Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Dark Matter - Rock and Water

4 views
Skip to first unread message

wor...@yandex.ru

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 1:31:36 AM2/19/09
to
Hello!

The rotation curves of spiral galaxies are not only flat but still
oscillating. The example - "Milky Way"! The approximation of the mass
density by oscillating function shows a minimum in the solar
neighborhood. We are in the almost empty space and so can the "Dark
Matter" does not see. It is hidden far away from us - in the galactic
arms. This is reminiscent of the asteroid belt in the solar system or
planetary rings around Saturn and Jupiter. Therefore the dark matter
may be composed of rock (asteroids and planets) and water (comets).

http://home.arcor.de/walter-orlov/hg.ppt

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 8:14:26 AM2/19/09
to
Dear worlov:

<wor...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:e6e69e24-97a3-4c26...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...


>
> The rotation curves of spiral galaxies are not only
> flat but still oscillating. The example - "Milky Way"!
> The approximation of the mass density by
> oscillating function shows a minimum in the solar
> neighborhood. We are in the almost empty space
> and so can the "Dark Matter" does not see.

We cannot see Dark Matter anyway. It cannot interact with light,
and do what it must otherwise do.

> It is hidden far away from us - in the galactic
> arms.

We are in the galactic arms, and some Dark Matter must be near
where we are. Guess again.

> This is reminiscent of the asteroid belt in the
> solar system or planetary rings around Saturn
> and Jupiter. Therefore the dark matter may be
> composed of rock (asteroids and planets) and
> water (comets).

No. Dark Matter cannot be any sort of normal matter.

David A. Smith


wor...@yandex.ru

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 9:13:00 AM2/19/09
to
On 19 Feb., 14:14, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
wrote:

>
> We are in the galactic arms, and some Dark Matter must be near
> where we are.  Guess again.
>

The picture shows otherwise:

http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/messier/Pics/Jpg/mwbarsun.jpg

And here is my approximation:

http://home.arcor.de/walter-orlov/milky-way-density.GIF

Compare these two images.

gb6...@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 12:17:45 PM2/19/09
to

Well the amount of missing mass was equal to our entire galaxy in
the 1930's. This means they knew the mass of individual clouds,
of individual regions, and determined there was more mass missing
everywhere in the galaxy, and concluded that particles cannot account
for the missing mass. The hidden mass is forces. Mass can be built
from three forces found in spiral galaxies and solar systems. I have
built this mass. But everyone stinks in astronomy and speaks their
own asshole. The asshole speaks for them. They don't know shit,
but they know the asshole is right.

gb6...@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 12:29:01 PM2/19/09
to
>
> No.  Dark Matter cannot be any sort of normal matter.

You present knowledge higher than of the average theoretical
astronomer. Make sure you don't place this russian man in
your list, apparently the sharpest scientists in the Soviet Union
too were known to be very sensitive and arrogant in nature, they
were kept in Siberia separated from the public with a double pay,
but they never reached enough human wisdom to oppose the
Stalinist/Leninist dictatorship running all matters of the public.
Don't tell me you have inclinations to 'run all matters of the
public'.
Let's not forget the West is a regime. As a regime it acts on
higher grounds, especially these days in the UK. Make sure
the Russian man will not become your next to place your
big brother palm on. He is not the enemy for not giving the
right answer in the first line. He do not want trouble with the West.

gb6...@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 12:38:42 PM2/19/09
to

Three forces make dark matter, you can create it at home and
measure it.

It is creating mass that is not there, and the experiment shows
that is what is happening.

1: axle force: this axle carries weights on it.
2: centrifugal force: the weight carried on the axle centrifugally
spins out.
3: centripetal force: the weights are pulled inward (artificial
gravity)

You hang two weights like two connected cherries and start spinning
them
at the top in your fingers. They are hanging, and as you spin them
they
rise. You created dark matter.

The centripetal force which is the opposite to the centrifugal force
is that the weights want to drop. The centrifugal force rises them.

The axle force is where you measure that if these three forces are
active
then you get more mass reading at the axle.

The institutional asshole rules anyway not the Russian brain. (I have
Russian
family background, maybe I got my brain from there.)

gb6...@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 12:45:38 PM2/19/09
to

gb6...@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 12:54:41 PM2/19/09
to

dlzc

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 1:09:36 PM2/19/09
to
On Feb 19, 7:13 am, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> On 19 Feb., 14:14, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> > We are in the galactic arms, and some Dark Matter
> > must be near where we are.  Guess again.
>
> The picture shows otherwise:
>
> http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/messier/Pics/Jpg/mwbarsun.jpg

Horse manure. We have instruments dedicated to detecting the Dark
Matter that *must be* passing though us right now (if it is not a
geometric-only effect, but is mobile "stuff"). Every scientist that
accepts Dark Matter (and its limitations) is wrong, and you are right?

