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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #454058 > unrolled thread

Dark Matter?

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

Contents

  Dark Matter? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-27 23:48 -0700
    Re:Dark Matter? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-28 14:47 +0200
      Re: Dark Matter? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-03-28 07:34 -0700
        Re: Dark Matter? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 10:29 -0700
          Re: Dark Matter? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-03-28 14:35 -0700
            Re: Dark Matter? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 04:18 -0700
              Re: Dark Matter? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-03-29 07:39 -0700
                Re: Dark Matter? Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-03-30 11:57 +0200
                  Re: Dark Matter? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-03-30 09:12 -0700
                    Re: Dark Matter? Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-03-30 18:54 +0200
                      Re: Dark Matter? Will Bos <sllu@wsws.sb> - 2018-03-30 17:35 +0000
                      Re: Dark Matter? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-03-30 15:44 -0700
                        Re: Dark Matter? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-31 06:23 +0200
        Re: Dark Matter? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-29 06:58 +0200
          Re: Dark Matter? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-03-29 07:48 -0700
            Re: Dark Matter? Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-03-30 11:42 +0200
              Re: Dark Matter? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-03-30 09:20 -0700
                Re: Dark Matter? Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-03-30 20:05 +0200
      Re: Dark Matter? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-28 10:04 -0700
        Re: Dark Matter? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-28 10:17 -0700
          Re: Dark Matter? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-28 10:38 -0700
        Re: Dark Matter? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-28 13:23 -0700
          Re: Dark Matter? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-29 03:04 +0200
        Re: Dark Matter? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-29 07:04 +0200
          Re: Dark Matter? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-29 20:38 -0700
            Re: Dark Matter? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-30 08:49 +0200
              Re: Dark Matter? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-30 10:50 -0700
                Re: Dark Matter? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-30 11:00 -0700
      Re: Dark Matter? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-28 15:12 -0700
        Re: Dark Matter? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-28 15:53 -0700
          Re: Dark Matter? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-29 06:47 +0200
            Re: Dark Matter? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-28 23:35 -0700
              Re: Dark Matter? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-29 08:51 +0200
            Re: Dark Matter? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-29 18:09 -0700
              Re: Dark Matter? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-30 03:43 +0200
                Re: Dark Matter? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-29 20:42 -0700
                  Re: Dark Matter? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-29 21:18 -0700
                    Re: Dark Matter? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-29 21:39 -0700
                  Re: Dark Matter? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-30 08:53 +0200
                    Re: Dark Matter? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-30 10:30 -0700
        Re: Dark Matter? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-29 06:46 +0200
      Re:Dark Matter? Will Bos <sllu@wsws.sb> - 2018-03-29 19:09 +0000
        Re:Dark Matter? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-29 21:21 +0200
          Re:Dark Matter? Will Bos <sllu@wsws.sb> - 2018-03-29 19:44 +0000
            Re:Dark Matter? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-29 21:54 +0200
          The "dark" (UnSeen) side of the moon. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-03-29 13:09 -0700
            The "dark" (UnSeen) side of the moon. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-29 13:22 -0700
              Re: The "dark" (UnSeen) side of the moon. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-29 18:39 -0500
                Re: The "dark" (UnSeen) side of the moon. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-29 17:13 -0700
                  Re: The "dark" (UnSeen) side of the moon. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-29 17:26 -0700
                    Re: The "dark" (UnSeen) side of the moon. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-29 20:08 -0700
            Re: The "dark" (UnSeen) side of the moon. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-29 18:04 -0400
              Most everything at WikiPedia is -WELL SOURCED-. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-03-29 16:10 -0700
    Re: Dark Matter? Will Bos <sllu@wsws.sb> - 2018-03-29 18:54 +0000
      Re: Dark Matter? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-29 21:27 +0200
    Re: Dark Matter? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 08:09 +0100
    Dark Matter? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-30 19:16 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#454058 — Dark Matter?

What color is...Dark Matter?


According to my observation...

it is darker than Blue.


You can easily perform an experiment..

and see for yourself

that dark matter is the color dark blue.


There are a number of experiments one can perform

to determine the color of dark matter...

(not that nobody has even bothered to ask, or know)


all experiments will give the same result, dark blue.


