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

Groups > sci.physics > #592569 > unrolled thread

Galactic Interface Dark Surface

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Galactic Interface Dark Surface Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 14:12 -0700
    Re: Galactic Interface Dark Surface Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 19:45 -0400
      Re: Galactic Interface Dark Surface benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-09 20:23 -0400
      Re: Galactic Interface Dark Surface Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 17:39 -0700
      Re: Galactic Interface Dark Surface Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-10 18:54 +0200
        Arp, haltoN noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 11:10 -0700
          Re: Arp, haltoN Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-10 20:19 +0200
          Re: Arp, haltoN Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 23:27 -0400
            Re: Arp, haltoN Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-11 06:27 +0200
              Re: Re: Arp, haltoN Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-11 06:10 -0400
                Dark matter (was: Re: Arp, haltoN) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-11 18:52 +0200
                  Dark matter (was: Re: Arp, haltoN) john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:59 -0700
                  Re: Dark matter (was: Re: Arp, haltoN) Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-12 06:09 -0400
                    Re: Dark matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-13 17:27 +0200
        Re: Galactic Interface Dark Surface Mike Duffy <mqduffy001@bell.net> - 2016-08-10 21:35 -0400
          Re: Galactic Interface Dark Surface Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-11 05:48 +0200
            Re: Galactic Interface Dark Surface noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:59 -0700
              Re: Galactic Interface Dark Surface Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-12 06:46 +0200
                a.s.c.i.i noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 12:35 -0700

#592569 — Galactic Interface Dark Surface

Summary: The intergalactic void is disconnected from each galaxy’s rotation due to the viscosity of free space. That viscosity is calculated from the mass=area theory. The result is that a new inertia law is being proposed to make dark matter obsolete. The direction of inertia is rotated at the interface between the galaxy and the void.

Details: The galaxies are all measured to be less than one maximum size. Andromeda is 230,000 Light Years wide. Telescopes have not seen one galaxy that has a spiral a hundred times as wide, or ten thousand times as wide as Andromeda. There is a limit to the size of a spiral galaxy.

A proposed theory of The Galactic Interface Dark Surface (GIDS) explains that limitation on size. A galaxy has a different space character than the space beyond the rim. That transition from a historically shrinking, gravitationally disturbed space to a virgin space is proposed to have the phenomena responsible for the perception that implied that dark matter was present. This theory is intended to make dark matter obsolete.

The 4D continuum for Gravity Volume Theory has resulted in the following results that are now applied to GIDS mathematics, using reference 1, "Fluid Dynamics" by Peter S. Bernard. 

Mass=Area at abstraction level 2

Viscosity of free space = velocity(Normalized)

Linear  Radial Momentum of Free Space is 7*10^-37 meter^3 / second per baryon.

On page 156 of ref. 1 the viscosity is mathematically discussed using momentum, shear, and surface effects on a volume.

Work is happening now to apply fluid dynamics to the galactic rotation velocity curve anomaly. The idea is that the spacetime continuum in a galaxy is sheared away from the intergalactic spacetime. That uses the mass=area concept to change the direction of the rim area so that inertia is redirected. That inertia formula advance will  rotate the direction so it is going along with the perceived galactic platter velocity profile. Gravity theory is not changed to make dark matter obsolete, inertia theory is changed. The area of a proton mass is presented to a viscous fluid of free space. The viscosity magnitude in now being calculated. Then that viscosity amount will be used in a shear calculation at the galactic scale. That shear limits the size of a galaxy because the rotation is inward directed for the Galactic Interface Dark Surface to have the right effect on the rotation velocity profile anomaly. Alan Folmsbee 8/9/16

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#592605

On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 14:12:44 -0700 (PDT), Alan Folmsbee
<omnilobe@gmail.com> wrote:

>Summary: The intergalactic void is disconnected from each galaxy’s rotation due to the viscosity of free space. That viscosity is calculated from the mass=area theory. The result is that a new inertia law is being proposed to make dark matter obsolete. The direction of inertia is rotated at the interface between the galaxy and the void.
>
>Details: The galaxies are all measured to be less than one maximum size. Andromeda is 230,000 Light Years wide. Telescopes have not seen one galaxy that has a spiral a hundred times as wide, or ten thousand times as wide as Andromeda. There is a limit to the size of a spiral galaxy.
>
>A proposed theory of The Galactic Interface Dark Surface (GIDS) explains that limitation on size. A galaxy has a different space character than the space beyond the rim. That transition from a historically shrinking, gravitationally disturbed space to a virgin space is proposed to have the phenomena responsible for the perception that implied that dark matter was present. This theory is intended to make dark matter obsolete.
>
>The 4D continuum for Gravity Volume Theory has resulted in the following results that are now applied to GIDS mathematics, using reference 1, "Fluid Dynamics" by Peter S. Bernard. 
>
>Mass=Area at abstraction level 2
>
>Viscosity of free space = velocity(Normalized)
>
>Linear  Radial Momentum of Free Space is 7*10^-37 meter^3 / second per baryon.
>
>On page 156 of ref. 1 the viscosity is mathematically discussed using momentum, shear, and surface effects on a volume.
>
>Work is happening now to apply fluid dynamics to the galactic rotation velocity curve anomaly. The idea is that the spacetime continuum in a galaxy is sheared away from the intergalactic spacetime. That uses the mass=area concept to change the direction of the rim area so that inertia is redirected. That inertia formula advance will  rotate the direction so it is going along with the perceived galactic platter velocity profile. Gravity theory is not changed to make dark matter obsolete, inertia theory is changed. The area of a proton mass is presented to a viscous fluid of free space. The viscosity magnitude in now being calculated. Then that viscosity amount will be used in a shear calculation at the galactic scale. That shear limits the size of a galaxy because the rotation is inward directed for the Galactic Interface Dark Surface to have the right effect on the rotation velocity profile anomaly. Alan Folmsbee 8/9/16


I don't favor "Dark Matter" theories and have always wondered if they
just don't account for all the normal mass. Popularizations of the
theories include various rookie errors like:

1. Assuming galaxies and star clusters can be modeled like solar
systems. They cannot be.

2. Extrapolating the amount of dust in the solar system to the amount
between stars. There should be much more dust between stars than near
stars. Out solar system is all we have directly sampled. We (our
probes) are not even 1 light year out yet. The nearest star is about 5
light years away. Radiation pressure is stronger than gravity for all
matter below a certain size (radius). This pushes particles smaller
than this limit away from stars. This dust  accumulates in (squeezes
around) the regions between stars. We do not know the actual
distribution of radii for dust particles in the galaxy or the
universe. Based on my guess, the universe contains much more total
mass in these much more numerous small dust particles than in the
larger particles up to planet and star sized "particles".
Therefore the stars (and planets now) that we can observe amount to a
very small fraction of the mass of each galaxy and the universe. There
is no need for any exotic "dark matter" or "dark energy" theory to
account for this so-called "missing mass" which isn't missing in the
first place.
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

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

#592608

On 8/9/2016 7:45 PM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 14:12:44 -0700 (PDT), Alan Folmsbee
> <omnilobe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Summary: The intergalactic void is disconnected from each galaxy’s rotation due to the viscosity of free space. That viscosity is calculated from the mass=area theory. The result is that a new inertia law is being proposed to make dark matter obsolete. The direction of inertia is rotated at the interface between the galaxy and the void.
>>
>> Details: The galaxies are all measured to be less than one maximum size. Andromeda is 230,000 Light Years wide. Telescopes have not seen one galaxy that has a spiral a hundred times as wide, or ten thousand times as wide as Andromeda. There is a limit to the size of a spiral galaxy.
>>
>> A proposed theory of The Galactic Interface Dark Surface (GIDS) explains that limitation on size. A galaxy has a different space character than the space beyond the rim. That transition from a historically shrinking, gravitationally disturbed space to a virgin space is proposed to have the phenomena responsible for the perception that implied that dark matter was present. This theory is intended to make dark matter obsolete.
>>
>> The 4D continuum for Gravity Volume Theory has resulted in the following results that are now applied to GIDS mathematics, using reference 1, "Fluid Dynamics" by Peter S. Bernard.
>>
>> Mass=Area at abstraction level 2
>>
>> Viscosity of free space = velocity(Normalized)
>>
>> Linear  Radial Momentum of Free Space is 7*10^-37 meter^3 / second per baryon.
>>
>> On page 156 of ref. 1 the viscosity is mathematically discussed using momentum, shear, and surface effects on a volume.
>>
>> Work is happening now to apply fluid dynamics to the galactic rotation velocity curve anomaly. The idea is that the spacetime continuum in a galaxy is sheared away from the intergalactic spacetime. That uses the mass=area concept to change the direction of the rim area so that inertia is redirected. That inertia formula advance will  rotate the direction so it is going along with the perceived galactic platter velocity profile. Gravity theory is not changed to make dark matter obsolete, inertia theory is changed. The area of a proton mass is presented to a viscous fluid of free space. The viscosity magnitude in now being calculated. Then that viscosity amount will be used in a shear calculation at the galactic scale. That shear limits the size of a galaxy because the rotation is inward directed for the Galactic Interface Dark Surface to have the right effect on the rotation velocity profile anomaly. Alan Folmsbee 8/9/16
>
>
> I don't favor "Dark Matter" theories and have always wondered if they
> just don't account for all the normal mass. Popularizations of the
> theories include various rookie errors like:
>
> 1. Assuming galaxies and star clusters can be modeled like solar
> systems. They cannot be.
>
> 2. Extrapolating the amount of dust in the solar system to the amount
> between stars. There should be much more dust between stars than near
> stars. Out solar system is all we have directly sampled. We (our
> probes) are not even 1 light year out yet. The nearest star is about 5
> light years away. Radiation pressure is stronger than gravity for all
> matter below a certain size (radius). This pushes particles smaller
> than this limit away from stars. This dust  accumulates in (squeezes
> around) the regions between stars. We do not know the actual
> distribution of radii for dust particles in the galaxy or the
> universe. Based on my guess, the universe contains much more total
> mass in these much more numerous small dust particles than in the
> larger particles up to planet and star sized "particles".
> Therefore the stars (and planets now) that we can observe amount to a
> very small fraction of the mass of each galaxy and the universe. There
> is no need for any exotic "dark matter" or "dark energy" theory to
> account for this so-called "missing mass" which isn't missing in the
> first place.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
Don't worry MJS, in cosmology any fantasy "works" because nobody can go 
check anyway. Missing mass crap is just a result of the freshman-type 
error of thinking that Red shift is due to velocity. Big Bang is simply 
a big embarrassing mistake. Watch, once this is proved, all the "Big 
Bangers" will all be screaming with one voice "everybody knows' the RS 
isn't due to velocity (except where it is) and that "nobody" has 
believed in the BB for years. Yeah. sure.

