A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Random thought: Dark Matter & Dark Energy vs. Strong & Weak NuclearForces



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 7th 07, 04:52 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity
Eric Gisse[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Random thought: Dark Matter & Dark Energy vs. Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:16:46 -0800, Daniel Pitts
wrote:
[...]

My thoughts along this idea were more that we might misunderstand
gravity. We might understand its influence on a medium-scale, but what
prevents it from being repulsive a large scales?


....the observation that this is not even remotely close to being
possibly true?


If you think in current terms, according to relativity, a gravity well
curves space and looks something like:


You say "according to relativity" like it is relevant to your spew.

_______ ________
\/

But what if it looks more like:
____ ____
.-^ \/ ^-.


It "looks like" neither. An embedding of the Schwarzschild manifold in
Euclidean space doesn't look like that, and nor does anything else.


This could lead to the effect of Dark Energy, close things fall toward
the well, far things fall away from the well.


No.
  #12  
Old December 7th 07, 05:23 AM posted to sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity
malibu
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 90
Default Random thought: Dark Matter & Dark Energy vs. Strong & WeakNuclear Forces

On Dec 6, 9:52 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:16:46 -0800, Daniel wrote:

[...]

My thoughts along this idea were more that we might misunderstand
gravity. We might understand its influence on a medium-scale, but what
prevents it from being repulsive a large scales?


...the observation that this is not even remotely close to being
possibly true?



If you think in current terms, according to relativity, a gravity well
curves space and looks something like:


You say "according to relativity" like it is relevant to your spew.

_______ ________
\/


But what if it looks more like:
____ ____
.-^ \/ ^-.


It "looks like" neither. An embedding of the Schwarzschild manifold in
Euclidean space doesn't look like that, and nor does anything else.



This could lead to the effect of Dark Energy, close things fall toward
the well, far things fall away from the well.


No.


Goose, you're an idiot.
  #13  
Old December 7th 07, 06:15 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity
Eric Gisse[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Random thought: Dark Matter & Dark Energy vs. Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:23:58 -0800 (PST), malibu
wrote:

On Dec 6, 9:52 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:16:46 -0800, Daniel wrote:

[...]

My thoughts along this idea were more that we might misunderstand
gravity. We might understand its influence on a medium-scale, but what
prevents it from being repulsive a large scales?


...the observation that this is not even remotely close to being
possibly true?



If you think in current terms, according to relativity, a gravity well
curves space and looks something like:


You say "according to relativity" like it is relevant to your spew.

_______ ________
\/


But what if it looks more like:
____ ____
.-^ \/ ^-.


It "looks like" neither. An embedding of the Schwarzschild manifold in
Euclidean space doesn't look like that, and nor does anything else.



This could lead to the effect of Dark Energy, close things fall toward
the well, far things fall away from the well.


No.


Goose, you're an idiot.


At least you had the sense to remove "galaxy model for the atom" from
your signature before calling me an idiot.
  #14  
Old December 7th 07, 12:04 PM posted to sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.physics.particle, sci.physics.relativity
Y.Porat[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 180
Default Random thought: Dark Matter & Dark Energy vs. Strong & WeakNuclear Forces

On Dec 7, 1:16 am, Daniel Pitts
wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:29 am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
A random thought that just entered my mind a few days back was what if
Dark Energy and Dark Matter were really aspects respectively of the Weak
and Strong Nuclear Forces acting out on the cosmic scale? They kind of
act the same. The Dark Matter sort of acts like the Strong Force: holds
the outer edges of a galaxy from falling off, and holds the galaxies
together in clusters, but seems to mysteriously disappear the closer you
get to the centre of a galaxy. And then the Dark Energy sort of acts
like the Weak Force: it is limp-wristed against the Strong at close
distances, but go out far enough and it just dominates the Strong.


We've also heard those theories about what if our Universe were just an
atom within a larger Super-Universe (SuperVerse)? Then if it's merely an
atom (or maybe more like a molecule) of the Superverse, then why not
have the Superverse's version of the nuclear forces acting on it? That
way the galaxies are just the quarks. They form up into clusters, which
are just the atomic nucleii. The clusters come together to form a single
complex molecule, with the intergalactic gas being the electron cloud.


I'm sure it sounds pretty kooky, but has anyone else thought of
correlating the nuclear forces out at the cosmic level?


Yousuf Khan


-----------------
may be you are in the right direction but not deep enough!


dark matter seems to me **much finer and tinyer*
than week forces agents


my candidfate for it is


the 'Circlon'
look fo r the Circon idea


and just remember what old Catto saied:


'no mass ---no real physics '!!


ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------


My thoughts along this idea were more that we might misunderstand
gravity. We might understand its influence on a medium-scale, but what
prevents it from being repulsive a large scales?

