What If

Bert posted:

What if the missing matter 93%(dark matter) in our galaxy is neutrons.
Neutrons decay in an average time of 10 minutes. There is no theory why
they should have this time lapse. There is no theory what caused them to
decay.


Bert, have you ever heard of the "weak" force? That is what makes a
free neutron decay. When a Neutron is tightly-bound in a nucleus, it
sees mostly the strong nuclear force from other nearby nucleons and is
thus stable, but when freed and away from other particles that exert the
strong force, the weak force can work on the quarks inside the neutron,
causing the neutron to decay.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

What if binaries or even multiple star systems,plus Brown Dwarfs can add
a lot to missing matter? I think most stars are binaries,our nearest
star Alpha Centauri is a binary star. Has to be very difficult to see
binaries in all the other galaxies.(yes?) To far to separate.
Now let think about Brown Dwarfs they did not make the cut they don't
have enough mass to ignite nuclear reactions. They can be 40 times more
massive than Jupiter. They could be every where,but you can only see
them if they reflected star light. I could start another what if by
saying what if there is more mass that don't make the grade to become a
star,than stars in the universe. Bert

BV wrote,

I have never understood this problem of
missing mass in the universe. If
someone could explain it, I would be
much obliged.

The 'missing mass' idea derives chiefly from the non-Keplerian (unitary,
or 'frisbee-like') rotation of spiral galaxies. See-
http://www.sciencenet.org/uk/databas...y/p00717c.html

If this site won't come up, just do a web search under 'Missing Mass'.
www.yahoo.com and www.google.com are good sources.

However there are other theories explaining non-Keplerian rotation
without the need for missing mass or 'dark matter', such as this one-
http://mb-soft.com/public/galaxy.html

The question of 'missing mass' directly bears on the eventual fate of
the universe; if there's too little mass, the universe is open-ended,
ever-expanding, and faces an ignominious entropic heat death in the far
future. As an alternative, the CBB model provides a central,
hypermassive Primal Particle with more ('way more) than sufficient mass
to gravitationally close the universe.

oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
snip
The question of 'missing mass' directly bears on the eventual fate of
the universe; if there's too little mass, the universe is open-ended,
ever-expanding, and faces an ignominious entropic heat death in the far
future. As an alternative, the CBB model provides a central,
hypermassive Primal Particle with more ('way more) than sufficient mass
to gravitationally close the universe.
snip

Thanks Bill. I guess what I meant was, if we expect to see 10lbs. of mass in
the and we only find 8lbs, this would not be a big surprise as we can only
see about 14.7 billion light years out. Why can't we just assume the mass is
at outside that magical barrier?

BV.

Hi BV Here we are at one of the outer arms of our galaxy,and if we
added up the mass of the stars to create the gravity to keep us in orbit
(were moving very fast) it is not enough. It would take an additional
93% more gravity (or mass,same difference) to keep us in orbit and not
fly off into space. That goes for all the galaxies.,so it goes for the
universe. Our weighing of the universe is off by 93%,and don't know what
to put on the balance scale. Bert

BV wrote,

...we can only see about 14.7 billion light years out. Why can't we
just assume the
mass is outside that magical barrier?

Well, under the CBB model, the sphere of our visible cosmos is on the
scale of a marble (or grape) embedded in a donut. We observe extreme
uniformity from one side of the sky to the other, suggesting our
'marble' is situated near the donut's periphery. If we were closer in to
the center, we would see a non-uniform gradient from one side of the sky
to the other.
If the standard model is correct, then there is no center,
there was a "one-shot" BB whose spatial location is impossible to
determine, and space is functionally void. The "void" is ever-expanding
at an accelerating rate, carrying all matter inexorably toward entropic
heat death.
The CBB model with its central Primal Particle is deduced
by 'intuitive extrapolation' (EI), which takes up where empirical proof
leaves off. EI deals in probabilities and employs Occams Razor. In this
case, a certain recurring planform is seen throughout nature, at every
level, in every rotating system.. dual hemispheres and a common equator
rotating upon a polar axis. The macro-universe lying outside our "marble
of visibility" is more likely a rotating system than not. As such, it
would more likely display the same planform as all its 'little fractals'
throughout nature, than not.
So EI deduces the probability of perpetually-running,
toroidally-shaped Process, driven by a central, hypermassive BH 'Engine'
powering and sustaining the standing-wave matrix of space itself. This
'Donut' is the most primal form in nature-- the form of the macro
universe and the (ground state) hydrogen atom with its electron shell
and central proton.

