Galaxy temperature not easy to explain

Galaxy temperature not easy to explain
--------------------------------------

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/47183

Apparently the gases in a galaxy would cool
down rapidly. So its current temperature is not
explainable in easy terms. There is no easy way for
a galaxy to retain its heat over cosmological time
because it is too big and too empty to hold onto heat.

If the galaxy is being imaged as a point source and
then its heat is measured, and that is too high,
then there must be something surrounding the galaxy
and emitting heat. It could be 'dark matter',
or it could be the signature of the rubbing action
I posted a while back in point no.7 below:





More speed of light breakage predictions - posted in sci.physics 23-09-2011
----------------------------------------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ght-particles-
neutrinos
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15034414

A little while ago, I posted a very precise claim (claim 1 below)
that speed of light would be measured to be faster at lower altitude
with a time of flight experiment. These researchers are beaming the
neutrinos below the earth's surface to bridge the distance which means
according to my theory the physics of the speed of light at that altitude
is
faster and hence the neutrinos arrive quicker. According to all previous
theories, there are no unique frames of reference where speed of light can
be measured to be quicker. But the theory I got going was predicting in
advance that speed of light is faster and it clearly pointed the finger at
strength of gravity as the unique frame of reference.

That is exactly what the researchers have found.

No ifs or buts, just precise prediction.


There are additional and very precise predictions that follow
on from the CERN experiments and ways of checking.

8. The original experiment is over 732 km which means the
beam tunneled under the earth to bridge the gap. The prediction
is that under stronger gravity, the speed of light would be
measured to be faster. Average heights of mountains and sea
levels being factored in, the maximum strength of gravity is
is a few km below land surface in Italy. But going any further below
DECREASES gravity.

9. So according to 8, if the detector is moved further away,
the beam spends more time in stronger gravity as the beam
dips a few more kilometers into stronger gravity, and the
effect would increase. But there comes a point, when the increase
of effect is minimal because the beam travels through the center of the
earth where there is less gravity and therefore less added effect.
That is very easy experiment to do to prove the effect is strong
in stronger gravitational field but tailors off as gravity
decreases. If that turns out to be true, then we know for sure
gravitational strength is a frame of reference.

This effect cannot be used to send objects back in time.
It requires the same continuous gravitational field to be present
"at both ends of the experiment".
That condition is true between two points on the surface of the earth
when they are near to each other.
However it would not be possible to bridge the
gap between two stars for example with this method
because gravity tails off in the intervening gap.
The same problem happens between opposite ends of the earth because gravity
tails off in the center of the Earth, so the effect is not cumulative
with distance separating transmitter and receiver on Earth.




If this theory survives the test of time. then rest of that theory and more
of my
outlandish claims and its precise predictions are described below for
future
reference:



Space may be a frictionless super solid - posted in sci.physics 04-03-2011
----------------------------------------------------------

Outlandish claims - version 3


I've made an alternative play model of how the universe works.
Its just a play model of time and space, and it works for things stellar
aberration, Michelson Morley, black holes, c.

But its making predictions that are outlandish.
It is making claims I don't understand so I'm throwing
it your way to see if experimental evidence can fit
this model.

Since posting a few days back, I am expanding the claims
by getting rid of space time fabric to make these
weired predictions more consistent by replacing space time
with space made of a frictionless super solid material
and time as just time on its own as we experience it.

Added more refinements
- explain where the wave particle duality comes from
and explain single particle self interference in double slit
- explain where quantum tunneling may come from
- explain an inconsistency about how a photon traveling at c keeps time


1. The theory is claiming c is different at different altitudes.
As far as I know it should not be because there are no unique
frames of reference from where c could be measured to be different.

But As far as I know no one has done a direct time
of flight experiment with say a 1m sealed tube with
mirrors to time light bouncing say 100 times and
measuring if there is any change with the same
apparatus at sea level and at 1km up mountain.

The unique frame of reference is introduced by strength of gravity.
If the experiment proves there is a difference, then the
rest of the theory below are more consequences that follow.

2. This model is claiming normal time and space ceases to exist at
the black hole event horizon. What exists beyond that is a faster
version of time and space which moves so much more quicker than
what happens in normal space and time.
Because of that, the space and time fabric at the event horizon
between the two worlds is compatible. So black holes can travel faster
than c, but where it rubs up against normal space and time
it will create a heck of lot of energy as the space time fabric is
shredded and you will see it as a white object with a different
kind of spectra as seen today with super-illuminal objects.
They would have existed early in the universe as black holes formed
and got flung out in collisions and interactions. They are losing energy
and would not exist nearby today. Also anything nearby
would shred time and space and its wake like a jet stream leaves a wake
would not be a fun place to be near at.