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

#592610

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 1:45:11 PM UTC-10, Michael Strickland wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 14:12:44 -0700 (PDT), Alan Folmsbee
> wrote:
> 
> >Summary: The intergalactic void is disconnected from each galaxy’s rotation due to the viscosity of free space. That viscosity is calculated from the mass=area theory. The result is that a new inertia law is being proposed to make dark matter obsolete. The direction of inertia is rotated at the interface between the galaxy and the void.
> >
> >Details: The galaxies are all measured to be less than one maximum size. Andromeda is 230,000 Light Years wide. Telescopes have not seen one galaxy that has a spiral a hundred times as wide, or ten thousand times as wide as Andromeda. There is a limit to the size of a spiral galaxy.
> >
> >A proposed theory of The Galactic Interface Dark Surface (GIDS) explains that limitation on size. A galaxy has a different space character than the space beyond the rim. That transition from a historically shrinking, gravitationally disturbed space to a virgin space is proposed to have the phenomena responsible for the perception that implied that dark matter was present. This theory is intended to make dark matter obsolete.
> >
> >The 4D continuum for Gravity Volume Theory has resulted in the following results that are now applied to GIDS mathematics, using reference 1, "Fluid Dynamics" by Peter S. Bernard. 
> >
> >Mass=Area at abstraction level 2
> >
> >Viscosity of free space = velocity(Normalized)
> >
> >Linear  Radial Momentum of Free Space is 7*10^-37 meter^3 / second per baryon.
> >
> >On page 156 of ref. 1 the viscosity is mathematically discussed using momentum, shear, and surface effects on a volume.
> >
> >Work is happening now to apply fluid dynamics to the galactic rotation velocity curve anomaly. The idea is that the spacetime continuum in a galaxy is sheared away from the intergalactic spacetime. That uses the mass=area concept to change the direction of the rim area so that inertia is redirected. That inertia formula advance will  rotate the direction so it is going along with the perceived galactic platter velocity profile. Gravity theory is not changed to make dark matter obsolete, inertia theory is changed. The area of a proton mass is presented to a viscous fluid of free space. The viscosity magnitude in now being calculated. Then that viscosity amount will be used in a shear calculation at the galactic scale. That shear limits the size of a galaxy because the rotation is inward directed for the Galactic Interface Dark Surface to have the right effect on the rotation velocity profile anomaly. Alan Folmsbee 8/9/16
> 
> 
> I don't favor "Dark Matter" theories and have always wondered if they
> just don't account for all the normal mass. Popularizations of the
> theories include various rookie errors like:
> 
> 1. Assuming galaxies and star clusters can be modeled like solar
> systems. They cannot be.
> 
> 2. Extrapolating the amount of dust in the solar system to the amount
> between stars. There should be much more dust between stars than near
> stars. Out solar system is all we have directly sampled. We (our
> probes) are not even 1 light year out yet. The nearest star is about 5
> light years away. Radiation pressure is stronger than gravity for all
> matter below a certain size (radius). This pushes particles smaller
> than this limit away from stars. This dust  accumulates in (squeezes
> around) the regions between stars. We do not know the actual
> distribution of radii for dust particles in the galaxy or the
> universe. Based on my guess, the universe contains much more total
> mass in these much more numerous small dust particles than in the
> larger particles up to planet and star sized "particles".
> Therefore the stars (and planets now) that we can observe amount to a
> very small fraction of the mass of each galaxy and the universe. There
> is no need for any exotic "dark matter" or "dark energy" theory to
> account for this so-called "missing mass" which isn't missing in the
> first place.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------

Hi MJS, Good point about dust being denser between stars, without being swept up by a star. Please comment on the limit on galaxy size. All known galaxies are less than 6 million light years across. Why are there no bigger spiral galaxies?  Does that limit imply an unknown physic at each galactic rim?

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

#592663

$Michael J.  Strickland wrote:

> I don't favor "Dark Matter" theories and have always wondered if they
> just don't account for all the normal mass. Popularizations of the
> theories include various rookie errors like:
> 
> 1. Assuming galaxies and star clusters can be modeled like solar
> systems. They cannot be.

Why not?
 
> 2. Extrapolating the amount of dust in the solar system to the amount
> between stars.

Nobody but you did that.  The theory of dark matter, *confirmed* by 
*observation*, comes from the *observation* of *galaxies*: Of closer 
galaxies whose rotational curves we can observe (including that of our own 
galaxy, the Milky Way) and where we notice that there is not enough baryonic 
matter to explain those curves; and of galaxies behind far away clusters of 
galaxies because there has to be a lot of dark matter in the clusters to 
cause the observed gravitational lensing.

<https://youtu.be/sbsGYRArH_w?t=849>

(Lawrence M. Krauss (2014): “A Universe from Nothing”.  From 0:14:09.)

> There should be much more dust between stars than near stars.

Why?

> Out solar system is all we have directly sampled.

It is not necessary to sample matter to know that it is dark matter (see 
below).

> We (our probes) are not even 1 light year out yet.

We have astronomy, so that is irrelevant (see below).

> The nearest star is about 5 light years away.

The nearest star is Proxima Centauri, 4.25 light-years away.  If you round 
4.25 to an integer, you get _4_, not 5.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri>

(You could not even get that highschool-level fact right.)

> Radiation pressure is stronger than gravity for all
> matter below a certain size (radius).

Which radius exactly?

> This pushes particles smaller than this limit away from stars.

Utter nonsense.

> This dust  accumulates in (squeezes around) the regions between stars.

It does not.  Apparently you are unaware of astronomical distances.  
Voyager 1 was reported to cross Sol’s heliopause in August 2012, at a 
distance of 121 AU.  That is ca. 0.002 light-years, or ca. 0.00047 times the 
distance to Proxima Centauri.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere#Heliopause>

> We do not know the actual distribution of radii for dust particles in the
> galaxy or the universe.

Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong.

More importantly, even dust shines, i.e. it emits electromagnetic 
radiation – even if it only reflects it; dark matter does not (hence 
“dark”).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter>

> Based on my guess,

An *uneducated* guess, based on your ignorance of the advances in science 
during the last 100 years; particularly in astronomy, cosmology, and 
particle physics.

> the universe contains much more total mass in these much more numerous
> small dust particles than in the larger particles up to planet and star
> sized "particles".

Ex falso quodlibet – from a false premise, anything can follow – …

> Therefore the stars (and planets now) that we can observe amount to a
> very small fraction of the mass of each galaxy and the universe.

… even things that are true.  We have *observed* (and did not need to guess) 
that your *conclusion* from your *false* premise is true: baryonic matter 
*does* account for only about 1 % of the total mass-energy of the universe 
plus ca. 4 % from photons and weakly interacting particles like neutrinos.  
The rest is dark matter (ca. 27 %) and dark energy (ca. 68 %) (the figures 
vary slightly depending on the experiment; the point here is: there is *a 
lot* more both dark matter and dark energy than there is baryonic matter).

> There is no need for any exotic "dark matter" or "dark energy" theory to
> account for this so-called "missing mass" which isn't missing in the
> first place.

There is.  You have no clue what you are talking about.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#2015_data_release>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#592671 — Arp, haltoN

this stuff about galaxies has been passe' since at least the 'nine-seventies,
when Alfven waves were dyscovered to be slow,
fast, and medium velocities.

no-one has to suppose that the redshift is only because
of velocity (see Halton arP e.g

> galaxy, the Milky Way) and where we notice that there is not enough baryonic 
> matter to explain those curves; and of galaxies behind far away clusters of 
> galaxies because there has to be a lot of dark matter in the clusters to 
> cause the observed gravitational lensing.

