Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: common_sense_seeker on 24/09/2008 14:22:41
-
I propose that Dark Matter exists as the inner core of the Earth, Moon and stars in order to explain my Core-Centered Theory Of Gravity. Ifthere was DM there, would we detect it? I suggest not, since the universal constant of gravitation G, only applies to baryonic matter. The surface gravity of the Earth for DM would be much higher. Therefore all the calculated masses of the Earth, Moon, stars and galaxies are underestimates. Hence a solution for the Missing Mass Problem.
Could we tell if there was DM at the centers?
-
Are you suggesting that a significant proportion of the Earth's substance is not conventional mass? Or is it just a trace that you are proposing?
Whilst no one can say that there is none down there, it would severely upset calculations which assume or suggest certain values of average density for planets.
The problem is that G can be measured without using a Planet - just two big balls in a lab - and, using that value gives a fairly accurate value of the Earth's mass (relative to a standard kg) by weighing your kg.
If there were a lot of anything 'special' down there, then the Earth's Mass divided by its volume (just as easily measured) would yield a density which wouldn't make sense. In fact, the density comes out more or less the same as average 'rock'.
Perhaps you could help us with some SUMS to back up your theory. Where is your reluctance, if this is all so obvious? Remember, you are the one who needs to justify this new stuff by conclusively disproving the old stuff and proving your ideas.
Or is this just another vehicle for getting people to pay some attention to you? One new idea a week means quite a lot of readers for you, I suppose.
-
I have always assumed that at the centre of the Earth there is a black hole surrounded by an anti gravity shield hastily constructed by the earlier aliens that accidentally generated it to prevent the Earths collapse
-
I propose that Dark Matter exists as the inner core of the Earth, Moon and stars in order to explain my Core-Centered Theory Of Gravity. Ifthere was DM there, would we detect it? I suggest not, since the universal constant of gravitation G, only applies to baryonic matter.
Then how could dark matter exert a gravitational force?
-
I have always assumed that at the centre of the Earth there is a black hole surrounded by an anti gravity shield hastily constructed by the earlier aliens that accidentally generated it to prevent the Earths collapse
I read worse theories, syphrum.
At least you were brief and to the point.
-
Are you suggesting that a significant proportion of the Earth's substance is not conventional mass? Or is it just a trace that you are proposing?
Whilst no one can say that there is none down there, it would severely upset calculations which assume or suggest certain values of average density for planets.
The problem is that G can be measured without using a Planet - just two big balls in a lab - and, using that value gives a fairly accurate value of the Earth's mass (relative to a standard kg) by weighing your kg.
If there were a lot of anything 'special' down there, then the Earth's Mass divided by its volume (just as easily measured) would yield a density which wouldn't make sense. In fact, the density comes out more or less the same as average 'rock'.
I'm proposing the inner core is composed of DM. Since the inner core is proportional to the total size of a planet, moon or star I don't think there would be a noticeable upset in the density calculations. I have a mental picture of the mechanism for gravity which you do not remember. It's a subtle difference in the way we think about a problem.
-
"I have a mental picture of the mechanism for gravity which you do not remember."
Yes.
You seem to keep ignoring the fact Henry Cavendish did the experiments years ago. Since then it has been repeated many times. We know about gravity - it works with lots of different things. You don't need a planet.
-
The Wikipedia entry states that the repeat experiments give highly varying values. A scaled down version would have the Earth about the size of your eye and the Moon would be the size of a pea held at arms length. Even if they were made of everyday magnets there still wouldn't be enough attractive force to maintain an orbit. Let alone if they made of rock or steel! Modern satellite technolgy is based on the measured surface gravity of the Earth, not the incorrectly calculated value for big G.
-
I propose that Dark Matter exists as the inner core of the Earth, Moon and stars in order to explain my Core-Centered Theory Of Gravity. Ifthere was DM there, would we detect it? I suggest not, since the universal constant of gravitation G, only applies to baryonic matter. The surface gravity of the Earth for DM would be much higher. Therefore all the calculated masses of the Earth, Moon, stars and galaxies are underestimates. Hence a solution for the Missing Mass Problem.
Could we tell if there was DM at the centers?
