Groups > sci.physics > #537073 > unrolled thread

What is the universe made of? Shedding light on the mystery of missing ordinary matter

Started by	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
First post	2015-12-02 20:47 -0600
Last post	2015-12-03 23:41 -0500
Articles	13 — 5 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

#537073 — What is the universe made of? Shedding light on the mystery of missing ordinary matter

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-02 20:47 -0600
Subject	What is the universe made of? Shedding light on the mystery of missing ordinary matter
Message-ID	<8PydndgvLqHdMMLLnZ2dnUU7-IkAAAAA@giganews.com>

What is the universe made of? Shedding light on the mystery of missing 
ordinary matter
> http://phys.org/news/2015-12-universe-mystery-ordinary.html


> Matter known as ordinary, which makes up everything we know,
> corresponds to only 5% of the Universe. Approximately half of this
> percentage still eluded detection. Numerical simulations made it
> possible to predict that the rest of this ordinary matter should be
> located in the large-scale structures that form the 'cosmic web' at
> temperatures between 100,000 and 10 million degrees.
>
> A team led by a researcher from the University of Geneva (UNIGE),
> Switzerland, observed this phenomenon directly. The research shows
> that the majority of the missing ordinary matter is found in the form
> of a very hot gas associated with intergalactic filaments. The
> article reporting this discovery is published in the journal Nature.
>

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#537094

From	"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-02 21:11 -0800
Message-ID	<207c95be-d2aa-4938-8fd6-48cae9bf7755@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#537073

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 6:47:32 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> What is the universe made of? Shedding light on the mystery of missing 
> ordinary matter
> > http://phys.org/news/2015-12-universe-mystery-ordinary.html
> 
> 
> > Matter known as ordinary, which makes up everything we know,
> > corresponds to only 5% of the Universe. Approximately half of this
> > percentage still eluded detection. Numerical simulations made it
> > possible to predict that the rest of this ordinary matter should be
> > located in the large-scale structures that form the 'cosmic web' at
> > temperatures between 100,000 and 10 million degrees.
> >
> > A team led by a researcher from the University of Geneva (UNIGE),
> > Switzerland, observed this phenomenon directly. The research shows
> > that the majority of the missing ordinary matter is found in the form
> > of a very hot gas associated with intergalactic filaments. The
> > article reporting this discovery is published in the journal Nature.
> >
> 

What they have there isn't "5% is there" 
but "95%" is missing, which is just 2 
s.d.'s confidence interval (eg, 80/90/95/99/...).  
Then, for one particular supercluster or very 
large Messier object, Abell 2744, a cluster of 
galaxies, they find only 90% missing.  

The summary text:

 "The research shows that the 
majority of the missing ordinary matter is found 
in the form of a very hot gas associated with 
intergalactic filaments.

 doesn't seem to correlate with the main article 
title:  "Warm-hot baryons comprise 5-10 per cent 
of filaments in the cosmic web."

It does seem that the article's intent is 
to explain "missing ordinary matter" not 
"unscientific or hypothetical dark matter".

Then, that could still just be a structure of the 
formation (active formation), or, a measurement 
artifact (of how much there is), or, well that's 
alternatives, and "intergalactic filaments" here are 
huge gaseous nebula in flow networks not "hairs".

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

#537132

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-03 09:08 -0600
Message-ID	<ur2dnZJ60paWxv3LnZ2dnUU7-N2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#537094

On 12/2/15 11:11 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> What they have there isn't "5% is there"
> but "95%" is missing, which is just 2
> s.d.'s confidence interval (eg, 80/90/95/99/...).

   You don't no how to do statistical analysis, do you?
   Mothing is missing, it's just dark.

WMAP's Top Ten

   1. NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has mapped the 
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the oldest light in the 
universe) and produced the first fine-resolution (0.2 degree) full-sky 
map of the microwave sky

   2. WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.73 
billion years old to within 1% (0.12 billion years) -as recognized in 
the Guinness Book of World Records!

