Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 67 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 90
S
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 90
Black matter - Illusion and Futility

Has someone ever questioned how a dark matter distribution outside of visible disk of galaxy is able to accelerate the stars at the edge?
In order to accelerate the motion of stars, the dark matter should be crowded inside the orbit of that star.....but who cares!?

Has someone ever questioned if this dark matter is moving or stationary relative to the galaxy?
Both alternative are unacceptable .If dark matter halo is stationary then tidal effects should slow the galaxy rotation. If it rotates with the normal matter in the galaxy then it should flatten out into a disk.

Although a lot of scientists argue that gravitational lensing is a proof for existence of dark matter, the opposite is true. Such halo of dark matter should perturb images of other objects in universe so strong that astronomy will became a non science. If 90 % of matter in galaxies or clusters of galaxies is concentrated in halo as dark matter, the deviation of photon by this halo is so strong and effective that all we can observe in Universe will be only false images. It is impossible for a bunch of photons coming from the far away distances to not pass through a halo of dark matter of a galaxy or a cluster of galaxies.

Further on, solely on the 1E0657-56 (bullet cluster) collision interpretation, a ,,common sense mind will rule out the dark matter concept as internally inconsistent and contradictory.
If dark matter separates from normal matter in the process of collision, a simple situation is analysed where 2 galaxies collide under an angle .....

The lump of two small galaxies is even more dreadful for the concept of dark matter. For this case is there a mixing of dark matter coming from initial components? If yes how is this possible, when dark matter from a colliding galaxy does not interact with dark matter from the other ? If not, how dark matter from a initial galaxy take care of ,,its own visible matter and avoid to influence the visible matter coming from another galaxy?

The correlation of dark matter with cosmic background radiation (CMB) will make the subject of the next article and it will be published online in few weeks. In any case, as general idea, it is preposterous to think that a variation of a million part of a degree of temperature can decide the fate of a galaxy or even of the entire Universe as the actual interpretation of CMB says. Any strange idea in a science fiction book seems more realistic than this possibility.

Last but not least, I would like to draw the attention that dark matter concept can be ruled out with other simple facts which should be observed in our Solar System.
If dark matter has the power to drag Sun with 60 km/s (difference between observed and expected), than Oort cloud and Kuiper belt should have disappeared from long time ...
In fact even planets would have been moved to another places in Galaxy .....

The link:

http://elkadot.com/index.php/en/books/astrophysics/black-matter


Best regards,
Sorin Cosofret

.
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 5
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 5
Hi Sorincosofret,

I totaly agree with you on this subject.

The term black matter is actualy ment as "missing matter" when using Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to calculate the behaviour of galaxies.

The most normal conclusion would be that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is incomplete for calculations on galaxy size scale (and bigger).
And not the conclusion there must be matter pressent we cant see. But for some reason scientists of today are a bunch of sheeps trying not to have to many ideas of there own. a bit like journalists these days.


I have some thoughts of my own on this matter. Actually to possible theories which overlap.
One is related to my post in this chat:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=53481
(still needs to get approved todat though)
Here the assumption is that a black hole is en final stage neutron star where the entire object is seen as one big neutron particle with a uniform gravity within. (so same gravity within the core as at the edge of the sphere).

The gravitational curve of such a big particle will be entirely different form standard massive objects. You could even imagine the gravitational plain/indentation/reach will have the same increase as the diffrence in size between the size of an atom with the size of a black hole particle. wich would be X bilion bilion.
If this is the case its easy to explain why the center and edge of the galaxy would move at the same velocity and there is no missing matter within a galaxy.


The second theory that could explain the missing matter is that gravitational forces are cumulatively.
So an object A within a gravitational field of object B will add those gravitational forces to the the gravitational force of object A exerting on object C. and visa versa.
So the center of the galaxy with large number of objects within each others gravitational fields will effect each other so much, that in practice this will result in a huge slightly curved gravitational plain from the center of the galaxy outwards. This will also account for the missing matter.

Unfortunatly i am not that good with high lvl algorithms and dont have a supercomputer at my disposal to prove or disprove this theory;) .

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: PUDDU
Unfortunatly i am not that good with high lvl algorithms and dont have a supercomputer at my disposal to prove or disprove this theory;) .

May I suggest it is not just high level algorithms you lack understanding of, and yet you want to make a new theory of physics ... you are in good company welcome to SAGG smile

Last edited by Orac; 01/04/16 03:07 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 5
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 5
Not a nice comment to start of with Orac, but thanks for welcoming me to SAGG.

Let me reprase "theorie" to "idea". Just want some brainstomring to start here

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Usually the best way to brainstorm is to at least understand what is known. Saves time falling down lots of holes that everyone else has already done especially on something so complex.

So lets see if you are at least ready to start and ask two simple questions

1.) What physics framework are you going to use to try and start understanding the whole universe?

2.) Do you know the problems and dependencies of that framework and where it currently breaks down?

You have given me hope with your rephrasing to ideas ... that is a very good start.

