Reinterpreting dark matter...

originally posted by: Dolour
en.wikipedia.org...
where the HELL did you get the ludicrous idea from earth wouldnt emit light?
ALL damn matter is shining like a lit sparkler!
a single hadron not interacting with light doesent mean makroscopic matter wouldnt do. *tard*

Did you read your own link? It says this:

As the temperature increases past about 500 degrees Celsius, black bodies start to emit significant amounts of visible light. Viewed in the dark, the first faint glow appears as a "ghostly" grey.

It also says the temperature of the Earth is far below 500 degrees Celsius:

Temperature of the Earth
...
−18.8 °C

Not quite past 500 is it?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

In my view the Earth exists and we know it's made of dark matter.

?? you don't know what dark matter is but you know Earth is made of it ??



Dark Matter is an mathematical variable that fits and suits the equation, NOTHING MORE!!

a reply to: 727Sky

I find this fascinating.

dark matter = fluid/substance which upholds, sustains and manifests the physical Universe using the Boson (God particle) for frequency alterations.

God Bless,

originally posted by: KrzYma
?? you don't know what dark matter is but you know Earth is made of it ??

Dark Matter is an mathematical variable that fits and suits the equation, NOTHING MORE!!

We know what some dark matter is, and planets that don't any radiate significant visible light (like Earth before man added lights) are a type of dark matter.

So yes it's ridiculous for people to say "dark matter doesn't exist" when they are standing on what is essentially a form of dark matter.

But as I said in my first post in this thread, there are other types of dark matter. We also know something about neutrinos, which is another type. But we don't know much about the hypothesized cold dark matter, see the source linked in my earlier post to put in perspective:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

To say that it is a mathematical fudge factor is not to really understand the data.

The rotation curves of spiral galaxies do not make sense if they are to have a mass distribution that follows their light intensity. That is, if you look at each star, measure the mass (from luminosity) and add it all together in a rotation system like observed in a spiral, the galaxy disk would spin around much more slowly than we observe. This is something that is hard to explain without there being a vast quantity of matter we do not see. And by vast, i mean much greater than the mass of the stars themselves. Our solar system's mass is in the 90's% (i want to say 99.9, but i do not know the number exactly, but off hand i know its very high, over 95%) composed by the central star, The sun. Now if we look around at the density of and hydrogen helium gas in clouds around the galaxy, we can get an idea of what the general density of said matter is just present in deep space.

We add it all up and we are left with the impression that something is not right, the matter (gas as well as stars) rotate around the galaxy at a much faster rate than is expected.

So what to do? We just ignore it? no we come with a model which says that maybe there is a halo around the galaxy that adds mass via a few different ways (there are lots of options) It is a reasonable theory, and one that is not exactly without motivation.

When looking at gravitational lensing, it is possible to take an image and infer the lens shape, the lens shape here should be the distribution of mass... What we see is that the central parts of the galaxy clusters in which we observe lensing, contain pinpoint like concentrations of mass... we expect that... but then as you move away from those points, there is evidence of large scale lensing effects out to high galactic radius and thus the lens has a shape way beyond the optical shape of the galaxies.

It is simply not as easy as saying it is a fudge factor... to say that is to be ignorant of the evidence, the motivation and the theory itself

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Did you read your own link? It says this:

"As the temperature increases past about 500 degrees Celsius, black bodies start to emit significant amounts of visible light. Viewed in the dark, the first faint glow appears as a "ghostly" grey.
It also says the temperature of the Earth is far below 500 degrees Celsius:
Temperature of the Earth
...
−18.8 °C"

Not quite past 500 is it?

wow im speechless...
with that statement dies your claim of being a scientist, seriously.
EVERYONE into physics is well aware of the whereabouts of black-body radiation as a fundamental principle.
its matters way of getting rif of energy, wich all matter does, ALL the time.
didnt national geographic get to that yet? ~~

i got news for you: the visible spectrum of light is not all there is, in fact, when compared its fraction of the spectrum is allmost negligible.
yeah, stuff you heat up above 500° starts to emit visible light.
nevertheless matter ALLWAYS emits light, and no its not nessesarily the visible stuff.
E-V-E-R-Y physical body at LEAST emits infrared light.

"earth is made of dark matter, bc it doesent visibly glow in the dark, unless its really hot!"
mwahahahaha!

originally posted by: Dolour
E-V-E-R-Y physical body at LEAST emits infrared light.

I clarified my statement by saying "visible light" and so did your source, and I never denied blackbody radiation in non-visible spectra, but guess what, this electric universe presenter does deny blackbody radiation, what do you have to say about that?

Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: On the Validity of Kirchhoff's Law | EU2014

So which is right, blackbody radiation theory, or Dr. Robitaille saying blackbody radiation theory is wrong?

