First dark matter galaxy discovered

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by np6888

 

Engery is momentum of any moving object

Small or large.

and i know people will get confused and say objects dont move "rocks" well in fact they do on sub atomic and atomic levels

you just cant see it moving is the problem

that is why matter and engergy can not be destory they are both one of the same thing.

we can no detect it because its the opisit to what we understand yet we know its there as a "force'' as you put it

we just cant see this force "as a physical partical" or a wave for that matter.. "yet"

you are confusing inertia with energy.

energy is a term that is broadly used.

reply to post by wx4caster


didnt watch the MIT lecture then i take it?

sheesh another one

its like monty python on here some days..




Just remember!! LOL

reply to post by 13579


just give up man, sirnex and other members are trolling you. if they cant even grasp the most basic fundamentals of physics then, they are either retarded or just having fun getting a rise out of you, they are completely ignorant.

Originally posted by oatie
reply to post by 13579

 

just give up man, sirnex and other members are trolling you. if they cant even grasp the most basic fundamentals of physics then, they are either retarded or just having fun getting a rise out of you, they are completely ignorant.

Says the man who brings nothing to the table but crap spouting.

reply to post by 13579

and to sirex... Im sorry but you are the most ignorant person i have ever come across on ATS.

Really? I'm ignorant when you fail to perform the most basic of tasks? Your only task was to find one scientific article that explicitly says 'energy' *as a separate thing* can make matter. You were given this task because you said "engery creates MATTER".

I've shown the contrary. Energy is a property of matter, meaning energy is matter exerting itself upon other matter. I've gone to such great lengths to explain this concept to the point of quoting and sourcing and explaining. What have you done? NOTHING. You give me a link that doesn't even agree with you. Like I said, learn to read you imbecile.

holy mother of god dark matter has been found look at that

Originally posted by Matthew Dark
reply to post by Deny Arrogance

 

Yeah...y'know...
I was wondering the same thing myself.
At this point, I thought it was all just theory.
Good point.

If it is "just" a theory, it is one that you ignore at the risk of continuing ignorance about the workings of the universe. No one has seen or touched gravity, either. Or a radio wave. Are they "just" theories?

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by daniel_g

 

Yikes, missed that before I replied to the OP. I'm still a little disenchanted with their choice of words. What do they mean by 'appears to be rotating'? It either is or is not rotating, or am I wrong on how the universe works?

"appears to be rotating" means, guess what, "appears to be rotating" You look at the return, either visable or other EMF, and if half is red-shifted and the other half blue-shifted, the most probable, but not exclusive, explanation is rotation. Speed of rotation can be calculated by amount of red/blue shift. The centripetal force is provided by gravity and is:
Fsubc = m(v^2/r). If the calculated centripetal force is more than can be accounted for by the mass of the visible matter, something else must be there. No blackbody radiation, hence dark matter.

Originally posted by donhuangenaro
I bet scientists are making wrong conclusions again... similar to ingenious conclusion about the cloud of dust Solar system is passing through 'that physics says should not exist.' link

also, I thought that dark matter is invisible, how can it be that it is visible in infra red suddenly?

Where did it say that the DM was visible in infrared. Infrared and near IR telescopes like Spitzer or Hubble are used to look at massive galaxies formed in the early Universe, which are not visible in the optical/visible light part of the spectrum, and from the behaviors of the galaxies, DM can be inferred.

Originally posted by digalog
theresonanceproject.org...
theresonanceproject.org...
theresonanceproject.org...
theresonanceproject.org...
theresonanceproject.org...

this you check out. most people won't understand most of the stuff. but the even the introductions are important. most of you guys already know Nassim Haramein. But in my eyes. Some of his theories make a lot of sense. And he nicely debunks Dark Matter / Energy over here.

If there are any theoretical physicists here. Seriously got to take a look.

Appreciated

Will a PhD in theoretical high energy particle chemical physics do? This guy's stuff i typical crackpottery. He submits these papers filled with numerologic gibberish to computer science seminars and then claims they are peer reviewed. His theories require proton masses of teratons. If you look at his website, he is the typical merchant of woo, feeding on the ignorance, and I mean ignorance in a kind way, of visitors.

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by np6888

 

only problem is its not "light" that is our problem.. its detection of gravity "kinda"

light is not used when locating dark matter or dark energy "gravity is"

You hit the reply button a little too soon. We use light to locate DM in a number of ways. Like, to measure rotation speed of spiral galaxies. Or to measure luminosity and compare it to visible mass. Or to measure gravitational lensing. Oh, and 2 apostrophes are missing from your first line.

reply to post by Maslo


Plasma physicist Anthony Peratt solved the "mystery" of "dark matter" over a decade ago.