   3. WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to within 1% of "flat" 
Euclidean, improving on the precision of previous award-winning 
measurements by over an order of magnitude

   4. The CMB became the "premier baryometer" of the universe with 
WMAP's precision determination that ordinary atoms (also called baryons) 
make up only 4.6% of the universe (to within 0.1%)

   5. WMAP's complete census of the universe finds that dark matter (not 
made up of atoms) make up 23.3% (to within 1.3%)

   6. WMAP's accuracy and precision determined that dark energy makes up 
72.1% of the universe (to within 1.5%), causing the expansion rate of 
the universe to speed up. - "Lingering doubts about the existence of 
dark energy and the composition of the universe dissolved when the WMAP 
satellite took the most detailed picture ever of the cosmic microwave 
background (CMB)." - Science Magazine 2003, "Breakthrough of the Year" 
article

   7. WMAP has mapped the polarization of the microwave radiation over 
the full sky and discovered that the universe was reionized earlier than 
previously believed. - "WMAP scores on large-scale structure. By 
measuring the polarization in the CMB it is possible to look at the 
amplitude of the fluctuations of density in the universe that produced 
the first galaxies. That is a real breakthrough in our understanding of 
the origin of structure." - ScienceWatch: "What's Hot in Physics", Simon 
Mitton, Mar./Apr. 2008

   8. WMAP has started to sort through the possibilities of what 
transpired in the first trillionth of a trillionth of a second, ruling 
out well-known textbook models for the first time.

   9. The statistical properties of the CMB fluctuations measured by 
WMAP appear "random"; however, there are several hints of possible 
deviations from simple randomness that are still being assessed. 
Significant deviations would be a very important signature of new 
physics in the early universe.

  10. WMAP has put the "precision" in "precision cosmology" by reducing 
the allowed volume of cosmological parameters by a factor of 30,000. The 
three most highly cited physics and astronomy papers published in the 
new millennium are WMAP scientific papers--- reflecting WMAP's enormous 
impact.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#537145

From	benj <none@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-03 10:36 -0500
Message-ID	<skZ7y.263979$eP.44943@fx13.iad>
In reply to	#537132

On 12/03/2015 10:08 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 12/2/15 11:11 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>> What they have there isn't "5% is there"
>> but "95%" is missing, which is just 2
>> s.d.'s confidence interval (eg, 80/90/95/99/...).
>
>    You don't no how to do statistical analysis, do you?
>    Mothing is missing, it's just dark.
>
>
> WMAP's Top Ten
>
>    1. NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has mapped the
> Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the oldest light in the
> universe) and produced the first fine-resolution (0.2 degree) full-sky
> map of the microwave sky.

Yes.

>    2. WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.73
> billion years old to within 1% (0.12 billion years) -as recognized in
> the Guinness Book of World Records!

No. BB is nonsense. Guinness Book of records isn't science! (Only to 
Wormley who thinks science comes from cartoons)



>    3. WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to within 1% of "flat"
> Euclidean, improving on the precision of previous award-winning
> measurements by over an order of magnitude

Space is not "flat". And space-time is not a real thing.

>    4. The CMB became the "premier baryometer" of the universe with
> WMAP's precision determination that ordinary atoms (also called baryons)
> make up only 4.6% of the universe (to within 0.1%)

Only if you believe in the BB>

>    5. WMAP's complete census of the universe finds that dark matter (not
> made up of atoms) make up 23.3% (to within 1.3%)

Dark matter is also bullshit a result of the errors in believing in the 
BB which is itself a mistake by thinking red shift is due to velocity.

>    6. WMAP's accuracy and precision determined that dark energy makes up
> 72.1% of the universe (to within 1.5%), causing the expansion rate of
> the universe to speed up. - "Lingering doubts about the existence of
> dark energy and the composition of the universe dissolved when the WMAP
> satellite took the most detailed picture ever of the cosmic microwave
> background (CMB)." - Science Magazine 2003, "Breakthrough of the Year"
> article

Garbage extrapolation of errors.

>    7. WMAP has mapped the polarization of the microwave radiation over
> the full sky and discovered that the universe was reionized earlier than
> previously believed. - "WMAP scores on large-scale structure. By
> measuring the polarization in the CMB it is possible to look at the
> amplitude of the fluctuations of density in the universe that produced
> the first galaxies. That is a real breakthrough in our understanding of
> the origin of structure." - ScienceWatch: "What's Hot in Physics", Simon
> Mitton, Mar./Apr. 2008

when the basic premise is wrong all logic that follows is wrong.