> > Radiation pressure is stronger than gravity for all
> > matter below a certain size (radius).

> It does not.  Apparently you are unaware of astronomical distances.  
> Voyager 1 was reported to cross Sol’s heliopause in August 2012, at a 
> distance of 121 AU.  That is ca. 0.002 light-years, or ca. 0.00047 times the 
> distance to Proxima Centauri.

> … even things that are true.  We have *observed* (and did not need to guess) 
> that your *conclusion* from your *false* premise is true: baryonic matter 
> *does* account for only about 1 % of the total mass-energy of the universe 
> plus ca. 4 % from photons and weakly interacting particles like neutrinos.  
> The rest is dark matter (ca. 27 %) and dark energy (ca. 68 %) (the figures 
> vary slightly depending on the experiment; the point here is: there is *a 
> lot* more both dark matter and dark energy than there is baryonic matter).
> 
> > There is no need for any exotic "dark matter" or "dark energy" theory to
> > account for this so-called "missing mass" which isn't missing in the
> > first place.
> 
> There is.  You have no clue what you are talking about.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#2015_data_release>
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#592674 — Re: Arp, haltoN

noTthaTguY wrote:

> this stuff about galaxies has been passe' since at least the
> 'nine-seventies,

Nonsense.

> when Alfven waves were dyscovered to be slow, fast, and medium velocities.

You have no clue what Alfvén waves are, and you are writing gibberish.  
 
> no-one has to suppose that the redshift is only because of velocity (see
> Halton arP e.g

More incoherent gibberish.

Please shut up until you know what you are saying, and what you are talking 
about.  TIA.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#592736 — Re: Arp, haltoN

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:10:55 -0700 (PDT), noTthaTguY
<abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> wrote:

>this stuff about galaxies has been passe' since at least the 'nine-seventies,
>when Alfven waves were dyscovered to be slow,
>fast, and medium velocities.
>
>no-one has to suppose that the redshift is only because
>of velocity (see Halton arP e.g
>
>> galaxy, the Milky Way) and where we notice that there is not enough baryonic 
>> matter to explain those curves; and of galaxies behind far away clusters of 
>> galaxies because there has to be a lot of dark matter in the clusters to 
>> cause the observed gravitational lensing.
>
>> > Radiation pressure is stronger than gravity for all
>> > matter below a certain size (radius).
>>
>> It does not.  Apparently you are unaware of astronomical distances.  
>> Voyager 1 was reported to cross Sol’s heliopause in August 2012, at a 
>> distance of 121 AU.  That is ca. 0.002 light-years, or ca. 0.00047 times the 
>> distance to Proxima Centauri.

What does not?

I'm quite aware of astronomical distances.
Like I said we are not even 1 light year out yet.

This was a freshman/sophomore year physics problem we (EEs) had on a
physics problem set. Do you deny that radiation pressure is stronger
than gravity below a certain radius (at any distance btw)?

In fact, according to Halliday, Resnick, & Walker (Fundamentals of
Physics, 6th edition, Vol 2 Extended, 2001) and previous editions,
that diameter is 580 nanometers (5800 hydrogen atom diameters) for
water density & zero albedo (total absorption). It is twice that for a
reflective particle (e.g. ice). For any particles this size or
smaller, radiation pressure wins and they are forced out of the solar
system until balanced by radiation pressure from some where else like
the other stars.


>> … even things that are true.  We have *observed* (and did not need to guess) 
>> that your *conclusion* from your *false* premise is true: baryonic matter 
>> *does* account for only about 1 % of the total mass-energy of the universe 
>> plus ca. 4 % from photons and weakly interacting particles like neutrinos.  
>> The rest is dark matter (ca. 27 %) and dark energy (ca. 68 %) (the figures 
>> vary slightly depending on the experiment; the point here is: there is *a 
>> lot* more both dark matter and dark energy than there is baryonic matter).
>> 
>> > There is no need for any exotic "dark matter" or "dark energy" theory to
>> > account for this so-called "missing mass" which isn't missing in the
>> > first place.
>> 
>> There is.  You have no clue what you are talking about.

I guess you never had that physics problem, huh?

>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#2015_data_release>

Wiki is too often wrong for me to use count on it. Check the radiation
pressure entry.

Mike

...
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

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

#592740 — Re: Arp, haltoN

Michael J.  Strickland wrote:

> […] noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Radiation pressure is stronger than gravity for all
>>> > matter below a certain size (radius).
>>>
>>> It does not.  Apparently you are unaware of astronomical distances.
>>> Voyager 1 was reported to cross Sol’s heliopause in August 2012, at a
>>> distance of 121 AU.  That is ca. 0.002 light-years, or ca. 0.00047 times
>>> the distance to Proxima Centauri.

[sic]
 
> What does not?

If you read my posting, not its misquotation, it should all become clear to 
you.

> I'm quite aware of astronomical distances.

No, you are not.

> Like I said we are not even 1 light year out yet.

And we have already found the point, through Voyager, where there is no more 
solar wind.  If you considered that and did the math incorporating the 
distance to the nearest star, you would see that “squeezing between stars” 
is not the appropriate expression to use for the effect on any "dust" that 
might exist between stars, and that it certainly could not account for the 
dark matter needed to explain rotation curves and gravitational lensing, the 
fact aside that it exhibits different physical properties than dark matter.

Furthermore, you are also ignorant of the actual particle density in 
interplanetary and interstellar space – which we now know, thanks to the 
Voyager probes.  Put simply, there is insufficient "dust" that could be 
"blown away" from stars to be "squeezed between stars" even if the 
heliospheres would be much larger than they actually are and the distances 
between neighboring stars would be much shorter than they actually are.  
There is an interplanetary dust cloud in the Sol System (from comet trails 
etc.), but 1) most of the dust in a star system goes into or forms into 
stars, its planets, asteroids, and occasionally comets and 2) its mass is 
too small to account for dark matter.