Simple observation and experiment will show that 

dark matter color is darker than blue.




But, but...if you ask the Internet...you will get the wrong answer:


"Dark matter has no color, because it's transparent, so it is invisible." 


If you ask your science teacher...you will get the wrong answer:


"Dark matter has no color, because it's transparent, so it is invisible." 


But,

According to my observation...

it is darker than Blue.



Where do you guys learn physics from? science fiction teachers??

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#454068

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> Wrote in message:
> What color is...Dark Matter?
> 
> 
> According to my observation...
> 
> it is darker than Blue.
> 
Dark matter is misname.
Hidden  matter is more exact.

What is dark absorbs light, like a dark object.
Dark matter does not absorb light.
Neither reflects light.
Neither refracts light.
Neither disperges light.
It does not interact with light,  but via gravity.

What does not interact with light is not dark. 

But, it can be a transparent foreground on a dark background.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#454081

Dear Libor Striz:

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 5:47:06 AM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote:
> The Starmaker <starma***@ix.netcom.com> Wrote in message:
> > What color is...Dark Matter?
> > 
> > 
> > According to my observation...
> > 
> > it is darker than Blue.
> > 
> Dark matter is misname.
> Hidden  matter is more exact.
> 
> What is dark absorbs light, like a dark object.
> Dark matter does not absorb light.
> Neither reflects light.
> Neither refracts light.
> Neither disperges light.

Correction.  The amount of Dark Matter in a spiral or other galaxy, is inferred by assuming the central stars are "normal", so the mass of a region is proportional to the luminosity of that region.  Regardless of whether or not that region contains a supermassive black hole.  Then this same scaling factor is applied across the rest of the galaxy, ignoring the mass-luminosity relationship of the HR diagram.

Like as not, Dark Matter is just normal matter, represented by stars that have photospheres (rather than tidally stripped / stretched), individual stars with much less than 20 solar masses (where luminosity is not proportional to mass).

Your description is correct for exotic Dark Matter.  But this has failed to show in our solar system, and the assumption(s) described above turn stellar systems exactly like ours into mostly "Dark Matter".

David A. Smith

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

#454100

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 9:34:20 AM UTC-5, dlzc wrote:

> Correction.  The amount of Dark Matter in a spiral or other galaxy, is inferred by assuming the central stars are "normal", so the mass of a region is proportional to the luminosity of that region.  Regardless of whether or not that region contains a supermassive black hole.  Then this same scaling factor is applied across the rest of the galaxy, ignoring the mass-luminosity relationship of the HR diagram.
> 
> Like as not, Dark Matter is just normal matter, represented by stars that have photospheres (rather than tidally stripped / stretched), individual stars with much less than 20 solar masses (where luminosity is not proportional to mass).
> 
> Your description is correct for exotic Dark Matter.  But this has failed to show in our solar system, and the assumption(s) described above turn stellar systems exactly like ours into mostly "Dark Matter".

I think the available data is a little too weird for you to assert with such 
certainty that Dark Matter is merely an artifact of incorrect assumptions 
concerning the mass-luminosity relationship.

For example, this head-scratcher:
https://www.livescience.com/62151-galaxy-dark-matter-physics.html

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

#454119

Dear Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog:

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:29:24 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 9:34:20 AM UTC-5, dlzc wrote:
> 
> > Correction.  The amount of Dark Matter in a spiral or
> > other galaxy, is inferred by assuming the central
> > stars are "normal", so the mass of a region is
> > proportional to the luminosity of that region.
> >  Regardless of whether or not that region contains a
> > supermassive black hole.  Then this same scaling
> > factor is applied across the rest of the galaxy,
> > ignoring the mass-luminosity relationship of the HR
> > diagram.
> > 
> > Like as not, Dark Matter is just normal matter,
> > represented by stars that have photospheres
> > (rather than tidally stripped / stretched),
> > individual stars with much less than 20 solar
> > masses (where luminosity is not proportional to
> > mass).
> > 
> > Your description is correct for exotic Dark
> > Matter.  But this has failed to show in our
> > solar system, and the assumption(s) described
> > above turn stellar systems exactly like ours
> > into mostly "Dark Matter".
> 
> I think the available data is a little too weird
> for you to assert with such certainty that Dark
> Matter is merely an artifact of incorrect
> assumptions concerning the mass-luminosity
> relationship.