oc

David Knisely wrote:

Bert, have you ever heard of the "weak" force? That is what makes a
free neutron decay. When a Neutron is tightly-bound in a nucleus, it
sees mostly the strong nuclear force from other nearby nucleons and is
thus stable, but when freed and away from other particles that exert the
strong force, the weak force can work on the quarks inside the neutron,
causing the neutron to decay.

Is the 'neutronium' in neutron stars thought to decay, or is it bound
by the strong force as if in a giant atomic nucleus? Can quarks 'boil
off' the surface?

--Odysseus

BenignVanilla wrote:

Thanks Bill. I guess what I meant was, if we expect to see 10lbs. of mass in
the and we only find 8lbs, this would not be a big surprise as we can only
see about 14.7 billion light years out. Why can't we just assume the mass is
at outside that magical barrier?

The first observations that caused astronomers to deduce that mass
was 'missing' were of relatively close galaxies whose rate of
rotation can be measured by comparing the red-shift (or red _vs blue)
of one 'side' to the other. Taking their estimated masses -- based on
the number of stars corresponding to their luminosities -- together
with these rates of rotation would imply that they should be
unstable, tending to 'fly apart'. Only if they're much more massive
than they seem can they 'hold together'. So at least some of the
missing mass or 'dark matter' ought to be close enough to see, if
only it were visible.

--Odysseus

What if we are making a big mistake by are comparing a blackhole with a
neutron star? We see neutron stars as being 12 miles in
diameter,and spinning (each has its own rate of spin) Gravity through
its compression force creates a magnetic field that is a trillion times
as powerful of an ordinary star With its great speed of rotation(almost
at "C") it creates a beam of electromagnetic energies,such as x-rays,
radio waves and some gamma rays. All that is in the book,
Now comes my (iffy) thoughts on blackholes. We know blackholes are
created by a super-supernova (3 times the mass of a supernova that
creates neutron stars) The implosion of this super-supernova did not
leave any mass to take up space(no object 10 miles in diameter) What was
left after the super-supernova explosion was a "singularity" ,and they
are truly a hole in space. If this singularity (hole in space) is alone
in space and even with its strong gravity we could not pin point it. We
have to keep reminding ourselves that a singularity has no dimensions in
the physical universe. A singularity all by itself has no event
horizon. The illusion of a singularities horizon comes from the
accretion disk.(makes a ring around the singularity) This is created by
angular motion of the spinning star that is being absorbed. Well to
some up my theory you just have to take away the thought that a
blackhole has a singularity at its core,and say the singularity is all
that there is.(a hole in space) Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Hi BV Here we are at one of the outer arms of our galaxy,and if we
added up the mass of the stars to create the gravity to keep us in orbit
(were moving very fast) it is not enough. It would take an additional
93% more gravity (or mass,same difference) to keep us in orbit and not
fly off into space. That goes for all the galaxies.,so it goes for the
universe. Our weighing of the universe is off by 93%,and don't know what
to put on the balance scale. Bert


Ahhh, so this is not a case of the universe should weigh 10lbs. and we can
only find 8lbs. of goo. We can verify this theory by making local
observations, IE our current location should only be possible with x amount
of mass around us, but we only find 93% of x. And we can further extrapolate
that to the universe. Is that correct?

BV.