Notices
Results 1 to 71 of 71
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By Janus
  • 1 Post By tk421

Thread: What is dark matter make of?

  1. #1 What is dark matter make of? 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    115
    Dark matter doesn't it neither emits nor absorbs electromagnetic radiation, it doesn't have paticle with charge. So what is Dark matter made of? And what force prevent it from collapsing into a black hole?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    No one is sure about that yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Jilan, re: your #2 post.

    There is at least one effective definition of "dark matter"...there isn't any. It only exists as a concept to "explain things?" (such as "there isn't enough matter to account for all of the energy

    being manifested in the known Universe)


    Ta ra!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Member Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    91
    Dark matter comes in two types MACHO's and WIMP's

    MACHO stands for Massive Astronomical Compact Halo Objects

    Things like black holes, brown dwarfs and large planets. Stuff that is just too dim to be seen. Some but not all dark matter is likely to be this kind of stuff. Observations limit how much DM can be attributed to these types of things. Basically it comes down to the fact that if there was that much extra baryonic matter in the universe, it would effect how the rest of the visible universe evolved.

    WIMP stands for Weakly Interacting Massive Particle. A type of matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force or radiation. Neutrinos are an example of a WIMP. While the presently known types of neutrinos are not candidates for making up DM, a hypothetical type, called a "sterile neutrino" just could be. (The "sterile" part come from the fact that unlike known neutrinos, they would not even interact by the weak nuclear interaction.)

    WIMPS don't collapse into a black hole for the same reason the stars of the galaxy don't. They have enough kinetic energy to overcome their mutual gravitational attraction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    There is at least one effective definition of "dark matter"...there isn't any. It only exists as a concept to "explain things?" (such as "there isn't enough matter to account for all of the energy being manifested in the known Universe)
    That's taken to be the most unlikely of all hypotheses yet proposed. Some people don't like the idea of dark matter because it seems very mysterious to them and others don't like it because its seen as being something that is proposed merely to fix a theory to fit data. In fact there's very little wrong with the idea. It was our arrogance in the first place to assume that all matter can be seen using electromagnetic radiation. Especially when we already know of objects that can't be observed like that such as black holes and brown dwarfs. The expression for the gravitational force works extremely well in the domain of galactic distances so there's no reason to assume it can't work to describe the motion of material that makes up the galaxy itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Physicist View Post
    That's taken to be the most unlikely of all hypotheses yet proposed. Some people don't like the idea of dark matter because it seems very mysterious to them and others don't like it because its seen as being something that is proposed merely to fix a theory to fit data. In fact there's very little wrong with the idea. It was our arrogance in the first place to assume that all matter can be seen using electromagnetic radiation. Especially when we already know of objects that can't be observed like that such as black holes and brown dwarfs. The expression for the gravitational force works extremely well in the domain of galactic distances so there's no reason to assume it can't work to describe the motion of material that makes up the galaxy itself.
    You mean we still don't know what it is really is?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Physicist, re: your #5 post.

    "Dark matter" holds no mystery to me...it is a hypothesis. The actual "matter" may well be an allotrope of carbon, rather than more exotic particles...this would explain the "non-emission"

    status of a given structure. (this of course is predicated on the idea that there actually is "something there")

    .....

    I think the "grand assumption" that assumes "dark matter" exists is, at it's heart, a way to preserve "energy from particles" theory...a "grasping of straws" to prevent rendering energy/particle

    theories "moot" in light of the fact there are NOT enough "normal particles" to account for energy manifestation in the known Universe<(at least, this is the estimate of "how much?)


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Member Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Physicist View Post
    It was our arrogance in the first place to assume that all matter can be seen using electromagnetic radiation. Especially when we already know of objects that can't be observed like that such as black holes and brown dwarfs.
    And that particles that don't interact with electromagnetism, like neutrinos do exist.

