Dark Matter query
dlzc
and assume that represents the normal ratio of "lighted and visible
from here" to normal matter that is essentially just not bright enough
to see, what problems does this raise? The distribution of (then)
Dark Energy is essentially at very large scales, and perhaps sparse
near the rim to maximum near the center of the of a spiral galaxy,
presumably.
I mean, we've been assuming that we know what is at the center of a
galaxy, and that any errors there will be minor in extrapolating...
David A. Smith
BURT
Dark matter would have the same comon origin with normal matter at the
Big Bang. Most of the solar system and everything else in the universe
ought to be made primarily of it. But this is not the case.
There is another explanation for the fast orbits of the galactic outer
stars.
Mitch Raemsch
Androcles
"dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:641be286-0bad-4e11...@a10g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Normalize rotation, Smiffy?
Normal ratio, Smiffy?
Normal matter, Smiffy?
1 : perpendicular; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of
tangency
2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or
principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3 : occurring naturally <normal immunity>
4 a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or
development b : free from mental disorder : sane
5 a of a solution : having a concentration of one gram equivalent of solute
per liter b : containing neither basic hydroxyl nor acid hydrogen <normal
silver phosphate> c : not associated <normal molecules> d : having a
straight-chain structure <normal butyl alcohol>
6 of a subgroup : having the property that every coset produced by operating
on the left by a given element is equal to the coset produced by operating
on the right by the same element
7 : relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution
<normal approximation to the binomial distribution>
8 of a matrix : having the property of commutativity under multiplication by
the transpose of the matrix each of whose
elements is a conjugate complex number with respect to the corresponding
element of the given matrix
What if we normalize Smiffy into making some kind of sense?
Mathal
We in this solar system in the spiral galaxy 'Milky Way' are on the
inside of the outer arm called "Orion". The measurement of the radial
velocity of stars in the outer edge of this galaxy led to the
speculation about dark matter as these stars appear to move fast
enough to escape the gravitational force of the galaxy.(Dark energy is
a hypothetical explanation for the apparent acceleration of the
universe about 6 billion years ago.)
Stars nearer the center of this galaxy seem to conform to what we
believe to be true about gravity. As to the mass of the center of our
galaxy the trajectories of stars near to the center are rapid enough
to make fairly accurate estimates of the mass of the black hole or
whatever is there and it is this mass that is used with the mass from
visible light sources to make calculations for expected orbital
velocities.
Whatever is causing the anaomally it doesn't appear to be visible.
Mathal
p.s. Looking at representations of this galaxy, it appears we may be
in the region that is travelling theoretically too fast, but I haven't
found any such speculation on the net.
eric gisse
> What if we normalize the rotation of a spiral galaxy at the outer rim,
> and assume that represents the normal ratio of "lighted and visible
> from here" to normal matter that is essentially just not bright enough
> to see, what problems does this raise?
Nothing? We already presume the matter is not visible.
> The distribution of (then)
> Dark Energy is essentially at very large scales, and perhaps sparse
> near the rim to maximum near the center of the of a spiral galaxy,
> presumably.
Dark energy is already assumed to be the same at large (many Mpc) and small
(~1 Mpc) scales, and this is confirmed by observation.
>
> I mean, we've been assuming that we know what is at the center of a
> galaxy, and that any errors there will be minor in extrapolating...
>
> David A. Smith
How is this relevant?
dlzc
On Mar 23, 11:24 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 6:33 pm,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > What if we normalize the rotation of a spiral
> > galaxy at the outer rim, and assume that
> > represents the normal ratio of "lighted and
> > visible from here" to normal matter that is
> > essentially just not bright enough to see,
> > what problems does this raise? The
> > distribution of (then) Dark Energy is
> > essentially at very large scales, and perhaps
> > sparse near the rim to maximum near the
> > center of the of a spiral galaxy, presumably.
>
> > I mean, we've been assuming that we know
> > what is at the center of a galaxy, and that
> > any errors there will be minor in
> > extrapolating...
>
> We in this solar system in the spiral galaxy
> 'Milky Way' are on the inside of the outer
> arm called "Orion".
So we are in a void of sorts...
> The measurement of the radial velocity of
> stars in the outer edge of this galaxy led
> to the speculation about dark matter as
> these stars appear to move fast enough to
> escape the gravitational force of the
> galaxy.
*With* assumptions that the center of a galaxy had a "reasonable"
distribution of glowing vs. unvisible normal matter, leaving the
entire rest of the galaxy up for grabs.
