 90% of the total mass and would need 10 times more dark objects than visible ones.
So the missing mass - if any - must consist of chunks too small to create a lensing effect, or maybe too big and then too scarce to have been observed in significant numbers.
maybe another way for me to ask the question would be....if many of the stars we see in the universe are already "dead" whats to say there isn't trillions of newer objects and their light just hasn't reached us yet. (although that would mean gravity would be in effect before the light reached us in a way that it could be seen)
or possibly there are objects that are just too faint to be seen, but yet have a large impact of other objects...i don't mean black holes, but trillions and trillions of other objects that we just don't have the ability to see with current tech.
or maybe the cumulative effects of gravity over the entire universe behaves differently than previously though?
or possibly there are objects that are just too faint to be seen, but yet have a large impact of other objects...i don't mean black holes, but trillions and trillions of other objects that we just don't have the ability to see with current tech.
or maybe the cumulative effects of gravity over the entire universe behaves differently than previously though?
The answer is just above your question. I could write it, but I can't read it for you, sorry.
QUOTE (Enthalpy+Mar 28 2008, 01:53 AM)
The answer is just above your question. I could write it, but I can't read it for you, sorry.
It's a little bit difficult for a layman who buys into much of what the Electric Universe proponents (me) are saying to hold back from posting here. So you'll all just have to forgive me (or write me off as a numbnuts) when I point out two things.
1. I don't believe you have accounted for the mass of the Plasma in the Universe.
2. It's quite possible your basis for size of the Universe and it's "rate of expansion" is tenuous.
Please don't let my little interruption sidetrack your discussion of gravity waves from another dimension slipping through Branes.
It's a little bit difficult for a layman who buys into much of what the Electric Universe proponents (me) are saying to hold back from posting here. So you'll all just have to forgive me (or write me off as a numbnuts) when I point out two things.
1. I don't believe you have accounted for the mass of the Plasma in the Universe.
2. It's quite possible your basis for size of the Universe and it's "rate of expansion" is tenuous.
Please don't let my little interruption sidetrack your discussion of gravity waves from another dimension slipping through Branes.
Well, there could be another explanation that I've heard of:
The "dark matter" theory was created to explain how matter at the edges of galaxies could be rotating at such high speeds. According to what we know of gravity and acceleration and such they should be going much slower. Dark matter was proposed as a way to accelerate all of this matter that shouldn't be going as fast as it has been observed to be going.
The alternate theory is that our understanding of the equation is wrong. Whereas F=ma is the basic form that we know, there might be an additional part that would affect things on a large scale but not on the scale that we experience on Earth. (the difference would be insignificant.) This would be F=ma/ao (ao being so close to 1 on Earth that it wouldn't matter.) In that case there's no NEED for dark matter to be as plentiful as we've theorized. It might not have to exist at all. We could just have the wrong equation. 
(erm...I think this theory is called Mond. I'm not quite sure. I'm horrible with names. 
The "dark matter" theory was created to explain how matter at the edges of galaxies could be rotating at such high speeds. According to what we know of gravity and acceleration and such they should be going much slower. Dark matter was proposed as a way to accelerate all of this matter that shouldn't be going as fast as it has been observed to be going.
The alternate theory is that our understanding of the equation is wrong. Whereas F=ma is the basic form that we know, there might be an additional part that would affect things on a large scale but not on the scale that we experience on Earth. (the difference would be insignificant.) This would be F=ma/ao (ao being so close to 1 on Earth that it wouldn't matter.) In that case there's no NEED for dark matter to be as plentiful as we've theorized. It might not have to exist at all. We could just have the wrong equation.
(erm...I think this theory is called Mond. I'm not quite sure. I'm horrible with names.
Hi All,
Well said, Nautilus,
I've been reading the Gravity probe-b site and happened across this the other day, which I thought was a good caveat to dark matter/ energy:
"More troubling, in recent decades it has become impossible to match the predictions of big-bang cosmology with observation unless the thin density of matter observed in the universe (i.e. that which can be seen by emission or absorption of light, or inferred from consistency with light-element synthesis) is supplemented by much larger amounts of unseen dark matter and dark energy that cannot consist of anything in the standard model of particle physics. The observations are quite clear: the required exotic dark matter has a density some five times that of standard-model matter, and the required dark energy has an energy density some three times greater still. To date, there is no direct experimental evidence for the existence of either component, and there are strong theoretical reasons (the "cosmological constant problem") to be suspicious of dark energy in particular. There is also no convincing explanation of why two new and as-yet unobserved forms of matter-energy should be so closely matched in energy density (the "coincidence problem"). While the majority of cosmologists seem prepared to accept both dark matter and dark energy as necessary, if inelegant facts of life, others are beginning to interpret them as possible evidence of a breakdown of general relativity at large distances and/or small accelerations."