    I think that the reluctance of some to accept the idea of DM is due to, at least in part, to what I call "baryo-centrism"; the idea that since we rely on baryonic matter for our existence, it must be the dominate form of matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    The jury is still out on what it really is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by johnzxcv View Post
    You mean we still don't know what it is really is?
    Yes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    424
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    "Dark matter" holds no mystery to me...it is a hypothesis. The actual "matter" may well be an allotrope of carbon, rather than more exotic particles...this would explain the "non-emission"
    No, it would not explain non-emission. Carbon -- any of its allotropes -- interacts with electromagnetic radiation. It is not dark in the sense that matters. I think you misunderstand the meaning of "dark" in this context.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    172
    The most plausible hypothesis for dark matter is that it is some kind of WIMP -- Weakly Interacting Massive Particle. But there is no suitable Standard-Model particle for being a WIMP, and all the candidates I've seen are outside the SM. However, most of them are in some extension of the SM.
    • Sterile neutrinos
    • Lightest Supersymmetric Particle
      • Lightest MSSM neutralino - in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model
      • Gravitino - supersymmetric partner of the graviton
    • Axion - suppresses QCD CP violation
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #13  
    Senior Member MaxPayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    India
    Posts
    236
    There are two possibilities
    1) present everywhere and are made up of some kind of particle that has gravity but doesn't interact with light.
    2) made of normal matter and are located at the outskirts of galaxies but are too faint to be seen.

    I say 2.
    ┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`)ノ︵ ┻━┻
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #14  
    Member Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxPayne View Post
    There are two possibilities
    1) present everywhere and are made up of some kind of particle that has gravity but doesn't interact with light.
    2) made of normal matter and are located at the outskirts of galaxies but are too faint to be seen.

    I say 2.
    3) a combination of 1 and 2.

    But even then there is an upper limit to how much can be attributed to 2. If the total matter of baryonic matter in the universe was much greater than that which we see, the visible universe would have evolved much differently than it did. When we look out at the universe we would see something a lot different than what we see For example, if we assume a large component was made up of stellar black holes, then those black holes were formed by supernovae. But supernovae also produce heavy elements. If there were enough supernovae in the universe's early stages to create enough black holes to make up a considerable percentage of DM, then then we would have a higher percentage of heavy elements in the universe than we see now.

    That's not to say that some of DM could be attributed to this type of matter, just not all of it or even a large fraction of it.
    MaxPayne likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #15  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Physicist
    Some people don't like the idea of dark matter because it seems very mysterious to them...
    Indeed, and I am one of them. First the naming is plain wrong. Heavy Shadow would be a more appropriate name, or God Ultimate Puzzle, so we can start to build another more powerful useless accelerator.
    Marketing propaganda at best.

    Quote Originally Posted by Physicist
    and others don't like it because its seen as being something that is proposed merely to fix a theory to fit data
    I suppose you meant "to fix the data so they fit the theory". I thought that to be a very very bad thing to do in science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Physicist
    In fact there's very little wrong with the idea
    I agree with that, if you can at least have the slightest proposition about what idea of what "this idea" could be, and how to test it.
    Personally I think we have discover the SM to be plain wrong (I would bet on GR). No need to build another accelerator, modest telescope would do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Physicist
    It was our arrogance in the first place to assume that all matter can be seen using electromagnetic radiation
    I also think SM to be quite arrogant, but would never have dared stating it so bluntly

    Quote Originally Posted by Physicist
    Especially when we already know of objects that can't be observed like that such as black holes and brown dwarfs.
    I also found BB conjecture to be quite arrogant, like Janus said there is clear limitation on the amount of that classic cold stuff in the BB model.

    [QUOTE=lpetrich]{more real conjecture}[QUOTE]
    Isn't steril neutrino supposed to be speeding to much to clump as a hallow arround Galaxies ?

    About other SS particles, how do they fit in the BB nucleosynthesis ? Aren't they supposed to have other effects that playing the foes with our telescope ? Aren't a all bunch of those SS partners supposed to be EM active ?

    There is also nothing wrong in the hypothesis that there is nothing wrong with the SM and our telescope, and the problem is with GR which is missing 95 % of its target.

