Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 125
  1. #11
    Space Jockey's Avatar
    Space Jockey is offline Bright Giants
    Points: 3,310, Level: 37
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 40
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    200+ Posts Achievement!Got three Friends20+ Friends Achievement!400+ Posts AchievementFirst 1000 Experience Points
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    deactivated user
    Posts
    462
    Points
    3,310
    Level
    37
    Thanks
    205
    Thanked 233x 165 Posts

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by KeithBC View Post
    You are absolutely correct about that.

    However, you have to remember that it was never intended to be a conclusion in the first place. "Dark matter" is, and always was intended to be, merely a name for an unknown. For some reason, naming an unknown in this case seems to offend people, but it is hard to talk about it without giving it a name.

    You understood what I was saying Keith. You see, I threw that statement out as bone to see what reactions it would generate and to see if people were thinking

    ..... and obviously you were.. Good Job!






    .

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Space Jockey For This Useful Post:

    chas53 (06-13-2011),deaman49 (06-16-2011)

  3. #12
    Widdekind's Avatar
    Widdekind is offline SUPER GIANT
    Points: 14,643, Level: 83
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 207
    Overall activity: 0%
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    829
    Points
    14,643
    Level
    83
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 247x 177 Posts

    Default

    Vera Rubin inferred the presence of "as-yet-un-seen" matter. Only theoreticians -- who, incidentally, cannot build working fusion reactors, yet claim to comprehend fusion physics -- demand that that "dim matter" be exotic, non-baryonic, 'other-stuff', due to their calculations of Primordial Nucleosynthesis, which they cannot get to agree with observed deuterium abundances, unless the matter density in their mathematical models, of the ultra early universe, is <0.04 of critical density.

    Never-the-less, the HUDF detected 150 billion galaxies. And, if <0.04 of critical density is baryonic, then, at most, 80-100 billion solar masses can be associated with each galaxy. Otherwise, we're looking at, in the HUDF, more normal matter, than PNS currently claims "can" exist in our cosmos.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Widdekind For This Useful Post:

    chas53 (06-13-2011),Space Jockey (05-31-2011)

  5. #13
    Space Jockey's Avatar
    Space Jockey is offline Bright Giants
    Points: 3,310, Level: 37
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 40
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    200+ Posts Achievement!Got three Friends20+ Friends Achievement!400+ Posts AchievementFirst 1000 Experience Points
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    deactivated user
    Posts
    462
    Points
    3,310
    Level
    37
    Thanks
    205
    Thanked 233x 165 Posts

    Default

    You are spot on there... and I will believe it when I see the fusion reactor with my own eyes.

    Empirical evidence rules everytime Widdekind!


    .
    Last edited by Space Jockey; 05-31-2011 at 04:44 AM. Reason: sp

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Space Jockey For This Useful Post:

    chas53 (06-13-2011)

  7. #14
    Widdekind's Avatar
    Widdekind is offline SUPER GIANT
    Points: 14,643, Level: 83
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 207
    Overall activity: 0%
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    829
    Points
    14,643
    Level
    83
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 247x 177 Posts

    Default

    I have attempted to account, for observed cooling of the IGM since z ~ 2, with a basic-but-seemingly-sufficient mathematical model. And, I can only account for the comparatively quick cooling (10,000K to 4,000K) when the IGM gas density is at least comparable to the Critical density (as it would be, in a simple Critical cosmology). If the IGM density were nearly 2 orders-of-magnitude less dense, as present PNS suggests, then the IGM would take 2 orders-of-magnitude longer to cool -- many hundreds of billions of years !

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Widdekind For This Useful Post:

    chas53 (06-13-2011)

  9. #15
    Widdekind's Avatar
    Widdekind is offline SUPER GIANT
    Points: 14,643, Level: 83
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 207
    Overall activity: 0%
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    829
    Points
    14,643
    Level
    83
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 247x 177 Posts

    Default

    According to Dan Maoz' Astrophysics in a Nutshell, our cosmos is smooth, on scales >100 Mpc. Thus, if human observers could do a sensitive survey (ultra-long ultra-exposures), out to 50-100 Mpc, then they could get a good guestimate, of the claimed Criticality, of our cosmos.

    As per the HC documentary The Universe - Nebulae (DVD), all those 'pretty pictures', e.g. of star-forming regions in Orion, require hours or days of integrated exposures. Our human eyes, evolved for 10-100m ranges, at comparatively ultra-bright conditions, cannot begin to observe "below the O-B tip of the ice berg" out there. Most of our cosmos is "(way) below the water line", and will only be witnessed, with ultra-large, ultra-sensitive space 'scopes, on ultra-long ultra-sensitive ultra-deep-field observations.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Widdekind For This Useful Post:

    chas53 (06-13-2011)

  11. #16
    psonice's Avatar
    psonice is offline HYPER GIANT
    Points: 14,658, Level: 83
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 192
    Overall activity: 0%
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    1,643
    Points
    14,658
    Level
    83
    Thanks
    248
    Thanked 599x 420 Posts

    Default

    How about the observed gravitational lensing where there's no observable matter, and the 'great attractor' then? Both are evidence of some kind of gravitational (or other) field, without apparent matter. Surely that fits the bill for 'dark matter' perfectly?

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to psonice For This Useful Post:

    chas53 (06-13-2011),Widdekind (06-01-2011)

  13. #17
    Space Jockey's Avatar
    Space Jockey is offline Bright Giants
    Points: 3,310, Level: 37
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 40
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    200+ Posts Achievement!Got three Friends20+ Friends Achievement!400+ Posts AchievementFirst 1000 Experience Points
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    deactivated user
    Posts
    462
    Points
    3,310
    Level
    37
    Thanks
    205
    Thanked 233x 165 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by psonice View Post
    How about the observed gravitational lensing where there's no observable matter, and the 'great attractor' then? Both are evidence of some kind of gravitational (or other) field, without apparent matter. Surely that fits the bill for 'dark matter' perfectly?
    I would be a believer if they found gravitational lensing where no matter exists.. but so far they have found what they think is more gravitational lensing than they think they should have from a perceived amount of matter.. which again could be a miscalculation.



    .
    Last edited by Space Jockey; 05-31-2011 at 03:00 PM. Reason: sp

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Space Jockey For This Useful Post:

    chas53 (06-13-2011)

  15. #18
    Gandalf223's Avatar
    Gandalf223 is offline Bright Giants
    Points: 8,841, Level: 65
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 209
    Overall activity: 0%
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orygun
    Posts
    314
    Points
    8,841
    Level
    65
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 128x 79 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Space Jockey View Post
    The idea of "dark matter" is an incomplete hypothesis at best, and an excuse at the worst.
    Could not agree more. Physicists hate constants in their equations. Dark matter (so called) is a theoretical construct designed to duplicate Einstein's Cosmological Constant. His decision to throw it out as his "biggest blunder" may have been premature. There is no reason to believe that, 50 years from now, Dark Matter and Dark Energy won't be on the trash heap, with Einstein's constant dusted off and added to the list of stuff he was right about.

    I'd be happier with the whole dark matter thing, if the physicists who promote it would preface their ideas with, "WTF?????"

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    "The Big Bang is fudge without walnuts" John Dobson, 1 July 2009

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Gandalf223 For This Useful Post:

    chas53 (06-13-2011)

  17. #19
    Space Jockey's Avatar
    Space Jockey is offline Bright Giants
    Points: 3,310, Level: 37
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 40
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    200+ Posts Achievement!Got three Friends20+ Friends Achievement!400+ Posts AchievementFirst 1000 Experience Points
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    deactivated user
    Posts
    462
    Points
    3,310
    Level
    37
    Thanks
    205
    Thanked 233x 165 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gandalf223 View Post
    Could not agree more. Physicists hate constants in their equations. Dark matter (so called) is a theoretical construct designed to duplicate Einstein's Cosmological Constant. His decision to throw it out as his "biggest blunder" may have been premature. There is no reason to believe that, 50 years from now, Dark Matter and Dark Energy won't be on the trash heap, with Einstein's constant dusted off and added to the list of stuff he was right about.

    I'd be happier with the whole dark matter thing, if the physicists who promote it would preface their ideas with, "WTF?????"

    Wouldn't that be something a universal version on Einstien's original concept applied and reworked to explain this. Now that I could see. It really does not make sense-the static universe and we now know why. But It is easily imaginable the invisible force he tried to find working as a law just as gravity does. maybe it is an unknown component of gravity itself ?


    .
    Last edited by Space Jockey; 05-31-2011 at 08:15 PM.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Space Jockey For This Useful Post:

    chas53 (06-13-2011)

  19. #20
    Widdekind's Avatar
    Widdekind is offline SUPER GIANT
    Points: 14,643, Level: 83
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 207
    Overall activity: 0%
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    829
    Points
    14,643
    Level
    83
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 247x 177 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by psonice View Post
    How about the observed gravitational lensing where there's no observable matter, and the 'great attractor' then? Both are evidence of some kind of gravitational (or other) field, without apparent matter. Surely that fits the bill for 'dark matter' perfectly?
    There are two distinct concepts here:

    "Dim Matter" -- Vera Rubin, looking through her telescope, infers that there must be more mass, not visible with her instrument, to account for the motions of the matter that is visible, in her instrument

    "Dark Matter" -- 'Theoreticians', scrawling symbols on blackboards, claiming that their formulas, for fusion physics, are an accurate mathematical model, of the ultra-early universe -- and then claiming that those models are incompatible, with much 'normal matter'
    These are two separately-motivated tacks, on the "missing mass" problem in Cosmology. The former is observational, the latter theoretical. I am arguing, that the former is true ("lots of dim brown dwarfs, as yet unobserved"), whilst the latter is false ("something subtle, about fusion, on ultra-large scales, in a rapidly expanding spacetime, introduce errors into current theoretical models").

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Widdekind For This Useful Post:

    chas53 (06-04-2011)

 

 
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Dark Matter just disappeared!!! Now Dark Energy?
    By OleCuss in forum General Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-10-2011, 12:26 PM
  2. Unravelling the Dark Matter - Dark Energy Paradigm
    By Surfer in forum UK Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-28-2009, 02:06 PM
  3. A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
    By Sam Wormley in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 08-27-2006, 10:20 PM
  4. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 10-16-2005, 03:13 AM
  5. Dark Matter & Dark Energy Two Aspects of the Same Thing?
    By Klaatu in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 07-12-2004, 11:32 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin®
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:21 AM.