Secrets of Dark Matter

No wonder there is a rennaissance of anti-Darwin /
Intelligent Design with this sort of stuff coming from
a scientist. Belief in a big-G of the god/allah variety
seems more rational than this sort of thing.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/high...703204,00.html
Research into dwarf galaxies starts to unlock the deep secrets of dark
matter

· Mysterious substance described for first time
· 1,000-light-year-wide bricks make up universe

Alok Jha, science correspondent
Monday February 6, 2006
The Guardian

....
Cambridge University researchers have creaked open the door to one of the
greatest mysteries in science. For the first time they can describe some
physical properties of "dark matter", the mysterious substance that
outweighs all the stars and galaxies that can be seen in the universe.
Cosmologists know that the stars and planets we can see add up to only 4% of
the mass required to keep the universe in its ordered state. The rest is
made of a combination of unknown particles called dark matter and a source
of energy, which seems to push galaxies apart, called dark energy. Other
than knowing that both these things must exist, scientists have been at a
loss to describe anything about them.

But by studying the motion of dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milky Way, Gerry
Gilmore, the deputy director of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge
University, calculated that dark matter moved at 5.6 miles a second and that
the smallest chunks it could exist in measured 1,000 light years across and
had 30m times the mass of the Sun.

"This is the first time we've determined a property of the dark matter
robustly in a way that we expect will give us some real clues as to what the
real physics of this stuff is," said Professor Gilmore at a briefing in
London. He said the universe appeared to be built out of these invisible
1,000 light-year-wide bricks of dark matter.

"There must be some basic property of the dark matter that limits it in that
way," he said. "It's the basic unit from which bigger things are made up.
Some of these you put stars in and you call it a little galaxy; sometimes
you put several of these together and call it a bigger galaxy. But you never
get anything smaller."

The biggest surprise is that dark matter is not the cold cosmic sludge that
scientists once thought. Prof Gilmore calculated its temperature to be in
the tens of thousands of degrees, although this is not normal heat. "Normal
hot things glow and you can feel the infrared coming off," he said. "The
strange thing about dark matter is that it doesn't give off radiation." This
is because dark matter is not made of electrons and protons, the fundamental
particles that everything else consists of ....

"paul nutteing" wrote in message
...
No wonder there is a rennaissance of anti-Darwin /
Intelligent Design with this sort of stuff coming from
a scientist. Belief in a big-G of the god/allah variety
seems more rational than this sort of thing.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/high...703204,00.html
Research into dwarf galaxies starts to unlock the deep secrets of dark
matter

· Mysterious substance described for first time
· 1,000-light-year-wide bricks make up universe

Alok Jha, science correspondent
Monday February 6, 2006
The Guardian

...
Cambridge University researchers have creaked open the door to one of the
greatest mysteries in science. For the first time they can describe some
physical properties of "dark matter", the mysterious substance that
outweighs all the stars and galaxies that can be seen in the universe.
Cosmologists know that the stars and planets we can see add up to only 4%
of
the mass required to keep the universe in its ordered state. The rest is
made of a combination of unknown particles called dark matter and a source
of energy, which seems to push galaxies apart, called dark energy. Other
than knowing that both these things must exist, scientists have been at a
loss to describe anything about them.

But by studying the motion of dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milky Way, Gerry
Gilmore, the deputy director of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge
University, calculated that dark matter moved at 5.6 miles a second and
that
the smallest chunks it could exist in measured 1,000 light years across
and
had 30m times the mass of the Sun.

"This is the first time we've determined a property of the dark matter
robustly in a way that we expect will give us some real clues as to what
the
real physics of this stuff is," said Professor Gilmore at a briefing in
London. He said the universe appeared to be built out of these invisible
1,000 light-year-wide bricks of dark matter.

"There must be some basic property of the dark matter that limits it in
that
way," he said. "It's the basic unit from which bigger things are made up.
Some of these you put stars in and you call it a little galaxy; sometimes
you put several of these together and call it a bigger galaxy. But you
never
get anything smaller."

The biggest surprise is that dark matter is not the cold cosmic sludge
that
scientists once thought. Prof Gilmore calculated its temperature to be in
the tens of thousands of degrees, although this is not normal heat.
"Normal
hot things glow and you can feel the infrared coming off," he said. "The
strange thing about dark matter is that it doesn't give off radiation."
This
is because dark matter is not made of electrons and protons, the
fundamental
particles that everything else consists of ....

To a layman, the pronouncements of Prof. Gilmore, although no doubt well
intended, are as obscure and unlikely as any religious mantra. 1000 light
year chunks indeed!

My feeling is that dark matter is only there as a "balancing term" to make
observations fit predictions. What is actually the physical nature of dark
matter remains to be established and the whole theory could easily be
superceded as our knowledge advances.