    Finally, the last hypothesis is that both SM and GR are utterly incomplete.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #16  
    Junior Member PM_ME_URANUS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    6
    We are not even sure if the Dark Matter we see is just one unknown type of matter
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #17  
    Senior Member MaxPayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    India
    Posts
    236
    We don't see dark matter.
    ┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`)ノ︵ ┻━┻
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #18  
    Junior Member PM_ME_URANUS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    6
    yea I know
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #19  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3
    One solution, there is no dark matter, but the Big Bang correspond to a time-Way black hole.
    The dark energy is curvature of this black hole .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #20 Dark matter is ambiguous 
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    5
    Well, maybe we dont even know if there is some matter or not.
    We have assumed that. We believe that some hidden sort of matter exists that can account for the 'unknown gravity that we have observed'. You may call it dark GRAVITY....bcoz there is some unknown dark matter, this conclusion has been deduced (i think) from the fact that there is some gravity in a galaxy that does not have a known source. Well, due to this position of dark matter in our understanding, makes it difficult to reveal anything about its nature......maybe no one knows what dark matter consists of.... there may be dark atoms, dark molecules, etc but again all this is just another thought.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #21  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    424
    Quote Originally Posted by Gaurav(-26.7) View Post
    Well, maybe we dont even know if there is some matter or not.
    We have assumed that. We believe that some hidden sort of matter exists that can account for the 'unknown gravity that we have observed'. You may call it dark GRAVITY....bcoz there is some unknown dark matter, this conclusion has been deduced (i think) from the fact that there is some gravity in a galaxy that does not have a known source. Well, due to this position of dark matter in our understanding, makes it difficult to reveal anything about its nature......maybe no one knows what dark matter consists of.... there may be dark atoms, dark molecules, etc but again all this is just another thought.....
    No one knows what the composition of dark matter is. However, you somewhat misstate the evidence for its existence. It's not just "a galaxy", it's that all spiral galaxies that have been studied exhibit rotation curves that do not behave as expected. If you add matter, the discrepancies disappear. Trying to adjust gravity itself (search for MOND, for example) can fix that problem, too, but it creates new ones. So, of the proposed mechanisms, dark matter is currently the best candidate, because it fixes more than it breaks, so that's the favoured hypothesis. As more evidence pours in, from astronomical observations as well as experiments here, the hypothesis will either be strengthened or a better candidate may emerge. These are exciting times!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #22  
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    30
    I was under the impression that weak gravitational lensing had been used successfully to map the distribution of dark matter in some areas, and to correlate its distribution against that of visible matter?

    If so, doesn't that put the existence of dark matter on a much firmer footing that simply a conjecture to make rotation curves 'work' ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #23  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    424
    Quote Originally Posted by lesaid View Post
    I was under the impression that weak gravitational lensing had been used successfully to map the distribution of dark matter in some areas, and to correlate its distribution against that of visible matter?