This coming from people who are trying to measure the very limits of GR.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime3.html
Peace,
Ron
Well said, Nautilus,
I've been reading the Gravity probe-b site and happened across this the other day, which I thought was a good caveat to dark matter/ energy:
"More troubling, in recent decades it has become impossible to match the predictions of big-bang cosmology with observation unless the thin density of matter observed in the universe (i.e. that which can be seen by emission or absorption of light, or inferred from consistency with light-element synthesis) is supplemented by much larger amounts of unseen dark matter and dark energy that cannot consist of anything in the standard model of particle physics. The observations are quite clear: the required exotic dark matter has a density some five times that of standard-model matter, and the required dark energy has an energy density some three times greater still. To date, there is no direct experimental evidence for the existence of either component, and there are strong theoretical reasons (the "cosmological constant problem") to be suspicious of dark energy in particular. There is also no convincing explanation of why two new and as-yet unobserved forms of matter-energy should be so closely matched in energy density (the "coincidence problem"). While the majority of cosmologists seem prepared to accept both dark matter and dark energy as necessary, if inelegant facts of life, others are beginning to interpret them as possible evidence of a breakdown of general relativity at large distances and/or small accelerations."
This coming from people who are trying to measure the very limits of GR.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime3.html
Peace,
Ron
Microgravitational lensing was observed at two galaxies that have collided, and this lensing is centered at places where no visible matter is. I mean, right away from both galaxies.
This is a strong reason in favour of dark matter and against modified gravitation.
As the invisible mass lies farther on the path than the visible mass is, is seems that dark matter interacted little during the collision, while visible mass was scattered - including neutral hydrogen.
Many people take it a an evidence that this dark matter is composed of weakly interacting particles.
This is a strong reason in favour of dark matter and against modified gravitation.
As the invisible mass lies farther on the path than the visible mass is, is seems that dark matter interacted little during the collision, while visible mass was scattered - including neutral hydrogen.
Many people take it a an evidence that this dark matter is composed of weakly interacting particles.
QUOTE (Ron+Apr 2 2008, 05:19 PM)
Hi All,
Well said, Nautilus,
I've been reading the Gravity probe-b site and happened across this the other day, which I thought was a good caveat to dark matter/ energy:
"More troubling, in recent decades it has become impossible to match the predictions of big-bang cosmology with observation unless the thin density of matter observed in the universe (i.e. that which can be seen by emission or absorption of light, or inferred from consistency with light-element synthesis) is supplemented by much larger amounts of unseen dark matter and dark energy that cannot consist of anything in the standard model of particle physics. The observations are quite clear: the required exotic dark matter has a density some five times that of standard-model matter, and the required dark energy has an energy density some three times greater still. To date, there is no direct experimental evidence for the existence of either component, and there are strong theoretical reasons (the "cosmological constant problem") to be suspicious of dark energy in particular. There is also no convincing explanation of why two new and as-yet unobserved forms of matter-energy should be so closely matched in energy density (the "coincidence problem"). While the majority of cosmologists seem prepared to accept both dark matter and dark energy as necessary, if inelegant facts of life, others are beginning to interpret them as possible evidence of a breakdown of general relativity at large distances and/or small accelerations."
This coming from people who are trying to measure the very limits of GR.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime3.html
Peace,
Ron
Have not heard from you for a while, maybe you can show me something I can stand corrected upon. Anyhow, in my opinion, the concepts of dark energy and matter can be explained by matter decay into a synchronizing field of space itself.
Well said, Nautilus,
I've been reading the Gravity probe-b site and happened across this the other day, which I thought was a good caveat to dark matter/ energy:
"More troubling, in recent decades it has become impossible to match the predictions of big-bang cosmology with observation unless the thin density of matter observed in the universe (i.e. that which can be seen by emission or absorption of light, or inferred from consistency with light-element synthesis) is supplemented by much larger amounts of unseen dark matter and dark energy that cannot consist of anything in the standard model of particle physics. The observations are quite clear: the required exotic dark matter has a density some five times that of standard-model matter, and the required dark energy has an energy density some three times greater still. To date, there is no direct experimental evidence for the existence of either component, and there are strong theoretical reasons (the "cosmological constant problem") to be suspicious of dark energy in particular. There is also no convincing explanation of why two new and as-yet unobserved forms of matter-energy should be so closely matched in energy density (the "coincidence problem"). While the majority of cosmologists seem prepared to accept both dark matter and dark energy as necessary, if inelegant facts of life, others are beginning to interpret them as possible evidence of a breakdown of general relativity at large distances and/or small accelerations."