There are dust clouds where there are *no* stars in the vicinity (because 
their solar wind *does* push the dust away within their heliosphere (but 
different to your misconception, not it is originating from the star, but 
the solar wind is), and they do not consist of dark matter either.

> [argument from ignorance]

> ...
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland                   Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------

That is _not_ a properly separated Usenet signature.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#592747 — Re: Re: Arp, haltoN

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 06:27:24 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>Michael J.  Strickland wrote:
>
>> […] noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Radiation pressure is stronger than gravity for all
>>>> > matter below a certain size (radius).
>>>>
>>>> It does not.  Apparently you are unaware of astronomical distances.
>>>> Voyager 1 was reported to cross Sol?s heliopause in August 2012, at a
>>>> distance of 121 AU.  That is ca. 0.002 light-years, or ca. 0.00047 times
>>>> the distance to Proxima Centauri.
>
>[sic]
> 
>> What does not?
>
>If you read my posting, not its misquotation, it should all become clear to 
>you.
>
>> I'm quite aware of astronomical distances.
>
>No, you are not.
>
>> Like I said we are not even 1 light year out yet.
>
>And we have already found the point, through Voyager, where there is no more 
>solar wind.

I'm not referring to the solar wind. I'm referring to the dust pushed
out by the radiation pressure component of it. They are different.
Solar wind consists of particles and radiation currently emitted from
the sun.

>If you considered that and did the math incorporating the 
>distance to the nearest star, you would see that “squeezing between stars” 
>is not the appropriate expression to use for the effect on any "dust" that 
>might exist between stars, and that it certainly could not account for the 
>dark matter needed to explain rotation curves and gravitational lensing, the 
>fact aside that it exhibits different physical properties than dark matter.

Gravity already explains gravitational lensing. Dark matter is not
needed.

The dust should accumulate at the low radiation pressure regions
(volumes) determined by the net radiation pressure from all sources in
space between stars.

Was it you that implied solar systems (mass concentrated at the
center) can be treated the same as galaxies (more even distribution of
mass). One look at them tells you they cannot be. You give me the
light curve and I will give you the density distribution. For
galaxies, the light curves should plateau at greater distances (which
they do) as the density drops.

>Furthermore, you are also ignorant of the actual particle density in 
>interplanetary and interstellar space – which we now know, thanks to the 
>Voyager probes.

Wrong again. We do not know the particle density we can only infer it.
These probes you mention (Voyager & Pioneer) are out only a tiny
fraction of a light year and are no where near true "interstellar
space" (~2.3 ly). Sorry I used "about 5 ly" for the distance to the
Centauri system but I believe that was because I've actually
calculated the average star distance in our vicinity and it came out
to about that.

> Put simply, there is insufficient "dust" that could be 
>"blown away" from stars to be "squeezed between stars" even if the 
>heliospheres would be much larger than they actually are and the distances 
>between neighboring stars would be much shorter than they actually are.

Maybe there is insufficient dust now, but this dust was pushed out
billions of years ago so we don't really know how much of it there is
out there. We've never sampled anywhere close to "interstellar space."
We can only infer dust density from calculating the attenuation of
received star brightness after "assuming" an intrinsic star brightness
(which we also cannot sample).

>There is an interplanetary dust cloud in the Sol System (from comet trails 
>etc.), but 1) most of the dust in a star system goes into or forms into 
>stars, its planets, asteroids, and occasionally comets and 2) its mass is 
>too small to account for dark matter.

Again, we know the density of interplanetary dust in our solar system
now, but that has nothing to do with the amount of dust that was
pushed out early in our solar system's history.

>There are dust clouds where there are *no* stars in the vicinity (because 
>their solar wind *does* push the dust away within their heliosphere (but 
>different to your misconception, not it is originating from the star, but 
>the solar wind is), and they do not consist of dark matter either.

Could you please rewrite the above paragraph in coherent English? 

Thanks.

...

---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

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

#592784 — Dark matter (was: Re: Arp, haltoN)

Michael J.  Strickland wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>> Michael J.  Strickland wrote:
>>> […] noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > Radiation pressure is stronger than gravity for all
>>>>> > matter below a certain size (radius).
>>> […]
>>> Like I said we are not even 1 light year out yet.
>>And we have already found the point, through Voyager, where there is no
>>more solar wind.
> 
> I'm not referring to the solar wind. I'm referring to the dust pushed
> out by the radiation pressure component of it.

You are contradicting yourself.  If you think that radiation pressure is a 
“component” of the solar wind, then you *are* referring to the solar wind 
when you say “radiation pressure”.

JFYI: Radiation pressure is _not_ a component of the solar wind, and 
radiation pressure decreases as the distance from the source increases.

> Solar wind consists of particles and radiation currently emitted from
> the sun.

  [You are contradicting yourself again here.]

No, it does not.

  [You might have gotten that misconception from superficial reading.  For 
   example, the Encyclopaedia Britannica (see below) says: “The orbits of 
   interplanetary dust particles are easily altered by interaction with the 
   light and charged particles (solar wind) that emanate from the Sun.”]

See also:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure#Comets>

  [Please stop bullshitting about Wikipedia.  By contrast to your 
   statements so far, all statements there must be sourced or they can be 
   removed by anyone, and the statements that I referred to *were* sourced.]
 
>>If you considered that and did the math incorporating the
>>distance to the nearest star, you would see that “squeezing between stars”
>>is not the appropriate expression to use for the effect on any "dust" that
>>might exist between stars, and that it certainly could not account for the
>>dark matter needed to explain rotation curves and gravitational lensing,
>>the fact aside that it exhibits different physical properties than dark
>>matter.
> 
> Gravity already explains gravitational lensing. Dark matter is not
> needed.

Incorrect.

  [Which you would have known had you followed the references I gave you, in 
   the posting that you did not reply to and apparently did not even read.]
 
> The dust should accumulate at the low radiation pressure regions
> (volumes) determined by the net radiation pressure from all sources in
> space between stars.

Your dust accumulation is pure fantasy.  Have you done the math yet?  How 
far is it from the heliopause of Sol to that of Proxima Centauri (or any 
other star you consider to be "in our vicinity"), where your dark-matter 
alternative dust is fabled to exist and be "squeezed between the stars"?
 