Surprise surprise. I take it when the scientists at sciforums told you that dark matter in the center of the earth was impossible, did you come here to see if they where lying to you?
-
What is dark matter? Why is it so significant? [:-\]
-
'Exotic matter,' is a hypothetical form of matter that has both a negative energy density and a negative pressure - it is thus, an antigravity substance. All states of known matter have a positive energy density and pressure that are always less than the energy density in magnitude. A good example of energy density you may have heard of is in a stretched rubber band; when a rubber band is stretched, its energy density is about 100 trillion times greater than the pressure. If such matter could be created, it might help us to manage faster-than-light travel, or using it to grow wormholes big enough for human transportation back in time.
Exotic matter is non-baryonic; and one form of exotic matter is called 'dark matter' - called dark matter, not because it is a darkly colored mass, but because scientists have no idea what it is. (Most) dark matter in the universe will be non-baryonic - and scientists are confident 20-25% of all matter in the universe is made up of the hypothetical and mysterious dark matter.
At the birth of our universe, 15 billion years ago, all that existed was a hot primordial soup of erratic particles. As the universe began to cool down, ordinary particles such as neutrons, protons and electrons started to join together to form stable atoms, forming all the elements we see today - which was predominantly helium and hydrogen atoms.
The theory of element-making in the first few minutes of the universe was called, 'the big bang nucleosynthesis,' and is recorded in the 'standard model'. The theory was good in predicting hydrogen and helium to pervade our part of the universe. However, the theory, it turns out, relied rather sensitively on the amount of baryonic matter that the universe had available - and the big bang nucleosynthesis predicts the right ratio's for the produce of elements in our universe today - even if 15% of the critical mass of the universe was suffice in stopping cosmic expansion (big crunch).
Of course, it may turn out that our predictions are flawed. However, because the prevailing view that the standard model predicts at least more than 15% of all matter is made up of dark matter, we can be sure that most of all dark matter are not made up of baryons - and since we are not made up of dark matter, it must be another type of matter that accounts for the dark matter. We are made up of protons, neutrons, gluons, electrons, quarks Ect. - Just to mention a few.
Some dark matter might be well-known. Some scientists think that the 'neutrino' particle is in the family of dark matter. Billions upon billions of neutrino's pass through our body every second, spurted out by the sun. For a while, scientists thought that the neutrino might not contain mass, and moved like a luxen particle; like a photon, and traveled at the speed of light. Yet, this hypothesis was proven to be wrong, as it was shown to have a small mass after all.
Another hopeful candidate for non-baryonic dark matter goes by the acronym of 'WIMPS' - Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, that belong to a class of hypothetical heavy elements that hardly interact at all with common matter - hence the fact we have not discovered any as yet - heavy elements does not need to mean anything special - one heavy element we know of here on earth is iron but of a different class.
Some think that the WIMPS do not exist - basing this on the evidence that we have never seen one of these hypothetical particles, like the 'axion'. German scientists are planning an experiment that is essentially designed to 'tease' out dark matter in the form of the exotic particles that can travel through hard physical substances, like a mountain - just like the axion particle.
Dr. Andres Ringwald of DESY laboratory hopes to use a magnetic field to transform a laser beam of photons into axion-like particles. He say's, 'the idea is to send a laser beam along a transverse magnetic field, a fraction of the laser photons will transform into the new particles and travel freely through a wall without being absorbed. Finally, another magnetic field located on the other side of the wall can transform back some of these particles into photons - apparently from nothing.'
The discovery of exotic matter, if found through these experiments will extend the standard model of particle physics; some results that may even seem science-fiction-like, just as the good Dr. informs us, 'suppose that photon regeneration does work - you could set up an axion beam radio. Place the first part of the experiment somewhere to emit the beam and the second part far away, but in line with the first. You could then transport photons - and thus signals - over long distances through materials that normally absorb photons, such as rock and sea water.'
Scientists are sure these Wimps particles exist, and are in close rival of 'MACHOS' - Massive Compact Halo Objects. According to the theory of MACHOS, galaxies like our own are cocooned by exotic systems of dark matter haloes, which are populated by luminous objects, such as 'brown dwarfs', which is the remnant of a Red Giant.