This coming from people who are trying to measure the very limits of GR.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime3.html
Peace,
Ron
Have not heard from you for a while, maybe you can show me something I can stand corrected upon. Anyhow, in my opinion, the concepts of dark energy and matter can be explained by matter decay into a synchronizing field of space itself.
Hello all
I find it hard to believe that there is a constant amount of matter in the universe. Stars convert matter into energy (known fact) so, unless there is a way (must be observable) for new matter to appear, the amount of matter in the universe is decreasing. Decreasing matter reduces the amount of "gravitational binding", over time, within the universe. EM radiation may have some "gravitational binding" but not the same amount as an energy equivalent mass. Point being if there was an equivalent "gravitational binding" the EM radiation could not escape the source.
GR uses a spherical body equation to calculate gravitational attraction. Last time I checked spiral galaxies did not look spherical when looked at up close. When you are far enough away then they turn into point sources (spherical equations work again).
I find it hard to believe that there is a constant amount of matter in the universe. Stars convert matter into energy (known fact) so, unless there is a way (must be observable) for new matter to appear, the amount of matter in the universe is decreasing. Decreasing matter reduces the amount of "gravitational binding", over time, within the universe. EM radiation may have some "gravitational binding" but not the same amount as an energy equivalent mass. Point being if there was an equivalent "gravitational binding" the EM radiation could not escape the source.
GR uses a spherical body equation to calculate gravitational attraction. Last time I checked spiral galaxies did not look spherical when looked at up close. When you are far enough away then they turn into point sources (spherical equations work again).
Hey guys... guess what. not all dead stars form new stars. It matters where they are located and if there is an abundance of material to re-collect on the core.
It also depends on the type of star. If you consider a neutron star or a black hole a "star", then it will never ever form an active star on top.
It also depends on the type of star. If you consider a neutron star or a black hole a "star", then it will never ever form an active star on top.
Can you say how many yellow dwarfs are there n in the universe?If they can accont for missing matter?
Brown dwarfs may explain.
Guys... yes if the only problem with the universe was missing mass, then certainly dim objects (black holes, interstellar clouds, brown dwarfs, even far/obscured stars) would explain it.
That's not the only problem.
The REAL problem is that looking at the rotation of galaxies, the outer stars revolve around the center at the same rate as the inner stars.
According to theory, the outer stars should be orbiting the center slower, and the inner stars should be orbiting faster.
But that's not how it appears--it appears that all the stars are orbiting in a fixed posture, as if somebody printed out a picture of a galaxy and is spinning it around like a pinwheel, instead of individual stars orbiting around at individual speeds.
That's not the only problem.
The REAL problem is that looking at the rotation of galaxies, the outer stars revolve around the center at the same rate as the inner stars.
According to theory, the outer stars should be orbiting the center slower, and the inner stars should be orbiting faster.
But that's not how it appears--it appears that all the stars are orbiting in a fixed posture, as if somebody printed out a picture of a galaxy and is spinning it around like a pinwheel, instead of individual stars orbiting around at individual speeds.
Alokmohan, brown dwarfs are abandoned as a significant missing mass for the reasons I put on the very same page.
Will you repeat why poo or brown dwarfs are rejected?That's only thing I know of. 
Or would you rather read it again? Smaller effort for me, thanks.
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Apr 3 2008, 01:41 PM)
Guys... yes if the only problem with the universe was missing mass, then certainly dim objects (black holes, interstellar clouds, brown dwarfs, even far/obscured stars) would explain it.
That's not the only problem.
The REAL problem is that looking at the rotation of galaxies, the outer stars revolve around the center at the same rate as the inner stars.
According to theory, the outer stars should be orbiting the center slower, and the inner stars should be orbiting faster.
But that's not how it appears--it appears that all the stars are orbiting in a fixed posture, as if somebody printed out a picture of a galaxy and is spinning it around like a pinwheel, instead of individual stars orbiting around at individual speeds.
It is not really a mass distribution that is the problem, it is our lack of imagination on how the puzzle pieces that we observe and the laws of physics that we think we know fit together.