If you think in current terms, according to relativity, a gravity well
curves space and looks something like:
_______ ________
\/

But what if it looks more like:
____ ____
.-^ \/ ^-.

This could lead to the effect of Dark Energy, close things fall toward
the well, far things fall away from the well.
--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


--------------
if you will understand the Circlon idea
you might understand why it is less repulsive
in bigger distances:

the Circlon moves naturally
**in closed circles* ie its range is limited !!

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
  #15  
Old December 7th 07, 11:56 PM posted to sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.physics.particle, sci.physics.relativity
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Random thought: Dark Matter & Dark Energy vs. Strong & WeakNuclear Forces

On Dec 7, 2:04 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Dec 7, 1:16 am, Daniel Pitts



wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:29 am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
A random thought that just entered my mind a few days back was what if
Dark Energy and Dark Matter were really aspects respectively of the Weak
and Strong Nuclear Forces acting out on the cosmic scale? They kind of
act the same. The Dark Matter sort of acts like the Strong Force: holds
the outer edges of a galaxy from falling off, and holds the galaxies
together in clusters, but seems to mysteriously disappear the closer you
get to the centre of a galaxy. And then the Dark Energy sort of acts
like the Weak Force: it is limp-wristed against the Strong at close
distances, but go out far enough and it just dominates the Strong.


We've also heard those theories about what if our Universe were just an
atom within a larger Super-Universe (SuperVerse)? Then if it's merely an
atom (or maybe more like a molecule) of the Superverse, then why not
have the Superverse's version of the nuclear forces acting on it? That
way the galaxies are just the quarks. They form up into clusters, which
are just the atomic nucleii. The clusters come together to form a single
complex molecule, with the intergalactic gas being the electron cloud.


I'm sure it sounds pretty kooky, but has anyone else thought of
correlating the nuclear forces out at the cosmic level?


Yousuf Khan


-----------------
may be you are in the right direction but not deep enough!


dark matter seems to me **much finer and tinyer*
than week forces agents


my candidfate for it is


the 'Circlon'
look fo r the Circon idea


and just remember what old Catto saied:


'no mass ---no real physics '!!


ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------


My thoughts along this idea were more that we might misunderstand
gravity. We might understand its influence on a medium-scale, but what
prevents it from being repulsive a large scales?


If you think in current terms, according to relativity, a gravity well
curves space and looks something like:
_______ ________
\/


But what if it looks more like:
____ ____
.-^ \/ ^-.


This could lead to the effect of Dark Energy, close things fall toward
the well, far things fall away from the well.
--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


--------------
if you will understand the Circlon idea
you might understand why it is less repulsive
in bigger distances:

the Circlon moves naturally
**in closed circles* ie its range is limited !!

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------


We will gladly discuss your theory when you present the mathematical
formalism.
  #16  
Old December 8th 07, 09:43 AM posted to sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.physics.particle, sci.physics.relativity
Y.Porat[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 180
Default Random thought: Dark Matter & Dark Energy vs. Strong & WeakNuclear Forces

On Dec 8, 12:56 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Dec 7, 2:04 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:





On Dec 7, 1:16 am, Daniel Pitts


wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:29 am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
A random thought that just entered my mind a few days back was what if
Dark Energy and Dark Matter were really aspects respectively of the Weak
and Strong Nuclear Forces acting out on the cosmic scale? They kind of
act the same. The Dark Matter sort of acts like the Strong Force: holds
the outer edges of a galaxy from falling off, and holds the galaxies
together in clusters, but seems to mysteriously disappear the closer you
get to the centre of a galaxy. And then the Dark Energy sort of acts
like the Weak Force: it is limp-wristed against the Strong at close
distances, but go out far enough and it just dominates the Strong.


We've also heard those theories about what if our Universe were just an
atom within a larger Super-Universe (SuperVerse)? Then if it's merely an
atom (or maybe more like a molecule) of the Superverse, then why not
have the Superverse's version of the nuclear forces acting on it? That
way the galaxies are just the quarks. They form up into clusters, which
are just the atomic nucleii. The clusters come together to form a single
complex molecule, with the intergalactic gas being the electron cloud.


I'm sure it sounds pretty kooky, but has anyone else thought of
correlating the nuclear forces out at the cosmic level?


Yousuf Khan


-----------------
may be you are in the right direction but not deep enough!


dark matter seems to me **much finer and tinyer*
than week forces agents


my candidfate for it is


the 'Circlon'
look fo r the Circon idea


and just remember what old Catto saied:


'no mass ---no real physics '!!


ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------


My thoughts along this idea were more that we might misunderstand
gravity. We might understand its influence on a medium-scale, but what
prevents it from being repulsive a large scales?