There is no framework we have that doesn't have breakdowns so you usually need to start with one and try and extend it. The current one most go for is GR and try to bind QM into it which is the big ticket item it doesn't cover. The scary alternative is to build your own framework but it is a lot of work and most lack the disciplines to attempt it.

For the record: The usual answer on here is classical physics and it doesn't break down and which point I roll around laughing, as some school teacher did a really good job. So if someone doesn't realize that classical physics doesn't even work with what we already know, how do they really expect to go further.

There is a semi decent version nicely labelled "The never-ending conundrums of classical physics" here if you need a refresher on classical physics breakpoints (http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/08/the-never-ending-conundrums-of-classical-physics/). It leaves out all the QM ones because that would require a book on its own and most layman would never understand the problems presented.

The truth statement here is:
Quote:
Since we know that classical physics is not correct, we might agree that its not a fundamental theory. However, neither is special relativity, which explains neither gravity nor reality at small scales, for which we need, respectively, general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, since these two magnificent accomplishments of modern physics have not yet been reconciled into a unified theory of quantum gravity, neither of them is really fundamental either. Today we have an assortment of models, each of which does remarkably well within its scale of length or energy but can not be applied outside that realm.

That is a tricky staring point for anyone and you need to know it before beginning ... most crackpots don't even try and understand that much.

Last edited by Orac; 01/06/16 06:44 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Orac, that is the nicest explanation of Physics today that I have ever read. Thanks for sharing that.

Amaranth


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Someone said that you could be a member of the Church of England and believe anything you like.

Can we say the same of the scientific community? smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Absolutely and we even encourage it, believe anything you like so long as it is consistent, testable and fits all known data smile

Who are we to say what is right or wrong, we leave that to the religion and society morals.

What isn't allowed is excluding some data that doesn't fit your idea or ignoring a blatant falsification of your idea.

Science has never been about being right, it has always been about being useful while covering all known data, at least when taught properly.

If science used right as a basis how would it be decided, by consensus? Who decides who gets a vote, or is this like democracy every person no matter how little they know gets a vote? The irony is in that situation a single person may actually have the right answer, and be unable to convince the mindless masses smile

A single person can be right and easily change science by following the simple rules. Many Nobel prize winners are proof of that ability for one person to change science against a vast overwhelming consensus.

Einstein speaking on the publication "The One Hundred Authors Against Einstein", said why 100 it would take only one falsification to make me wrong. No-one in science remembers or even cares about the authors who made fools of themselves smile

Last edited by Orac; 01/10/16 08:23 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Einstein speaking on the publication "The One Hundred Authors Against Einstein", said why 100 it would take only one falsification to make me wrong. No-one in science remembers or even cares about the authors who made fools of themselves smile


LOL , I could care less about the 100 authors that knew that
Einstein was wrong ... for me it only took a few minutes looking at the math he used to prop up his theories to make that decision.

and books that contain only words that describe a theory
accompanied by designer math to prop up that theory mean as much ( actually less ) to me as a piece of gum stuck to the bottom of my shoe ( because the gum is real ).

for instance einsteins dictation about the physical speed of light.

Quote:
Absolutely and we even encourage it, believe anything you like so long as it is consistent, testable and fits all known data


the speed of light is known , a photon travels at the speed
of light , a photon has mass , so at first the followers of Einstein claimed that light had no mass in order to pacify
and further prop up einsteins theories ( fits all known data ) a theory is not data , data is collected from observation and experiment not words in a book
or the accompanying designer math in a book.

now it is known that a photon has mass.

but if you write a program to predict the speed of a
photon of light using einsteins math then even light cannot travel at the speed of light.

HE WAS WRONG !!!

Quote:
it would take only one falsification to make me wrong


the victors write history.

BE IT RIGHT OR WRONG !!!

BE IT SCIENTIFIC OR NON SCIENTIFIC !!!

Quote:
Absolutely and we even encourage it, believe anything you like so long as it is consistent, testable and fits all known data


about the testable part ...

test results that have built in Einstein designer math
built into the measuring equipment will always be wrong.

Quote:
Absolutely and we even encourage it, believe anything you like so long as it is consistent, testable, and fits all known data



now about the consistent part ...

a guess or a prediction is not a consistency.

Quote:
Absolutely and we even encourage it, believe anything you like so long as it is consistent, testable and fits all known data


which leaves you with the actual reality of.

Quote:
Absolutely and we even encourage it, believe anything you like.


what I like the most about the classical physics discipline
is that it never has depended on a belief system the way the undisciplined BS physics does , unlike the diverse BS physics the foundation of classical physics is built from solid tried and true reality.

religion is about spirituality and belief and faith and science is not a religion or a belief system or about faith.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
now it is known that a photon has mass.

When was the mass of the electron measured? How was it measured? Who made the measurement?

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Strangely I am backing Paul, the forum and site is getting exactly what it has aspired too.

Last edited by Orac; 01/11/16 12:49 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5