> Was it you that implied solar systems (mass concentrated at the
> center)

A star system does not have a center; it has a *barycenter*.  (For the Sol 
System, the barycenter lies approximately 705'820 km *above* the surface of 
Sol.)

> can be treated the same as galaxies (more even distribution of
> mass).

So you are unaware of the black hole at/near the center of the Milky Way 
galaxy (and other galaxies) whose mass must be at least 4 million times the 
mass of Sol, too.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*>

> One look at them tells you they cannot be. You give me the
> light curve and I will give you the density distribution. For
> galaxies, the light curves should plateau at greater distances (which
> they do) as the density drops.

Not even wrong.  There are *light* curves of *stars*, which can tell you if 
an exoplanet orbits a distant star in the line of sight.  And then there are 
*rotation* curves of *galaxies*, which tell you how fast material is 
orbiting a galaxy’s nucleus, relative to the distance to the nucleus.

Dark matter is a good, and the current scientific, explanation for the 
observed *rotation* curves of *galaxies* (among other things).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_curve>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve>
 
>> Furthermore, you are also ignorant of the actual particle density in
>> interplanetary and interstellar space – which we now know, thanks to the
>> Voyager probes.
> 
> Wrong again. We do not know the particle density we can only infer it.
> These probes you mention (Voyager & Pioneer) are out only a tiny
> fraction of a light year

I have only mentioned the two Voyager probes; they have already crossed 
interplanetary space, and are now in interstellar space.

<http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/>

Pioneer 10 and 11 are supposed to be in interstellar space now, too, but by 
contrast to the Voyagers, contact with the former two was lost in 2003 and 
1995, respectively.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_program#Outer_solar_system_missions> 
pp.

> and are no where near true "interstellar space" (~2.3 ly).

Your “true "interstellar space"” is another fantasy.  Interstellar space is 
defined to begin where interplanetary space ends: outside the heliopause of 
the star, which (AISB) for Sol, Voyager 1 has reached in 2012.  For crying 
out loud, NASA officially announced it back then, based on the measured 
conditions where the probe was:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium>

> Sorry I used "about 5 ly" for the distance to the Centauri system but I
> believe that was because I've actually calculated the average star
> distance in our vicinity and it came out to about that.

Whether that is not a bold lie depends on which stars you consider to be “in 
our vicinity”.  I find it more likely that you are starting to weasel around 
your statements, to bend the facts in order to be somehow right on some of 
your points, as crackpots usually do.
 
>> Put simply, there is insufficient "dust" that could be
>>"blown away" from stars to be "squeezed between stars" even if the
>>heliospheres would be much larger than they actually are and the distances
>>between neighboring stars would be much shorter than they actually are.
> 
> Maybe there is insufficient dust now, but this dust was pushed out
> billions of years ago

No, it was not.  *This* dust *accumulation* *outside* star systems is your 
fantasy, so that you do not have to accept the scientific, confirmed *fact* 
that there is dark matter.  You are living in a fantasy world.

>>There is an interplanetary dust cloud in the Sol System (from comet trails
>>etc.), but 1) most of the dust in a star system goes into or forms into
>>stars, its planets, asteroids, and occasionally comets and 2) its mass is
>>too small to account for dark matter.
> 
> Again, we know the density of interplanetary dust in our solar system
> now, but that has nothing to do with the amount of dust that was
> pushed out early in our solar system's history.

Assuming there was such dust, how is it relevant for (a) dark matter 
(alternative) what was back then?  Dark matter does not even figure in the 
equation for star systems, it figures at the scale of *galaxies* instead, 
*now*.  AISB, no interplanetary dust pushed out heliospheres could *ever* 
account for the dark matter needed to explain the rotation curves and the 
additional gravitational lensing in distant (5 × 10⁹ light years) galaxy 
clusters.

To give you a quantitative idea of how wrong your idea is: The particles of 
interplanetary dust that can be blown out of the Sol System by the solar 
wind – instead of spiraling towards Sol – have to have a diameter of less 
than 0.5 µm.

<https://www.britannica.com/topic/interplanetary-dust-particle>

The particle density in interstellar space is 10⁶ molecules per cm³ *at 
maximum*:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium>

>>There are dust clouds where there are *no* stars in the vicinity (because
>>their solar wind *does* push the dust away within their heliosphere (but
>>different to your misconception, not it is originating from the star, but
>>the solar wind is), and they do not consist of dark matter either.
> 
> Could you please rewrite the above paragraph in coherent English?

It *is* coherent English.  You have a reading problem instead.
Further evidence of that:

> ...
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland                   Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------

Which part of “That is _not_ a properly separated Usenet signature” did you 
not understand?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#592800 — Dark matter (was: Re: Arp, haltoN)

Pointed remarks:
"

Dark matter is a good, and the current scientific, explanation for the 
observed *rotation* curves of *galaxies* (among other things). "

No it is not.
It is hand waving in the extreme.
You have no mechanism, no structure 
and no proof.

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

#592889 — Re: Dark matter (was: Re: Arp, haltoN)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 18:52:27 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>Michael J.  Strickland wrote:
>
>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>>> Michael J.  Strickland wrote:
>>>> [?] noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> > Radiation pressure is stronger than gravity for all
>>>>>> > matter below a certain size (radius).
>>>> […]
>>>> Like I said we are not even 1 light year out yet.
>>>And we have already found the point, through Voyager, where there is no
>>>more solar wind.
>> 
>> I'm not referring to the solar wind. I'm referring to the dust pushed
>> out by the radiation pressure component of it.
>
>You are contradicting yourself.  If you think that radiation pressure is a 
>“component” of the solar wind, then you *are* referring to the solar wind 
>when you say “radiation pressure”.

If you bother to read for information instead of childish argument, I
said the radiation pressure is a component of the solar wind. The
solar wind includes other things besides EM radiation 9 the source of
the radiation pressure). It is a slang term used to include all
emissions from the sun.

>JFYI: Radiation pressure is _not_ a component of the solar wind, and 
>radiation pressure decreases as the distance from the source increases.

FYI radiation pressure decreases NOT as the distance from the source
but as that distance squared.

