A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 6th 09, 09:18 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,686
Default 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
Ads
  #2  
Old November 6th 09, 09:31 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Androcles[_22_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default 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  
Old November 6th 09, 10:48 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
jacob navia[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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  
Old November 6th 09, 10:53 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 342
Default 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  
Old November 6th 09, 03:28 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
gb[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,501
Default 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  
Old November 6th 09, 03:53 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
gb[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,501
Default 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  
Old November 6th 09, 06:23 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,420
Default 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  
Old November 6th 09, 11:26 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,686
Default 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  
Old November 7th 09, 12:03 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,420
Default 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  
Old November 10th 09, 01:08 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,686
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.