|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter
MOND explains the rotation curves of galaxies extremely well; Dark
Matter explains the same things not so well. Dark Matter explains galactic cluster interactions extremely well; MOND explains the same things not so well. That's the long and short of it. /Dark Fields/ is an attempt to make MOND work better at the cluster level. There is a lot of cajoling needed to make Dark Matter work well within the galactic scale too. So it looks like neither theory works well outside their on size scale. SPACE.com -- Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter "When applied to just galaxies, MOND can predict very well the behavior that astronomers observe. But when MOND is applied to larger structures like clusters of galaxies, it fails. To make MOND work for clusters, it must include more complicated concepts, such as entities called dark fields, which are different from dark matter, but work in a similar way to alter the amount of gravity present." http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ng-matter.html Yousuf Khan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message ... MOND explains the rotation curves of galaxies extremely well; Bwhahahahahahahaha! Does MOND explain why pencils bend in water? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/brokpen.jpg Unmodified Newtonian Dynamics includes Newton's corpuscles of light which obey Newton's laws, not Einstein's. What you need is MORE - modified relativity of Einstein. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter
Yousuf Khan a écrit :
MOND explains the rotation curves of galaxies extremely well; Dark Matter explains the same things not so well. Dark Matter explains galactic cluster interactions extremely well; MOND explains the same things not so well. That's the long and short of it. /Dark Fields/ is an attempt to make MOND work better at the cluster level. There is a lot of cajoling needed to make Dark Matter work well within the galactic scale too. So it looks like neither theory works well outside their on size scale. SPACE.com -- Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter "When applied to just galaxies, MOND can predict very well the behavior that astronomers observe. But when MOND is applied to larger structures like clusters of galaxies, it fails. To make MOND work for clusters, it must include more complicated concepts, such as entities called dark fields, which are different from dark matter, but work in a similar way to alter the amount of gravity present." http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ng-matter.html Yousuf Khan Now, if you look at a an insect climbing up a wall defying gravity, it would be impossible to understand without realizing that for an insect, a set of forces (intermolecular attraction) applies that for a human climber doing the Everest do not apply at all. What about this at all scales? There could be at bigger scales than the galactic scale forces that appear that are completely unknown and unobservable at smaller scales. Galaxy clusters seem to appear at the intersection of galaxy "rivers" that flow around the "skeleton" of the universe. It could be that this "skeleton" produces forces that are unknown to us. Forces that would apply to galaxies, but not within galaxies. And obviously this skeleton would apply at galaxy cluster scale. In bigger scales than those, yet ANOTHER forces would apply. Without end. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter
Yousuf Khan wrote:
MOND explains the rotation curves of galaxies extremely well; Ballmer explains the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom really well too. Dark Matter explains the same things not so well. No. Dark Matter explains galactic cluster interactions extremely well; MOND explains the same things not so well. That's the long and short of it. MOND has extreme difficulties with anything but rotation curves. /Dark Fields/ is an attempt to make MOND work better at the cluster level. There are two ponderous concepts at work here. i) MOND has an entirely arbitrary interpolation function that has no real world constraints on it, and that still isn't good enough. ii) MOND proponents feel that dark matter (and presumably, energy) are unphysical or wrong for some personal reason but still feel that MOND and its' extensions which use increasingly larger amounts of arbitrary sourceless fields is a more intuitive / understandable / correct model. There is a lot of cajoling needed to make Dark Matter work well within the galactic scale too. So it looks like neither theory works well outside their on size scale. Except dark matter works well enough on the galactic scale. What it has difficulties amount to fine tuning issues which just might be related to our ignorance of galactic structures and oversimplified models. SPACE.com -- Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter "When applied to just galaxies, MOND can predict very well the behavior that astronomers observe. But when MOND is applied to larger structures like clusters of galaxies, it fails. To make MOND work for clusters, it must include more complicated concepts, such as entities called dark fields, which are different from dark matter, but work in a similar way to alter the amount of gravity present." *laughs* Oh yes, dark FIELDS. That's entirely more acceptable than dark MATTER. I'm sure that theory will hit the ground /running/. http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ng-matter.html Yousuf Khan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter
I believe dark matter's science has cold technology base of supernova
explosions. No, I am not saying they came from supernova explosions, but one finds the ice skating balerina in contracting or expanding gravitating balls, where energies can build while the contracting ball spins up. Inverted processes are found in the fields of energy in disk sciences. Einstein left the puzzle of rotating disks unsolved in his theory of relativity. It brings anti-gravity studies, and cold alien technologies, even building real gravity fields with electromagnetic spin of balls, one gram reduction of mass for a saucer, meaning it can zig zag and move around like a feather very easily from one end of the sky to the other in fractions of a second. All alien technologies in the end, but even a real holodeck that works outdoors built from it. Totalitarian "alien" technologies that are as much as 5000 years more advanced. If you weigh one gram, you punch someone and have no effect, and your arms and legs move instantly back and forth without inertia. People can fight with unprecedented speed of arm and leg motion and feel no pain. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter
On Nov 6, 3:28*pm, gb wrote:
I believe dark matter's science has cold technology base of supernova explosions. No, I am not saying they came from supernova explosions, but one finds the ice skating balerina in contracting or expanding gravitating balls, where energies can build while the contracting ball spins up. Inverted processes are found in the fields of energy in disk sciences. Einstein left the puzzle of rotating disks unsolved in his theory of relativity. It brings anti-gravity studies, and cold alien technologies, even building real gravity fields with electromagnetic spin of balls, one gram reduction of mass for a saucer, meaning it can zig zag and move around like a feather very easily from one end of the sky to the other in fractions of a second. All alien technologies in the end, but even a real holodeck that works outdoors built from it. Totalitarian "alien" technologies that are as much as 5000 years more advanced. If you weigh one gram, you punch someone and have no effect, and your arms and legs move instantly back and forth without inertia. People can fight with unprecedented speed of arm and leg motion and feel no pain. One gram punch of energy. Keep adding up the gravitational energy. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter
Dear Yousuf Khan:
On Nov 6, 1:18*am, Yousuf Khan wrote: MOND ... Dark Matter ... /Dark Fields/ ... Maybe you have lost sight of the big picture. MOND uses the visible matter and its "geometry" to make rotation curves work, but it does not cover microlensing. Dark Matter suspends any other scientific theory-set, for a substance that can be arbitrarily located to make measurements work, a substance that only "hooks" into this Universe as mass... no other properties. There are a host of proposed particles that are being searched for that are close to Dark Matter, but they will have some 'spainin to do as to how we see what we see in the Universe displayed. Dark Fluid has *no* properties that are substantially improved over Dark Matter. It *must* substantially decay into the definition of Dark Matter in the final analysis. It can have no properties associated with a fluid (say viscosity, or pressure), or it violates what we see. You are sniffing up any skirt that seems to offer an alternative to Dark Matter. And I am telling you, Dark Fluid ain't it. Now what I'd like to propose is, if inertia derives from all the mass in the Universe (ala Mach), and the speed of *this* effect (establishment of inertia) is large-but-finite, what if Dark Matter is simply "echos" of an effect of the event horizons (say) that spent time in any given bit of space? Expansion also looks like everything shrinking in place (due to increasing clock rates). I mean if we are sky-balling... David A. Smith |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter
dlzc wrote:
Dark Fluid has *no* properties that are substantially improved over Dark Matter. It *must* substantially decay into the definition of Dark Matter in the final analysis. It can have no properties associated with a fluid (say viscosity, or pressure), or it violates what we see. Well, this article isn't talking about "Dark Fluid" but "Dark Fields". Different theories, though I don't know what the explanation of Dark Fields are supposed to be yet. The only explanation is that it is an extension of MOND to account for cluster deficiencies. But getting back to Dark Fluid, why do you say it violates what we see? Dark Fluid is supposed to be a complete alternative to MOND, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, so the fact that it "decays" into something similar to Dark Matter is exactly what it was supposed to do at some particular scale. Dark Energy is a repulsive force, Dark Matter an attractive force, both acting on the same medium albeit at different scales. Those would indicate fluidic behaviour. You are sniffing up any skirt that seems to offer an alternative to Dark Matter. And I am telling you, Dark Fluid ain't it. Just presenting the latest news. Now what I'd like to propose is, if inertia derives from all the mass in the Universe (ala Mach), and the speed of *this* effect (establishment of inertia) is large-but-finite, what if Dark Matter is simply "echos" of an effect of the event horizons (say) that spent time in any given bit of space? Expansion also looks like everything shrinking in place (due to increasing clock rates). I mean if we are sky-balling... For that matter, we could even theorize that Dark Matter and Dark Energy is just standard gravity's symmetry breaking as the Universe cools toward absolute zero, turning into two different forces: a super-gravity and an anti-gravity. Yousuf Khan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter
Dear Yousuf Khan:
On Nov 6, 3:26*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote: dlzc wrote: Dark Fluid has *no* properties that are substantially improved over Dark Matter. *It *must* substantially decay into the definition of Dark Matter in the final analysis. *It can have no properties associated with a fluid (say viscosity, or pressure), or it violates what we see. Well, this article isn't talking about "Dark Fluid" but "Dark Fields". Different theories, though I don't know what the explanation of Dark Fields are supposed to be yet. The only explanation is that it is an extension of MOND to account for cluster deficiencies. It doesn't fix microlensing, so it is a patch to a flawed model. But getting back to Dark Fluid, why do you say it violates what we see? Dark Fluid is supposed to be a complete alternative to MOND, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, so the fact that it "decays" into something similar to Dark Matter is exactly what it was supposed to do at some particular scale. Then it is Dark Matter, and no solution. Dark Energy is a repulsive force, Dark Matter an attractive force, both acting on the same medium albeit at different scales. Either that, or Dark Energy is an attractive force at "short" scale, to provide the local anomalies (non-expansion) from global expansion due to the cosmological constant. Those would indicate fluidic behaviour. Behavior that is disallowed by observation. .... Now what I'd like to propose is, if inertia derives from all the mass in the Universe (ala Mach), and the speed of *this* effect (establishment of inertia) is large-but-finite, what if Dark Matter is simply "echos" of an effect of the event horizons (say) that spent time in any given bit of space? *Expansion also looks like everything shrinking in place (due to increasing clock rates). *I mean if we are sky-balling... For that matter, we could even theorize that Dark Matter and Dark Energy is just standard gravity's symmetry breaking as the Universe cools toward absolute zero, turning into two different forces: a super-gravity and an anti-gravity. Dark Matter was present at the time the CMBR quenched, and Dark Energy was too I believe. So it has nothing to do with "being cold", as distinct from "cooling". But since cooling is an effect of expansion... the cart is trying to pull itself. David A. Smith |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter
dlzc wrote:
On Nov 6, 3:26 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote: Well, this article isn't talking about "Dark Fluid" but "Dark Fields". Different theories, though I don't know what the explanation of Dark Fields are supposed to be yet. The only explanation is that it is an extension of MOND to account for cluster deficiencies. It doesn't fix microlensing, so it is a patch to a flawed model. I thought that's why they created it? But getting back to Dark Fluid, why do you say it violates what we see? Dark Fluid is supposed to be a complete alternative to MOND, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, so the fact that it "decays" into something similar to Dark Matter is exactly what it was supposed to do at some particular scale. Then it is Dark Matter, and no solution. Dark Energy is a repulsive force, Dark Matter an attractive force, both acting on the same medium albeit at different scales. Either that, or Dark Energy is an attractive force at "short" scale, to provide the local anomalies (non-expansion) from global expansion due to the cosmological constant. I think that's the entire point of Dark Fluid, it's the same energy acting as an attractive force at shorter scales, but as a repulsive force at greater distances. Also it's been noted before that the acceleration constant in MOND is directly linked to the Dark Energy effect range. Though they don't know quite why that would be. Those would indicate fluidic behaviour. Behavior that is disallowed by observation. What observation is that? Dark Matter was present at the time the CMBR quenched, and Dark Energy was too I believe. So it has nothing to do with "being cold", as distinct from "cooling". But since cooling is an effect of expansion... the cart is trying to pull itself. Maybe that's when gravity started breaking? Yousuf Khan |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dark matter is among the hottest topics of research in astrophysics.Dark matter is considered to be the greatest mystery in science today. Thisgroup, well, accredited scientists say they would never come to newsgroups,but it has wall, like old Moscow | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 7th 08 05:38 AM |
My theory of dark matter starts with: Only with kindness, the topscientific mystery today, dark matter is solved. | gb[_3_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 2nd 08 12:24 AM |
Complete dark matter theory opens door to weight/energy potential(Dark matter is considered to be the top mystery in science today, solved,really.) And more finding on dark matter ebergy science from the 1930's. | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 14th 08 03:03 AM |
Dark matter means ebergy (ebergy known since the 1930's to makeenergy from 'dark matter'). Dark matter is solved for the first time (100pages) | gb[_3_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 5th 08 05:24 PM |