>(Dark energy is a hypothetical explanation
> for the apparent acceleration of the
> universe about 6 billion years ago.)
Yes, but if a cut is long, you can place one special bandage along the
long axis, not two different bandages. Can Dark Energy alone cover
the necessary territory?
> Stars nearer the center of this galaxy
> seem to conform to what we believe to be
> true about gravity.
Given an artifically applied assumption, yes. Why is that one
"right".
> As to the mass of the center of our galaxy
> the trajectories of stars near to the
> center are rapid enough to make fairly
> accurate estimates of the mass of the black
> hole or whatever is there and it is this
> mass that is used with the mass from
> visible light sources to make calculations
> for expected orbital velocities.
We cannot see "orbit", but we can see velocity. If there were a
collecton of Dark Energy, entirely "repulsive", you'd have high
velocities too.
> Whatever is causing the anaomally it
> doesn't appear to be visible.
Agreed, and *most* of what is in a galaxy, spiral or not, isn't. We
have an artifical relation based on two assumptions, that describe a
"normal mass deficit", when mapping from inside to outside...
> p.s. Looking at representations of this
> galaxy, it appears we may be in the region
> that is travelling theoretically too fast,
> but I haven't found any such speculation
> on the net.
No need to panic the herd... ;>)
David A. Smith
dlzc
On Mar 24, 12:45 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> dlzc wrote:
> > What if we normalize the rotation of a
> > spiral galaxy at the outer rim, and
> > assume that represents the normal ratio
> > of "lighted and visible from here" to
> > normal matter that is essentially just
> > not bright enough to see, what problems
> > does this raise?
>
> Nothing? We already presume the matter is
> not visible.
But the extra matter is *not* normal, and is not based on any
expectations of matter formations based on laboratory results to date.
> > The distribution of (then) Dark Energy
> > is essentially at very large scales, and
> > perhaps sparse near the rim to maximum
> > near the center of the of a spiral galaxy,
> > presumably.
>
> Dark energy is already assumed to be the
> same at large (many Mpc) and small (~1 Mpc)
> scales, and this is confirmed by observation.
By caveat, we have a Dark Matter patch, and a Dark Energy "patch" to
GR. If we infer the amount of normal matter starting from the rim,
the Dark Mater patch is gone, and we have only Dark Energy with an
interesting scale effect.
> > I mean, we've been assuming that we know
> > what is at the center of a galaxy, and
> > that any errors there will be minor in
> > extrapolating...
>
> How is this relevant?
Our assumptions start at a central mass, perhaps because it is "easy",
and arrive at an anomaly in moving outwards. Then on *top* of this,
we need Dark Energy to cover the Universe as a whole. What if it is
*one* "substance", one "effect", and we simply described the problem
incorrectly. Working in from the rim, we need *only* Dark Energy.
I understand you don't see a problem with a two-headed hydra, but I
wonder if it is really two-headed, or if it just has two eyes on
stalks... I guess.
David A. Smith
dlzc
On Mar 23, 11:18 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_w>
wrote:
> "dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:641be286-0bad-4e11...@a10g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > What if we normalize the rotation of a spiral
> > galaxy at the outer rim, and assume that
> > represents the normal ratio of "lighted and
> > visible from here" to normal matter that is
> > essentially just not bright enough to see,
> > what problems does this raise? The
> > distribution of (then) Dark Energy is
> > essentially at very large scales, and perhaps
> > sparse near the rim to maximum near the
> > center of the of a spiral galaxy, presumably.
>
> > I mean, we've been assuming that we know what
> > is at the center of a galaxy, and that any
> > errors there will be minor in extrapolating...
>
> ==================================================
> Normalize rotation, Smiffy?
> Normal ratio, Smiffy?
> Normal matter, Smiffy?
>
> 1 : perpendicular; especially : perpendicular to
> a tangent at a point of tangency
This one below...
> 2 a : according with, constituting, or not
> deviating from a norm, rule, or principle
> b : conforming to a type, standard, or
> regular pattern
And this one...
You don't like Dark Matter either. You comprehend the question. You
know the assumptions made in arriving at a need for Dark Matter in
spiral galaxies. Are those assumptions reasonable?
This "problem" is even a problem for Newtonian gravity in the same
stellar systems. Can you comment seriously on this topic?
David A. Smith
Androcles
Hello Androcles:
On Mar 23, 11:18 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_w>
wrote:
> What if we normalize Smiffy into making
> some kind of sense?
You don't like Dark Matter either. You comprehend the question. You
know the assumptions made in arriving at a need for Dark Matter in
spiral galaxies. Are those assumptions reasonable?
This "problem" is even a problem for Newtonian gravity in the same
stellar systems. Can you comment seriously on this topic?
David A. Smith
================================================
Dork matter is founded on the belief that you can measure the peripheral
speed of the galactic rim using Einstein shift and ignoring Doppler shift,
and then apply Kepler's laws to it. Since you have obtained the wrong
speed, you are compelled to accept dork matter.
This simple distance/time graph applies to galaxies as much as it does to
a machine gun mounted on a carousel.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
Until (or if) you realise the speed of light is source dependent in
Newtonian
physics (photons or corpuscles of light) you'll always come up with absurd
explanations for natural phenomena. You cannot sensibly claim it's problem
in Newtonian physics if you are using non-Newtonian light speed.
The only sensible comment possible is that you need to give up your blind
faith in the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, the Holy Speed of Light and
the Holey Prophet, Rabbi St. Einstein.
Juan R.
Dark matter (DM) is not any new kind of matter but only a fictitious matter distribution
needed if one insists on explain observations using the incomplete dynamics
predicted by a theory as GR [1].
We can obtain the fictitious DM, including its properties, such as anomalous
density profiles. We can also explain observations that GR+DM models
cannot explain [1]:
"first investigations suggest it would solve the acceleration discrepancy
at galactic scales, predicting a positive acceleration scale a_0 below
which anomalous effects are relevant.
Apart from reproducing observed galactic scale phenomena, which cannot be
reproduced by general relativity or any other theory revised in this
Research report, the new post-relativity theory predicts a cluster mass
limit in agreement with observation. At the best knowledge of the current
author, none other approach —including modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND),
tensor vector scalar theory (TeVeS), and phase coupling gravity (PCG)—
gives this novel prediction from first-principles."
We now can do it better, as advanced in
http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/20091005.html
now we can obtain both the value and sign of a_0. The computations shows that
a_0 is very close to cosmological a_H. See the link for the exact value.
This new research result explains what M. Milgrom named the "great mistery".
Dark energy (DE) is different. This is a real energy, but is not 'dark'. The problem is
again found in the limitations of GR.
As also explained in [1] the new theory predicts for the cosmos a deviation
from a geometric theory as GR. The new term T_μν^(EXTRA) in (94) is not
available in GR. This term is nonlinear, but a first computation gives a
cosmological constant of 10^-54, which is very very close to observed value.
This approach invalidates field approaches, which give errors of 10^120 or even
hypotetical superstring approaches with errors of order 10^60.
Then I wrote:
"Further research will show if a more complete computation of T_μν^(EXTRA)
can give a better agreement with observation. Still it is noticeable that
the new post-relativity can naturally close a giant gap has worried
both particle physicists and cosmologists for last decades."
I would advance that new research closes the gap. Actually I can show that
a more complete computation of the nonlinear new term gives 10^-52, which
coincides with the observed value 10^-52. Of course, this still need to be
checked by other experts, but it seems that the problem of dark energy has
been finally solved.
We have a better theory that explain that contains to GR as a special case
and that explain a broad collection of observations where GR fails.
[1] http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
BURT
very beginning at the Big Bang. But it is not in the solar system or
here on Earth.
NO. There is another reason for the fast orbits of stars in the
outskirts of the galaxies.
Mitch Raemsch
Mathal
Dear David,
just one comment.
Mathal > > As to the mass of the center of our galaxy
> > the trajectories of stars near to the
> > center are rapid enough to make fairly
> > accurate estimates of the mass of the black
> > hole or whatever is there and it is this
> > mass that is used with the mass from
> > visible light sources to make calculations
> > for expected orbital velocities.
>
David A.Smith> We cannot see "orbit", but we can see velocity. If
there were a
> collecton of Dark Energy, entirely "repulsive", you'd have high
> velocities too.
We can see "orbit" in sequential photographs taken of stars orbiting
the black hole or whatever it is at the center of our galaxy taken
over a period of greater than a decade. It seems highly unlikely that
all the different orbits could emanate from a dark energy source so
that it mimics so perfectly a black hole.
Mathal
dlzc
On Mar 24, 11:13 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 7:59 am,dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
> > > As to the mass of the center of our galaxy
> > > the trajectories of stars near to the
> > > center are rapid enough to make fairly
> > > accurate estimates of the mass of the black
> > > hole or whatever is there and it is this
> > > mass that is used with the mass from
> > > visible light sources to make calculations
> > > for expected orbital velocities.