>> Solar wind consists of particles and radiation currently emitted from
>> the sun.
>
>  [You are contradicting yourself again here.]
>
>No, it does not.

Yes it does.

>  [Please stop bullshitting about Wikipedia.  By contrast to your 
>   statements so far, all statements there must be sourced or they can be 
>   removed by anyone, and the statements that I referred to *were* sourced.]

Kid, you are the only one "bullshitting" in this thread and it is
apparent to competent person who reads it. Grow up soon.

FYI, Wikipedia entries can be added or removed by anyone whether they
are sourced or not.
 
I can see you are just trolling for argument and I'm not going to
indulge you further. You are obviously un-educated or mis-educated and
that is surely not my fault.

Goodbye and welcome to the kill-filter.

...
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

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

#593013 — Re: Dark matter

Michael J.  Strickland wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>> Michael J.  Strickland wrote:
>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>>>> Michael J.  Strickland wrote:
>>>>> [?] noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> > Radiation pressure is stronger than gravity for all
>>>>>>> > matter below a certain size (radius).
>>>>> […]
>>>>> Like I said we are not even 1 light year out yet.
>>>> And we have already found the point, through Voyager, where there is no
>>>> more solar wind.
>>> I'm not referring to the solar wind. I'm referring to the dust pushed
>>> out by the radiation pressure component of it.
>> You are contradicting yourself.  If you think that radiation pressure is 
>> a “component” of the solar wind, then you *are* referring to the solar 
>> wind when you say “radiation pressure”.
> 
> If you bother to read for information

I have; you have not.

> […] I said the radiation pressure is a component of the solar wind.

And that is wrong.

> The solar wind includes other things besides EM radiation 9 the source of
> the radiation pressure).

Not even wrong.  “EM radiation 9”?

> It is a slang term used to include all emissions from the sun.

This is a scientific newsgroup.  You just cannot redefine scientific terms 
as you see fit and be taken seriously at the same time.  The solar wind is 
*only* the stream of *charged* particles emitted by a star (here: Sol, 
trivially known as “the Sun” [with a capital “S”]).  (See below.)

>>JFYI: Radiation pressure is _not_ a component of the solar wind, and
>>radiation pressure decreases as the distance from the source increases.
> 
> FYI radiation pressure decreases NOT as the distance from the source
> but as that distance squared.

I did not intend to give an exact mathematical description, only a hint.
You know the inverse square law *now that I referred you to it*, but as you 
did with other scientific facts, you fail to appreciate the meaning of it.

If you would calculate the radiation pressure that particles experience in 
121 AU distance from Sol, you would find that it is ca. 0.00062 µPa for 
reflection and ca. 0.00031 µPa for absorption.  Do you really think that 
this pressure is sufficient to push particles with a diameter of ca. 0.5 µm 
out of a star system?

>>> Solar wind consists of particles and radiation currently emitted from
>>> the sun.
>>
>>  [You are contradicting yourself again here.]
>>
>>No, it does not.
> 
> Yes it does.

You wish.

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind>
| 
| The solar wind is a stream of charged particles released from the upper 
| atmosphere of the Sun. […]


,-<http://www.space.com/22215-solar-wind.html>
| 
| The solar wind streams plasma and particles from the sun out into space. 
| […]

,-<http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/3-what-is-solar-wind.html>
| 
| The solar wind is a stream of energized, charged particles, […]

,-<https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/help/the-solar-wind>
| 
| The solar wind is a stream of charged particles (a plasma) released from 
| the Sun. […]

,-<http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/solar-wind/>
| 
| The Sun’s outer atmosphere, the super-hot corona, is the source of the 
| solar wind, a steady outflow of charged particles from the Sun. […]

,-<http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qsolwindcomp.html>
| 
| […]
| The composition of the solar wind is a mixture of materials found in the 
| solar plasma, composed of ionized hydrogen (electrons and protons) with an 
| 8% component of helium (alpha particles) and trace amounts of heavy ions 
| and atomic nuclei: C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe ripped apart by heating 
| of the Sun's outer atmosphere, that is, the corona (Feldman et al., 1998).
| 
| SOHO also identified traces of some elements for the first time such as P, 
| Ti, Cr and Ni and an assortment of solar wind isotopes identified for the 
| first time: Fe 54 and 56; Ni 58,60,62 (Galvin, 1996).

(etc. pp.)

By contrast, electromagnetic radiation consists of photons, which have 
*zero* electric charge.  They are _not_ charged particles, so cannot be part 
of the solar wind.

>>  [Please stop bullshitting about Wikipedia.  By contrast to your
>>   statements so far, all statements there must be sourced or they can be
>>   removed by anyone, and the statements that I referred to *were*
>>   sourced.]
> 
> Kid, you are the only one "bullshitting" in this thread and it is
> apparent to competent person who reads it. Grow up soon.

You are provably and proven incompetent in all fields that matter here, so 
you are really not in a good position to pass judgment on who’s 
“bullshitting”.

> FYI, Wikipedia entries can be added or removed by anyone whether they
> are sourced or not.

Yes, but articles that contain statements that are not sourced will be 
removed earlier than others (unless someone takes the time to augment it 
with citations), and if articles that contain statements which are sourced 
are deleted, they will quickly be restored.  And AISB, in the articles that 
I referred you to, the relevant statements were sourced.  IOW, there is 
scientific quality assurance in the Wikipedia.  So it is illogical of you
to claim that those were not appropriate references.
  
> I can see you are just trolling for argument and I'm not going to
> indulge you further. You are obviously un-educated or mis-educated and
> that is surely not my fault.

LOL
 
> Goodbye and welcome to the kill-filter.

Your loss.
 