Note the HR diagram is not wierd, not an artifact, and is indirection violation of the assumption.

> For example, this head-scratcher:
> https://www.livescience.com/62151-galaxy-dark-matter-physics.html

I think exceptions, require exceptional causes.  Our own solar system has no Dark Matter, yet must be mostly Dark Matter with those assumptions.

David A. Smith

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

#454160

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 4:35:51 PM UTC-5, dlzc wrote:

> > I think the available data is a little too weird
> > for you to assert with such certainty that Dark
> > Matter is merely an artifact of incorrect
> > assumptions concerning the mass-luminosity
> > relationship.
> 
> Note the HR diagram is not wierd, not an artifact, and is indirection violation of the assumption.
> 
> > For example, this head-scratcher:
> > https://www.livescience.com/62151-galaxy-dark-matter-physics.html
> 
> I think exceptions, require exceptional causes.  Our own solar system has no Dark Matter, yet must be mostly Dark Matter with those assumptions.

So Big Bang nucleosynthesis arguments predicting the abundance of the 
chemical elements are completely off the mark, gravitational microlensing
studies failing to detect the predicted abundance of MACHOs in your hypothesis
have been mishandled, and modeling of ripples in the CMB are based on false
premises? 

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

#454168

Dear Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog:

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 4:18:17 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 4:35:51 PM UTC-5, dlzc wrote:
> 
> > > I think the available data is a little too weird
> > > for you to assert with such certainty that Dark
> > > Matter is merely an artifact of incorrect
> > > assumptions concerning the mass-luminosity
> > > relationship.
> > 
> > Note the HR diagram is not wierd, not an artifact,
> > and is indirection violation of the assumption.
> > 
> > > For example, this head-scratcher:
> > > https://www.livescience.com/62151-galaxy-dark-matter-physics.html
> > 
> > I think exceptions, require exceptional causes.
> >  Our own solar system has no Dark Matter, yet
> > must be mostly Dark Matter with those assumptions.
> 
> So Big Bang nucleosynthesis arguments predicting
> the abundance of the chemical elements are completely
> off the mark,

So those same arguments made WHAT for Dark Matter?  I don't see that as a valid excuse.  BB nucleosythesis is tuned to expect what we see at-or-after the CMBR glow.

> gravitational microlensing studies failing to detect
> the predicted abundance of MACHOs

Again, address the assumptions.  Is it REASONABLE to assume that all stars are 20+ solar masses.  Don't whine about other assumptions in other models.  Our own solar system is under-luminosity, and so our planets and most of the Sun are MACHOs.

> in your hypothesis have been mishandled, and
> modeling of ripples in the CMB are based on
> false premises?

You mean like the hole in the post-CMBR-epoch where the adbsorption was twice as high as expected, when the un-ionized plasma was being re-excited?

David A. Smith

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

#454272

Dne 29/03/2018 v 16:39 dlzc napsal(a):
> Dear Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog:
> 
>> So Big Bang nucleosynthesis arguments predicting
>> the abundance of the chemical elements are completely
>> off the mark,
> 
> [...]  BB nucleosythesis is tuned to expect what we see at-or-after the CMBR glow.

Any evidence for such accusation ?

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#454289

Dear Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 2:57:49 AM UTC-7, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
> Dne 29/03/2018 v 16:39 dlzc napsal(a):
> > Dear Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog:
> > 
> >> So Big Bang nucleosynthesis arguments predicting
> >> the abundance of the chemical elements are completely
> >> off the mark,
> > 
> > [...]  BB nucleosythesis is tuned to expect what we see
> > at-or-after the CMBR glow.
> 
> Any evidence for such accusation ?

Any evidence to the contrary?  It is easy to throw such challenge, without doing ANY research.  Have you followed the logic chain?  Have you looked at the fine tuning applied to arrive at "the abundance of the chemical elements", by extrapolating into an unplumbable Big Bang event?

That is the whole problem, pre-CMBR is inaccessible.  So we strain to make consistent images, and complain that if we change one part of our "painting", the rest is incomplete or covers too much.