    If so, doesn't that put the existence of dark matter on a much firmer footing that simply a conjecture to make rotation curves 'work' ?
    Yes, and yes. As you say, the evidence for dark matter relies on more than a single bit of a data. Although rotation curves were the first clue (because of the rather large discrepancy), observations of weak lensing have added to the story. The Bullet Cluster is an example of a fortuitous observation that has bolstered the dark matter hypothesis. Most effects are more subtle than those evinced by the Bullet Cluster, but continued observation will add to the picture. The existence of dark matter is being questioned much less often, and instead the question most are now asking is: What is it made of?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #24  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    267
    Also, simulations of the formation of galaxies and the large-scale structure of the universe require dark matter to be present to reproduce what we see.
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #25  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    4
    Dark matter is simply matter 'lost' in space. It is a mixture of gravity and whatever particles were left isolated in space after the big bang. Because dark matter is so low in energy and so far away from any mass that could attract it, dark matter simply just sits out there in space doing nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #26  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by Wamster View Post
    Dark matter is simply matter 'lost' in space. It is a mixture of gravity and whatever particles were left isolated in space after the big bang. Because dark matter is so low in energy and so far away from any mass that could attract it, dark matter simply just sits out there in space doing nothing.
    Dark matter is not "far away from any mass". It is concentrated around galaxies (which have a lot of mass) with the highest density at the centre of the galaxy.
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #27  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by EtalU View Post
    The Et al Theory suggest that dark matter does not exist!
    Please stop spamming this drivel all over the place. You have one thread to discuss it. That is enough.
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #28  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Physicist View Post
    It was our arrogance in the first place to assume that all matter can be seen using electromagnetic radiation.
    While the jury's still out on what Dark Matter is, there's no doubt it's something rather important, and our arrogance in assuming even such basic things as 3D reality being "all there was" managed to persist for some time, so perhaps it's safe to assume the EM field can't hold all the answers and the particle zoo hasn't finished with us yet?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #29  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctorevil View Post
    I thought dark matter was the ether.
    This is supposed to be a science forum , not a repository for rubbish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #30  
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    51
    Dark matter is used to explain the difference between total calculated universal matter and ordinary or visible matter. The ratio between the two is 2*Pi +/-1.1% in the latest PLANCK data and this ratio has been converging towards 2*Pi over the past 10 years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #31  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by laurieag View Post
    Dark matter is used to explain the difference between total calculated universal matter and ordinary or visible matter. The ratio between the two is 2*Pi +/-1.1% in the latest PLANCK data and this ratio has been converging towards 2*Pi over the past 10 years.
    Numerology has no place on a science forum.
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #32  
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    51
    Neither is PC BS. This is a statement of fact Strange "Dark matter is used to explain the difference between total calculated universal matter and ordinary or visible matter".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #33  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by laurieag View Post
    Dark matter is used to explain the difference between total calculated universal matter and ordinary or visible matter. The ratio between the two is 2*Pi +/-1.1% in the latest PLANCK data and this ratio has been converging towards 2*Pi over the past 10 years.
    Wiki has this ratio at 1:4.9%. This is about 20.06. See here
    Where did you get 2*PI?
    Last edited by AndrewC; 01-07-2018 at 12:57 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #34  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    london
    Posts
    15
    Dark matter is a low level of energy. Empty space is not a vacuum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #35  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    london
    Posts
    15
    Ok. bad choice of word. Empty space is not nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #36  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    london
    Posts
    15
    what we have to ask is not why do stars in a galaxy rotate at the same speed, but why don't planets in in solar sytem? What does this tell us about what we think of as gravity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #37  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by MAXIS View Post
    what we have to ask is not why do stars in a galaxy rotate at the same speed, but why don't planets in in solar sytem? What does this tell us about what we think of as gravity?
    Orbital speed is inversely proportional to the distance from the center of rotation. All distant planets have roughly the same speed (the speed vs. distance curve has a horizontal asymptote). The same applies to the stars.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #38  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    london
    Posts
    15
    you also have to explain why sprial gaxayies show 'drag'? A galaxy with fixed speed shouldn't create arms, surely?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #39  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by MAXIS View Post
    A galaxy with fixed speed shouldn't create arms, surely?
    What gives you this idea? And why are you trolling this thread? This thread is about dark matter, not about your missconceptions about galaxy rotation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #40  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    london
    Posts
    15
    so why doesnt that work for our galaxy? Stars at the out edge rotate at the same speed as those close in. but our solar system doesn't. why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #41  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by MAXIS View Post
    so why doesnt that work for our galaxy? Stars at the out edge rotate at the same speed as those close in. but our solar system doesn't. why?
    Because planets orbit a body (the Sun) that has a much larger mass, the formula I gave you () applies ONLY for this case. The galaxies are a completely different case, the stars do not orbit a mass, any mass, so, there is no reason to follow the same formula. The solar system is governed by different formulas than the galaxies. The physics is the same, the formulas are not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #42  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    london
    Posts
    15
    the whole concept of dark matter was invocked to resolve the apparent inconsistency between the rotatation of planets and the rotatiion of the galaxy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #43  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    424
    Quote Originally Posted by MAXIS View Post
    the whole concept of dark matter was invocked to resolve the apparent inconsistency between the rotatation of planets and the rotatiion of the galaxy.
    In a word, no.

    You have great confidence, but little knowledge. I suggest that you study first, shoot mouth later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #44  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    london
    Posts
    15
    our galaxy orbits a massive black hole million times the mass of our sun (whichs seem woefully inadequet to me but hey ho such is our concept of gravity) but all stars at the edge rotate at the same speed as those in the centre. How does your forumulae explain that and oiur solar system where planets move more slowely the further out,.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #45  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    london
    Posts
    15
    check your own 'so called' facts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #46  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by MAXIS View Post
    our galaxy orbits a massive black hole million times the mass of our sun (whichs seem woefully inadequet to me but hey ho such is our concept of gravity) but all stars at the edge rotate at the same speed as those in the centre. How does your forumulae explain that and oiur solar system where planets move more slowely the further out,.
    The solar system is not a miniature galaxy.
    So, you do not want to read the page I linked. Trolling is so much easier.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #47  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    london
    Posts
    15
    Sorry can't see any link. I am new to this site and forums in general. Please send link. Actually no idea what trolling is either,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #48  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by MAXIS View Post
    Sorry can't see any link. I am new to this site and forums in general. Please send link. Not sure what trolling is either,
    "Link" is underlined text. You need to click on it. Trolling is what you have been doing in this thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #49  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    london
    Posts
    15
    so you're saying differnt rules of 'gravity' apply to solar systems within a galaxy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #50  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    london
    Posts
    15
    Thank you so much, got the wiki link. It explains exactly why planets revolve more slowly the further they are from their obiting body 'The transverse orbital speed is inversely proportional to the distance to the central body'. But correct me if I'm wrong, it doesn't explain why stars at the edge of our galaxy rotate at the same speed as those close to the centre. In shor our galaxy spins as a solid disc, not a gel. But oddly the spiral arms suggest ever evidence of 'drag'. And, incase youi were wonderin, this is all to do with 'dark matter'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #51  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    london
    Posts
    15
    Still not sure what 'trolling' is. Is it disagreeing with a previous post?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #52  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by MAXIS View Post
    so you're saying differnt rules of 'gravity' apply to solar systems within a galaxy?
    You seem unable read and comprehend simple English.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #53  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    london
    Posts
    15
    Call me old fashioned but is that Trolling? I am very capable of understanding simple english/ even yours. what I am not capable of at the momment, is writingt simple english, given my curent state of inebriation.
    But go ahead, criitise my delivery rather than my substance. I'm sure that's easiear for you.
    You still haven't refuted the solar system rotation v galacitic rotatation. Or is that being picky or' troolly' of me?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #54  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    london
    Posts
    15
    You know what? I thought this was a website for intelligent dissususion , not name calling.
    if you cant respond to the arguement then please dont respond at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #55  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    london
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    In a word, no.