Sometimes I think that there might be someone, aside from there own theory, might actually want to know what is really going on and how everything fits together.
Imagine a particle of existence, before the big bang building up to a critical mass of the essence of that particle that has in it an inherent nature to be unbound, free from bonds. Big bang.....
Now, the action begins, space is formed from the freedom of that particle, but it also has cooled and specks have recombined. The specks still have an inherent nature to become unbound but since the temperatures are lower, vibrations are slower, the nature is slowed but still and always present, slow decay.
The bound particle is the same as the free wave, the bound particle is matter, the free wave is the gravitational wave, space itself. Time and space are absolute and relative because they are wave functions as long as the matter is decaying. Wave, space, synchronization is the process of gravitation and the reason the matter recombined.
Time, space, and gravitational wave synchronization are actions of this process of matter naturally progressing from potential to kinetic energy. From particle to wave. The nature of space is density field dependent and therefore galaxies can move as one plate under the right balance of factors with out extra variables. we just didn't understand the nature of gravity, matter, time, space, velocity, acceleration. Until now......
All the laws of physics apply and the math can clearly be deduced by understanding the nature of decaying wave interaction. The medium of space plays an active and central role and is coming from inside all matter continuously, the one place we forgot to look. Any correspondence please reply to Gravitation@cfl.rr.com since i have very limited time.
That's not the only problem.
The REAL problem is that looking at the rotation of galaxies, the outer stars revolve around the center at the same rate as the inner stars.
According to theory, the outer stars should be orbiting the center slower, and the inner stars should be orbiting faster.
But that's not how it appears--it appears that all the stars are orbiting in a fixed posture, as if somebody printed out a picture of a galaxy and is spinning it around like a pinwheel, instead of individual stars orbiting around at individual speeds.
It is not really a mass distribution that is the problem, it is our lack of imagination on how the puzzle pieces that we observe and the laws of physics that we think we know fit together.
Sometimes I think that there might be someone, aside from there own theory, might actually want to know what is really going on and how everything fits together.
Imagine a particle of existence, before the big bang building up to a critical mass of the essence of that particle that has in it an inherent nature to be unbound, free from bonds. Big bang.....
Now, the action begins, space is formed from the freedom of that particle, but it also has cooled and specks have recombined. The specks still have an inherent nature to become unbound but since the temperatures are lower, vibrations are slower, the nature is slowed but still and always present, slow decay.
The bound particle is the same as the free wave, the bound particle is matter, the free wave is the gravitational wave, space itself. Time and space are absolute and relative because they are wave functions as long as the matter is decaying. Wave, space, synchronization is the process of gravitation and the reason the matter recombined.
Time, space, and gravitational wave synchronization are actions of this process of matter naturally progressing from potential to kinetic energy. From particle to wave. The nature of space is density field dependent and therefore galaxies can move as one plate under the right balance of factors with out extra variables. we just didn't understand the nature of gravity, matter, time, space, velocity, acceleration. Until now......
All the laws of physics apply and the math can clearly be deduced by understanding the nature of decaying wave interaction. The medium of space plays an active and central role and is coming from inside all matter continuously, the one place we forgot to look. Any correspondence please reply to Gravitation@cfl.rr.com since i have very limited time.
Hello All
Compacted matter in Neutron stars and other types of composite stars including the so called black holes from stellar size 3.5 Sun masses to over 10 billion sun masses can explain more than 90% of unseen matter.
What is the nature of the central compact X-ray source in the supernova remnant RCW 103
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9806354
Cosmic degenerate matter: a possible solution to the problem of missing mass
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/18/4/101/
[S14.008] Cosmic Degenerate Matter: Gravitational Condensation of Ultra-Low Mass Bosons
http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR01/APR01/abs/S2390008.html
Degenerate and Nuclear Matter
http://ftp.nada.kth.se/pub/home/asa/Work/B...ins2/node5.html
[S14.008] Cosmic Degenerate Matter: Gravitational Condensation of Ultra-Low Mass Bosons
http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR01/APR01/abs/S2390008.html
Degenerate and Nuclear Matter
http://ftp.nada.kth.se/pub/home/asa/Work/B...ins2/node5.html
The information density of nanotechnology is limited by the properties of molecular matter. Denser forms of matter are believed to exist, such as the degenerate matter in white dwarf stars (with a density up to 106 gm/cm3) and the nuclear matter in neutron stars with a density on the order of 1017 gm/cm3 [1].