So this started because I challenged the Dark Matter is unknown, not necessarily exotic.  That what we assumed to arrive at Dark Matter, here and now, makes our own solar system, mostly Dark Matter.

David A. Smith

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

#454294

Dne 30/03/2018 v 18:12 dlzc napsal(a):
> Dear Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
> 
> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 2:57:49 AM UTC-7, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
>> Dne 29/03/2018 v 16:39 dlzc napsal(a):
>>> Dear Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog:
>>>
>>>> So Big Bang nucleosynthesis arguments predicting
>>>> the abundance of the chemical elements are completely
>>>> off the mark,
>>>
>>> [...]  BB nucleosythesis is tuned to expect what we see
>>> at-or-after the CMBR glow.
>>
>> Any evidence for such accusation ?
> 
> Any evidence to the contrary? 

The burden of evidence is on those who accuse.
If you said I have stolen 1 mill dollars,
it is not my duty to bring evidence I have not.

As I am not a nucleogenesis researcher,
claiming such primary results,
I have no duty to bring the primary evidence as they have.

They are available for those interested.
Those interested only in winning the argument do not care.

 It is easy to throw such challenge, without doing ANY research.  Have
you followed the logic chain?  Have you looked at the fine tuning
applied to arrive at "the abundance of the chemical elements", by
extrapolating into an unplumbable Big Bang event?

All is matter of a function y=f(x) and its inverse functions x=g(y).
Finding x for known y is not tuning f(x) to produce y.

> 
> That is the whole problem, pre-CMBR is inaccessible.  So we strain to make consistent images, and complain that if we change one part of our "painting", the rest is incomplete or covers too much.

It need not to be accessible.
> 
> So this started because I challenged the Dark Matter is unknown, not necessarily exotic.  That what we assumed to arrive at Dark Matter, here and now, makes our own solar system, mostly Dark Matter.

You can calculate expected mean density of regular and dark matter
in Solar system toward let say the Sun-Neptune mean distance.



-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#454304

Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:

> All is matter of a function y=f(x) and its inverse functions x=g(y).
> Finding x for known y is not tuning f(x) to produce y.

of course not. What you wrote is nonsense, y and f(x) are the very 
same function, but you dident specify nor describe any function at all.
Similar to writing "x= ".
I cant believa one commits such a mistake. Take a look at this picture 
and learn:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)#/media/File:Function_machine2.svg

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

#454340

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 9:54:48 AM UTC-7, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
> Dne 30/03/2018 v 18:12 dlzc napsal(a):
> > Dear Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
> > 
> > On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 2:57:49 AM UTC-7, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
> >> Dne 29/03/2018 v 16:39 dlzc napsal(a):
> >>> Dear Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog:
> >>>
> >>>> So Big Bang nucleosynthesis arguments predicting
> >>>> the abundance of the chemical elements are completely
> >>>> off the mark,
> >>>
> >>> [...]  BB nucleosythesis is tuned to expect what we see
> >>> at-or-after the CMBR glow.
> >>
> >> Any evidence for such accusation ?
> > 
> > Any evidence to the contrary? 
> 
> The burden of evidence is on those who accuse.
> If you said I have stolen 1 mill dollars,
> it is not my duty to bring evidence I have not.
> 
> As I am not a nucleogenesis researcher,
> claiming such primary results,
> I have no duty to bring the primary evidence as they have.

 But you can read what is published.

David A. Smith

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

#454347

dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> Wrote in message:
> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 9:54:48 AM UTC-7, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:

>> 
>> The burden of evidence is on those who accuse.
>> If you said I have stolen 1 mill dollars,
>> it is not my duty to bring evidence I have not.
>> 
>> As I am not a nucleogenesis researcher,
>> claiming such primary results,
>> I have no duty to bring the primary evidence as they have.
> 
>  But you can read what is published.