If you think in current terms, according to relativity, a gravity well
curves space and looks something like:
_______ ________
\/


But what if it looks more like:
____ ____
.-^ \/ ^-.


This could lead to the effect of Dark Energy, close things fall toward
the well, far things fall away from the well.
--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


--------------
if you will understand the Circlon idea
you might understand why it is less repulsive
in bigger distances:


the Circlon moves naturally
**in closed circles* ie its range is limited !!


ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------


We will gladly discuss your theory when you present the mathematical
formalism.-

---------------
first of all i have to thank God
that you are ready to duscuss with me ... (:-)

2
in my table 2 there is a simple linear eauation
that shwes that the **volume that a light element
or a heavy one occupy practically the same volume

ie
sp = k M
while sp is the specific weight of the Atom
and M is its Atomic weight
later i show that even compounds in which
the only variable is a different Atom
ie light ones or heavy ones--also ocupy the same volume
now sorry that this is a too primitive mathematics foryou but
it is experimental facts with
FAR GOING CONCUSIONS FOPR INLELLIGENT
OPEN MINDED PEOPLE !!

2
one of your big misatkes is to think that
breakthroughsin science
can be done **only mathematically **

may be jsut begines with wrong teachers ...!!

breakthroughs in scince can be done
fisrt of all by PHYSICS THINKING
not by mathematical thinking

3
mymodel was developed by gathering numetic data
about masses of fdifferent Atoms and their isotops
trying to find the common base
or common basic structure of the nuc

i did about a thousand trial and error calculations
forsdt by guessing the base elements base components
that are repeating tyhemselves and are common to all
Atoms and isotiops

if youlike it was
AN ITERATION SYSTEM!
iteratjon is a legitimate mathematical system
used even in computer calcualtions
make a long trial and errod seriesof calculations
in with you have a target that you have to reah
and advance neerer and rearrer to it
by coreactiong your previous huesses by beyyer ones
and see if it brings you closer tothe target
now
if you work on it along YEARS!!
it becomes later easyier because you start tolearn
the **rules of the game **
and find common features to all the nucs
later you correct it by chemical data
nuclear data etc
toget closer and closer to satisfy all of them
and Voila!
at llast
all that ramdom music
strats to sooud like a big conducted symphony!

i wonder if you even in your life will experience such
a huge satisfation
while all those bits and peaces
'suddenly combine all together to one harminical
entity
that is not your knownmathematics
that cannot as is even do waht i did !!
it is a ciombination of some knwledge , data
hrd workd maybe some education qualities as an experience structral
engineer
and some mabe

*some luck
and not least a lot of perceverance

so botom line
ifyouinsist about sme foprmal mathematical system
it is
complicated system of ITTERATION!!

sorry my spell checking i canhardly see
what i typed
and last bjut not least
that model that i developed
gave me a base to find that many paradigma
cannot be right
it does not 'stick' to othjer findings
and only by getting rid of it i could acomplish the
unification of all data

for insatnce one of the most difficult breakthroughs
for accomplishing it was
torealise that
there is no direct connection
betyween the number of eelctrons arould the nuc
and the number of Protons !!!!
iot needs to be a special 'character' to dare
asnd do that conclusion !!!

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------


Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


  #17  
Old December 8th 07, 08:32 PM posted to sci.physics, sci.astro
YKhan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 216
Default Random thought: Dark Matter & Dark Energy vs. Strong & WeakNuclear Forces

On Dec 6, 11:35 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Last time I looked, "universe" means everything. "Observable universe"
is that portion causally connected to us.


Well, if there is a Superverse exerting its nuclear forces on our
Microverse, then there may be more that is causally connected than
merely what we can see.
  #18  
Old December 8th 07, 09:42 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Greg Neill[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 386
Default Random thought: Dark Matter & Dark Energy vs. Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces

"YKhan" wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 11:35 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Last time I looked, "universe" means everything. "Observable

universe"
is that portion causally connected to us.


Well, if there is a Superverse exerting its nuclear forces on our
Microverse, then there may be more that is causally connected than
merely what we can see.


"See" in physics means detectable by its influence.
If something is exerting forces that have measurable
effects, then it is by definition part of the
Universe.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Updated TOE explains Quarks, Magnetism, Dark matter and Dark energy and how they are related [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 April 22nd 06 07:05 AM
Dark matter and dark energy are caused by only gravity and the boyancy effect [email protected] Astronomy Misc 3 April 16th 06 06:40 PM
Dark matter and dark energy are caused by only gravity and the boyancy effect [email protected] Astronomy Misc 1 April 12th 06 08:03 PM
Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Black Holes - New Scientist article Wally Anglesea™ Misc 15 March 14th 06 06:33 PM
3D Map of Universe Bolsters Case for Dark Energy and Dark Matter(Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 October 29th 03 01:06 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.