Use your head. We are too far from the center of the Milky Way to
have the angular velocity we have, and still be retained by the Milky
Way in a "circular" orbit. Similarly, stars in Andromeda at about our
distance from its center, require Dark Matter to stay in their
orbits. And if Dark Matter is free moving stuff, and it has no
friction with itself or other matter (another requirement), then much
of it *must* be in elliptical-to-highly-elliptical orbits.

David A. Smith

dlzc

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 1:15:24 PM2/19/09
to
On Feb 19, 10:29 am, "gb6...@yahoo.com" <gb6...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > No.  Dark Matter cannot be any sort of normal
> > matter.
>
> You present knowledge higher than of the
> average theoretical astronomer.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DM
http://w0.sao.ru/cats/~satr/cosmo/neutrinos.html
http://zeus.sai.msu.ru/apod/ap070516.html
http://zeus.sai.msu.ru/apod/ap080823.html
http://www.astro.spbu.ru/dogtale/prezentations/White.pdf
(... 7 Megs, slow loading)

You wouldn't know a "theoretical astronomer", much less a Russian
"theoretical astronomer" if they came up and introduced themselves as
a "theoretical astronomer".

Please stay on topic.

David A. Smith

wor...@yandex.ru

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 1:42:25 PM2/19/09
to
On 19 Feb., 19:09, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 7:13 am, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
>
> > On 19 Feb., 14:14, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > We are in the galactic arms, and some Dark Matter
> > > must be near where we are.  Guess again.
>
> > The picture shows otherwise:
>
> >http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/messier/Pics/Jpg/mwbarsun.jpg
>
> Horse manure.  We have instruments dedicated to detecting the Dark
> Matter that *must be* passing though us right now (if it is not a
> geometric-only effect, but is mobile "stuff").  Every scientist that
> accepts Dark Matter (and its limitations) is wrong, and you are right?
>
Why not? I think the researchers are on the wrong way.

wor...@yandex.ru

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 1:51:54 PM2/19/09
to
On 19 Feb., 18:38, "gb6...@yahoo.com" <gb6...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (I have Russian
> family background, maybe I got my brain from there.)

Let us leave aside Russian. I am a long German. It changes nothing in
science or en?

dlzc

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 2:09:37 PM2/19/09
to
Dear wor...:

Please do some research into what Dark Matter must be to be "free
floating stuff", and have all the features that Dark Matter must have.

I *also* think that Dark Matter as they describe / expect is wrong.
However, the way Science works, is you make a model, you make numeric
predictions, then let Nature decide whether your model makes sense.
So let's let them do their job, shall we?

In the meantime, learn something about what Dark Matter can or cannot
be and agree with observation, *then* decide from an informed position
whether you feel they are "on the wrong way". Otherwise, you set
yourself up as another crank, documenting only your misunderstandings
of Dark Matter.

David A. Smith

wor...@yandex.ru

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 2:58:37 PM2/19/09
to
On 19 Feb., 20:09, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> Dear wor...:
>
> On Feb 19, 11:42 am, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
>
> Please do some research into what Dark Matter must be to be "free
> floating stuff", and have all the features that Dark Matter must have.

This is a problem. The planets are just cold. You do not have a sharp
spectrum. They are simply cold ~ 0 ° K.

dlzc

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 4:56:10 PM2/19/09
to
Dear wor...:

On Feb 19, 12:58 pm, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:

Please stop arguing from ignorance. It does not serve you well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4679220.stm
http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=A2B71EFB-ABFA-C6D7-0A728C56892215F8
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/dark_matter_animated_030415-1.html
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec23.html
http://istina.rin.ru/eng/ufo/text/46.html

They cannot be much colder than ~2.7°K. If they are planets / large
bodies, they will be at least slightly warmer. Since they are
structures (in your model), they are not Bose-Einstein condensates, so
they will scatter light just like the matter they are composed of.
Seriously, in Science we challenge our beliefs. Obviously you have
not. "Simply cold" is a weak attempt at a defense, not a challenge of
your own theory.