The neutron stars
http://nrumiano.free.fr/Estars/neutrons.html
This is one reason why matter is unable to be compacted beyond Neutrons 10^17 Kg/m3) and make the so called black holes. We actually see (or we don't see) black holes made up of Neutrons. When they reach 3.5 solar masses they create an event horizon by preventing light from escaping.
Compacted matter in Neutron stars and other types of composite stars including the so called black holes from stellar size 3.5 Sun masses to over 10 billion sun masses can explain more than 90% of unseen matter.
What is the nature of the central compact X-ray source in the supernova remnant RCW 103
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9806354
Cosmic degenerate matter: a possible solution to the problem of missing mass
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/18/4/101/
QUOTE
Abstract. Spontaneous symmetry breaking of a neutral scalar field coupled to gravity leads directly to ultra-low mass bosons, with a critical temperature far above the temperature of the Universe, for most of its duration. The particles are therefore expected to condense into a degenerate Bose-Einstein gas, providing a potential candidate for nonbaryonic nonluminous matter.
[S14.008] Cosmic Degenerate Matter: Gravitational Condensation of Ultra-Low Mass Bosons
http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR01/APR01/abs/S2390008.html
Degenerate and Nuclear Matter
http://ftp.nada.kth.se/pub/home/asa/Work/B...ins2/node5.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract. Spontaneous symmetry breaking of a neutral scalar field coupled to gravity leads directly to ultra-low mass bosons, with a critical temperature far above the temperature of the Universe, for most of its duration. The particles are therefore expected to condense into a degenerate Bose-Einstein gas, providing a potential candidate for nonbaryonic nonluminous matter. |
[S14.008] Cosmic Degenerate Matter: Gravitational Condensation of Ultra-Low Mass Bosons
http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR01/APR01/abs/S2390008.html
Degenerate and Nuclear Matter
http://ftp.nada.kth.se/pub/home/asa/Work/B...ins2/node5.html
The information density of nanotechnology is limited by the properties of molecular matter. Denser forms of matter are believed to exist, such as the degenerate matter in white dwarf stars (with a density up to 106 gm/cm3) and the nuclear matter in neutron stars with a density on the order of 1017 gm/cm3 [1].
The neutron stars
http://nrumiano.free.fr/Estars/neutrons.html
QUOTE
Under the effect of the gravitational collapse of a core heavier than 1.4 solar masses, the matter is forced into a degenerate state : electrons are unable to remain in their orbits around the nuclei (they would have to traver faster than light in order to obey the Pauli exclusion principle) and they are forced to penetrate the atomic nuclei. So they fuse with protons, and form neutrons.
Pauli's principle, that we've seen before, forbids two neutrons having the same state to stay in the same place . This principle creates a degeneracy pressure fighting against gravity, and so allows the remnant of the star to find an equilibrium state.
Pauli's principle, that we've seen before, forbids two neutrons having the same state to stay in the same place . This principle creates a degeneracy pressure fighting against gravity, and so allows the remnant of the star to find an equilibrium state.
This is one reason why matter is unable to be compacted beyond Neutrons 10^17 Kg/m3) and make the so called black holes. We actually see (or we don't see) black holes made up of Neutrons. When they reach 3.5 solar masses they create an event horizon by preventing light from escaping.
What about the rest 10 percent.
Hello Alokmohan
If you have 90% Unseen
10% seen
That makes 100%
Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,its not as simple as that:
If you have 90% Unseen
10% seen
That makes 100%
Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,its not as simple as that:
Thanks Harry.But why not? 
I swear, you two are each others' sock puppets.
Please elaborate.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 22 2008, 02:36 PM)
The concept of unseen matter is a feeble attempt to explain a lack of cosmic understanding
[ as much as 'daemon possession' was an attempt to explain many incomprehensible "sicknesses"]
Unseen matter all comes from Dr E's failure to remain in the realm of reality and all the followers just driveling. eg mathematical division by zero produced "black holes" instead of failure in mathematics..... then came expansion, then came dark energy and dark matter..... all hogwash with no empirical or experimental evidence.
Cosmology was set forward in the right direction by Newton and then set back hundred's of years by Dr E and his crap.
IMO and from math and from experiment.
Apart from the part where Albie-E's predictions have been verified, in some cases to parts per million.
Aside from the fact that Albie-E's work becomes indistinguishable from Newtons work in all but the most extreme circumstances.
Aside from the fact that the same evidence which points to dark mater also violates Newtonian Dynamics.