    You have great confidence, but little knowledge. I suggest that you study first, shoot mouth later.
    Study what? The fact that the further out from our sun the slower the planets revolve, as per Newton but the outer stars in our galaxy seem to ignor this 'rule'? Please explain what exactly I should study to explain this contradiction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #56  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    424
    Quote Originally Posted by MAXIS View Post
    Study what? The fact that the further out from our sun the slower the planets revolve, as per Newton but the outer stars in our galaxy seem to ignor this 'rule'? Please explain what exactly I should study to explain this contradiction.
    Look at the post to which mine quotes in reply. You make an assertion about history that is wrong. You need to correct it.

    That should be explanation enough.

    We are all infinitely ignorant. However, there are varying degrees of infinity. What's important is to maintain an internal metadata tag that identifies where and where not we are likely to be in error. Do you think it makes sense to spout off, in an international forum, with confidently delivered wrong assertions that you haven't bothered to check first? Do you routinely walk up to neurosurgeons and boldly assert that they are all wrong?

    Fix your meta ignorance first. Only then do you have a chance of not coming across like an arrogant idiot. Don't like being characterized as such? Then don't act idiotically arrogant. Very very simple.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #57  
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    51
    AndrewC, I don't know where your figure came from as here's the PLANCK data release from 2013, the 2015 PLANCK data release merely represented the total mass as 100% so the ratios are identical.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck...3_data_release
    According to the team, the Universe is 13.7980.037x109 years old, and contains 4.820.05% ordinary matter, 25.80.4% dark matter and 691% dark energy.
    (25.8 + 4.82)/4.82 = 30.62/4.82 = 2 * Pi +/- 1.1%.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #58  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by laurieag View Post
    AndrewC, I don't know where your figure came from as here's the PLANCK data release from 2013, the 2015 PLANCK data release merely represented the total mass as 100% so the ratios are identical.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck...3_data_release


    (25.8 + 4.82)/4.82 = 30.62/4.82 = 2 * Pi +/- 1.1%.
    The ordinary matter is 4.9% of total matter (you cite 4.82%). Therefore, the ratio total matter/ordinary matter is 100/4.9.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #59  
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    51
    AndrewC, since when has dark energy (a force) been regarded as a part of total universal matter?

    BTW, this quote is from the Planck data wiki.

    contains 4.820.05% ordinary matter
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #60  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by laurieag View Post
    AndrewC, since when has dark energy (a force) been regarded as a part of total universal matter?

    BTW, this quote is from the Planck data wiki.
    Did you read the wiki page I linked in? Here is another good one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #61  
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    51
    AndrewC, the title of this thread is 'What is dark matter make of", not what is 'dark energy' made of.

    from your link "dark energy is an unknown form of energy".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #62  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by laurieag View Post
    AndrewC, the title of this thread is 'What is dark matter make of", not what is 'dark energy' made of.

    from your link "dark energy is an unknown form of energy".
    For the last 115 years, energy and matter (mass, more correctly) have become one and the same. Energy gravitates, just like matter. This is why dark energy is included in the total amount of matter in the universe as a percentage. At least, this is what the two wiki pages I linked teach you.
    Last edited by AndrewC; 01-09-2018 at 12:25 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #63  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by laurieag View Post
    AndrewC, I don't know where your figure came from as here's the PLANCK data release from 2013, the 2015 PLANCK data release merely represented the total mass as 100% so the ratios are identical.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck...3_data_release


    (25.8 + 4.82)/4.82 = 30.62/4.82 = 2 * Pi +/- 1.1%.