Sure, but it is what others tell you,
what you do not like :-)

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#454151

dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> Wrote in message:
> Dear Libor Striz:
> 
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 5:47:06 AM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote:
>> The Starmaker <starma***@ix.netcom.com> Wrote in message:
>> > What color is...Dark Matter?
>> > 
>> > 
>> > According to my observation...
>> > 
>> > it is darker than Blue.
>> > 
>> Dark matter is misname.
>> Hidden  matter is more exact.
>> 
>> What is dark absorbs light, like a dark object.
>> Dark matter does not absorb light.
>> Neither reflects light.
>> Neither refracts light.
>> Neither disperges light.
> 
> Correction.  The amount of Dark Matter in a spiral or other galaxy, is inferred by assuming the central stars are "normal", so the mass of a region is proportional to the luminosity of that region.  Regardless of whether or not that region contains a supermassive black hole.  Then this same scaling factor is applied across the rest of the galaxy, ignoring the mass-luminosity relationship of the HR diagram.

No, it is based on increasing  mass in regions where  is no
 significant  mass. BTW, "visible  shining baryonic mass is just
 about 1/4 of total baryonic mass.

Note that there is at least 5 reasons  to consider dark matter,
 and  at least 3 of lead to very similar quantitative
 estimations.( galaxy rotation curves, CMB analysis,  primary
 pre-star isotopically universe  composition)
> 
> Like as not, Dark Matter is just normal matter, represented by stars that have photospheres (rather than tidally stripped / stretched), individual stars with much less than 20 solar masses (where luminosity is not proportional to mass).

Visible matter in stars is just a minor part of total baryonic matter.

> 
> Your description is correct for exotic Dark Matter.  But this has failed to show in our solar system, and the assumption(s) described above turn stellar systems exactly like ours into mostly "Dark Matter".

It does not failed to show, as it behaves as expected. The Solar
 system has extraordinary high mean mass density, compared to
 galaxy mean mass density, including  its neighbourhood.



-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#454169

Dear Libor Striz:

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 9:58:13 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote:
> dlzc <dl***@cox.net> Wrote in message:
...
> > Correction.  The amount of Dark Matter in a
> > spiral or other galaxy, is inferred by assuming
> > the central stars are "normal", so the mass of
> > a region is proportional to the luminosity of
> > that region.  Regardless of whether or not that
> > region contains a supermassive black hole.  Then
> > this same scaling factor is applied across the
> > rest of the galaxy, ignoring the mass-luminosity
> > relationship of the HR diagram.
> 
> No, it is based on increasing  mass in regions
> where is no significant  mass.

Mass determined HOW?

> BTW, "visible  shining baryonic mass is just
>  about 1/4 of total baryonic mass.

Based on the above assumption, that you have not researched.

> Note that there is at least 5 reasons  to
>  consider dark matter, and  at least 3 of lead
>  to very similar quantitative estimations.

I am unconcerned with the estimation value, but the "magic" of turning our solar system into Dark Matter, because our star is not as luminous as a 20 solar mass star, or one with little photosphere... such as those found near the center of a spiral galaxy.  I have NO doubt of the amount of mass, only that it is Dark because we made a bad assumption.

>  ( galaxy rotation curves, CMB analysis,  primary
>  pre-star isotopically universe  composition)

Amount I do not doubt.  "Nature" as in "must be exotic" because all stars are 20+ solar masses, I doubt.  How many 20+ solar mass stars are near US?

> > Like as not, Dark Matter is just normal
> > matter, represented by stars that have
> > photospheres (rather than tidally stripped /
> > stretched), individual stars with much less
> > than 20 solar masses (where luminosity is not
> > proportional to mass).
> 
> Visible matter in stars is just a minor part of
> total baryonic matter.

Not in our solar system.  And we have no exotic matter in our solar system.  The Sun is the lion's share of mass all the way out to the Oort cloud, but because our Sun is small, it luminosity is low, it's mass would be undercounted by a distant observer.

> > Your description is correct for exotic Dark
> > Matter.  But this has failed to show in our
> > solar system, and the assumption(s) described
> > above turn stellar systems exactly like ours
> > into mostly "Dark Matter".
> 
> It does not failed to show, as it behaves as
>  expected. The Solar system has extraordinary
>  high mean mass density, compared to galaxy mean
>  mass density, including  its neighbourhood.

NOT based on its luminosity.  Thanks for making my point.

David A. Smith

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

#454270

Dne 29/03/2018 v 16:48 dlzc napsal(a):
> Dear Libor Striz:
> 
>>
>> No, it is based on increasing  mass in regions
>> where is no significant  mass.
> 
> Mass determined HOW?

Gravity.