3.The model is claiming normal time and space would be sucked into a black
hole and converted to this new space and time.

This can only be stopped if the black hole and the space time
fabric around it is rotating.

Because space and time fabric is spinning around the black hole,
this is the only place where time and space is stable enough for
matter to form around it. i.e. only around spinning black holes.

Everywhere else black holes that are not spinning
could exist but it hasn't got enough space and time
for it to leave a signature such as gravitational lensing.

But its force may well be felt (what me might end up calling dark
matter.)

4. The next prediction even more difficult to get head around and probably
a very wrong interpretation. What I think it is trying to say is that
there may be no absolute frames of reference for space time fabric
to determine how it is spinning around a black hole. The space time
fabric around the black hole may be spinning at one rate if you could
step outside of it, but the actual rotation between space time and
the black hole is a relative thing and a different thing.
We might end up measuring that as dark matter halo around a galaxy
because what we are actually measuring is the combined effect of the
two rotations.

5. The next prediction is that black holes absorb normal space and time,
and so there is less of it
around as time goes by. May be the early universe had a few black holes
and that would have sucked up almost all space and time at a phenomenal
rate because the stuff inside the black holes moves at speeds much
faster than c and can do that without any hesitation. This would have led
to what we know as the inflationary period.

If inflation really did exist, then as we bang together atoms,
the density in the experiment goes up and it should be possible to see
an inflation type of effect as was present in the early universe
creating raw energy out of thin air just because you reproduced early
universe conditions.

Since we don't see that in any experiment today, it is probably
decisive thing to suggest black holes did absorb most of the available
time and space creating the inflationary effect and we can't reproduce
it today because we are not creating black holes when we bang bits
of matter together in accelerators.


6. The next prediction is is that space and time is still being absorbed
by black holes and that means
there is less of it around as time goes by. Light has to travel further
because there is less space time fabric around. This may be what is
causing the red shift. If the universe is really expanding,
then here on earth
we would be able to detect it in calorimeters. When material is cooled
to near absolute zero, the space inside that apparatus is expanding by
approximately 1 proton diameter every 100 seconds. That should be
detectable as free energy production.
But I don't know of any reports that makes a correction for it.

In other words, there is no free energy production and
the universe is not expanding, but more likely the
space and time fabric is being absorbed by black holes which reduces
overall energy and thus a calorimeter experiment would decisively settle
whether space expansion is the an artifact or a genuine thing
that is creating free energy.

7. Now for another break with tradition - the space time fabric
is replaced with space as a frictionless super solid and time
is left to function as we would normally experience it.

A space time fabric is equivalent to a connected material
that can propagate polarized waves such as light.
Only solids can propagate polarized waves. But frictionless
super solids behave like a gas or a liquid in that they flow
without using energy but they are also connected
like a solid and able to pass polarized waves.
Frictionless super solid materials are nothing new and they exist now.
So if space is a frictionless super solid of a very fine material
that permeates through atoms, predictions 1 to 6 would
add up without violating any of the problems like stellar aberration,
Michelson Morley when measuring speed of light.

Because space is a frictionless super solid, it can be dragged
around by black holes and item 4 described above would be
entirely feasible. We would not be able to measure the
frame dragging except by measuring the difference between
expected orbit and actual orbit around our black hole
at the center of our galaxy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is such a discrepancy and we call it dark matter.
But its probably because the frictionless solid we call space is
spinning with the our black hole and the whole thing is
spinning at a much faster rate than we can see because we
are embedded into the frictionless solid.

Surely then outside of our galaxy there would be a point where
the flow of the frictionless super solid rubs up against
the flow of another black hole neighbor
and we would see something uncomfortable at the interface?

Probably not for two reasons. Firstly the vast cosmic
distances would allow
the two super solid flows to rub each other at a sane rate
that doesn't cause much of an effect.
Secondly the material is a frictionless solid so there is
no way for the material to absorb or release energy and so
nothing will happen.

In the off chance something could happen we would see that
as an unexpected glow of infra-red or some other radiation
coming from nowhere. Indeed that is what we see with the Subaru
deep field when bolometers take measurements between empty
regions of space that have nothing in between them
despite zooming in on the most distance galaxy that can be seen.
May be that infra-red in the bolometers is detecting the
the interface between two rubbing super solids in motion.
A map of the entire sky would then show where the effects
are concentrated and that must be related in some way to
nearby galaxies for the data to make sense.

