Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #382705 > unrolled thread

dark matter

Started byRichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com>
First post2016-05-03 10:14 -0700
Last post2016-05-11 18:47 -0700
Articles 8 on this page of 48 — 13 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  dark matter RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-03 10:14 -0700
    Re: dark matter Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-03 12:41 -0500
      Re: dark matter "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 23:53 -0700
        Re: dark matter "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 23:54 -0700
        Re: dark matter dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-05-04 07:34 -0700
          Re: dark matter Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-04 09:55 -0700
            Re: dark matter dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-05-04 12:37 -0700
              Re: dark matter Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-04 14:52 -0700
          Re: dark matter "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 10:32 -0700
          Re: dark matter Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-06 10:38 -0500
            Re: dark matter dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-05-06 10:25 -0700
        Re: dark matter Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-06 10:27 -0500
          Re: dark matter "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 10:42 -0700
            Re: dark matter "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 10:58 -0700
            Re: dark matter dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-05-06 11:33 -0700
              Re: dark matter "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 12:51 -0700
                Re: dark matter "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 12:58 -0700
                  Re: dark matter Francis Oldogf <francisoldogf@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 03:11 -0700
                    Re: dark matter Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 03:44 -0700
                      Re: dark matter dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-05-08 11:22 -0700
                        Re: dark matter Francis Oldogf <francisoldogf@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 07:19 -0700
                          Re: dark matter "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 11:40 -0700
      Re: dark matter RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-04 10:54 -0700
        Re: dark matter "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 12:00 -0700
          Re: dark matter dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-05-04 12:40 -0700
        Re: dark matter dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-05-04 12:47 -0700
        Re: dark matter Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-09 11:16 -0500
          Re: dark matter "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 11:52 -0700
          Re: dark matter RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-10 11:36 -0700
            Re: dark matter Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-10 12:11 -0700
    Re: dark matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 12:57 -0500
    Re: dark matter dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-05-03 12:17 -0700
      Re: dark matter Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-03 17:58 -0500
        Re: dark matter dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-05-03 17:03 -0700
    Re: dark matter Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 17:37 -0700
      Re: dark matter dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-05-03 17:46 -0700
        Re: dark matter Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 13:20 -0700
    Re: dark matter The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-03 20:46 -0700
    Re: dark matter dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-05-04 07:39 -0700
      Re: dark matter "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 10:36 -0700
    Re: dark matter Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 13:26 -0700
    Re: dark matter Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 12:57 -0700
    Re: dark matter alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-10 12:38 -0700
      Re: dark matter Francis Oldogf <francisoldogf@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 03:54 -0700
        Re: dark matter nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-05-14 08:05 -0700
    dark matter David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-11 06:30 -0700
      Re: dark matter The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-11 12:41 -0700
        Re: dark matter The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-11 18:47 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#382788

FromCarl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com>
Date2016-05-04 13:26 -0700
Message-ID<b125ce9a-07d0-4d0d-9705-9766db47eda5@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#382705
"OK, we don't know what this 'dark matter' stuff is, 
and there's a worldwide race to detect it.  My question 
is, what DO we know about it?  Or, what are the working assumptions?" 


_____________________________________________________



Dark matter is the optical ether on steroids.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383159

FromCarl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com>
Date2016-05-09 12:57 -0700
Message-ID<85f8b4e6-beb3-4a7f-8403-f36ca46b4494@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#382705

"Hey, wait a sec! Hubble's resolution is only 0.1 arcseconds, so the lander is way too small to be seen as anything more than a dot, even by Hubble. It would have to be a lot bigger to be seen at all. In fact, if you do the math (set Hubble's resolution to 0.1 arcseconds and the distance to 400,000 kilometers) you see that Hubble's resolution on the Moon is about 200 meters! In other words, even a football stadium on the Moon would look like a dot to Hubble." (By Phil Plait | August 12, 2008, Discover online).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383217

Fromalsor@interia.pl
Date2016-05-10 12:38 -0700
Message-ID<b6a3a381-b288-4294-9e5d-5e8170544266@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#382705
W dniu wtorek, 3 maja 2016 19:14:47 UTC+2 użytkownik RichD napisał:
> OK, we don't know what this 'dark matter' stuff is, 
> and there's a worldwide race to detect it.  My question 
> is, what DO we know about it?  Or, what are the working assumptions?
> 
> For instance, is it supposed to fit into the existing 
> fermion/boson structure?  There seems to be an assumption 
> that it's uncharged... reason?  Perhaps it does carry 
> electric charge, which all cancels out, per the usual 
> 'no net universal charge' pseudo-law of science.
> 
> Or, maybe it's some kind of field, which fills the universe, 
> a la Higgs.  Is there reason to reject this?
> 
> Also, its distribution is unclear - it binds galaxies, 
> does that necessarily mean it's uniformly distributed?  
> There are some allusions to a "halo", whatever that means.
> 
> I'm trying to figure out what's known, and what's ruled out - 
> 
> --
> Rich

It's only another fallacy, discovered by students.

They dont know how to integrate the forces
of a massive disk, 
so, they try to use the idiotic spherical galaxies model.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383241

FromFrancis Oldogf <francisoldogf@gmail.com>
Date2016-05-11 03:54 -0700
Message-ID<bf0b108d-bf69-4c91-9251-95235d8798e2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#383217
.. Because , probabely , the negative parallaxes are caused by interposed invisible objects ( dwarf stars  are not visible out 300 y l distance )...
  The negative parallaxes study suggests that 
 1) its begin farer than 300 y l 
 2) its are bigger for stars wth higth temp light
  That carries to conclude that probabely 
 1) each star has mediumly many interposed dwarf stars ( so not dark matter )
 2) the deviations are optically rephractional ( so not einsteinian gravitation or not only )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383411

Fromnero <oldogf@yahoo.it>
Date2016-05-14 08:05 -0700
Message-ID<dce9cb2c-4d10-4bd5-b5e9-a312d4fae478@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#383241
Il giorno mercoledì 11 maggio 2016 12:54:21 UTC+2, Francis Oldogf ha scritto:
> .. Because , probabely , the negative parallaxes are caused by interposed invisible objects ( dwarf stars  are not visible out 300 y l distance )...
>   The negative parallaxes study suggests that 
>  1) its begin farer than 300 y l 
>  2) its are bigger for stars wth higth temp light
>   That carries to conclude that probabely 
>  1) each star has mediumly many interposed dwarf stars ( so not dark matter )
>  2) the deviations are optically rephractional ( so not einsteinian gravitation or not only )

... over , i did some declarations without saying the quote : it is not fine quote myself ... but you can quote yourself !  so , go on the web site CDS Strasbourg .. find the cat  III/235/B    and  I/239 hip main  .... and do your task ..you shall arrive to my points and over !

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383247

FromDavid Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date2016-05-11 06:30 -0700
Message-ID<0dcf5842-9243-4683-9bb4-114a75c96461@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#382705
RichD Says
OK, we don't know what this 'dark matter' stuff is, 
and there's a worldwide race to detect it.  My question 
is, what DO we know about it?  Or, what are the working assumptions? 

For instance, is it supposed to fit into the existing 
fermion/boson structure?  There seems to be an assumption 
that it's uncharged... reason?  


Light transitioning the vacuum of space time gives the properties of mass and inertia to the )massless vacuum of space time) by way of the impedance of the vacuum

http://oi58.tinypic.com/10mkivd.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383259

FromThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date2016-05-11 12:41 -0700
Message-ID<57338ADA.4696@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to#383247
David Fuller wrote:
> 
> RichD Says
> OK, we don't know what this 'dark matter' stuff is,
> and there's a worldwide race to detect it.  My question
> is, what DO we know about it? 


What we know about dark matter is that there is no dark matter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383283

FromThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date2016-05-11 18:47 -0700
Message-ID<5733E09E.6C80@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to#383259
The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> David Fuller wrote:
> >
> > RichD Says
> > OK, we don't know what this 'dark matter' stuff is,
> > and there's a worldwide race to detect it.  My question
> > is, what DO we know about it?
> 
> What we know about dark matter is that there is no dark matter.


What I know about dark matter is that it's not dark...and it's not dark
matter.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web