|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Galaxy temperature not easy to explain
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. [...] |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Galaxy temperature not easy to explain
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Galaxy temperature not easy to explain
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
#74 Pulsar Nulling turns out easy to explain as a Magnetosphere | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | April 24th 08 09:18 AM |
Physics does not explain why astro bodies spin or rotate which points out the fakeness of Big Bang and General Relativity; the Atom Totality theory however does explain the origins of rotation | a_plutonium | Astronomy Misc | 158 | December 26th 06 06:53 AM |
IEEE SPECTRUM On-Line: Breathing Easy in Space Is Never Easy | Jim Oberg | Space Station | 3 | November 2nd 06 06:09 PM |
Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps | Immortalist | Policy | 52 | June 17th 04 02:02 AM |
3 K? The temperature of what? | Filip | Misc | 2 | November 18th 03 11:25 PM |