Why are you making such a big deal about this visible versus non-visible radiation, to draw attention away from the fact that Wikipedia in fact says that planets are considered baryonic dark matter in spite of their blackbody radiation?

originally posted by: ErosA433
So what to do? We just ignore it? no we come with a model which says that maybe there is a halo around the galaxy that adds mass via a few different ways (there are lots of options) It is a reasonable theory,

Yes it's a reasonable theory, but have you considered if each star really had a positive electrical potential of 10 billion volts, wouldn't all that extra electrical attraction between the like charges of stars explain the extra attraction? Oops, I forgot, like charges repel, so it seems saying all stars have huge positive potentials might create more of a repulsive force than attractive? So wouldn't this electric model make things worse instead of helping? The electric model doesn't seem to make sense as an alternative model.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I clarified my statement by saying "visible light" and so did your source

i didnt check what wiki has to say about black body radiation, but id be suprised to find anything bout it, since its called BLACK body radiation for a reason.

allso:

We know what some dark matter is, and planets that don't any radiate significant visible light (like Earth before man added lights) are a type of dark matter.

that was your claim, and its still ludicrous.
earth not emitting visible light doesent have the slightest thing to do with dark matter.

/edit:

Why are you making such a big deal about this visible versus non-visible radiation, to draw attention away from the fact that Wikipedia in fact says that planets are considered baryonic dark matter in spite of their blackbody radiation?

baryon is "pretty much" another term for hardon, nothing dark-matterish there.
all the stuff you touch is "barionic matter".

/edit2: common knowledge btw if your educated in physics... en.wikipedia.org...

/edit3:

Oops, I forgot, like charges repel

ever heared of dark energy? *tard*

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Yes it's a reasonable theory, but have you considered if each star really had a positive electrical potential of 10 billion volts, wouldn't all that extra electrical attraction between the like charges of stars explain the extra attraction? Oops, I forgot, like charges repel, so it seems saying all stars have huge positive potentials might create more of a repulsive force than attractive? So wouldn't this electric model make things worse instead of helping? The electric model doesn't seem to make sense as an alternative model.

Yeah i neglected that alternative theory as like you point out, it seems somewhat more troublesome to get it to work without there being a massive phantom latice of negatively charged things who's only purpose is to hold everything together... never mind that each of the stars have different masses, distributions of orbital velocity and everything else.

Thats quite rightly as you point out that Electric theory just seems not to work so well, and no one iv seen has ever explained it beyond saying "Oh you don't understand!" or "Oh you are mainstream, you would never understand" When the truth is the mainstream kinda understand that from observation of other areas of physics... what they say just doesn't really make sense.

As for the form of dark matter, it really could be a lot of things. I think the most depressing of all would be that it can be undetectable other than gravitationally. IT could be some massive sterile that is created via a GUT scale interaction as un-yet probed, and at the low energy scale of the universe, only interacts gravitationally. That would be sad... but it is entirely possible. Frustrating as it would appear to be a 'because its magic' answer... which no scientist is ever happy with.

originally posted by: Dolour
i didnt check what wiki has to say about black body radiation

Maybe I was too quick to accuse you of having problems with reading comprehension. Here you posted a link for me to read from wiki about blackbody radiation, which I read, and which contradicted what you were saying:

originally posted by: Dolour
en.wikipedia.org...
where the HELL did you get the ludicrous idea from earth wouldnt emit light?

So now you're saying that this link you posted for me to read, you didn't read at all yourself?

That's not a lack of reading comprehension, that's a lack of reading. And it's also kind of funny, though sad too.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
[Maybe I was too quick to accuse you of having problems with reading comprehension. Here you posted a link for me to read from wiki about blackbody radiation, which I read, and which contradicted what you were saying:

quoted from wiki: "Black-body radiation is the type of electromagnetic radiation within or surrounding a body in thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment,"
that is pretty much what i sayd. matter emits light, ALLWAYS, regardless of its temperature.

that:

We know what some dark matter is, and planets that don't any radiate significant visible light (like Earth before man added lights) are a type of dark matter.

was your gibberish on this.

seems like your the one with a comprehention problem here kiddo.

wiki about blackbody radiation, which I read, and which contradicted what you were sayin

what part of it exactly?
random accusations that will crumble on a swift look at the wiki page is the best you can do?

just to put into perspective how far your level of "comprehention" goes ill sum up your statement again:
"earth is made of dark matter, bc it doesent visibly glow in the dark, unless its really hot!"

originally posted by: Dolour
what part of it exactly?