>> BTW, "visible  shining baryonic mass is just
>>  about 1/4 of total baryonic mass.
> 
> Based on the above assumption, that you have not researched.

Not shining baryonic mass is not based on the above.

> 
>> Note that there is at least 5 reasons  to
>>  consider dark matter, and  at least 3 of lead
>>  to very similar quantitative estimations.
> 
> I am unconcerned with the estimation value, but the "magic" of turning our solar system into Dark Matter, because our star is not as luminous as a 20 solar mass star, or one with little photosphere... such as those found near the center of a spiral galaxy.  I have NO doubt of the amount of mass, only that it is Dark because we made a bad assumption.

So what ? What is relevant is the suppose mean density of baryonic and
dark matter.

>>  ( galaxy rotation curves, CMB analysis,  primary
>>  pre-star isotopically universe  composition)
> 
> Amount I do not doubt.  "Nature" as in "must be exotic" because all stars are 20+ solar masses, I doubt.  How many 20+ solar mass stars are near US?

It has nothing with the star mass.

In regions with negligible shining ( stars )
and non shining ( interstellar gas/dust ),
orbiting speed decreases with radius.
And if it does not, then .....


>>
>> Visible matter in stars is just a minor part of
>> total baryonic matter.
> 
> Not in our solar system.  And we have no exotic matter in our solar system.  The Sun is the lion's share of mass all the way out to the Oort cloud, but because our Sun is small, it luminosity is low, it's mass would be undercounted by a distant observer.

Galaxy wise.

>> It does not failed to show, as it behaves as
>>  expected. The Solar system has extraordinary
>>  high mean mass density, compared to galaxy mean
>>  mass density, including  its neighbourhood.
> 
> NOT based on its luminosity.  Thanks for making my point.

Mass is not luminosity dependent.
Gravity is mass dependent.

It cannot be a big deal to have a statistical model data
about percentage of stars of particular kind
in various places within Galaxy
and then to have statistical model
of solid angle luminosity vs mass relation.

And whatever is the total mass of the galaxy,
it must follow the trailing decreasing patterns.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#454291

Dear Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 2:42:40 AM UTC-7, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
> Dne 29/03/2018 v 16:48 dlzc napsal(a):
...
> > Based on the above assumption, that you have not researched.
> 
> Not shining baryonic mass is not based on the above.

So you didn't actually do any research?  That is PRECISELY how we ended up with the word-choice "Dark".

OK, I will stop challenging you.  You are not willing to do more than accept what others have told you, but automatically assume anyone that challenges what you have accepted is a crank.

Andromeda is held up as an example with plenty of Dark Matter.  Yet Andromeda can and has been made to work right up to the rime, with only normal matter.  Couldn't do the rim, because there are no light sources there... too opaque.

David A. Smith

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

#454311

Dne 30/03/2018 v 18:20 dlzc napsal(a):
> Dear Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
> 
> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 2:42:40 AM UTC-7, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
>> Dne 29/03/2018 v 16:48 dlzc napsal(a):
> ...
>>> Based on the above assumption, that you have not researched.
>>
>> Not shining baryonic mass is not based on the above.
> 
> So you didn't actually do any research?  That is PRECISELY how we ended up with the word-choice "Dark".

Funny conclusion.

Astrophysicists clearly distingish dark matter
and not shining baryonic matter.
The latter can be tracked by absorption spectra.

BTW, czech astrophysicists prefer equivalent of Hidden matter,
as dark triggers black or not shining connotation, what is misleading.


> OK, I will stop challenging you.  You are not willing to do more than accept what others have told you, but automatically assume anyone that challenges what you have accepted is a crank.

I am not an astrophysicist.

If you use medications,
do you believe what others told you,
or do you perform you own clinical tests
to know it is an effective treatment ?
( Reading counts as what others told you. )

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#454097

Libor Striz wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> Wrote in message:
> > What color is...Dark Matter?
> >
> >
> > According to my observation...
> >
> > it is darker than Blue.
> >
> Dark matter is misname.
> Hidden  matter is more exact.
> 
> What is dark absorbs light, like a dark object.
> Dark matter does not absorb light.
> Neither reflects light.
> Neither refracts light.
> Neither disperges light.
> It does not interact with light,  but via gravity.
> 
> What does not interact with light is not dark.
> 
> But, it can be a transparent foreground on a dark background.
> 
> --
> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/


95 percent of the universe is Dark, it is not hidden..you can look up at night and see that it is dark.