Dark matter is a complete joke.

One gigantic lie piled upon another.

As the OP states, physicists had to concoct dark matter because the observed rotation rates of galaxies do not line up with gravitational models.

The answer for this is simple and doesn't require invisible fictitious matter.

Galaxies are strung along flowing currents of charged plasma. The currents in the plasma pinch, filament, and rotate.

Computer and lab simulations of charged plasma match the shape and rotation rates of galaxies observed in space.

There is no mystery, only electricity.

Images of Peratt's super computer simulation vs observed spiral galaxy:




Relevant published papers:

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets
A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660, December 1986

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies
A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778, December 1986

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale
A. L. Peratt, APSS 256, 1998


[edit on 30-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by mixmix

 

Yes, dark clouds is the force around the elipse we are detecting "not via light" but via gravity and our understanding of it.

Dark energy on the other hand is even more bizzar its like a force inbetween atoms and other things that gives them there mometum or "axis" and spin around the nuculi of atoms them self

this is what the LHC is trying to find.. kinda or at least parts of the puzzle

Tho they will not find the god partical they could in fact detect dark matter and energy.

and i dont see why they wouldnt!

I am going to assume, from your spelling and grammar that English is not your native language. You use the term "elipse" which normally means a closed plane curve resulting from the intersection of a circular cone and a plane cutting completely through it. And it has 2 l's - ellipse. What are you using it to mean. I don't intend to be demeaning but your second sentence makes no sense whatsoever. The only forces between atoms are: 1. gravity; and 2. electromagnetic in the case of polar molecules. What gives atoms momentum is not dark energy. It can be ionic forces, gravity, collisions. When I was in elementry school, a common model of the atom was electrons spinning in orbits around the nucleus, like a miniature solar system. We now know that isn't the case. Electrons appear and disappear around the nucleus in sort of "electron cloud." There is no tangible electron spin. It is a placeholder term for whatever gives an electron its inherent electromagnetic angular momentum.

reply to post by 4nsicphd

"appears to be rotating" means, guess what, "appears to be rotating" You look at the return, either visable or other EMF, and if half is red-shifted and the other half blue-shifted, the most probable, but not exclusive, explanation is rotation. Speed of rotation can be calculated by amount of red/blue shift. The centripetal force is provided by gravity and is:
Fsubc = m(v^2/r). If the calculated centripetal force is more than can be accounted for by the mass of the visible matter, something else must be there. No blackbody radiation, hence dark matter.

Well, yea I suppose. I mean, I'm all for discarding what a word means and redefining it in subtle ways to propose magical invisible matter. Hey, why not, right?

Yet, when I read it in context of the sentence, it doesn't indicate explicitly that this "galaxy" is rotating at all. Hell, we also have to completely discard that this formation is nothing new for that region of space in order for us to 'interpret' rotation. Well, however you want to play it is cool with me. Not sure how many more thing's we need to invent that are conveniently unobservable directly in order to make our super duper standard model fit with the observations.

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by sirnex

 

You might not have a clue, but it's called force carriers, which are again other bits of matter interacting against matter.

FORCE

notice that word? = ENGERY

I noticed the word "ENGERY". Even looked it up . Can't find it in any dictionary. If I show you one form of energy that is not matter interacting against matter, will you stop these infantile posts?
Photons have energy. it equals Planck's constant times frequency (E=hv). A photon has no mass and therefore is not matter. I suggest you spend several years studying quantum electrodynamics before venturing back on this playground.

Originally posted by wx4caster

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by np6888

 

Engery is momentum of any moving object

Small or large.

and i know people will get confused and say objects dont move "rocks" well in fact they do on sub atomic and atomic levels

you just cant see it moving is the problem

that is why matter and engergy can not be destory they are both one of the same thing.

we can no detect it because its the opisit to what we understand yet we know its there as a "force'' as you put it

we just cant see this force "as a physical partical" or a wave for that matter.. "yet"

you are confusing inertia with energy.

energy is a term that is broadly used.

Way to go wx4caster.
But I do have a bone to pick about an earlier post. In it, you mentioned Lorenz in the same post as a statement that light has mass. That sound was Lorenz rolling over. If a photon had mass, then light could not go, hmmm, the speed of light. The Lorenz transformation is what explains the speed limit aspect of c. It was a good post, otherwise.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Maslo

 

Plasma physicist Anthony Peratt solved the "mystery" of "dark matter" over a decade ago.






Relevant published papers:

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets
A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660, December 1986

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies
A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778, December 1986

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale
A. L. Peratt, APSS 256, 1998


[edit on 30-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

The only reason this crackpot gets published in that IEEE Journal for Plasma Pseudoscience, is that he started it and is still the co-editor and gets to pick what articles are published. The COBE satellite data released in 1992 pretty well demolished both Peraat and Alfvin as cosmologists with anything valuable to say..Epstein et al., The origin of deuterium, Nature, Vol. 263, September 16, 1976 point out that if proton fluxes with energies greater than 500 MeV were intense enough to produce the observed levels of deuterium, they would also produce about 1000 times more gamma rays than are observed.

reply to post by 4nsicphd

But I do have a bone to pick about an earlier post. In it, you mentioned Lorenz in the same post as a statement that light has mass. That sound was Lorenz rolling over. If a photon had mass, then light could not go, hmmm, the speed of light. The Lorenz transformation is what explains the speed limit aspect of c. It was a good post, otherwise.

I've read an article a while back ago, I'll try to find it if you want, but in that article it discussed something about light having mass, but less mass than space itself. Something to that effect, which would still allow it to travel at such high speeds.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

The only reason this crackpot gets published in that IEEE Journal for Plasma Pseudoscience, is that he started it and is still the co-editor and gets to pick what articles are published. The COBE satellite data released in 1992 pretty well demolished both Peraat and Alfvin as cosmologists with anything valuable to say..Epstein et al., The origin of deuterium, Nature, Vol. 263, September 16, 1976 point out that if proton fluxes with energies greater than 500 MeV were intense enough to produce the observed levels of deuterium, they would also produce about 1000 times more gamma rays than are observed.

The COBE data?

You mean this data?

COBE Satellite Finds No Hint of Excess in the Cosmic Microwave Spectrum, Physics Today, 1990 (128K).

COBE Sows Cosmological Confusion, Science, vol. 257, 28, 1992 (356K).

Looks like it supports EU theory to me.


Lerner shows the Big Bang nucleosynthesis proposals to be a joke.

The pseudoscience is dark matter, dark flows, and pink unicorns.


As for the IEEE, the current chief editor of the journal:

Dr. Steven J. Gitomer received his Bachelors (1964) and Masters (1966) Degrees from The Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, Maryland) and the Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University of Wisconsin (Madison) in 1969. From 1969 to 1973, his was a member of the faculty of the Moore School of Electrical Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania. Since 1974, he has been a member of the technical staff of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. His research interests have been primarily in the areas of laser interaction with matter, plasma simulation, and free-electron lasers.


Sounds like a real nut job to me.

Better call the local psych ward and have him committed.


How about Peratt's bio, he was Alfven's understudy:

received his Ph.D. in electrical engineering in 1971 from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Earlier degrees include the MSEE, USC, 1967; UCLA, 1963-1964, BSEE, California State Polytechnic University. He was a Staff Member at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1972-1979); a Guest Physicist at Max Planck Institut für Plasmaphysik, Garching, Germany (1975-1977); a Guest Scientist, Alfvén Laboratory of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden (1985); and, at Los Alamos National Laboratory from1981to the present serving in the Applied Theoretical Physics Division, Physics Division, Associate Laboratory Directorate for Experimental Programs; and as Scientific Advisor to the United States Department of Energy (1995-1999) where he served a term as Acting Director, National Security, in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Directorate.


He sounds like a total wack job as well.

Totally insane and irrational, not a real scientist.


[edit on 30-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by sirnex

Any mass still results in an infinity as v approaches c, since the divisor in the Lorenze equation is v-c. If they are equal, you are dividing by zero and the infinity results. I think you are confusing it with a photino, which is the lightest neutrolino and qualifies as a WIMP, or weakly interascting massive particle, and is a candidate for dark matter.

"The cross section for production of single photons in the electron-positron annihilation process is calculated including selectron propagator and photino mass effects and is found to be significantly smaller than the local limit for selectron masses less, approximate 35 GeV/c2. Numerical results for the cross section are obtained as a function of selectron masses for photino masses Image and electron beam energies E = 14.5, 25, and 35 GeV appropriate to PEP, PETRA, and TRISTAN, respectively."James D. Ware and Marie E. Machacek (1984) may be the article you're remembering.