My feeling is that dark matter is only there as a "balancing term" to make
*observations fit predictions*.

Wasn't it Einstein who *predicted* the cosmological constant and then
rejected it (on arguably theological grounds)? Don't these
*observations* vindicate the truth of those first equations...?

What is actually the physical nature of dark
matter remains to be established and the whole theory could easily be
superceded as our knowledge advances

Total agreement there!

"justbeats" wrote in message
oups.com...
My feeling is that dark matter is only there as a "balancing term" to
make
*observations fit predictions*.

Wasn't it Einstein who *predicted* the cosmological constant and then
rejected it (on arguably theological grounds)? Don't these
*observations* vindicate the truth of those first equations...?

What is actually the physical nature of dark
matter remains to be established and the whole theory could easily be
superceded as our knowledge advances

Total agreement there!

Is there any possibility that we are trying to measure the total mass of the
universe in too few dimensions (i.e 4 instead of 10,11, 26 or whatever is in
vogue these days) and that the "dark" matter is just matter that resides in
different dimensions ? (Curled up at sub Planck lengths or whatever....)

Perhaps dark matter is simply the fabric (canvas) of space on which the
universe is painted? (or screen on which it is projected?)

Well, it's as plausible as anything oriel comes up with on one of his
better days. ;-)

I have no problem with Newton's absolute/relative space and time
insofar as they represent a consistent picture of heliocentricity as
he saw it and although the Newtonian astronomical working principles
are incorrect in contrast to the descriptions provided by
Copernicus,Kepler and even Galileo ,every single person here still uses
his description of planetary motions as valid.

It is a thankless task to provide the real explanation for the adoption
of Copernican heliocentricity and,more importantly, its working
principles against the flawed Newtonian conception and the sidereal
working principles that proves now only to be a calendrically driven
convenience for optical astronomers.It is easy to see how an .986 deg/3
min 56 sec axial coordinate was hammered into an orbital displacement
but this is just one of many tamperings that highlight the
errors,misjudgements and misconduct of that era.

Genuine investigators will eventually find themselves bypassing the
20th century excesses and return to Newton's misjudgements in order to
provide an more fluent description of the structure and motions of
planets and solar systems insofar as the major obstacles exist at the
juncture where the solar system is no longer isolated from the effects
of its motion around the galactic axis.

I enjoyed the documentary,even while exactly knowing where the
obstacles exists, because the problems were presented in a manageable
way.I will tell anyone who cares that they cannot,I repeat cannot come
to satisfactory working principles while retaining the original
Newtonian heliocentric outlook in contrast to the correct
Copernican/Keplerian framework.Regardless of what anyone thinks or
says,empiricists retain absolute/relative space or that peculiar
Newtonian quasi-geocentric outlook and I assure them,it is simply not
worth the effort to retain it.People are looking for heroes with real
accomplishements rather than clawing celebrity for its own sake,more
often than not the true scientists are those who present documentaries
of the connection between life and surrounding conditions or the
magnificence of extreme astronomical and terrestial nature without
padding it with speculation.The documentary the other night was the
first sign that a more balanced approach highlights what is substance
and what is not and long may it continue.

[ External conditions are never good for balancing responsibilities
towards concerns for the astronomical heritage and those of everyday
existence but these things are luxuries compared to real pressures of
men who work to feed their kids so I have no reason to complain and
neither does anyone else here. I have come to appreceate that genuine
investigators do engage in the same struggle to surmount the
limitations imposed by 17th century conceptions and have bypass the
exotic 20th century rubbish which will always shout for attension and
the next phase is to present things in a less cluttered and a less
hurried way.]

"Chris.B" wrote in message
oups.com...
Perhaps dark matter is simply the fabric (canvas) of space on which the
universe is painted? (or screen on which it is projected?)

My wierd thoughts as well. It's the "rest" of the universe - just in
dimensions that we can't measure or understand right now. If M-theory
posits 11 dimensions, then surely the mass/energy in the non-classical
dimensions has effect.

Well, it's as plausible as anything oriel comes up with on one of his
better days. ;-)

Nah - **** it. He must be right @-)

Sub:Secrets of Dark Matter

I wish that the subject should address the issue as
SEARCH BEYOND DARK MATTER.
Inadequacy of present day astronomers in not looking at
PLASMA PROCESS in the GALAXY and Electromagnetic Phenomena can
lead to wrong conclusions.

I suggest the readers to look into alternate COSMOLOGY MODELS in
Research 2003(V Nanduri) :
http://www.ociw.edu/ociw/symposia/se...oceedings.html
Research 2003 Papers by Vidyardhi Nanduri
: http://sd.stsci.edu/astrophysical_la...oceedings.html.
Both these papers help beyond Dark Matter
Vidyardhi NANDURI