David A. Smith

wor...@yandex.ru

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 1:54:00 AM2/20/09
to
On 19 Feb., 22:56, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> Dear wor...:
>
> On Feb 19, 12:58 pm, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
>
> > On 19 Feb., 20:09,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Dear wor...:
>
> > > On Feb 19, 11:42 am, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
>
> > > Please do some research into what Dark Matter
> > > must be to be "free floating stuff", and have all
> > > the features that Dark Matter must have.
>
> > This is a problem. The planets are just cold. You
> > do not have a sharp spectrum. They are simply
> > cold ~ 0 ° K.
>
> Please stop arguing from ignorance.  It does not serve you well.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4679220.stmhttp://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=A2B71EFB-ABFA-C6D7-0A728C...http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/dark_matter_animated_030415-1.htmlhttp://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec23.htmlhttp://istina.rin.ru/eng/ufo/text/46.html

>
> They cannot be much colder than ~2.7°K.  If they are planets / large
> bodies, they will be at least slightly warmer.  Since they are
> structures (in your model), they are not Bose-Einstein condensates, so
> they will scatter light just like the matter they are composed of.
> Seriously, in Science we challenge our beliefs.  Obviously you have
> not.  "Simply cold" is a weak attempt at a defense, not a challenge of
> your own theory.
>
> David A. Smith

This is not ignorance, but a conviction. If a planet is not
irradiated, it is not warm. Well, it can be 2.7°K. But his own
radiation disappears into the background radiation. We will do not see
the planet. I admit that my hypothesis is based only on oscillations
of rotation curves.

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 8:24:48 AM2/20/09
to
Dear worlov:

<wor...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:5b0a0138-b9f1-442e...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...


On 19 Feb., 22:56, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:

...


>> They cannot be much colder than ~2.7°K. If they are
>> planets / large bodies, they will be at least slightly
>> warmer. Since they are structures (in your model),
>> they are not Bose-Einstein condensates, so they
>> will scatter light just like the matter they are
>> composed of. Seriously, in Science we challenge
>> our beliefs. Obviously you have not. "Simply cold" is
>> a weak attempt at a defense, not a challenge of
>> your own theory.
>

> This is not ignorance, but a conviction.

It is ignorance, willful ignorance. I have provided several
links now, that indicated why Dark Matter cannot be "cold normal
matter". Yet you below admit that your "conviction" is based on
only matching gravitational effects. Be true at least to
yourself.

> If a planet is not irradiated, it is not warm. Well, it
> can be 2.7°K. But his own radiation disappears into
> the background radiation. We will do not see the
> planet. I admit that my hypothesis is based only on
> oscillations of rotation curves.

We can't see Pluto (only 50K) based on the light from its
primary, can we? We don't detect objects based on them eclipsing
distant stars, do we? Why do you not view your "conviction" as
the obsession it is? Look again at the links provided. And
don't waste any more time "talking" to me.

David A. Smith


wor...@yandex.ru

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 11:29:51 AM2/20/09
to
On 20 Feb., 14:24, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
wrote:

> It is ignorance, willful ignorance.  I have provided several
> links now, that indicated why Dark Matter cannot be "cold normal
> matter".  Yet you below admit that your "conviction" is based on
> only matching gravitational effects.  Be true at least to
> yourself.

It postulates the existence of dark matter as well. I have the same
base.


> ...Look again at the links provided.

Well.

> http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec23.html

The Quotes:
"Or, even smaller, numerous Jupiter-sized planets, or even plain
rocks, would be completely dark outside the illumination of a star.
The problem here is that to make-up the mass of all the dark matter
requires huge numbers of brown dwarfs, and even more Jupiter's or
rocks. We do not find many of these objects nearby, so to presume they
exist in the dark matter halos is unsupported."

The conclusion, however, is wrong. It is assumed that the dark matter
is distributed continuously. But this is not so. We are located in
almost empty space. That's why we do not see these planets and comets.
They are piling up at a distance of about 1-3 kpc.


dlzc

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 12:21:07 PM2/20/09
to
Dear wor...:

On Feb 20, 9:29 am, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
...


> The conclusion, however, is wrong.

So all the scientists, that actually make the observations, and
observe "Dark Matter" scattered through the Universe, "Dark Matter"
require to hold those distant galaxies together, are all wrong?

> It is assumed that the dark matter is distributed
> continuously.

No, it is not so assumed. The distribution is mapped, and is not
continuous, even if it is pervasive.

> But this is not so.

It was your strawman...

> We are located in almost empty space. That's
> why we do not see these planets and comets.
> They are piling up at a distance of about 1-3 kpc.

This does not help the millions of galaxies that require "Dark Matter"
to held them together. And how is it that all this Dark Matter is
"piling up" without "heating up"?

I am done with your obsession.

David A. Smith

wor...@yandex.ru

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 1:48:02 PM2/20/09
to
On 20 Feb., 18:21, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 9:29 am, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> ...
>
> > The conclusion, however, is wrong.
>
> So all the scientists, that actually make the observations, and
> observe "Dark Matter" scattered through the Universe, "Dark Matter"
> require to hold those distant galaxies together, are all wrong?
>

No, this comment refers only to the last sentence: "We do not find


many of these objects nearby, so to presume they
exist in the dark matter halos is unsupported."