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#592723

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 18:54:53 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> $Michael J.  Strickland wrote:
> 
>> I don't favor "Dark Matter" theories and have always wondered if they
>> just don't account for all the normal mass. Popularizations of the
>> theories include various rookie errors like:
>> 
>> 1. Assuming galaxies and star clusters can be modeled like solar
>> systems. They cannot be.
> 
> Why not?
>  
>> 2. Extrapolating the amount of dust in the solar system to the amount
>> between stars.
> 
> Nobody but you did that.  The theory of dark matter, *confirmed* by 
> *observation*, comes from the *observation* of *galaxies*: Of closer 
> galaxies whose rotational curves we can observe (including that of our own 
> galaxy, the Milky Way) and where we notice that there is not enough baryonic 
> matter to explain those curves; and of galaxies behind far away clusters of 
> galaxies because there has to be a lot of dark matter in the clusters to 
> cause the observed gravitational lensing.
> 
> <https://youtu.be/sbsGYRArH_w?t=849>
> 
> (Lawrence M. Krauss (2014): “A Universe from Nothing”.  From 0:14:09.)
> 
>> There should be much more dust between stars than near stars.
> 
> Why?
> 
>> Out solar system is all we have directly sampled.
> 
> It is not necessary to sample matter to know that it is dark matter (see 
> below).
> 
>> We (our probes) are not even 1 light year out yet.
> 
> We have astronomy, so that is irrelevant (see below).
> 
>> The nearest star is about 5 light years away.
> 
> The nearest star is Proxima Centauri, 4.25 light-years away.  If you round 
> 4.25 to an integer, you get _4_, not 5.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri>
> 
> (You could not even get that highschool-level fact right.)
> 
>> Radiation pressure is stronger than gravity for all
>> matter below a certain size (radius).
> 
> Which radius exactly?
> 
>> This pushes particles smaller than this limit away from stars.
> 
> Utter nonsense.
> 
>> This dust  accumulates in (squeezes around) the regions between stars.
> 
> It does not.  Apparently you are unaware of astronomical distances.  
> Voyager 1 was reported to cross Sol’s heliopause in August 2012, at a 
> distance of 121 AU.  That is ca. 0.002 light-years, or ca. 0.00047 times the 
> distance to Proxima Centauri.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere#Heliopause>
> 
>> We do not know the actual distribution of radii for dust particles in the
>> galaxy or the universe.
> 
> Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong.
> 
> More importantly, even dust shines, i.e. it emits electromagnetic 
> radiation – even if it only reflects it; dark matter does not (hence 
> “dark”).
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter>
> 
>> Based on my guess,
> 
> An *uneducated* guess, based on your ignorance of the advances in science 
> during the last 100 years; particularly in astronomy, cosmology, and 
> particle physics.
> 
>> the universe contains much more total mass in these much more numerous
>> small dust particles than in the larger particles up to planet and star
>> sized "particles".
> 
> Ex falso quodlibet – from a false premise, anything can follow – …
> 
> [...] baryonic matter 
> *does* account for only about 1 % of the total mass-energy
> of the universe plus ca. 4 % from photons and weakly interacting
> particles like neutrinos.  The rest is dark matter (ca. 27 %)
>  and dark energy (ca. 68 %)
> There is *a lot* more both dark matter and
> dark energy than there is baryonic matter

Assuming the 95% total is correct for total mass-energy needed, how can
we further categorize it into dark 'matter' (=== mass?) and dark
'energy' when we have no idea of what either entails?

Worded differently, what is the difference between dark energy and dark
matter? I always thought that the commonly used term 'dark matter' was
just a way to express the idea of the missing mass.

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

#592739

Mike Duffy wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 18:54:53 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> [...] baryonic matter *does* account for only about 1 % of the total
>> mass-energy of the universe plus ca. 4 % from photons and weakly
>> interacting particles like neutrinos.  The rest is dark matter (ca. 27 %)
>> and dark energy (ca. 68 %) […]  There is *a lot* more both dark matter 
>> and dark energy than there is baryonic matter […]
> 
> Assuming the 95% total is correct for total mass-energy needed, how can
> we further categorize it into dark 'matter' (=== mass?) and dark
> 'energy'

The special and general theory of relativity show that mass and energy are 
equivalent quantities.  [E(p) = √((m c²)² + (p c)²) → E(0) = m c².
c = 1 → E = m.]

> when we have no idea of what either entails?

By their observable effects on the rest of the energy content of the 
universe.

> Worded differently, what is the difference between dark energy and dark
> matter? I always thought that the commonly used term 'dark matter' was
> just a way to express the idea of the missing mass.

Put simply:  Dark matter is gravitationally attractive on short scales 
(binding baryonic matter to make galaxies etc.); dark energy is 
gravitationally repulsive on long scales (increasing the speed of
universal expansion).

Note that the word “dark” has different meanings in each term: In “dark 
matter”, it refers primarily to the fact that this matter does not emit 
electromagnetic radiation; in “dark energy” primarily to the fact that we do 
not know why it has to be there, according to observations and calculation.

By contrast to dark matter, dark energy is not a stuff; it is the energy 
that *empty* space (*void* of observable particles) needs to have in order 
to explain the observations that the speed of the expansion of the universe 
is increasing instead of staying constant or decreasing, *and* that the 
(spacetime of the observable) universe is flat (has an average curvature 
close to zero, or IOW the sum of the inner angles of a large enough triangle 
is close to 180° everywhere in the observable universe; see also Lawrence 
Krauss’ excellent talks).

Please trim your quotes and quote the rest properly, marking *all* 
omissions.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#592822

_the big bang ne'er happeneD by E. Lerner,
a student of Alfven at u.c.s.d,
is a graet primer, although
I have not read most of it

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

#592879

noTthaTguY wrote:

> _the big bang ne'er happeneD by E. Lerner,
> a student of Alfven at u.c.s.d,

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lerner#The_Big_Bang_Never_Happened>

(published in 1991 – *before* further analysis of COBE data, before 
BOOMERang, WMAP, and “Planck”)

> is a graet primer, although
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I have not read most of it
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do you realize the stupidity in what you just said?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#592949 — a.s.c.i.i

I didn't say that I was a student of Alfven,
teh obly one who actually has a kind of radiation,
named after himself (and
it is a really big area of interest in astronomy,
if not astrology ... note that
"western or "solar astrology does not actually bother
to see what constellation that Sun is transitting, so that
the whole shebang has shifted by a whole house,
one way or the other, because
of the precession of the equinoxes

> > I have not read most of it
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Do you realize the stupidity in what you just said?
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web