>    8. WMAP has started to sort through the possibilities of what
> transpired in the first trillionth of a trillionth of a second, ruling
> out well-known textbook models for the first time.

Big Bang is bullshit. No "first trillionth of a second".

>    9. The statistical properties of the CMB fluctuations measured by
> WMAP appear "random"; however, there are several hints of possible
> deviations from simple randomness that are still being assessed.
> Significant deviations would be a very important signature of new
> physics in the early universe.

One would expect it to be random as being noise generated by the entire 
cosmos (not BB).

>   10. WMAP has put the "precision" in "precision cosmology" by reducing
> the allowed volume of cosmological parameters by a factor of 30,000. The
> three most highly cited physics and astronomy papers published in the
> new millennium are WMAP scientific papers--- reflecting WMAP's enormous
> impact.

"precision cosmology" BWAHAHAHAHahaha! That is funny as hell Sammy!
Cosmology is all fantasy with no real data behind it anyway so you are 
really extolling "precision fantasy"! Too funny for words!

Sam, you are STILL and ignorant idiot!

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#537278

From	"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-03 18:19 -0800
Message-ID	<6653f6e7-3f2a-4109-beb7-2ba06ada1c34@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#537132

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 7:09:02 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 12/2/15 11:11 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > What they have there isn't "5% is there"
> > but "95%" is missing, which is just 2
> > s.d.'s confidence interval (eg, 80/90/95/99/...).
> 
>    You don't no how to do statistical analysis, do you?
>    Mothing is missing, it's just dark.
> 
> 
> WMAP's Top Ten
> 
>    1. NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has mapped the 
> Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the oldest light in the 
> universe) and produced the first fine-resolution (0.2 degree) full-sky 
> map of the microwave sky
> 
>    2. WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.73 
> billion years old to within 1% (0.12 billion years) -as recognized in 
> the Guinness Book of World Records!
> 
>    3. WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to within 1% of "flat" 
> Euclidean, improving on the precision of previous award-winning 
> measurements by over an order of magnitude
> 
>    4. The CMB became the "premier baryometer" of the universe with 
> WMAP's precision determination that ordinary atoms (also called baryons) 
> make up only 4.6% of the universe (to within 0.1%)
> 
>    5. WMAP's complete census of the universe finds that dark matter (not 
> made up of atoms) make up 23.3% (to within 1.3%)
> 
>    6. WMAP's accuracy and precision determined that dark energy makes up 
> 72.1% of the universe (to within 1.5%), causing the expansion rate of 
> the universe to speed up. - "Lingering doubts about the existence of 
> dark energy and the composition of the universe dissolved when the WMAP 
> satellite took the most detailed picture ever of the cosmic microwave 
> background (CMB)." - Science Magazine 2003, "Breakthrough of the Year" 
> article
> 
>    7. WMAP has mapped the polarization of the microwave radiation over 
> the full sky and discovered that the universe was reionized earlier than 
> previously believed. - "WMAP scores on large-scale structure. By 
> measuring the polarization in the CMB it is possible to look at the 
> amplitude of the fluctuations of density in the universe that produced 
> the first galaxies. That is a real breakthrough in our understanding of 
> the origin of structure." - ScienceWatch: "What's Hot in Physics", Simon 
> Mitton, Mar./Apr. 2008
> 
>    8. WMAP has started to sort through the possibilities of what 
> transpired in the first trillionth of a trillionth of a second, ruling 
> out well-known textbook models for the first time.
> 
>    9. The statistical properties of the CMB fluctuations measured by 
> WMAP appear "random"; however, there are several hints of possible 
> deviations from simple randomness that are still being assessed. 
> Significant deviations would be a very important signature of new 
> physics in the early universe.
> 
>   10. WMAP has put the "precision" in "precision cosmology" by reducing 
> the allowed volume of cosmological parameters by a factor of 30,000. The 
> three most highly cited physics and astronomy papers published in the 
> new millennium are WMAP scientific papers--- reflecting WMAP's enormous 
> impact.
> 

As higher energy experiments of similar configuration 
are brought online, the universe is found bigger and 
the particle is found smaller (see for example NIST 
CODATA and what is "1 AMU" over the years).  The mass 
of a particle isn't just refined, it's reduced.  This 
is in part the measurement effect, similarly the deeper 
we look into the well the more the blinders there are, 
that then see yet more space and mass and then about 
how current models using "WMAP is flat" are off by 
10^120 orders of magnitude (all the way off).

Space's cosmological constant is an infinitesimal, 
particle size is like an infinitesimal point, 
all of space is like an infinite universe.

Big Bang and Steady State both arise!  Various galaxy 
surveys find them moving in all random directions, 
not just away.

Then, given picking one or the other, then the evidence 
will support that either way, where both are true.  It 
won't support neither.

That's saying "Big Bang" and "Steady State" aren't 
exclusive.

Look at NIST CODATA, particles sizes (as measured) 
halve every few years.  "Running constants" and 
their ratio arrangements are becoming well-known 
in physics.  Planck's c/C and 1/FSC aren't constants.

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

#537287

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-03 20:43 -0600
Message-ID	<zJadnYHQvbdyYP3LnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#537278

On 12/3/15 8:19 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> This
> is in part the measurement effect, similarly the deeper
> we look into the well the more the blinders there are,
> that then see yet more space and mass and then about
> how current models using "WMAP is flat" are off by
> 10^120 orders of magnitude (all the way off).

   You are not making any sense at all, Ross.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#537288

From	"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-03 18:45 -0800
Message-ID	<0f9b2775-aacf-4519-8394-dbf79d3ef051@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#537287

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 6:44:01 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 12/3/15 8:19 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > This
> > is in part the measurement effect, similarly the deeper
> > we look into the well the more the blinders there are,
> > that then see yet more space and mass and then about
> > how current models using "WMAP is flat" are off by
> > 10^120 orders of magnitude (all the way off).
> 
> 
>    You are not making any sense at all, Ross.
> 

"Making cents" is for bean-counters, 
not conscientious physicists (who 
can be the same thing).

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

#537594

From	"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-05 17:24 -0800
Message-ID	<9bc6a3d6-f9f4-4859-b5a6-e4f20a600b07@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#537288

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 6:45:59 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 6:44:01 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 12/3/15 8:19 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > This
> > > is in part the measurement effect, similarly the deeper
> > > we look into the well the more the blinders there are,
> > > that then see yet more space and mass and then about
> > > how current models using "WMAP is flat" are off by
> > > 10^120 orders of magnitude (all the way off).
> > 
> > 
> >    You are not making any sense at all, Ross.
> > 
> 
> "Making cents" is for bean-counters, 
> not conscientious physicists (who 
> can be the same thing).

About Alma:  those clusters are more than 11 billion 
light years away, thus that view is 11 billion years old.  

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-alma-monstrous-baby-galaxies-cradled.html

"The shape of the cluster observed by the Subaru 
Telescope indicates the presence of a huge 3D web 
of invisible dark matter."

"This finding supports the model that monstrous galaxies 
form in areas where dark matter is concentrated. And since 
modern large elliptical galaxies are simply monstrous galaxies 
which have mellowed with age, they too must have originated 
at nexuses in the large scale structure."

So, it seems the "dark matter" presence was computed off 
the visible segment, then there's a difference with the radio 
segment.

Why galaxy arms instead of galaxy rings?

http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.08861

"ALMA Deep Field in SSA22: A concentration of 
dusty starbursts in a z=3.09 protocluster core"

From the abstract, about the "nexus" is about  "at the 
junction of the 50 Mpc-scale filamentary three-dimensional 
structure traced by Lyman-alpha emitters (LAEs) in this field ...."

("We find that four of the eight SMGs host 
a X-ray luminous active galactic nuclei (AGN). "  
I think that's interesting because it's half of them.)

"The density distribution of dark matter is expected 
to reﬂect that of baryonic matter and consequently 
that of galaxies (e.g., Kauﬀmann et al. 1999)."

"Throughout this letter, we adopt a cosmology with 
Ωm = 0.3,ΩΛ = 0.7, and H0=70 km s−1 Mpc−1."

Kauffmann, Colberg, Diaferio, and White: 1999 MNRAS?

arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9906493

"In ﬁgures 15-17 we show ﬁts to the data obtained 
for the popular ΛCDM cosmology (Ω = 0.3, Λ = 0.7, 
H0 = 70 km s−1 and σ8 = 1). We note that quasar 
luminosity functions in the literature are almost 
always computed assuming a cosmology with q0 = 0.5 
and H0 = 50 km s−1. In order to avoid having to re-analyze 
the real observational data, we choose to transform our 
model predictions to the values that would be obtained 
if the observations were analyzed assuming an Einstein-
de Sitter universe with Hubble Constant h = 0.5. Because 
structure forms earlier in the ΛCDM cosmology, galaxy-galaxy 
merging rates are substantially lower at z = 0 than in the high-
density CDM cosmology. As a result, we do not require an very 
strong evolution in the cold gas content of galaxies to reproduce 
the strong decline in quasar space densities from z ∼ 2 to the 
present day. Our best-ﬁt model has α ∝ (1 + z)−1 and tacc(z = 0) 
= 2.5×107 Gyr. In addition we assume that tacc scales in the same 
way as the host galaxy dynamical time in a ΛCDM cosmology: tacc 
∝ (0.7+0.3(1+z)3)−1/2 (Mo, Mao & White 1998). As seen in ﬁgures 
15-17, the ΛCDM model can simultaneosly ﬁt the evolution of cold 
gas inferred from the damped systems and the decline in quasar 
space density from z = 2 to the present day."

Oh, so you just adjust the parameters to fit the model, how neat.

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

#537704

From	"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-06 12:16 -0800
Message-ID	<6c9160ca-c377-4b8f-8c39-350309e44c5b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#537594

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 5:24:21 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 6:45:59 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 6:44:01 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > On 12/3/15 8:19 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > This
> > > > is in part the measurement effect, similarly the deeper
> > > > we look into the well the more the blinders there are,
> > > > that then see yet more space and mass and then about
> > > > how current models using "WMAP is flat" are off by
> > > > 10^120 orders of magnitude (all the way off).
> > > 
> > > 
> > >    You are not making any sense at all, Ross.
> > > 
> > 
> > "Making cents" is for bean-counters, 
> > not conscientious physicists (who 
> > can be the same thing).
> 
> 
> About Alma:  those clusters are more than 11 billion 
> light years away, thus that view is 11 billion years old.  
> 
> http://phys.org/news/2015-12-alma-monstrous-baby-galaxies-cradled.html
> 
> "The shape of the cluster observed by the Subaru 
> Telescope indicates the presence of a huge 3D web 
> of invisible dark matter."
> 
> "This finding supports the model that monstrous galaxies 
> form in areas where dark matter is concentrated. And since 
> modern large elliptical galaxies are simply monstrous galaxies 
> which have mellowed with age, they too must have originated 
> at nexuses in the large scale structure."
> 
> 
> So, it seems the "dark matter" presence was computed off 
> the visible segment, then there's a difference with the radio 
> segment.
> 
> 
> 
> Why galaxy arms instead of galaxy rings?
> 
> 
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.08861
> 
> "ALMA Deep Field in SSA22: A concentration of 
> dusty starbursts in a z=3.09 protocluster core"
> 
> From the abstract, about the "nexus" is about  "at the 
> junction of the 50 Mpc-scale filamentary three-dimensional 
> structure traced by Lyman-alpha emitters (LAEs) in this field ...."
> 
> 
> ("We find that four of the eight SMGs host 
> a X-ray luminous active galactic nuclei (AGN). "  
> I think that's interesting because it's half of them.)
> 
> "The density distribution of dark matter is expected 
> to reﬂect that of baryonic matter and consequently 
> that of galaxies (e.g., Kauﬀmann et al. 1999)."
> 
> 
> "Throughout this letter, we adopt a cosmology with 
> Ωm = 0.3,ΩΛ = 0.7, and H0=70 km s−1 Mpc−1."
> 
> Kauffmann, Colberg, Diaferio, and White: 1999 MNRAS?
> 
> arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9906493
> 
> "In ﬁgures 15-17 we show ﬁts to the data obtained 
> for the popular ΛCDM cosmology (Ω = 0.3, Λ = 0.7, 
> H0 = 70 km s−1 and σ8 = 1). We note that quasar 
> luminosity functions in the literature are almost 
> always computed assuming a cosmology with q0 = 0.5 
> and H0 = 50 km s−1. In order to avoid having to re-analyze 
> the real observational data, we choose to transform our 
> model predictions to the values that would be obtained 
> if the observations were analyzed assuming an Einstein-
> de Sitter universe with Hubble Constant h = 0.5. Because 
> structure forms earlier in the ΛCDM cosmology, galaxy-galaxy 
> merging rates are substantially lower at z = 0 than in the high-
> density CDM cosmology. As a result, we do not require an very 
> strong evolution in the cold gas content of galaxies to reproduce 
> the strong decline in quasar space densities from z ∼ 2 to the 
> present day. Our best-ﬁt model has α ∝ (1 + z)−1 and tacc(z = 0) 
> = 2.5×107 Gyr. In addition we assume that tacc scales in the same 
> way as the host galaxy dynamical time in a ΛCDM cosmology: tacc 
> ∝ (0.7+0.3(1+z)3)−1/2 (Mo, Mao & White 1998). As seen in ﬁgures 
> 15-17, the ΛCDM model can simultaneosly ﬁt the evolution of cold 
> gas inferred from the damped systems and the decline in quasar 
> space density from z = 2 to the present day."
> 
> Oh, so you just adjust the parameters to fit the model, how neat.

More on "why galaxy arms instead of rings", 
just some Wiki-fodder, basically that spiral 
is the way of galaxies, then as of why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_sequence

There's a lot to be understood in this about 
the fractal (self-similar at any scales), about 
why barred spiral galaxies are like digital ones 
and pinwheel spiral galaxies are like analog ones.

This isn't so much about explaining the missing 
ordinary matter so much, as yet:  how are spiral 
galaxies formed, and, of the various sorts why, 
then, is it usual for all galaxies to be spiral 
galaxies, then, why variously barred and pinwheel 
spiral galaxies.

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

#537721 — Re: What is the universe made of? Shedding light on the mystery of missing ordinary matter

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2015-12-06 14:48 -0800
Subject	Re: What is the universe made of? Shedding light on the mystery of missing ordinary matter
Message-ID	<5664BB4C.6368@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#537704

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 5:24:21 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 6:45:59 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 6:44:01 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > On 12/3/15 8:19 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > This
> > > > > is in part the measurement effect, similarly the deeper
> > > > > we look into the well the more the blinders there are,
> > > > > that then see yet more space and mass and then about
> > > > > how current models using "WMAP is flat" are off by
> > > > > 10^120 orders of magnitude (all the way off).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >    You are not making any sense at all, Ross.
> > > >
> > >
> > > "Making cents" is for bean-counters,
> > > not conscientious physicists (who
> > > can be the same thing).
> >
> >
> > About Alma:  those clusters are more than 11 billion
> > light years away, thus that view is 11 billion years old.
> >
> > http://phys.org/news/2015-12-alma-monstrous-baby-galaxies-cradled.html
> >
> > "The shape of the cluster observed by the Subaru
> > Telescope indicates the presence of a huge 3D web
> > of invisible dark matter."
> >
> > "This finding supports the model that monstrous galaxies
> > form in areas where dark matter is concentrated. And since
> > modern large elliptical galaxies are simply monstrous galaxies
> > which have mellowed with age, they too must have originated
> > at nexuses in the large scale structure."
> >
> >
> > So, it seems the "dark matter" presence was computed off
> > the visible segment, then there's a difference with the radio
> > segment.
> >
> >
> >
> > Why galaxy arms instead of galaxy rings?
> >
> >
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.08861
> >
> > "ALMA Deep Field in SSA22: A concentration of
> > dusty starbursts in a z=3.09 protocluster core"
> >
> > From the abstract, about the "nexus" is about  "at the
> > junction of the 50 Mpc-scale filamentary three-dimensional
> > structure traced by Lyman-alpha emitters (LAEs) in this field ...."
> >
> >
> > ("We find that four of the eight SMGs host
> > a X-ray luminous active galactic nuclei (AGN). "
> > I think that's interesting because it's half of them.)
> >
> > "The density distribution of dark matter is expected
> > to reï¬‚ect that of baryonic matter and consequently
> > that of galaxies (e.g., Kauï¬€mann et al. 1999)."
> >
> >
> > "Throughout this letter, we adopt a cosmology with
> > â„¦m = 0.3,â„¦Î› = 0.7, and H0=70 km sâˆ’1 Mpcâˆ’1."
> >
> > Kauffmann, Colberg, Diaferio, and White: 1999 MNRAS?
> >
> > arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9906493
> >
> > "In ï¬gures 15-17 we show ï¬ts to the data obtained
> > for the popular Î›CDM cosmology (â„¦ = 0.3, Î› = 0.7,
> > H0 = 70 km sâˆ’1 and Ïƒ8 = 1). We note that quasar
> > luminosity functions in the literature are almost
> > always computed assuming a cosmology with q0 = 0.5
> > and H0 = 50 km sâˆ’1. In order to avoid having to re-analyze
> > the real observational data, we choose to transform our
> > model predictions to the values that would be obtained
> > if the observations were analyzed assuming an Einstein-
> > de Sitter universe with Hubble Constant h = 0.5. Because
> > structure forms earlier in the Î›CDM cosmology, galaxy-galaxy
> > merging rates are substantially lower at z = 0 than in the high-
> > density CDM cosmology. As a result, we do not require an very
> > strong evolution in the cold gas content of galaxies to reproduce
> > the strong decline in quasar space densities from z âˆ¼ 2 to the
> > present day. Our best-ï¬t model has Î± âˆ (1 + z)âˆ’1 and tacc(z = 0)
> > = 2.5Ã—107 Gyr. In addition we assume that tacc scales in the same
> > way as the host galaxy dynamical time in a Î›CDM cosmology: tacc
> > âˆ (0.7+0.3(1+z)3)âˆ’1/2 (Mo, Mao & White 1998). As seen in ï¬gures
> > 15-17, the Î›CDM model can simultaneosly ï¬t the evolution of cold
> > gas inferred from the damped systems and the decline in quasar
> > space density from z = 2 to the present day."
> >
> > Oh, so you just adjust the parameters to fit the model, how neat.
> 
> More on "why galaxy arms instead of rings",
> just some Wiki-fodder, basically that spiral
> is the way of galaxies, then as of why.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxy
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_sequence
> 
> There's a lot to be understood in this about
> the fractal (self-similar at any scales), about
> why barred spiral galaxies are like digital ones
> and pinwheel spiral galaxies are like analog ones.
> 
> This isn't so much about explaining the missing
> ordinary matter so much, as yet:  how are spiral
> galaxies formed, and, of the various sorts why,
> then, is it usual for all galaxies to be spiral
> galaxies, then, why variously barred and pinwheel
> spiral galaxies.




Pinwheel spiral galaxies purpose is to propell more stars.

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

#537279

From	"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-03 18:21 -0800
Message-ID	<4af0398c-b707-48b5-b6b2-634b61666056@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#537132

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 7:09:02 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 12/2/15 11:11 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > What they have there isn't "5% is there"
> > but "95%" is missing, which is just 2
> > s.d.'s confidence interval (eg, 80/90/95/99/...).
> 
>    You don't no how to do statistical analysis, do you?
>    Mothing is missing, it's just dark.
> 
> 
> WMAP's Top Ten
> 
>    1. NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has mapped the 
> Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the oldest light in the 
> universe) and produced the first fine-resolution (0.2 degree) full-sky 
> map of the microwave sky
> 
>    2. WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.73 
> billion years old to within 1% (0.12 billion years) -as recognized in 
> the Guinness Book of World Records!
> 
>    3. WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to within 1% of "flat" 
> Euclidean, improving on the precision of previous award-winning 
> measurements by over an order of magnitude
> 
>    4. The CMB became the "premier baryometer" of the universe with 
> WMAP's precision determination that ordinary atoms (also called baryons) 
> make up only 4.6% of the universe (to within 0.1%)
> 
>    5. WMAP's complete census of the universe finds that dark matter (not 
> made up of atoms) make up 23.3% (to within 1.3%)
> 
>    6. WMAP's accuracy and precision determined that dark energy makes up 
> 72.1% of the universe (to within 1.5%), causing the expansion rate of 
> the universe to speed up. - "Lingering doubts about the existence of 
> dark energy and the composition of the universe dissolved when the WMAP 
> satellite took the most detailed picture ever of the cosmic microwave 
> background (CMB)." - Science Magazine 2003, "Breakthrough of the Year" 
> article
> 
>    7. WMAP has mapped the polarization of the microwave radiation over 
> the full sky and discovered that the universe was reionized earlier than 
> previously believed. - "WMAP scores on large-scale structure. By 
> measuring the polarization in the CMB it is possible to look at the 
> amplitude of the fluctuations of density in the universe that produced 
> the first galaxies. That is a real breakthrough in our understanding of 
> the origin of structure." - ScienceWatch: "What's Hot in Physics", Simon 
> Mitton, Mar./Apr. 2008
> 
>    8. WMAP has started to sort through the possibilities of what 
> transpired in the first trillionth of a trillionth of a second, ruling 
> out well-known textbook models for the first time.
> 
>    9. The statistical properties of the CMB fluctuations measured by 
> WMAP appear "random"; however, there are several hints of possible 
> deviations from simple randomness that are still being assessed. 
> Significant deviations would be a very important signature of new 
> physics in the early universe.
> 
>   10. WMAP has put the "precision" in "precision cosmology" by reducing 
> the allowed volume of cosmological parameters by a factor of 30,000. The 
> three most highly cited physics and astronomy papers published in the 
> new millennium are WMAP scientific papers--- reflecting WMAP's enormous 
> impact.
> 
> 
> 

Also, it's extrapolations of the theoretical data that 
picked each of these "Top 10" points - the actual experiment 
just measured that there was a non-zero background radiation.

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

#537170

From	"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-03 09:48 -0800
Message-ID	<1d339ad1-2ab7-4037-8c33-5d57e6d881ac@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#537073

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 6:47:32 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> What is the universe made of? Shedding light on the mystery of missing 
> ordinary matter
> > http://phys.org/news/2015-12-universe-mystery-ordinary.html
> 
> 
> > Matter known as ordinary, which makes up everything we know,
> > corresponds to only 5% of the Universe. Approximately half of this
> > percentage still eluded detection. Numerical simulations made it
> > possible to predict that the rest of this ordinary matter should be
> > located in the large-scale structures that form the 'cosmic web' at
> > temperatures between 100,000 and 10 million degrees.
> >
> > A team led by a researcher from the University of Geneva (UNIGE),
> > Switzerland, observed this phenomenon directly. The research shows
> > that the majority of the missing ordinary matter is found in the form
> > of a very hot gas associated with intergalactic filaments. The
> > article reporting this discovery is published in the journal Nature.
> >
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

Its out there but to far away.When imperial thinkers realize the universe is a lot bigger than what they think it is they will know where to find missing matter known as dark matter.A rose is a rose  TreBert

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

#537306

From	benj <none@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-03 23:41 -0500
Message-ID	<hQ88y.247552$rM.237301@fx16.iad>
In reply to	#537170

On 12/03/2015 12:48 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 6:47:32 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> What is the universe made of? Shedding light on the mystery of missing
>> ordinary matter
>>> http://phys.org/news/2015-12-universe-mystery-ordinary.html
>>
>>
>>> Matter known as ordinary, which makes up everything we know,
>>> corresponds to only 5% of the Universe. Approximately half of this
>>> percentage still eluded detection. Numerical simulations made it
>>> possible to predict that the rest of this ordinary matter should be
>>> located in the large-scale structures that form the 'cosmic web' at
>>> temperatures between 100,000 and 10 million degrees.
>>>
>>> A team led by a researcher from the University of Geneva (UNIGE),
>>> Switzerland, observed this phenomenon directly. The research shows
>>> that the majority of the missing ordinary matter is found in the form
>>> of a very hot gas associated with intergalactic filaments. The
>>> article reporting this discovery is published in the journal Nature.
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
>> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
>> community, and physics-related social issues.
>
> Its out there but to far away.When imperial thinkers realize the universe is a lot bigger than what they think it is they will know where to find missing matter known as dark matter.A rose is a rose  TreBert
>
Imperial thinkers know that the entire universe and everything in it is 
made of only AETHER!  It's THAT simple. So simple even you and Wormley 
can understand it!

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

csiph-web

What is the universe made of? Shedding light on the mystery of missing ordinary matter

Contents

#537073 — What is the universe made of? Shedding light on the mystery of missing ordinary matter

#537094

#537132

#537145

#537278

#537287

#537288

#537594

#537704

#537721 — Re: What is the universe made of? Shedding light on the mystery of missing ordinary matter

#537279

#537170

#537306