> ...And how is it that all this Dark Matter is


> "piling up" without "heating up"?

These objects have no internal energy source. They are small, cold,
1kpc away from us and therefore invisible.

dlzc

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 4:40:13 PM2/20/09
to
Dear wor...:

On Feb 20, 11:48 am, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:


> On 20 Feb., 18:21,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 20, 9:29 am, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > The conclusion, however, is wrong.
>
> > So all the scientists, that actually make the observations,
> > and observe "Dark Matter" scattered through the Universe,
> > "Dark Matter" require to hold those distant galaxies
> > together, are all wrong?
>
> No, this comment refers only to the last sentence: "We
> do not find many of these objects nearby, so to presume
> they exist in the dark matter halos is unsupported."

Do you have a comprehension problem? "Dark Matter" is required to
hold Andromeda (for example) together. "Dark Matter" is required
(some small amount) inward of our solar system to keep us in the Milky
Way.

> > ...And how is it that all this Dark Matter is
> > "piling up" without "heating up"?
>
> These objects have no internal energy source.

"Piling up" implies dissipating kinetic energy, which increases
temperature. Was there some magic "piling up" attractor that is able
to dissipate the excess energy / momentum so they remain undetectable?

> They are small, cold, 1kpc away from us and
> therefore invisible.

And completely inadequate to accomplish the task required, and
completely unable to exist and not block stars periodically, which
would be observed.

You are very funny in your obsession. Please let's record your
behavior for posterity in a newsgroup that is archived for years.
Your choice, your mistakes are obvious, your intentional ignorance is
plain for all to see. Are you *sure* you wish to continue?

I have no doubt there are cold objects in the space both near and far
from our solar system. However, such bodies are fundamentally
incapable of being / serving-as "Dark Matter".

David A. Smith

wor...@yandex.ru

unread,
Feb 21, 2009, 12:42:53 PM2/21/09
to
On 20 Feb., 22:40, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Do you have a comprehension problem?  "Dark Matter" is required to
> hold Andromeda (for example) together.  "Dark Matter" is required
> (some small amount) inward of our solar system to keep us in the Milky
> Way.
>

Conversely, you have an understanding problem. I'm already desperate.
Do you understand real nothing or wilt thou not understand?


> "Piling up" implies dissipating kinetic energy, which increases
> temperature.  Was there some magic "piling up" attractor that is able
> to dissipate the excess energy / momentum so they remain undetectable?
>

These objects are relatively small. They do not melt during collision.
The main portion of the kinetic energy is transferred to kinetic
energy of the fragments after the collision.

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)

unread,
Feb 21, 2009, 2:49:32 PM2/21/09
to
Dear worlov:

<wor...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:e83e9fbb-d1cb-49a0...@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...


On 20 Feb., 22:40, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Do you have a comprehension problem? "Dark Matter"
>> is required to hold Andromeda (for example) together.
>> "Dark Matter" is required (some small amount) inward
>> of our solar system to keep us in the Milky Way.
>
> Conversely, you have an understanding problem.

Apparently not. You want to discuss only the narrow
correspondence you have created, and not the entire body of
evidence that *precludes* your correspondence from having
meaning.

> I'm already desperate.

Clearly.

> Do you understand real nothing or wilt thou not
> understand?

Can you please translate that into a coherent thought?

>> "Piling up" implies dissipating kinetic energy, which
>> increases temperature. Was there some magic
>> "piling up" attractor that is able to dissipate the
>> excess energy / momentum so they remain
>> undetectable?
>
> These objects are relatively small. They do not melt
> during collision.

The Have No Choice. Unless you propose new physics, physics
different than say Shoemaker Levy striking Jupiter... there is
lots of energy produced.

> The main portion of the kinetic energy is transferred
> to kinetic energy of the fragments after the collision.

Right. That kinetic energy is *zero* according to you, since it
neither heats up, nor moves from your magic 1k parsec geocentric
shell. Where di the energy go, if it stopped moving and "piled
up"?

Now how are we supposed to fix the Milky Way and all the other
spiral galaxies, explain the bullet cluster, and the host of
other observations, when you turn Dark Matter into a Ptolemaic
cold matter shell, maintain by a God that seeks to obfuscate the
truth from Man... except for you, His chosen prophet, of
course...

Since you refuse to think, we are done. Goodbye. I will see no
more posts from you, so you can speak freely.

David A. Smith


wor...@yandex.ru

unread,
Feb 22, 2009, 5:15:20 AM2/22/09
to
On 21 Feb., 20:49, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
wrote:

> Since you refuse to think, we are done.  Goodbye.  I will see no


> more posts from you, so you can speak freely.
>
> David A. Smith

Agreed. You have understood me anyway. But you do not want to admit :)

0 new messages