Nothing can travel faster than c is true so long as it is
made of materials of ordinary matter. When matter traveling, it is
rubbing up against the super solid and how fast the solid
can move apart in a frictionless way to allow the object
to pass through the frictionless media. That creates c and
it is constant everywhere providing the density of the
material is constant. As highlighted in item 1, that is claimed to be
not true if gravity is changing - gravity increases the
density of the super solid, and so light would measure
to be faster near higher gravitational field than if
the same person with same apparatus measured it in a lighter
gravity environment. This would be exact opposite result
of Einstein prediction where there is no unique frame
of reference. And if there was, in a stronger gravitational
field, your apparatus may conceivably measure speed of c
to be slower - not higher.

In a black hole, the frictionless super solid material
that we call space is absorbed
and condensed into another type of space where everything
works quicker. That is why item 2 above is feasible.
The black hole material is so dense it does not
allow the frictionless super solid material of our space
to pass through it. The black hole will just absorb it like a gas
and then pressurize it and push it outward
allowing black holes to travel faster than c by pushing
aside the frictionless super solid material we call space.


As ordinary particles are accelerated, they suffer time dilation
and acquire mass. It is now easy to see where that is all
coming from.

The frictionless super solid limits the speed of travel to c
because that is how fast it can open the links between
the connected material of the frictionless super solid to allow matter
to travel through it. When traveling fast, the density
of the frictionless super solid gets higher and this affects
the ticking of time because all the processes involve movement
and the thicker soup of the frictionless solid gets in the
way of it causing the ticking of time to slow down.

The mass of the object appears to increase because more of the energy
is spent in breaking the bonds that connect the frictionless
super solid, but because the material is frictionless,
that energy must travel with the particle as a wake behind the particle
closing up the bonds that were opened in front of it to allow
it to pass through the frictionless super solid.
The mass of the particle had not increased - merely that more
energy has been attached to the frictionless super solid around
the object. There may be a clear way to detect the difference
between mass gain and creating a bigger wake in the super solid
as the object travels. If it is a bigger wake, then it is possible
for that particle to pass near another particle and affect it
without ever hitting it. But that would be a very difficult experiment
to do because these objects may have to be steered to pass within
sub atomic distances to be able to tell apart the difference.
May be some kind of experiment based on averaging might be able
to get at that information.

An alternative perspective of above paragraph
allows an insight into wave particle duality
and self interference in a double slit experiment.

Particles traveling through the
the frictionless solid have a problem as they become smaller.
As they become smaller the geometric aspects of
breaking the bonds of the frictionless super solid and carrying
the energy in a small compact bundle becomes disproportional ratios.
So more of the energy gets spread out as a wake around the particle.
This wake is able to interact in double slit experiments because
the slit itself is made of atoms, and as their sub atomic particles
wizz around the atoms, they also leave a wake. The wakes from the
stationary atoms and the wakes from the particle passing through
the slit are frictionless but the wakes interfere with each other causing
changes of direction without consuming energy.
So even a single particle will interfere because its wake
is interfering with the
wakes created by the atoms at the edge of the slit.

If wakes can interfere, then within collections of atoms it is now
possible to see how particles
acquire high energies to tunnel. The disturbances in the frictionless
super solid can be passed on, so some particles can acquire more
energy in collisions as the wakes pass energy around
and thus tunnel through energy barriers.

Current theory suggests particles traveling at c does not
have ticking time.
But that is inconsistent with change of direction for example
caused by gravitational lensing. If direction is different
then the clock must be ticking. Using a frictionless super solid
as the medium for light to travel in, time still ticks,
but speed limit is still c, and directions can change.
So everything about light, time dilations and how clocks
are ticking are measured becomes more consistent.

7 email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets .com wrote in
:

Galaxy temperature not easy to explain
--------------------------------------

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/47183

Apparently the gases in a galaxy would cool
down rapidly.

This is wrong.

Photoionization takes care of THAT.

[...]

eric gisse wrote:


Galaxy temperature not easy to explain
--------------------------------------

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/47183

Apparently the gases in a galaxy would cool
down rapidly.

This is wrong.

Photoionization takes care of THAT.


Not enough by a million mile.

7 email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets .com wrote in
:

eric gisse wrote:


Galaxy temperature not easy to explain
--------------------------------------

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/47183

Apparently the gases in a galaxy would cool
down rapidly.

This is wrong.

Photoionization takes care of THAT.


Not enough by a million mile.



You would be fascinated to know that we can measure the CMB using the
behavior of gasses in space.

So yea, photoionization won't let you. "Cooling down" means near **** all
because when the galaxies first formed the universe was still room
temperature.