Memory problems too? The part about visible light not being a significant emission until the temperature surpasses 500 degrees, and you claiming I was wrong when I said the Earth didn't emit visible light before the manmade lights were added?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Plus you told me to read wiki to see what it said about dark matter, I did, and it says planets are a type of dark matter, (and the Earth is a planet, right?), forget that too?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So you say planets aren't dark matter, send me to wiki to read about dark matter, I go to wiki and it says planets are dark matter, and post the passage for you, and you ignore it, and still say planets aren't dark matter? Why did you send me to wiki to read about it if you're just going to ignore what wiki says?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Memory problems too? The part about visible light not being a significant emission until the temperature surpasses 500 degrees, and you claiming I was wrong when I said the Earth didn't emit visible light before the manmade lights were added?

no memory needed if theres forum-posts that cannot be edited anymore.
you sayd earth would be "dark matter" because it wouldnt emit ANY light.
ill quote:
"In my view the Earth exists and we know it's made of dark matter."
"Did you read the source I posted saying rocks are a type of dark matter? The Earth is essentially a giant rock, right?"
"Proof isn't really needed since rocks are a type of dark matter, by definition."
"Dark matter is that which doesn't emit light, and the Earth doesn't emit light, hence it is dark matter, by definition."

allso: "It also says the temperature of the Earth is far below 500 degrees Celsius:"
you were the one arguing about temperature, claiming that earth does not emit light at all, and therefore must be dark matter.

additionaly: "The amount is postulated, but the existence of the Earth and other planets which don't emit light is undisputed fact."
i did allready quote it, but since you obviously cant read properly ill do it again:

"Since Zwicky could find no evidence of mass in the Coma cluster, from the light detected by the telescopes he used, other than in the galaxies, he postulated that there is a lot of matter that is ‘dark’ – does not emit light."

he isnt even talking about any solid bodies like planets, but a sort of an unexplained background light emmision, thats brighter than expected.
wich sorta turns your whole point into nonsense long before your redicoulous word-twisting attempts.

Plus you told me to read wiki to see what it said about dark matter, I did, and it says planets are a type of dark matter, (and the Earth is a planet, right?), forget that too?

So you say planets aren't dark matter, send me to wiki to read about dark matter, I go to wiki and it says planets are dark matter, and post the passage for you, and you ignore it, and still say planets aren't dark matter? Why did you send me to wiki to read about it if you're just going to ignore what wiki says?

wth are you smoking kid?
wikipedia saying earth would be made of dark matter?
got confused by baryons and hadrons again?
and you have the NERVE to throw reading incomprehensibility accusations around?

as usual you proovenly talk BS and show an uncivilized and unnessesary insulting behaviour of purposely spreading lies and ALTERING statements to fit your purpose.
next time you dare to do this i will file an official complaint about you.
putting words in my mouth after claiming such ludicrous nonsense?
not without me screaming, clawing and biting! ~~

the point is that the term Dark Matter actually is used by the scientific community to mean 'non-luminous' matter. In that matter that does not produce light in large enough quantities to be directly detectable with our technology.

So here the main motivation for doing this is that in astronomy, the vast majority of our data is mixed between infra-red and visible. This bad allows us to look for something like 95% of what we deem 'normal' matter in the form of stars and gas clouds.

Planets (and even gas clouds to some extent) don't produce more light than they reflect, this is what the point above was really about that when we look at things in the night sky, to a very high order, what we see are stars only. Light, black body or otherwise, is so small that it is not worth adding it to the numbers... That is not to say that the mass contained is not worth adding up though.

Now the scientific community generally refers to this kind of zero/very low on the grand scheme of things luminous matter as, baryonic dark matter.

Baryons are constituent of hadrons and are the general building blocks of everything we are able to see touch and feel. The observations tell us however that the total contribution of Baryonic Dark Matter to the total amount of Dark Matter, is quite small. So what is the left over? Well this is the stuff we often refer to as 'non-baryonic dark matter'

originally posted by: Denoli
Why spoil it with ,read the bible bs !
Dark matter are just anti gravity bubbles

Lol that's a nice one, but The Bible is not bs

originally posted by: [post=18133584]TatTvamAsi A small correction would be required still, dark matter is the cause of gravity. Dark matter exerts pressure on ordinary matter that causes the formation of planets etc. .

Valid point and partly true

originally posted by: ErosA433
Planets (and even gas clouds to some extent) don't produce more light than they reflect

that is simply not true, ALL ordinary matter constantly emits light in all kinds of frequencies.
otherwise there wouldnt be such things as radio-astronomy.
theres few things emitting visible light, but visible light means squad, hence its tied to our physical capabilities instead of natural constants.
maschienes dont lack ability to "see" other wavelenghts, and revealed to us that the whole universe is shining like a lit sparkler.
ultimately EVERYTHING we are aware of, ALL matter, is in motion, wich inevitably causes the emission of light.

