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

Groups > sci.physics > #714817 > unrolled thread

Missing mass

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Missing mass john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 05:14 -0800
    Re: Missing mass Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 14:15 +0000
      Re: Missing mass john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 07:09 -0800
        Re: Missing mass Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 16:08 +0000
          Re: Missing mass moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-26 17:30 +0000
            Re: Missing mass mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-26 10:27 -0800
    Re: Missing mass moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-26 15:44 +0000

#714817 — Missing mass

Missing mass.
It’s not missing- it’s just unseen at the centers of larger bodies. The larger the body, the more gas-like it appears. But Jupiter and Saturn and the Sun and stars aren’t gas. They’re just as dense as Earth- probably denser. 

Gravity is a pressure from all the other matter that is being absorbed by Matter. You experience all the pressure from above, but only some of the pressure from below, because the planet absorbs some based on its size. At a certain size, all the pressure from through the planet is being stopped, and you get to the maximum surface gravity that can be experienced. 

After this size, more and more Matter is gravitationally “hidden” at the centers of these larger bodies, simply because of their size. Stars aren’t gas. They’re lava, like Earth. That’s where the “missing” matter is.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#714819

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Missing mass.
> It’s not missing- it’s just unseen at the centers of larger bodies. The
> larger the body, the more gas-like it appears. But Jupiter and Saturn and
> the Sun and stars aren’t gas. They’re just as dense as Earth- probably denser. 

The density of a body is the mass divided by the volume. The volume of a
sphere is determined by its radius, which is measurable in observation. The
mass can be determined by measuring the orbital radius and orbital periods
of its satellite moons. The formula is M = 4*pi^2*r^3 / G*T^2, an
expression discovered by Newton in the 1670s. It is how we know the mass of
the earth and of the sun. 

The problem with not knowing anything, John, is that you’ll naturally
assume a lot of things are unknown, which apparently gives you the sense of
freedom to just blindly guess to fill that void. This you think is a credit
to your creativity, when in fact it is more a testament to your profound
lack of education. 

> 
> Gravity is a pressure from all the other matter that is being absorbed by
> Matter. You experience all the pressure from above, but only some of the
> pressure from below, because the planet absorbs some based on its size.
> At a certain size, all the pressure from through the planet is being
> stopped, and you get to the maximum surface gravity that can be experienced. 
> 
> After this size, more and more Matter is gravitationally “hidden” at the
> centers of these larger bodies, simply because of their size. Stars
> aren’t gas. They’re lava, like Earth. That’s where the “missing” matter is.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#714823

Odd
“The problem with not knowing anything, John, is that you’ll naturally 
assume a lot of things are unknown, which apparently gives you the sense”
Unseen was the word I used.
You haven’t addressed that or shown that you even know what I’m talking about.
Normal, for you

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

#714832

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “The problem with not knowing anything, John, is that you’ll naturally 
> assume a lot of things are unknown, which apparently gives you the sense”
> Unseen was the word I used.
> You haven’t addressed that or shown that you even know what I’m talking about.
> Normal, for you
> 

Yes I did address it. The search for missing mass and the hypothesis of
dark matter is driven by an excess of gravitation compared to the observed
mass. 

You propose that this mass is hidden inside planets like Jupiter and
Saturn. 

The problem is, there is no excess of gravitation observed for those
planets. The mass we have for those planets is exactly what is needed for
accounting for the orbits of the satellites. 

Now you say, put a lot of extra mass in those planets but make the
gravitational effect of that mass hidden. What for? Now you have missing
mass that can’t account for any excess gravitation because you say the
gravitation from that excess mass is hidden. 

Your ignorance and lack of education is only exceeded by the silliness of
your brain farts. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#714840

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:

>john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Odd
>> “The problem with not knowing anything, John, is that you’ll naturally 
>> assume a lot of things are unknown, which apparently gives you the sense”
>> Unseen was the word I used.
>> You haven’t addressed that or shown that you even know what I’m talking about.
>> Normal, for you
>> 

>Yes I did address it. The search for missing mass and the hypothesis of
>dark matter is driven by an excess of gravitation compared to the observed
>mass. 