Aside from those three minor points (and i'm sure others), an excellent post.
For an idiot.
[ as much as 'daemon possession' was an attempt to explain many incomprehensible "sicknesses"]
Unseen matter all comes from Dr E's failure to remain in the realm of reality and all the followers just driveling. eg mathematical division by zero produced "black holes" instead of failure in mathematics..... then came expansion, then came dark energy and dark matter..... all hogwash with no empirical or experimental evidence.
Cosmology was set forward in the right direction by Newton and then set back hundred's of years by Dr E and his crap.
IMO and from math and from experiment.
Apart from the part where Albie-E's predictions have been verified, in some cases to parts per million.
Aside from the fact that Albie-E's work becomes indistinguishable from Newtons work in all but the most extreme circumstances.
Aside from the fact that the same evidence which points to dark mater also violates Newtonian Dynamics.
Aside from those three minor points (and i'm sure others), an excellent post.
For an idiot.
QUOTE (alokmohan+Apr 8 2008, 12:42 AM)
Please elaborate.
Hmm, you both post a lot of links... that's all I can think of.
Hmm, you both post a lot of links... that's all I can think of.
According to Newton's Second Law of Dynamics, objects on the farthest edges of galaxies should have lower velocities than objects near the center. But observations confirm that galaxies rotate with a uniform velocity. Some astronomers believe the orbital behavior of galaxies can be explained more accurately with Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) — a modified version of Newton's Second Law — than by the rival, but more widely accepted, theory of dark matter. The dark matter theory assumes that a halo of dark matter surrounds each galaxy, providing enough matter (and gravity) that all the stars in a galaxy disc orbit with the same velocity. MOND, however uses a different explanation, and a recent study of eight dwarf galaxies that orbit the Milky Way seems to favor the MOND approach over the dark matter theory.
"MOND was first suggested to account for things that we see in the distant universe,” said Garry Angus, of the University of St Andrews. “This is the first detailed study in which we've been able to test out the theory on something close to home. The MOND calculations and the observations appear to agree amazingly well."
Usually the equation F=ma (force = mass X acceleration) solves your basic acceleration problems. But it doesn't explain the observed rotation of galaxies. MOND suggests that at low values of acceleration, the acceleration of a particle is not linearly proportional to the force. According to Angus, MOND adds a new constant of nature (a0) to physics, besides the speed of light and Planck's constant. Above the constant, accelerations are exactly as predicted by Newton's second law (F=ma). Below it, gravity decays with distance from a mass, rather than distance squared. This constant is so small that it goes unnoticed with the large accelerations that we experience in everyday life. For instance, when we drop a ball the gravity is 100 billion times stronger than a0 and the accelerated motion of the Earth round the Sun is 50 million times stronger. However, when objects are accelerating extremely slowly, as we observe in galaxies or clusters of galaxies, then the constant makes a significant difference to the resulting gravitational forces.
When MOND is applied to nearby dwarf galaxies, one effect is that tidal forces from the Milky Way, which have a negligible effect in classical Newtonian Mechanics, can actually make a big difference. This is particularly significant for the dwarfs orbiting close to our Galaxy.
"In these dwarf galaxies, the internal gravity is very weak compared to the gravity of the Milky Way," said Angus. "MOND suggests that the Milky Way is a bit like a bank that loans out gravity to nearby dwarf galaxies to make them more stable. However, there are conditions on the loan: if the dwarf galaxies start to approach the bank, the loan is gradually reduced or even cancelled and the dwarfs must pay it back. In two galaxies, we've seen what could be signs that they've come too close too quickly and are unable to repay the loan fast enough. This appears to have caused disruption to their equilibrium."
Angus used MOND to calculate the ratio of mass to amount of light emitted by the stars in the dwarf galaxies from the observed random velocities of the stars collected independently. He also calculated the orbital paths of the stars in the dwarf galaxies. In all eight cases, the MOND calculations for the orbits were within predictions. For six of the eight galaxies, the calculations were also a good match to expected values for mass-to-light ratios; however for two galaxies, Sextans and Draco, the ratios were very high, which could well suggest tidal effects. The value for Sextans could also be due to poor quality measurements of the galaxy's luminosity, which Angus said are improving all the time for these ultra dim objects.
"These tidal effects can be tested by updating the 13 year old luminosity of Sextans and making accurate observations of the orbits of Draco and Sextans around the Milky Way. We also need to carry out some detailed simulations to understand the exact mechanisms of the tidal heating," said Angus.
If Newton's gravity holds true, the dark matter needed in the dwarf galaxies has constant density in the center which is contrary to theoretical predictions, which suggest density should rise to the center.
"Even without direct detection, the dark matter theory is difficult to prove or refute and although we may not be able to prove whether MOND is correct, by carrying out these kind of tests we can see if it continues to hold up or if it is definitely ruled out," said Angus.
Universe Today
"MOND was first suggested to account for things that we see in the distant universe,” said Garry Angus, of the University of St Andrews. “This is the first detailed study in which we've been able to test out the theory on something close to home. The MOND calculations and the observations appear to agree amazingly well."
Usually the equation F=ma (force = mass X acceleration) solves your basic acceleration problems. But it doesn't explain the observed rotation of galaxies. MOND suggests that at low values of acceleration, the acceleration of a particle is not linearly proportional to the force. According to Angus, MOND adds a new constant of nature (a0) to physics, besides the speed of light and Planck's constant. Above the constant, accelerations are exactly as predicted by Newton's second law (F=ma). Below it, gravity decays with distance from a mass, rather than distance squared. This constant is so small that it goes unnoticed with the large accelerations that we experience in everyday life. For instance, when we drop a ball the gravity is 100 billion times stronger than a0 and the accelerated motion of the Earth round the Sun is 50 million times stronger. However, when objects are accelerating extremely slowly, as we observe in galaxies or clusters of galaxies, then the constant makes a significant difference to the resulting gravitational forces.
When MOND is applied to nearby dwarf galaxies, one effect is that tidal forces from the Milky Way, which have a negligible effect in classical Newtonian Mechanics, can actually make a big difference. This is particularly significant for the dwarfs orbiting close to our Galaxy.
"In these dwarf galaxies, the internal gravity is very weak compared to the gravity of the Milky Way," said Angus. "MOND suggests that the Milky Way is a bit like a bank that loans out gravity to nearby dwarf galaxies to make them more stable. However, there are conditions on the loan: if the dwarf galaxies start to approach the bank, the loan is gradually reduced or even cancelled and the dwarfs must pay it back. In two galaxies, we've seen what could be signs that they've come too close too quickly and are unable to repay the loan fast enough. This appears to have caused disruption to their equilibrium."
Angus used MOND to calculate the ratio of mass to amount of light emitted by the stars in the dwarf galaxies from the observed random velocities of the stars collected independently. He also calculated the orbital paths of the stars in the dwarf galaxies. In all eight cases, the MOND calculations for the orbits were within predictions. For six of the eight galaxies, the calculations were also a good match to expected values for mass-to-light ratios; however for two galaxies, Sextans and Draco, the ratios were very high, which could well suggest tidal effects. The value for Sextans could also be due to poor quality measurements of the galaxy's luminosity, which Angus said are improving all the time for these ultra dim objects.
"These tidal effects can be tested by updating the 13 year old luminosity of Sextans and making accurate observations of the orbits of Draco and Sextans around the Milky Way. We also need to carry out some detailed simulations to understand the exact mechanisms of the tidal heating," said Angus.
If Newton's gravity holds true, the dark matter needed in the dwarf galaxies has constant density in the center which is contrary to theoretical predictions, which suggest density should rise to the center.
"Even without direct detection, the dark matter theory is difficult to prove or refute and although we may not be able to prove whether MOND is correct, by carrying out these kind of tests we can see if it continues to hold up or if it is definitely ruled out," said Angus.
Universe Today
Hello Alokmohan
You said
MOND is logical.
Compact matter is the key to gravity sink.
Compact matter so called black holes are spread throught th galaxy as stellar black holes and some becoem larger as they approach the centre, where we have a swarm of very large black holes and one huge one being several million sun masses.
=================================
You might find this reading interesting
The universe is not actually expanding in reference to distance and to galaxies.
There are no observations that the universe is expanding.
There are observations of parts contracting and expanding as part of the process of recycling.
If you have any evidence to indicate an expansion or acceleration of the universe and not the parts functioning, please let us have the evidence or observation.
To many papers say that the universe is expanding or accelerating, by adding ad hoc ideas to the evidence to make the model work.
We are in the modern era, so we expect to see the evidence.
Interesting reading
Introduction to Cosmology: Problems of the Big bang Theory
http://open-site.org/Science/Physics...lems_Big_Bang/
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/a...ingers-god.htm
Oct 18, 2004
Fingers of God
The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/a...on-bigbang.htm
You’d never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can’t be fixed.