/edit: quoted from wikipedia:
"Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation."
afaik absolute zero doesent occour in nature... matter allways moves. (and if tesla was right this is a good thing, lol)

originally posted by: Nochzwei
"A small correction would be required still, dark matter is the cause of gravity. Dark matter exerts pressure on ordinary matter that causes the formation of planets etc."

Valid point and partly true

err, DM the CAUSE of gravity?
who the hell claimed that stuff, and why didnt he demand his well deserved nobel-prize for figuring out whats the origin of gravity?
if anything at all its just a factor.

the truth is gravity alone, caused by visible matter, can not account for the formation of celestial bodies.
thanks to the desire of account just ONE force for everything we observe they sayd "ok letz add mo mass!", with NO proove this mass actually comes from any form of matter, invisible or not, or that the effect observed is even caused by gravity in the first place.

they just refused to consider any explanation other than gravity ALONE(not as a part of the whole, but the SOLEDOM thing at work).
weired enough that when you take electricity into account(our own ionosphere is pretty darn solid proove of flowing currents) there is no NEED for an esoteric extra-mass, wich has to be there just for the sake of ignoring electricity.

this is really rediculous, even to the simplest mind it must appear logical that what we observe is the outcome of multiple effects taking place.
it is nowhere plausible to assume that well known forces suddenly seise to work.
we mustnt ignore either of the forces at work, wich are gravity, electricity and therefore inevitably magnetism.
ANY equation leaving ANY of those parameters out of consideration, is conclusively "incomplete"(im not saying WRONG, i say incomplete).

/edit:

originally posted by: Nochzwei
"Why spoil it with ,read the bible bs !
Dark matter are just anti gravity bubbles"

Lol that's a nice one, but The Bible is not bs

the question is how much does it differ from the original text nowadays.
soledomly relying on one piece of lecture, thats most likely heavily altered, might not turn out to be the most clever thing.
however, looking into where all sorts of ancient mythology have intersections, claiming the same stuff, despite the fact that most of theese cultures should never ever have made contact, makes it REAL hard to dismiss it as BS.

a reply to: Dolour

There is a point to being pedantic, but my statement and Arbs is correct. In terms of the visual, which is absolutely fine at detecting most of the mass we see in the form of stars, planets and the like do not emit more light than they reflect.

Yes i am well aware of technology, I am a physicist who is working on a Direct Dark matter experiment. Detector technology is my interest and love, So i am aware of the extended reach of our devices, in simple portable devices we can go from Infrared right through to hard UV, with slightly bulker devices extend to Xray and Gamma, but also at the other end of the spectrum, microwave and Radio...

I know also exactly how radio astronomy works and what we use it for when looking at galaxies, it is an extremely powerful tool for hydrogen mapping, and with larger arrays of telescopes online the resolution of the mapping increases.

I am well aware of all of this, but latching onto a pedantic statement, that yes is correct, that all matter emits some EM for various reasons, but despite that light being produced, is like a fart in the wind.

The total power of an object (per meter square) at 300K is about 14 W/m^2 in a Boltzmann distribution, this is also peaked in the infrared region.
The total power per unit area of the sun is around 6x10^9 W/m^2

This is... just a little bit bigger than 14W/m^2


But the sun is not an average star, an average star is actually around 0.05-0.1 x the luminocity of the sun, even if you run those numbers, you will not be shocked to see that the total power per unit area doesn't really change down all that drastically and the number of about 1-100W is still tiny by comparison, thus the statement that the blackbody radiation from planets is very small in comparison to the reflected light... which by comparison is about 1300,000W/m^2 at the Earth...

The albedo of the Earth is around 0.3, which means that the reflected power would be somewhere around 390,000 W/m^2

that is significantly bigger than the amount of black body radiation comming from the Earth. We can do the calculations for all the planets and my estimation is, that even given the cruel mistress that is the inverse square law, the reflected energy will be generally gearter than that of the blackbody.

originally posted by: [post=18152166]Dolour err, DM the CAUSE of gravity?
who the hell claimed that stuff, and why didnt he demand his well deserved nobel-prize for figuring out whats the origin of gravity?
if anything at all its just a factor.

DM (which is always time coupled) + Other Visible matter = cause for gravity
I'll write to the nobel prize commitee

originally posted by: Nochzwei

DM (which is always time coupled) + Other Visible matter = cause for gravity
I'll write to the nobel prize commitee

right, because that totally explains how the presence of matter(dark or not) causes gravity. -.-
that describes the EFFEKT not the underlying MECHANISM.
you wont get any price for figuring the apple falls towards the earth anymore...