We can use specialized lenses, that can focus and bend light rays from a source behind the observable objects, like a shadow play. This is called 'microlensing,' and has had some success - some scientists think we might be able to detect the MACHOS using this technique - using the same technique, they have discovered the presence of planets previously not detected.
However, not enough MACHOS have been found to account for a fifth of all dark matter - however, as you can guess, because Macho's are made out of baryons, they will be restricted by the big bang nucleosynthesis predictions, since baryonic matter makes up a fraction of all the matter in the universe. This must mean, that our calculations say that MACHOS are ruled out for having the bigger slice of dark matter pie. Another way to catalogue dark matter is to say whether it is of the 'cold' or 'hot' varieties. Very light dark matter that moves a fraction shy of 'c' - the speed of light - is called hot dark matter. Cold dark matter is accounted for by WIMPS. There is, as scientists suspect, more cold dark matter than the hot varieties - just like we have more Bradyons than Luxens in our part of the universe.
We also know that, whatever dark matter is made out of, it will be a major gravitational producer in the universe. Thus, scientists suspect that the missing dark matter most probably helped in the formation of galaxies. In fact, there will be entire galaxies made up of dark matter. Most of these galaxies will look like our own - others like colorful clouds, set out in all their array, as if it where on a magicians darkened stage.
And this is why dark matter is important, because the matter we are made of only makes up a fraction, something like 0.01% of all matter in the universe, whilst a massive chunk of 25% is made up of dark matter. The remaining 70% is made of dark energy, and the left over is made up plasma.
-
'Exotic matter,' is a hypothetical form of matter that has both a negative energy density and a negative pressure - it is thus, an antigravity substance. All states of known matter have a positive energy density and pressure that are always less than the energy density in magnitude. A good example of energy density you may have heard of is in a stretched rubber band; when a rubber band is stretched, its energy density is about 100 trillion times greater than the pressure.
What do you mean here by pressure?
-
The stress upon the object; the pressure or stress of the object when under a force.
-
Sorry [:I] [:I] [::)], can you explain to me what this sentence means : All states of known matter have a positive energy density and pressure that are always less than the energy density in magnitude.
-
It is meant to say, the pressure is always less than the energy density in magnitude.
Sorry
-
Going back to the original topic and idea
You have got a completely wrong idea about dark matter and how it is likely to interact with the earth.
Let me explain.
Firstly, dark matter interacts only by gravitational interactions and the presence of normal matter has absolutely no effect other than by its gravitational field.
Let us assume (for simplicity) that it in deep space it is generally moving quite slowly with respect to the sun (a bit like the Oort cloud of comets. Dark matter particles will approach the sun a bit like comets coming through the solar system at quite a high speed (say around 70km/sec at the earth's orbit and there will be loads of these particles in two streams those heading towards the sun and those heading away from the sun after completing a parabolic orbit. There is no reason for any of the particles to slow down even if they went straight through the middle of the sun so dark matter CAN NEVER ACCUMULATE at the centre of an object made of normal matter with a significant gravitational field.
The orbit velocity is very much faster than the escape velocity of of the earth so all that can happen in the vicinity of the earth is that the flow of dark matter is slightly concentrated by being pulled towards the earth as it approaches following hyperbolic orbits. so there is a slightly higher concentration of dark matter near the earth due to the earth's gravity.
Currently attempts are being made to measure this by very accurate measurements of the effective mass of the earth from satellites in low earth orbit and from the distance of the moon using laser range finding recent articles suggest this difference in effective mass has been detected see the January 2009 issue of Scientific American Page 14.
It is also suggested that this higher density does create a slight warming of the centre of the earth and giant planets because dark matter particles are often considered to be their own antiparticles and very rarely interact to release energy.
This model I have given is probably over simplified because the dark matter in our galaxy in our vicinity is probably moving at a hyperbolic orbit velocity with respect to the centre of our galaxy (say around 3-400Km/sec) and therefore concentrated slightly by the sun and further concentrated slightly by the earth
-
If you mean the interaction of nuetrino's or our possible detection of axion particles (some papers claim we have the past year) - then i assure you now, what i said was scientifically correct. Of course, maybe you meant something else?
