#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 * ********************************************** |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
What If
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
What If
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
What If
"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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
What If
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
What If
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
What If
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
What If
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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
What If
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
What If
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|