You said
QUOTE
According to Newton's Second Law of Dynamics, objects on the farthest edges of galaxies should have lower velocities than objects near the center. But observations confirm that galaxies rotate with a uniform velocity. Some astronomers believe the orbital behavior of galaxies can be explained more accurately with Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) — a modified version of Newton's Second Law — than by the rival, but more widely accepted, theory of dark matter. The dark matter theory assumes that a halo of dark matter surrounds each galaxy, providing enough matter (and gravity) that all the stars in a galaxy disc orbit with the same velocity. MOND, however uses a different explanation, and a recent study of eight dwarf galaxies that orbit the Milky Way seems to favor the MOND approach over the dark matter theory.
MOND is logical.
Compact matter is the key to gravity sink.
Compact matter so called black holes are spread throught th galaxy as stellar black holes and some becoem larger as they approach the centre, where we have a swarm of very large black holes and one huge one being several million sun masses.
=================================
You might find this reading interesting
The universe is not actually expanding in reference to distance and to galaxies.
There are no observations that the universe is expanding.
There are observations of parts contracting and expanding as part of the process of recycling.
If you have any evidence to indicate an expansion or acceleration of the universe and not the parts functioning, please let us have the evidence or observation.
To many papers say that the universe is expanding or accelerating, by adding ad hoc ideas to the evidence to make the model work.
We are in the modern era, so we expect to see the evidence.
Interesting reading
Introduction to Cosmology: Problems of the Big bang Theory
http://open-site.org/Science/Physics...lems_Big_Bang/
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/a...ingers-god.htm
Oct 18, 2004
Fingers of God
The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/a...on-bigbang.htm
You’d never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can’t be fixed.
Our India scientist Jayanta Narlikar may help us.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Apr 10 2008, 07:28 PM)
Hello Alokmohan
You said
MOND is logical.
Compact matter is the key to gravity sink.
Compact matter so called black holes are spread throught th galaxy as stellar black holes and some becoem larger as they approach the centre, where we have a swarm of very large black holes and one huge one being several million sun masses.
=================================
You might find this reading interesting
The universe is not actually expanding in reference to distance and to galaxies.
There are no observations that the universe is expanding.
There are observations of parts contracting and expanding as part of the process of recycling.
If you have any evidence to indicate an expansion or acceleration of the universe and not the parts functioning, please let us have the evidence or observation.
To many papers say that the universe is expanding or accelerating, by adding ad hoc ideas to the evidence to make the model work.
We are in the modern era, so we expect to see the evidence.
Interesting reading
Introduction to Cosmology: Problems of the Big bang Theory
http://open-site.org/Science/Physics...lems_Big_Bang/
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/a...ingers-god.htm
Oct 18, 2004
Fingers of God
The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/a...on-bigbang.htm
You’d never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can’t be fixed.
MOND is impotent.
MOND can not account for current observations.
TeVeS is as impotent as MOND.
You said
MOND is logical.
Compact matter is the key to gravity sink.
Compact matter so called black holes are spread throught th galaxy as stellar black holes and some becoem larger as they approach the centre, where we have a swarm of very large black holes and one huge one being several million sun masses.
=================================
You might find this reading interesting
The universe is not actually expanding in reference to distance and to galaxies.
There are no observations that the universe is expanding.
There are observations of parts contracting and expanding as part of the process of recycling.
If you have any evidence to indicate an expansion or acceleration of the universe and not the parts functioning, please let us have the evidence or observation.
To many papers say that the universe is expanding or accelerating, by adding ad hoc ideas to the evidence to make the model work.
We are in the modern era, so we expect to see the evidence.
Interesting reading
Introduction to Cosmology: Problems of the Big bang Theory
http://open-site.org/Science/Physics...lems_Big_Bang/
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/a...ingers-god.htm
Oct 18, 2004
Fingers of God
The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/a...on-bigbang.htm
You’d never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can’t be fixed.
MOND is impotent.
MOND can not account for current observations.
TeVeS is as impotent as MOND.
OK, so from what I've seen, pretty much everyone agrees with 1 thing......everyone else is wrong...
so i will add another theory...the universe might need to be protected as it expands....so i propose that all the missing matter is those peanut packing foam things. problem solved...you can all stop wondering where it comes from....alien peanut packing foam companies. darn litterers
so i will add another theory...the universe might need to be protected as it expands....so i propose that all the missing matter is those peanut packing foam things. problem solved...you can all stop wondering where it comes from....alien peanut packing foam companies. darn litterers
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.