Explination for Dark Matter

Scientists still dont know what gravity is.
they know what it does.
and Scientists think they understand the universe and gravity.
Nothing can escape a Black hole!!!
Oh! now at the top and bottom a stream of gas escapes!
Are black holes real? only to scientists.
just like dark mater.
There maths dont add up???
so they come up with dark mater.
NOW the maths works. Yippy!
some one is a Fool...
No, not just me!

reply to post by buddha

Black holes are real.
Nothing (except perhaps Hawking radiation) escapes a black hole. The jets associated with black holes do not originate within the hole but from the accretion disk outside of the event horizon.

There is a difference between black holes and dark matter though. Black holes were predicted, by theory, to exist. Their existence was later demonstrated. Dark matter is presumed to exist due to the behavior of galaxies, there was no prior theory for its existence.

I posted my theory on my Facebook page and on a few well-known physicists pages:

What Dark Matter is and where it comes from

Since dark matter makes up the majority of matter in our universe, it is possible that at the beginning of the universe when there was no entropy there was no dark matter, only matter with electromagnetic radiation (visible). I theorize that dark matter and dark energy do indeed come from black holes and explain why it is clumped inside and around galaxies.

Inside a black hole the forces of nature go awry. A black hole requires gravity and radiation to maintain equilibrium. The black holes ingest visible matter and strip electromagnetic radiation from matter along with X number of subatomic particles and the byproduct is dark matter (a black body) and Hawking radiation. The dark matter and Hawking radiation are expelled out the other end and/or propelled back into space from the singularity at extremely high velocities. A gamma ray burst may also occur when a black hole is formed and/or extinguished. Black holes cannot have infinite density but will feed on visible matter as long as it is present. Once all visible matter has been converted to dark matter and Hawking radiation, the black hole will decay as it cannot feed on dark matter since it lacks electromagnetic radiation. The highest concentrations of dark matter should be emanating from the center of the galaxy where the super massive black hole lies, and like a fountain will pour back in and around the galaxy.

reply to post by CLPrime

Our measurement of the light is made before it gets deflected.

No... our measurement of light is being made *AS IT IS BEING DEFLECTED* not after.

The gravity well of the star is the thing that alters the path of the light.... not a special "Plane" right after our star.

It happens gradually *WITHIN* the gravitational well of our solar system.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cb97d1e64893.jpg[/atsimg]

Therefore, the very nature of our parallax measurements remove the effect of gravitational lensing from those measurements.

And this is totally incorrect.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


I can match you Paint drawing for Paint drawing.
There's no "what I think is happening." There's only what's really happening, according to the physics. Light is following a straight line through the gravity well of the sun. Photons from distant stars are not significantly affected by another star's gravity well until they get nearly tangential to the star or to any given external circumference (such as the orbit of the Earth). This also happens to be where measurements of parallax are taken... thus, such measurements are taken before the effect of lensing occurs.

To illustrate:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/802c0030f8d1.png[/atsimg]

We measure parallax at each blue dot. This is before any significant lensing has occurred.

ETA: so you don't have to take my word for it...

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

You are talking about using parallax to measure the distance of stars. As has been pointed out this is limited to a distance of about 1,600 light years.

The use of parallax depends on the comparison of the subtended angles between a near star and a distant star. Since the light of both stars is equally affected by gravity at any point of Earth's orbit, the effects of gravity are nullified. The "position" of both stars is shifted to the same degree so the subtended angle is unaffected.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
But, I believe that this is actually a fairly solid hypothesis that could account for the "Missing Mass" of the galaxy... that being our incorrect calculations of the density of the galaxy, by seeing stars and such as farther away than they actually are.

According to this paper by Clowe and others, there is no possible way your hypothesis could account for dark matter related observations in the bullet cluster with an 8 sigma significance:

A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter

An 8-sigma significance spatial offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the majority of the matter in the system is unseen.

If this paper is accurate and I really haven't seen it disputed (though I haven't looked that hard), there's no way what you say could explain this observation.

Another scientist (Moffat) claims he has a modified theory of gravity which can explain it, but Clowe insists that's not the case and his paper stands, as I explain in this post in another thread.

It kind of blows some ideas I had about Dark Matter out of the water too, so don't feel like you're the only one getting your theory demolished by this paper; you're not.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


If it helps, what I've read of the paper so far is enough to convince me that even Moffat's theory (which I advertise like I'm being paid to) can't account for the observations described. As far as I'm concerned, the findings of Clowe et al demand the existence of some form of weakly-interacting, massive, baryonic matter. There really is no alternative.

Originally posted by pjslug
Once all visible matter has been converted to dark matter and Hawking radiation, the black hole will decay as it cannot feed on dark matter since it lacks electromagnetic radiation.

So did the physicists give you any feedback? I can give you some.

Only if the black hole is much less massive than the sun will it decay due to hawking radiation because of the cosmic microwave background.

en.wikipedia.org...

A stellar black hole of one solar mass has a Hawking temperature of about 100 nanokelvins. This is far less than the 2.7 K temperature of the cosmic microwave background. Stellar mass (and larger) black holes receive more mass from the cosmic microwave background than they emit through Hawking radiation and will thus grow instead of shrink. To have a Hawking temperature larger than 2.7 K (and be able to evaporate), a black hole needs to be lighter than the Moon (and therefore a diameter of less than a tenth of a millimeter).[83]

On the other hand, if a black hole is very small the radiation effects are expected to become very strong. Even a black hole that is heavy compared to a human would evaporate in an instant. A black hole the weight of a car (~10−24 m) would only take a nanosecond to evaporate, during which time it would briefly have a luminosity more than 200 times that of the sun.

Needless to say with a black hole the size of a car giving off 200 times more radiation than the sun, it wouldn't be that hard to spot, and we've looked for these signatures and can conclude that if such small black holes exist, they are extremely sparse and would not account for dark matter observations.

This leaves us with black holes which are larger. and as that source states, such black holes don't have a net decay, they in fact grow feeding on the cosmic microwave background far faster than any Hawking radiation they emit because the cosmic microwave background is many times hotter than the black hole.

So there's a little "hole" in your black hole explanation, pun intended.

And by the way the smallest black hole found to date is about 3.8 solar masses and it's believed we won't find stable black holes much smaller than that (perhaps as low as 3 solar masses though that's just an estimate).

reply to post by CLPrime

Wow, I thought you were pretty sold on Moffat's theory, but I've pretty much come to the same conclusion as you, that even if Moffat can explain some observations, he can't explain them all. Clowe's paper is very compelling.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I'm never "sold" on anything, really. I wasn't aware of the observations you brought up before you brought them up. Considering those observations, it's a rather inescapable conclusion, that, while STVG/MOG is able to model many peculiar observations, it is unable to successfully model the most crucial observation. It's a fatal flaw. But I'll live. I guess.

This whole dark matter thing confuses me. If I understand this correctly the theory for dark matter came about in an attempt to explain the observation of galactic rotation. Galaxies rotate as one or as if they were like a solid wheel.

Observations of orbital motions show that the farther away from the center (star or planet) the longer an object will take to orbit. This sounds perfectly reasonable. Galaxies have been observed to rotate like a solid unit, the outer most stars take the same time to make one revolution as the inner most, with exception of the galactic bar. This appears as a phenomena. I realize that galactic motions are more complicated than that but this is the observed phenomena.

The idea of using dark matter or missing matter makes no difference. No amount of matter, dark or otherwise, will cause this observed phenomena of galactic rotation to happen in this way. The farther away from the center of mass the less force there will be and the greater the distance in circumference thus the longer an object will take to move this distance. What this means is that objects in the outer reaches of a galaxy would need a greater acceleration than those of the inner areas towards the center to maintain the observed motions. How in the world can dark matter explain this away? Isn't this a violation of the inverse square law thus indicating the possibility of some unseen or yet to be described energy?

reply to post by Devino


The most basic difference dark matter would make is the additional gravitational attraction... sort of like cosmic cement holding all of the visible matter together. This accounts for the "single unit" rotation.
It also increases the galaxy's angular momentum, which affects its rotation.

reply to post by CLPrime

It also increases the galaxy's angular momentum, which affects its rotation.

Yes but we still have the inverse square law. The farther from the center of mass the less force and the greater the circumference. This means objects on the outer edge of a galaxy are moving faster than objects closer to the center. Where is this extra force coming from, surely not from the center of mass/galaxy?

sort of like cosmic cement holding all of the visible matter together. This accounts for the "single unit" rotation.

I think you're going to need to expand on this further. I fail to see how any amount of mass would cement all of the stars in the galaxy together. Most of the galaxy acts like a ridged wheel as though all stars have a physical connection. Gravity alone does not do this no matter how much there is. It is as though the explanation suggests that dark matter defies gravitational attraction from the center yet uses gravitational attraction to explain galactic rotations.

reply to post by CLPrime


well if the rotation from the galaxy was induced from the outside in, angular momentium could be transfered from the outter edge to the center
the further from the outside you go the less energy is available to induce angular rotation
up to the reigion where the black hole forces "couple" with the rotation induced from the black hole.
this has the effect of "averaging" the momentium across the galactic plane

xploder

Just curious here about how dark matter/enegy relates to coalescing different galactic structures and brings a question to mind. If dark matter is the missing glue holding large galaxies together from blowing apart how are irregular galaxies explained to not be flying apart without a super massive black hole in the center we so observe in spiral galaxies?

The real question I have is if there are calculations of how much mass difference there is unaccounted for in the different galaxy structures, (Spiral, Elliptical, Irregular). Since it is easy to understand how our Milky Way spiral galaxy behaves like our solar system of a rotating disc around the massive center explained mostly by gravitational forces, and the mass is relatively accounted for. We all know there are very massive galaxies hundreds of times the mass of the Milky Way that do not rotate like Messier 87.

We also have the small Irregular Galaxy clusters like the Small Magellanic Cloud and for that matter the Large Magellanic Cloud, both of which are not rotating discs.

Are non rotating galaxies found to have less 'missing mass', thus less dark matter than the Spiral Galaxies? Is dark matter/energy responsible for the a rotating galactic structure or just simple massive accumulation of gravity or a central super massive black hole?

Does the observable galactic structure differences 'cloud' the perception of dark matter at all? Just wondering, thanks.

reply to post by Devino


Consider a regular galaxy, 100% baryonic matter. As you say, the gravitational force follows the inverse-square law. Generally. But I think you're forgetting that, in a galaxy, this isn't the case. This is only the case beyond the edge of the galaxy. Within the galaxy, all of the matter out to the edge adds to the entire gravitational field of the galaxy. The main gravitational field is from the central black hole, and this field follows the inverse-square law... but this black hole, of course, is being "orbited" by a lot of other matter, which contributes to the total gravitational field. This means the total gravitational field of the galaxy does not follow the inverse square law. Instead, it becomes roughly proportional to the matter density in any given region of the galaxy.
The problem arises when a galaxy still seems to have too much gravity for the amount of baryonic matter we observe. This, then, is solved by introducing an effectively invisible form of matter - "dark" matter. This form of matter necessarily weakly interacts with baryonic matter, but it adds to the total gravitational field. This increase in the total gravitational field of the galaxy, then, is responsible for the increased rigidity (so-to-speak... in humans, we have pills for that).

In fact, to account for the increased gravitational field, galaxies need to be comprised of 83% dark matter.

reply to post by XPLodER


What would externally induce galactic rotation?

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by XPLodER

 

What would externally induce galactic rotation?

You might ask EU theorist's this, they seem to have an answer.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by XPLodER

 

What would externally induce galactic rotation?

rotation of "smaller" galaxies around the circumfrence of the galaxy
they act like gears on the circumference and induce angular rotation as they themselves rotate as they "roam" around the galaxy.

the second way this could be possable is "induced galaxy rotation"
the idea would be that large filiments of energy transversing a super cluster would create a "polerization" or sympathethic rotatation in the galaxy as a whole
and the galaxies would "arrange" themselves due to axis of rotation in the presence of filimentary energy
induced rotation of the galaxy as a single mass on the filimentary scale

this would conform to the inverse square law as the closer to the center you get the further away from the energy imput you are and the point where the angular momentium from the outside "meets" the angular momentium from the super massive black hole at the centre, this has the effect of causing the bar style rotational caractoristics we see in the spiral type galaxies.

i prefer a combination of the first and second ideas

xploder