"galactic X-ray background" produced by hundreds of millions of individualstars

Spaceman wrote:
"BlagooBlanaa" wrote in message
...

so does this mean that non keplerian orbits can now be explained without
dork matter?
hope so


Keplerian orbits can already be explained without dork matter.
It is not needed for such at all.




BlagooBlanaa was asking about non keplerian orbits!

Spit****, Space****, Spaceman, or whatever you call the little
troll has quite the track record and is a registered crank at
crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Space...Awww.crank.net

For a few laughs try the Spaceman [space****] Emulator
http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:XtuPf.807187$x96.432885@attbi_s72...
Spaceman wrote:
"BlagooBlanaa" wrote in message
...

so does this mean that non keplerian orbits can now be explained without
dork matter?
hope so


Keplerian orbits can already be explained without dork matter.
It is not needed for such at all.




BlagooBlanaa was asking about non keplerian orbits!

Oops,
my bad.
Non keplarian orbits can already be explained without dork matter.
and... just for other things..
it (dork matter) is not needed for anything in the universe to be explained.

Spaceman wrote:

Oops,
my bad.
Non keplarian orbits can already be explained without dork matter.
and... just for other things..
it (dork matter) is not needed for anything in the universe to be explained.



I will assume that you are referring to matter that exhibits gravitation
but is not emitting (or absorbing) electromagnetic radiation as far as
we can tell to date.

These mysteries are what science is all about!

Particle Dark Matter: Evidence, Candidates and Constraints
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175

In this review article, we discuss the current status of particle
dark matter, including experimental evidence and theoretical
motivations. We discuss a wide array of candidates for particle
dark matter, but focus on neutralinos in models of supersymmetry
and Kaluza-Klein dark matter in models of universal extra dimensions.
We devote much of our attention to direct and indirect detection
techniques, the constraints placed by these experiments and the
reach of future experimental efforts.

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 16:00:26 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:

Spaceman wrote:

[quoted text muted]
I will assume that you are referring to matter that exhibits
gravitation but is not emitting (or absorbing) electromagnetic
radiation as far as we can tell to date.

These mysteries are what science is all about!

Particle Dark Matter: Evidence, Candidates and Constraints
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175

In this review article, we discuss the current status of particle
dark matter, including experimental evidence and theoretical
motivations. We discuss a wide array of candidates for particle dark
matter, but focus on neutralinos in models of supersymmetry and
Kaluza-Klein dark matter in models of universal extra dimensions. We
devote much of our attention to direct and indirect detection
techniques, the constraints placed by these experiments and the
reach of future experimental efforts.

Personally, I think dark matter is fine; it's just the dark bits between
stars, somewhat a la Oort cloud/Kuypier belt objects/comets/whatnot. They
don't do much, though dodging them during interstellar travel might be an
interesting exercise. (Assuming we ever develop such; the contemporary
hypotheses assume multigenerational ships that would take tens of
thousands of years to voyage, and even my best efforts, which rely on an
impossible engine, would suggest an effective speed of about 0.10 c (i.e.,
voyage time of 80 years to get to Sirius, about 8 lightyears distant), if
one isn't sure of fuel at the destination to refill one's tank. But at
least my impossible engine doesn't require exotic fuels such as antimatter. :-) )

What puzzles me is dark energy. Of course, they're probably still working
on that, too... :-)

--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because everyone wants a really slick-looking 8-sided wheel.

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:24:42 -0800, Brian Tung wrote:

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
Personally, I think dark matter is fine; it's just the dark bits between
stars, somewhat a la Oort cloud/Kuypier belt objects/comets/whatnot.
They don't do much, though dodging them during interstellar travel might
be an interesting exercise.

You don't have to dodge anything; dark matter as it is currently
understood doesn't interact electromagnetically, so you'd go right through
it. It therefore cannot be anything like comets or asteroids or anything
like.

This gets *really* weird, but if I read you correctly you're suggesting a
form of matter (MACHOs or WIMPs, as I understand it) that does not
interact with ordinary fermions but still causes gravitational curvature? :-)

Ow, my brain. Still, let's hope we don't find out the hard way during an
interstellar space cruise, unlikely as those appear to be at the moment.

(Fun notion. c/(100 N/kg) = 34 days. Unless Star Trek magically invented
some sort of null-gravity adaptor there's some interesting logistics
problems here...)

--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because everyone wants a really slick-looking 8-sided wheel.

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
This gets *really* weird, but if I read you correctly you're suggesting a
form of matter (MACHOs or WIMPs, as I understand it) that does not
interact with ordinary fermions but still causes gravitational curvature? :-)

MACHOs are ordinary matter, so they wouldn't qualify; WIMPs would. And
to be precise, I'm not suggesting it at all--I don't have enough of a
physics background to do so. I'm just relaying what others have
suggested.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
(Location of these pages soon to change. Stay tuned for updates.)