Contrary to probably most here, i am studying physics and mathematics, so when someone says i have something wrong about subject i am quite good at, i want to know my mistakes, other than being told it is wrong.
-
I am not talking about neutrinos, which interact via weak and gravitational interactions. or axions which would interact via strong and weak interactions but with very small interaction crossections. I am talking about the dark matter which has been shown reasonably clearly to have a very significant effect on the way that galaxies form and cannot consist of any of the particles in the standard models of particle physics because it would be detected by interaction with matter and radiation in the universe and therefore must interact only gravitationally and no other way.
The most likely particles to form this dark matter are one or more of the lowest energy supersymmetric particles or a minimal size black hole that is so small that it is incapable or further hawking radiation because its event horizon will not allow enough room to get any particles out.
-
That's all very nice, but you said i was wrong in my conclusions about something. Please, enlighten me.
-
Mr Scientist you seem to have taken my initial comments on the topic as direct comments on your long posting on 2nd January 10 52 11 starting "exotic matter".
I have amended my post to make it clear that my comments were related to the original poster who visualised lumps of dark matter sitting in the middle of planets.
My reply was intended to explain that it could only be a slight increase in the density of a continual flow of dark matter through the earth or any other normal material object..
I must admit I had at that time only skimmed through your long post and seen that it was not fully on topic and looked like a cut and paste job from someone else's posting elsewhere. As you appear to be sensitive I have now reread what you posted and offer the following comments.
The post seems to be a mix of scientific words and facts well spiced with total garbage and scientific gobbledygook and generally not worth the effort of reading. It uses pseudoscientific words like "luxen" about the only other use of this word I can find is from another scientific website from a contributor who had been banned because he was posting rubbish that could confuse others. I would reccomend that the administrators should delete it and ave accordingly requested that they do it.
Originally I had just ignored it as irrelevant now you have attracted my attention to it you have my full opinion. I hope you are happy :-)
-
Not really.
Luxon particles where a very common word for lightspeed particles during the 1970's and 1980's. I can assure you that niether my use of the name photon as a Luxon particle is psuedoscientific, nor was my work a mix of spicy words. This is the theory of dark matter, and i have very quickly fallen out with your non-social attitude.
-
Also, if the moderators remove my work, i hope you could clearly underline these elaborate psuedoscientific and scientific gobblygook terms you have so taken offense to.
-
'Exotic matter,' is a hypothetical form of matter that has both a negative energy density and a negative pressure - it is thus, an antigravity substance. All states of known matter have a positive energy density and pressure that are always less than the energy density in magnitude. A good example of energy density you may have heard of is in a stretched rubber band; when a rubber band is stretched, its energy density is about 100 trillion times greater than the pressure. If such matter could be created, it might help us to manage faster-than-light travel, or using it to grow wormholes big enough for human transportation back in time.
This paragraph is complete rubbish with irrelevant and innacurate numerical examples
Exotic matter is non-baryonic; and one form of exotic matter is called 'dark matter' - called dark matter, not because it is a darkly colored mass, but because scientists have no idea what it is. (Most) dark matter in the universe will be non-baryonic - and scientists are confident 20-25% of all matter in the universe is made up of the hypothetical and mysterious dark matter.
The reason dark matter is so called is because it does not produce any electromagnetic radiation in its activities. not as stated above.
At the birth of our universe, 15 billion years ago, all that existed was a hot primordial soup of erratic particles. As the universe began to cool down, ordinary particles such as neutrons, protons and electrons started to join together to form stable atoms, forming all the elements we see today - which was predominantly helium and hydrogen atoms.
This is basically true but the term "erratic particles" does not give any useful information.
The theory of element-making in the first few minutes of the universe was called, 'the big bang nucleosynthesis,' and is recorded in the 'standard model'. The theory was good in predicting hydrogen and helium to pervade our part of the universe. However, the theory, it turns out, relied rather sensitively on the amount of baryonic matter that the universe had available - and the big bang nucleosynthesis predicts the right ratio's for the produce of elements in our universe today - even if 15% of the critical mass of the universe was suffice in stopping cosmic expansion (big crunch).
The english in this paragraph is vrery poor. Up to "...universe today" is OK "even if ... big crunch" is untrue 15% of the mass needed to close the universe clearly cannot cause a bug crunch for that you need more that 100% of the mass.
Of course, it may turn out that our predictions are flawed. However, because the prevailing view that the standard model predicts at least more than 15% of all matter is made up of dark matter, we can be sure that most of all dark matter are not made up of baryons - and since we are not made up of dark matter, it must be another type of matter that accounts for the dark matter. We are made up of protons, neutrons, gluons, electrons, quarks Ect. - Just to mention a few.
this is OK the last sentance looks like an irrelevant addition
Some dark matter might be well-known. Some scientists think that the 'neutrino' particle is in the family of dark matter. Billions upon billions of neutrino's pass through our body every second, spurted out by the sun. For a while, scientists thought that the neutrino might not contain mass, and moved like a luxen particle; like a photon, and traveled at the speed of light. Yet, this hypothesis was proven to be wrong, as it was shown to have a small mass after all.
This is OK but not clearly expressed the mass of neutrinos will contribute to the dark matter effect
Another hopeful candidate for non-baryonic dark matter goes by the acronym of 'WIMPS' - Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, that belong to a class of hypothetical heavy elements that hardly interact at all with common matter - hence the fact we have not discovered any as yet - heavy elements does not need to mean anything special - one heavy element we know of here on earth is iron but of a different class.
The first part of the paragraph is ok the example is irrelevant and poorly expressed
Some think that the WIMPS do not exist - basing this on the evidence that we have never seen one of these hypothetical particles, like the 'axion'. German scientists are planning an experiment that is essentially designed to 'tease' out dark matter in the form of the exotic particles that can travel through hard physical substances, like a mountain - just like the axion particle.
OK
Dr. Andres Ringwald of DESY laboratory hopes to use a magnetic field to transform a laser beam of photons into axion-like particles. He say's, 'the idea is to send a laser beam along a transverse magnetic field, a fraction of the laser photons will transform into the new particles and travel freely through a wall without being absorbed. Finally, another magnetic field located on the other side of the wall can transform back some of these particles into photons - apparently from nothing.'
OK I am familiar with the experiment.
The discovery of exotic matter, if found through these experiments will extend the standard model of particle physics; some results that may even seem science-fiction-like, just as the good Dr. informs us, 'suppose that photon regeneration does work - you could set up an axion beam radio. Place the first part of the experiment somewhere to emit the beam and the second part far away, but in line with the first. You could then transport photons - and thus signals - over long distances through materials that normally absorb photons, such as rock and sea water.'
An extreme extention of the concept to give Gee-whizz effect OK but not really good science
Scientists are sure these Wimps particles exist, and are in close rival of 'MACHOS' - Massive Compact Halo Objects. According to the theory of MACHOS, galaxies like our own are cocooned by exotic systems of dark matter haloes, which are populated by luminous objects, such as 'brown dwarfs', which is the remnant of a Red Giant.
OK with reservations at the end of the paragraph there are some innacuracies. brown dwarfs is the term usually given to very low mass stars which do not achieve significant hydrogen fusion. The end product of a sun type star after it has passed through the red giant phase is a white dwarf.
We can use specialized lenses, that can focus and bend light rays from a source behind the observable objects, like a shadow play. This is called 'microlensing,' and has had some success - some scientists think we might be able to detect the MACHOS using this technique - using the same technique, they have discovered the presence of planets previously not detected.
This is incorrectly expressed the technique to detect machos is through GRAVITATIONAL microlensing and not light so it is deliberately confusing.
However, not enough MACHOS have been found to account for a fifth of all dark matter - however, as you can guess, because Macho's are made out of baryons, they will be restricted by the big bang nucleosynthesis predictions, since baryonic matter makes up a fraction of all the matter in the universe. This must mean, that our calculations say that MACHOS are ruled out for having the bigger slice of dark matter pie. Another way to catalogue dark matter is to say whether it is of the 'cold' or 'hot' varieties. Very light dark matter that moves a fraction shy of 'c' - the speed of light - is called hot dark matter. Cold dark matter is accounted for by WIMPS. There is, as scientists suspect, more cold dark matter than the hot varieties - just like we have more Bradyons than Luxens in our part of the universe.
OK as far as the last line "just as..." which is not understandable in modern scientific parlance because of its spurious technical terms
We also know that, whatever dark matter is made out of, it will be a major gravitational producer in the universe. Thus, scientists suspect that the missing dark matter most probably helped in the formation of galaxies. In fact, there will be entire galaxies made up of dark matter. Most of these galaxies will look like our own - others like colorful clouds, set out in all their array, as if it where on a magicians darkened stage.
Again a good paragraph with garbage added in the last sentance.
And this is why dark matter is important, because the matter we are made of only makes up a fraction, something like 0.01% of all matter in the universe, whilst a massive chunk of 25% is made up of dark matter. The remaining 70% is made of dark energy, and the left over is made up plasma.
The quantiy of ordanary matter in the universe is incorrectly understated although the current model of dark matter and dark enegy is correctly stated.
-
Oh good. I'm glad you did this. Now i will show you what an idiot you are portraying yourself as. I hope you do realize, that one thing scientists do is make sure they can write about the science they portray.
''This paragraph is complete rubbish with irrelevant and innacurate numerical examples.''
Counter to what? You've shown no numerical examples relative to what i have shown.
''The reason dark matter is so called is because it does not produce any electromagnetic radiation in its activities. not as stated above.''
I've heard both explanations. Truth be told, it may not even exist within our visible dimensional spectrum. I am willing to give you this one, since generally speaking, most refer to its name due to the IDEA is does not interact with electromagnetic radiation. But you also need to reflect on nature of its name, also due to the fact we can't detect it like the other gravitational influences.
''This is basically true but the term "erratic particles" does not give any useful information''
Use your imagination. Erratic being fast, high-energy particles.
''The english in this paragraph is vrery poor up tp universe today is OK even if bug crunch is not understandable properly and probably untrue''
My english is bad? I could hardly understand that sentance.
''This is OK but not clearly expressed the mass of neutrinos will contribute to the dark matter effect.''
You are all of a sudden my editor telling me what i am supposed to be telling people?
''The first part of the paragraph is ok the example is irrelevant and poorly expressed''
It's not irrelevent, and whether you decide it is poorly expressed, it is still the way i decided at the time to talk about the subject. So far, it seems this is purely personal.
''An extreme extention of the concept to give Gee-whizz effect OK but not really good science ''
Write to Doctor Andre then. Don't complain to me about his sciences.
''his is incorrectly expressed the technique to detect machos is through GRAVITATIONAL microlensing and not light so it is deliberately confusing.''
And you do realize, to detect gravitational influences we measure the bending of light in its vicinity? You do realise, this is how we detected the first bending of light and presence of gravitational distortions in 1919? This is getting thickle very fast.
''OK as far as the last line "just as... which is not understandable in modern scientific parlance because of its spurious technical terms ''
I've explained, these technical terms can help novices apply their imagination to science. In fact, particles come in three types; bradyons or tardyons, depending on which you use, Luxons and then Tachyons. If you have a problem with this, you are then making yourself look like a fool. These are used scientific terms.
''Again a good paragraph with garbage added in the last sentance''
It's called writing to an audiance.
''Thev quantiy of ordanary matter in the universe is incorrectly understated altho the currenr model of dark matter and dark enegy is correctly stated.''
Sorry... what???
Right, so this is your defence? Go take a hike. So far, i know i know more about this stuff than you, and if i don't i still know how to talk about it better for the layman.
-
Sorry about the typos. I did not have time to reread my reply and correct it. I will check it out and correct them. Your piece read like a series of genuine extracts from other people's scientific writing to which you have added a few words of your own at the end of each paragraph. If you consider that to be good science writing you have a lot to learn.
-
Never mind my responses being extracts from a mothers scientfic writing but yours is like a marmite extraction which you either love or hate.
Take it from me, I don't need to take time here, however, i have learned the love of those who don't fully love their own respect of science, as much as I love marmite itself.
So... as it is, butter the bread, before i toast it.
-
I too like marmite but I don't butter the bread nowadays, too much fat :-)
-
Would you butter mine?
-
I'm, sorry... i JUST saw your age. I will bark up another tree.
-
LOL. You can enjoy your cottaging elsewhhere. :-0 You must remember that I am a real scientist and always talk literally and avoid double entendres unless I am deliberately writing humorously. You must also remember that this is a place for people to come and discuss science seriously and not one for confusing "humorous" writing if that is your intent with some of your offerings.
-
I take science very very seriously, and i don't want tyo derail peoples learning here with ''intentially-misleading'' language as you once described my workings. As i said, i am very serious about science, and i study physics at a fascility close to home.
I will never intentionally-mislead anyone here, and hopefully, i will talk sometimes, in a way the non-scientist may or may not understand, but i base the way i communicate on the knowledge of how i found it difficult to analyse science back in the day when i had no training. So its a goos stance for me to use this ability.
So let us, kiss and make up, mind the pun, and just get on with our work here. Hopefully, you will learn i am serious about science.
-
Hmmm it always bothers me when people poo-poo an idea which could have merit but which bucks accepted theories of science....anyone remember a chap called Copernicus, Gallileo? Science moves on when science can admit it might be wrong and accept change.....if not it is no better than religion, moving only within the confort zone created by it's own dogma.
What we know about exotic/dark matter as yet is NOTHING; we have plenty of theories and mathematical formulae which seemto explain it well enough but, as all scientists I am sure are aware, a lot of what we have discovered in the last 50 years has turned most of what was believed previously on it's head.
An important lesson, I feel, for scientists is to avoid the word "impossible", as science is, in essence, the art of stretching the possible and going beyond it.
Dark matter could be sat at the Earth's core and we would never know because we have, as yet, not observed significant amounts of it to know how a concentration of it would behave or be affected by physical matter. Either that or dark matter is simply a more modern version of the "Lumiferous aether" used by scientists long ago to avoid having to say "I don't know" instead. Don't confuse fact with theory when you flame someone please
just a thought though....aren't these constants based upon measurements made upon the planet in question? whether you need a planet or not, formulae for the calculation were made here.....
-
Dark matter or star dust call it what you like. Maybe it sends a signal that affects the energy in an atom to react, hence gravity!
-
No.
-
Dark matter, if it exists, would need some property that prevents its clumping. Otherwise we should see large concentrations of it. If I remember correctly, the arithmetic puts the dark matter evenly dispersed throughout the galaxy or in a halo around the galaxy.
I can think of a mechanism that might provide the halo, but I haven't tested its possibility with numbers. Most galaxies are a few hundred thousand light years in diameter. They accreted from a huge cloud of debris and they have been spewing out radiation since their first star lit. Maybe all this spewed out radiation produces enough gravity to affect the arithmetic.
Edit: Another thought; portions of the gas cloud from which the galaxy accreted may be held at a distance by the galaxies cosmic wind, mentioned above; I just named it; Cosmic Wind meaning the accumulation of stardust and radiation from all the stars that make up a galaxy. [:)]
-
Perhaps the probability of its existance has more power than the actuality of its existance?
That would be cool.
Is there no way to take a 'capsule of space' back onto earth? *shy*
-
This idea gets more interesting as I ponder it. Galaxies must produce a Cosmic Wind just as each star produces a Stellar Wind. Maybe we should call it Galactic Wind. This out-spewing of radiation and ionic debris should offer some resistance to returning ionic debris and remnants of the accretion disk from which the galaxy formed. This dynamic should produce a halo around a galaxy that would have some effect on the gravity felt by the galaxy as a whole.
I am not sure if this is taken into account by the models of galaxies that seem to indicate the presence of some kind of unknown producer of gravity, or Dark Matter.
Edit: Maybe I should say calculations based upon observations rather than models of galaxies.
-
I'm not a scientist but I am highly educated and observant.
We know that to have a fusion reaction (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) you must have a containment field with either compression from without or within. I'm assuming that the Sun operates this way. What could create the compression force to sustain that reaction? A smaller "piece" of whatever is at the center of the sun being at the core of all planets and large moons would seem to explain not only what mushed them together but what creates the gravity. The bigger the piece the more the gravity and if it's big enough, like the Earth, it creates a molten core from the intense attraction. If large enough it creates a star and if even larger, a wormhole between parts of the universe. What else could pull matter together with such force?