It's called ...observation. 

Perform this simple experiment...wait till night time, go outside and look up, is it dark?


Do you see the dark area (black) in the photograph of before and after the big bang?
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg

What color is the dark area?


You see red, you see green, ...where is the blue?


It's dark Blue! The dark matter is blue!!
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg

OBSERVATION.

don'cha no science???? wat kinda stupid science teach you have?









The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> What color is...Dark Matter?
> 
> According to my observation...
> 
> it is darker than Blue.
> 
> You can easily perform an experiment..
> 
> and see for yourself
> 
> that dark matter is the color dark blue.
> 
> There are a number of experiments one can perform
> 
> to determine the color of dark matter...
> 
> (not that nobody has even bothered to ask, or know)
> 
> all experiments will give the same result, dark blue.
> 
> Simple observation and experiment will show that
> 
> dark matter color is darker than blue.
> 
> But, but...if you ask the Internet...you will get the wrong answer:
> 
> "Dark matter has no color, because it's transparent, so it is invisible."
> 
> If you ask your science teacher...you will get the wrong answer:
> 
> "Dark matter has no color, because it's transparent, so it is invisible."
> 
> But,
> 
> According to my observation...
> 
> it is darker than Blue.
> 
> Where do you guys learn physics from? science fiction teachers??

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

#454099

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Libor Striz wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> Wrote in message:
> > > What color is...Dark Matter?
> > >
> > >
> > > According to my observation...
> > >
> > > it is darker than Blue.
> > >
> > Dark matter is misname.
> > Hidden  matter is more exact.
> >
> > What is dark absorbs light, like a dark object.
> > Dark matter does not absorb light.
> > Neither reflects light.
> > Neither refracts light.
> > Neither disperges light.
> > It does not interact with light,  but via gravity.
> >
> > What does not interact with light is not dark.
> >
> > But, it can be a transparent foreground on a dark background.
> >
> > --
> > Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> >
> > ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> > http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
> 
> 95 percent of the universe is Dark, it is not hidden..you can look up at night and see that it is dark.
> 
> It's called ...observation.
> 
> Perform this simple experiment...wait till night time, go outside and look up, is it dark?
> 
> Do you see the dark area (black) in the photograph of before and after the big bang?
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> What color is the dark area?
> 
> You see red, you see green, ...where is the blue?
> 
> It's dark Blue! The dark matter is blue!!
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> OBSERVATION.
> 
> don'cha no science???? wat kinda stupid science teach you have?
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > What color is...Dark Matter?
> >
> > According to my observation...
> >
> > it is darker than Blue.
> >
> > You can easily perform an experiment..
> >
> > and see for yourself
> >
> > that dark matter is the color dark blue.
> >
> > There are a number of experiments one can perform
> >
> > to determine the color of dark matter...
> >
> > (not that nobody has even bothered to ask, or know)
> >
> > all experiments will give the same result, dark blue.
> >
> > Simple observation and experiment will show that
> >
> > dark matter color is darker than blue.
> >
> > But, but...if you ask the Internet...you will get the wrong answer:
> >
> > "Dark matter has no color, because it's transparent, so it is invisible."
> >
> > If you ask your science teacher...you will get the wrong answer:
> >
> > "Dark matter has no color, because it's transparent, so it is invisible."
> >
> > But,
> >
> > According to my observation...
> >
> > it is darker than Blue.
> >
> > Where do you guys learn physics from? science fiction teachers??



Now, this might come as a surprize to yous...but 

before the big bang..
and 
before the steady state universe..

the whole entire night dark matter universe
was once

all light blue.

Remember...that the big bang was the first creation of Red.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg

You mix the colors before that blue and green and you get aqua...light blue.


The hidden matter is not...dark, it is the blue that is hidden.

Do you see the blue?
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg


That which you call..."hidden matter" is actually 'hidden blue'.

There are 3 primary colors, red, green, blue.

If you understand...Colors, you can understand the whole universe.


I should know...i know it all.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web