>
> > We cannot see "orbit", but we can see
> > velocity. If there were a collecton of
> > Dark Energy, entirely "repulsive", you'd
> > have high velocities too.
...
> just one comment.
>
> We can see "orbit" in sequential photographs
> taken of stars orbiting the black hole or
> whatever it is at the center of our galaxy
> taken over a period of greater than a decade.
> It seems highly unlikely that all the
> different orbits could emanate from a dark
> energy source so that it mimics so perfectly
> a black hole.
I can imagine such an instance. Recall that a "beach ball" can be
constrained to orbit wherever a stream of air ("reverse gravity") will
direct it. Now ask yourself what a "white hole" might look like...
and will it express Dark Energy?
I'm sure there was a reason why "we" picked the center of a galaxy as
a starting point, over picking the rim as a starting point. This is
probably a really good reason. Its OK if you don't know either.
David A. Smith
BURT
If DM is most of the universe it would be most of our solar system.
And this is clearly not the case.
Mitch Raemsch
dlzc
On Mar 25, 11:34 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
> If DM is most of the universe it would
> be most of our solar system. And this
> is clearly not the case.
If there is no "gradient" in any preferential direction, and it truly
was Dark, we'd never know if it was here or not. So it is not
"clearly not the case". I find it abhorent, but it still must be
given its due attention. Proclamations form the navel are worthless.
David A. Smith
BURT
If we can't see its gravity here in the solar system then how is it
going to apply elsewhere If its everywhere in the universe? What you
can not say is that it is divided from normal matter anywhere.
No. There is a better answer to fast orbits. And that is what is
important.
I challenge anyone on this account.
Mitch Raemsch
dlzc
On Mar 25, 3:29 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 12:59 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 11:34 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > If DM is most of the universe it would
> > > be most of our solar system. And this
> > > is clearly not the case.
>
> > If there is no "gradient" in any
> > preferential direction, and it truly
> > was Dark, we'd never know if it was here
> > or not. So it is not "clearly not the
> > case". I find it abhorent, but it still
> > must be given its due attention.
> > Proclamations [from] the navel are
> > worthless.
>
> If we can't see its gravity here in the
> solar system then how is it going to apply
> elsewhere If its everywhere in the universe?
If you dig a hole in the Earth, and jump inside, the matter outside
your "elevation" does not add to your "gravitational attraction".
Refering to the inherent undetectability of it all is the same
argument the aetherists use, and the Le Sage folks, and ...
David A. Smith
BURT
> Dear BURT:
>
> On Mar 25, 3:29 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 12:59 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > On Mar 25, 11:34 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > ...
>
> > > > If DM is most of the universe it would
> > > > be most of our solar system. And this
> > > > is clearly not the case.
>
> > > If there is no "gradient" in any
> > > preferential direction, and it truly
> > > was Dark, we'd never know if it was here
> > > or not. So it is not "clearly not the
> > > case". I find it abhorent, but it still
> > > must be given its due attention.
> > > Proclamations [from] the navel are
> > > worthless.
>
> > If we can't see its gravity here in the
> > solar system then how is it going to apply
> > elsewhere If its everywhere in the universe?
>
> If you dig a hole in the Earth, and jump inside, the matter outside
> your "elevation" does not add to your "gravitational attraction".
So now DM does not need gravity?
Mitch Raemsch
> Refering to the inherent undetectability of it all is the same
> argument the aetherists use, and the Le Sage folks, and ...
>
> David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Androcles
Dear BURT:
David A. Smith
=======================================
...and the Einstein folks use.
You seem to lack any integrity, Smiffy, and an unsurprisingly
short attention span. Can you comment seriously on this topic?
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are two levels of gravity. One is all the small strengths of
particles and the other is their sum of macrogravity felt everywhere
inside the Earth to its surface.
Mitch Raemsch
dlzc
On Mar 25, 3:48 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote:
> "dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
...
> ...and the Einstein folks use.
> You seem to lack any integrity, Smiffy, and
> an unsurprisingly short attention span. Can
> you comment seriously on this topic?
With you? What would be the point? Your opinion has been stated, and
remains unassailable and inviolate in your eyes. I can't stand the
thought of going around with you again on this same ground. I thank
you for your take on "dork matter".
David A. Smith
Androcles
Hello Androcles:
David A. Smith
==================================
So your answer is "No, I, Smiffy, cannot comment seriously on
this topic".
I amend my comment on you seeming to lack integrity, Smiffy.
You lack integrity, Smith, and you prejudicially targeted
"the aetherists" and "the Le Sage folks", making you a fuckin' bigot.