>You propose that this mass is hidden inside planets like Jupiter and
>Saturn. 

>The problem is, there is no excess of gravitation observed for those
>planets. The mass we have for those planets is exactly what is needed for
>accounting for the orbits of the satellites. 

>Now you say, put a lot of extra mass in those planets but make the
>gravitational effect of that mass hidden. What for? Now you have missing
>mass that can’t account for any excess gravitation because you say the
>gravitation from that excess mass is hidden. 

>Your ignorance and lack of education is only exceeded by the silliness of
>your brain farts. 

John actually has the problem BACKWARDS.

The "missing mass" problem is that there seems to be MORE gravitational
attraction for stars in a galaxy than can be explained by the observed
mass.  In other words, not enough mass to explain the rotation curves.

John's LeSage gravity claims there is MORE mass in stars and planets such
as Jupiter but gravitational shielding makes its gravity LESS than it
should be. Jupiter's gravity is LESS than its mass should show.

So John somehow thinks that gravity being DECREASED by gravitational 
shielding somehow explains there being TOO MUCH gravity to explain 
galactic rotation curves!

WTF, John!

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

#714845

On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 9:30:23 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Odd
> >> “The problem with not knowing anything, John, is that you’ll naturally 
> >> assume a lot of things are unknown, which apparently gives you the sense”
> >> Unseen was the word I used.
> >> You haven’t addressed that or shown that you even know what I’m talking about.
> >> Normal, for you
> >> 
> 
> >Yes I did address it. The search for missing mass and the hypothesis of
> >dark matter is driven by an excess of gravitation compared to the observed
> >mass. 
> 
> >You propose that this mass is hidden inside planets like Jupiter and
> >Saturn. 
> 
> >The problem is, there is no excess of gravitation observed for those
> >planets. The mass we have for those planets is exactly what is needed for
> >accounting for the orbits of the satellites. 
> 
> >Now you say, put a lot of extra mass in those planets but make the
> >gravitational effect of that mass hidden. What for? Now you have missing
> >mass that can’t account for any excess gravitation because you say the
> >gravitation from that excess mass is hidden. 
> 
> >Your ignorance and lack of education is only exceeded by the silliness of
> >your brain farts. 
> 
> John actually has the problem BACKWARDS.
> 
> The "missing mass" problem is that there seems to be MORE gravitational
> attraction for stars in a galaxy than can be explained by the observed
> mass.  In other words, not enough mass to explain the rotation curves.
> 
> John's LeSage gravity claims there is MORE mass in stars and planets such
> as Jupiter but gravitational shielding makes its gravity LESS than it
> should be. Jupiter's gravity is LESS than its mass should show.
> 
> So John somehow thinks that gravity being DECREASED by gravitational 
> shielding somehow explains there being TOO MUCH gravity to explain 
> galactic rotation curves!
> 
> WTF, John!

There are no rotating galaxies. The outer stars are in orbit.

That is what the gravity of the supermassive central object

is for.


Mitchell Raemsch

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

#714831

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:


>Missing mass.
>It's not missing- it's just unseen at the centers of larger
>bodies. The larger the body, the more gas-like it appears. But Jupiter and
>Saturn and the Sun and stars aren't gas. They're just as dense as Earth-
>probably denser.

Sorry, John. That's gravitational shielding, which we know doesn't exist.
Your LeSage gravity _requires_ gravitational shielding to work, and that
is its biggest flaw. That's why smarter minds than yours tossed it a 
couple of centuries ago.

If gravitational shielding existed, we'd see its effects as the moons of
Jupiter (or even our own moon) were eclipsed by their host planet and
there'd be this bump in its orbit as the sun's gravity was shielded by the
host planet. We don't see that at all. Of course in science, observation 
and experimental results trump theory every time. So once again, we see
your LeSage gravity is wrong.  Period. Give it up, it's a failure.

<snip crap>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web