    Cherry picking numbers to give the chosen result (and then not quite getting the result desired but ignoring that) is pretty much diagnostic of numerology. You might as well say that the ratio is equal to my birthday.
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #64  
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    51
    Strange, over the past 10 years or so the ratio has gone from around 8% then down to 3% and now down to 1.1% on the data published. You may note that the figures given for the percentages of dark matter and normal matter given by the PLANCK survey data release in 2015 (the mission finished in 2013) were out of 100 as opposed to the PLANCK data release from 2013 which are as shown in my posts. The ratio is the same regardless.

    The ratio of total universal matter to ordinary universal matter has been converging on 2*Pi for over 10 years as our data becomes more accurate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #65  
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    51
    Did you hear about the new fluorescent dark matter clouds?

    https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap180102.html

    If dark matter clouds absorb and emit x-rays via a similar mechanism (albeit time delayed) to how hydrogen clouds absorb and emit photons then the difference in wavelength of that which is absorbed and emitted by the dark matter will be the only real physical difference between normal matter and dark matter.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #66  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by laurieag View Post
    Did you hear about the new fluorescent dark matter clouds?

    https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap180102.html

    If dark matter clouds absorb and emit x-rays via a similar mechanism (albeit time delayed) to how hydrogen clouds absorb and emit photons then the difference in wavelength of that which is absorbed and emitted by the dark matter will be the only real physical difference between normal matter and dark matter.

    Interesting, dark matter is not supposed to interact electromagnetically. This is why is called "dark".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #67  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by laurieag View Post
    The ratio of total universal matter to ordinary universal matter has been converging on 2*Pi for over 10 years as our data becomes more accurate.
    If it were converging on a proportion of approximately 0.063, that is not 2*pi.

    And, of course, it isn't. The latest results put it at 4.6%.

    Here is a reference: https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/index.html

    You have no reference for your figures.

    So:

    1. Claiming a "significant" number
    2. The real value is actually different from that claimed
    3. No references

    Sounds indistinguishable from numerology to me.
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #68  
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    51
    So the 9 year Mission started in 2003 and ended in 2012? This is not the latest set of numbers although (24 + 4.6)/(2*4.6) = Pi +/- 1.1%

    WMAP launched on June 30, 2001 and maneuvered to its observing station near the "second Lagrange point" of the Earth-Sun system, a million miles from Earth in the direction opposite the sun. From there, WMAP scanned the heavens, mapping out tiny temperature fluctuations across the full sky. The first results were issued in February 2003, with major updates in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, and now this final release. The mission was selected by NASA in 1996, the result of an open competition held in 1995. It was confirmed for development in 1997 and was built and ready for launch only four years later, on-schedule and on-budget.
    This was a direct quote, including spelling error, from the link you posted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #69  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    424
    Quote Originally Posted by laurieag View Post
    So the 9 year Mission started in 2003 and ended in 2012? This is not the latest set of numbers although (24 + 4.6)/(2*4.6) = Pi +/- 1.1%



    This was a direct quote, including spelling error, from the link you posted.
    For the sake of argument, let's pretend that the numbers support your hypothesis to the claimed error of 1.1%. How does this lead to support of pi as the answer? Why not 22/7, or Finnegan's constant?

    Do you see the difficulty with numerology? There will always be noise in the data. Without any theoretical derivation showing that it should converge to pi, you won't be able to argue why the value should be pi, and not 22/7.

    That's the essence of numerology.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #70  
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    51
    For the sake of argument what could anybody lose for just looking instead of sticking their heads in the sand?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #71  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    424
    Quote Originally Posted by laurieag View Post
    For the sake of argument what could anybody lose for just looking instead of sticking their heads in the sand?
    As for "heads in the sand" you share this peculiar idea with other crackpots that lack of acceptance of an ill-formed unsupported assertion shows some defect in imagination. "Think out of the box!" is the rallying cry of those who don't understand why the box is there. "If only you'd open your minds to the Infinite, we'd have magic! Or at least pi for dessert."

    I'll take mine a la mode, but with generous helpings of science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •