Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: [post=20166091]Arbitrageur Lots of people make lots of claims and critiques but Nochzwei, Marko Rodin and probably you too lack proof to back up such claims.

.

I do have proof, but one will have to come to my garage to see it

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
scientists who have offered an opinion seem to think his modified gravity model can't account for bullet cluster observations.

Read: scientists who have offered an opinion seem to think that they need some excuse to be paid for the next few years.

Ok. I ask rephrasing.

Is there a correlation between distance from the gun and number of pixels on detector dish registering the 'shot'?

yes or no?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Read: scientists who have offered an opinion seem to think that they need some excuse to be paid for the next few years.

If the center of mass of normal matter and dark matter coincide, its easier for modified gravity theory to explain rotation curves without dark matter, and this is possible with numerous galaxies. The problem with the bullet cluster is, the dark matter is in a different place than luminous matter, so modified gravity theory doesn't seem to be able to explain that:

Most Direct Measurement of Dark Matter Allows Study of its Nature

In this image, dark matter (blue) has become separated from luminous matter (red) in the bullet cluster.

The new research is the first to detect luminous matter and dark matter independent of one another, with the luminous matter clumped together in one region and the dark matter clumped together in another. These observations demonstrate that there are two types of matter: one visible and one invisible.

The results also support the theory that the universe contains five times more dark matter than luminous matter. "A universe that's dominated by dark stuff seems preposterous, so we wanted to test whether there were any basic flaws in our thinking," said the University of Arizona's Doug Clowe, one of the study's key collaborators. "We believe these results prove that dark matter exists."

If it weren't for observations like that, I think Moffat's modified gravity idea might have more followers, but how can a modified gravity theory explain that? Or how can you explain that without dark matter?

a reply to: greenreflections
Was that post intended for this thread, and if so who is the question directed at? I'm not sure what you're talking about.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Bedlam

Dark matter/evidence will not be detected on/under Earth; and if 'it is' then those who say 'it is' are lying to themselves and others whether they know it or not. The problem is with theory.

So you think. The problem is, we won't know until we know. This is why we do experiments.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What is or are the primary tenets of modified gravity? What is modified?

I can not be so sure that those blue and red smudges represent dark matter and non.

You need to undestand how the image is generated and what those colours represent... if you don't and you 'think' people are just making it up for a easy pay cheque then you are being very ignorant and also arrogant to dismiss it

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What is or are the primary tenets of modified gravity? What is modified?

The math or formula for how gravity behaves is modified to match observation.

Do you know how relativity math simplifies to Newtonian math when dealing with non-relativistic scenarios?

Similarly, modified gravity models simplify to the Newtonian gravity model on the scale of our solar system since our solar system seems to follow the Newtonian model well, aside from the precession of Mercury which required relativity math to explain. The modified gravity models say that on larger scales of galaxies, gravity behaves differently than it does on the scale of our solar system. I doubt you're interested in the math but if you are see the link in my last post on the previous page referencing "some evidence".

I can not be so sure that those blue and red smudges represent dark matter and non.

I can be fairly certain if that's the extent of your commentary that you haven't done a proper analysis. Your shoot-from-the-hip dismissals aren't very scientific.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I do not want to give away any more of my pearls, I will be patient. I have already explained what/why I think dark matter is. I do not want any money for my insights which I believe will improve the state of theoretical fundamental physics, but I do want to be the one to offer them.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Enlighten us oh Prophet...


I find it kind of interesting how people's thought process works here when thinking of alternatives to current theory. I always think it goes like this

Alternate - The alternative must be correct because it is much simpler and I can explain it easier
Mainstream - But the alternative has problems x y and z and is more about empirical fits to data sets, sure it works fine but its difficult to look at reality and make a prediction that is anywhere near right without double feeding back (that is, looking at the data, making a few adjustments, and looking at it again) You then end up with a look up table with different parameters for every single galaxy out there
Alternative - Oh but you don't understand the model, clearly, what are you talking about?
Mainstream - Im talking about the theory you say is simpler, you say to me that you don't like dark matter because it is just making things up to fix problems, yet your alternative makes up about a thousand times more complexities and REQUIRES fitting to data in almost every circumstance.
Alternative - Oh you are just ignorant
Mainstream - What about gravitational lensing?
Alternative - It doesn't exist
Mainstream - Why not?
Alternative - Because that too was made up to keep people in jobs
Mainstream - Errrm so every single image taken of the night sky is doctored? do you even know how Astronomy works?
Alternative - More than you do! ha!
Mainstream - burns doctorate and 10 years of real scientific experience, because clearly it is worthless compared to a part time confirmation bias

Personally id love someone to come along and fix all these issues, but, to do so requires mathematics and a solid theory without holes, or at least less holes than we currently have...

So far, no offerings, here or anywhere else have even come close to a theory... let alone maths

a reply to: ErosA433

Well, if we're just going for druthers, I prefer John Cramer's SUSY version, wherein 'dark matter' is a gravitational shadow from adjacent universes.

Since there is some gravitational attraction that 'radiates' between one universe and the next, you tend to see mass accumulations that overlap spatially, but not always. This allows you to have dark matter in one area where there's not as much matter to go with it, but in general, you got one, you get the other.

That's my druther, and I'm sticking to it. Also, you won't be able to detect the dark matter, as it's not really there at all, other than gravitational leakage from over there somewhere, a few degrees rotation away. All you get is gravity, and not all of that. So there.

a reply to: ErosA433

If the universe is not expanding exactly as Mainstream: says, then that is one way in which galaxy rotation (and bullet cluster) might be the way they are.

I have given what appears to be an excitingly promising insight in regards to what and why 'dark matter halo' might be. (That is to say, 'dark matter' is believed to potentially effect the galaxy from not so much in it as outside of it.

Your theory as to what dark matter is, is pretty much that when light is traveling from far towards earth, there is material between the light source and earth, which consistently does not absorb and reemit/reflect, reverberate, the fact of light contacting it, on towards us?

You believe, a percentage of those cases, may be regular matter, that due to the fact of the small size of detector, compared to the large volume of space, and small size of light, does not register an event of material contact.

I should start and ask to clarify the basic reason why it is thought there is any dark matter; is it that in images of certain galaxies, by using methods to calculate their size, and geometry, it appears as if there is not enough visible stuff to cause the geometry (spiral) detected.

So you think there is a fundamentally different type of matter, which still interacts with the same gravity field, but when we gain our images of a spiral galaxy, that matter is not bright?

Or that fundamentally, even if there were many more stars and asteroids and planets then detected, it still would not be enough to explain the spiral.

Referring to the first sentence of this post, the bullet cluster; occams razor (and I hate occams razor, I am just trying to give arb some of his own alternative medicine) would suggest something about the child like simple purity of the universe birth expansion theory would be faulty. That, doy, the wishful declaration that all galaxies formed and then separated continuously like raisin bread has a wrinkle in it.

a reply to: ErosA433

I think you should watch the whole hour, but I also think you don't have the time... LOL
start at 46:00




HINT: inductive vs inventive

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ErosA433

I think you should watch the whole hour...

Any physical theory "channeled" from a "being of the sixth density" named "RA" isn't worth spending time on. Much less an hour.

a reply to: Bedlam

?? not sure what you're talking about, explain... !

a reply to: KrzYma
Ra is the God of the Sun, no longer as popular as in ancient Egypt, but George Carlin explains why sun worship makes sense to him, because:

1. Unlike invisible gods, you can actually see the sun.
2. The sun really is the source of energy for most life on earth, except for those hydrothermal vent creatures.

So choosing the sun to worship does seem to have some scientific rationale as it's observable. Allegedly Ra is the being who was channeled to confirm Dewey Larson's theories are true, though I'm not sure if it's the same Ra sun god the Egyptians worshiped. Also have you ever noticed how people get delirious and can't think straight when their temperature reaches 106 degrees F/ 41 degrees C? Given Ra is at millions of degrees he appears to be even more delirious since the Larson theories he supposedly "confirmed" via channeling don't match observation.

RST

The able functioning of multiple billions of computers, cellphones, radios, televisions, clocks and the like show us that Satz and RST are not only wrong, but overwhelmingly so.

So you can be thankful to Ra for light, warmth, food, and flowers, but don't expect any being with a temperature over 40 degrees C to be thinking clearly until we have evidence this is possible. The fact that you're using your computer or electronic device to post here proves RST wrong, in spite of Ra claiming it was right via some channeler.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I do not want to give away any more of my pearls, I will be patient.

What are pearls to one being are an irritant to another that they'd be glad to be rid of (particularly the oyster, but perhaps "pearls" that disagree with observation can be annoying to other humans also).

I have already explained what/why I think dark matter is.

Is that one of those explanations where when you go back to find it, it turns out to be some cryptic comment? I don't remember any explanations including backup or proof.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Is that one of those explanations where when you go back to find it, it turns out to be some cryptic comment? I don't remember any explanations including backup or proof.

In particular standard and accessible units of your choosing, how much mass 'is known to be in/around a spiral galaxy, which cannot be detected'?

Have scientists strongly considered any/every potential (potentially unavoidable) errors in detecting the galaxy?

Instead of pointless bickering, could you actually hear out my theories and maybe attempt to make them more formal with me? I will play imagination/intuition/visualization you can play math, together we can unite our powers, left brain and right brain to become one.

a reply to: Bedlam

Thats one possibility, and more coherent than most offerings

It is also entirely possible that if it is a particle solution that we might be unfortunate and that the only coupling is with gravity, meaning... we are kinda screwed in terms of detecting it. Shame really.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
In particular standard and accessible units of your choosing, how much mass 'is known to be in/around a spiral galaxy, which cannot be detected'?

Don't you remember we went down this path already? It varies by galaxy, not just the amount, but also the percentage or ratio of dark matter to luminous matter varies.

Have scientists strongly considered any/every potential (potentially unavoidable) errors in detecting the galaxy?

I don't know what that means. A certain amount of luminous matter shows up in the telescope. That's not enough to account for the galaxy rotation curve. Of course we know we're not detecting things like brown dwarfs in other galaxies, we can't even see those in the most distant parts of our own galaxy. I'm not sure I'd call that an error since we are not expecting those to show up.

Instead of pointless bickering, could you actually hear out my theories and maybe attempt to make them more formal with me? I will play imagination/intuition/visualization you can play math, together we can unite our powers, left brain and right brain to become one.

It's better if you try to apply the math and let someone else critique it. If you have no idea how to apply the math I don't know how you expect someone else to apply it. If you really had "theories", they would need to have math. If you just want to discuss something qualitatively without using any math, as I said you can start by explaining the bullet cluster observations, but you would need to start by understanding how those observations were made.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Measuring the matter/mass of a galaxy
It goes a little something like this... (the basic step/thought process)

Step 1 We look into the night sky and we see stars
Step 2 We look into the day sky and we see one star
Step 3 We look at our local star with a spectroscope and we observe bright and dark bands on a continuum. We go and ask our friends in the optics department what can do this, they say "Ah yes so go and look at atomic physics, what you have there is a black body spectrum produced by hot gas/plasma, the dark bands are absorption and the bright bands are emission... looks like you have... mostly hydrogen and helium"
Step 4 we think for a bit and then point our spectroscopes up at different stars... we notice that they all have common features, but different weighting. We deduce that stars are mostly made up of hydrogen and helium and are different in physical size and temperature
Step 5 we do experiments looking at Neutrinos from the local star and come to the conclusion that, the energy source of the sun is most definitely Nuclear fusion, PP chain and possibly a smidgen of CNO,
Step 6 we study the stars and figure out there appears to be a mass - spectral type relationship which allows us to effectively weight distant stars
Step 7 we notice that radio telescopes hear a constant hissing at a wavelength of 21cm, we look at atomic and quantum physics and find that this hiss can be caused by spin flip in hydrogen...After many months of cleaning the telescopes and reconfiguring, we cannot find any other possible source. we build bigger and better radio telescopes to look at if there is a relationship between this hissing and structures in the galaxy... we find there is.
Step 8 we map the milky way in 21cm Hydrogen to get a handle on the amount of gas there is between the stars.
Step 9 we map the milky way in optical, infrared, UV x-ray and Gamma to search for objects we cannot otherwise see.. we find quite a few, and arrive at an estimate for the density of exotic objects.
Step 10 (more recently) we look at nearby stars and look at them wobble, or look at their light curves and are able to estimate if large planets or otherwise invisible bodies orbit them, we come to an estimate of the amount of material there is out there..
Step 11 we look at other galaxies nearby and look at the red and blue shift of the gas and stars as they orbit, we see that stars and gas at the fringes of the galaxies, rotate at high velocity.
Step 12 we look at the data we have on our own galaxy in terms of mass distributions, and cannot really make the rotation curves make any sense. In order to have high velocity at the outer edges, there needs to be a vast quantity of unobserved material
Step 13 we theorize and come up with a number of concepts for how this might work... Dark matter halos are one such idea
Step 14 we look at other weird and wonderful things out in space, one of which is lensing effects that allow us to observe a distant galaxy's light, bent around a foreground object. We look for examples of this effect and find a few! We use deconvolution to estimate the shape of the lens and the matter distribution, and overlay it with the optical galaxy, we find that there appears to be large amounts of mass that extend way beyond the optical counterpart... We ponder once more
Step 15 We continue to search and expand our knowledge, looking for anything to disprove/prove the dark matter hypothesis based on observational evidence...