It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Dolour
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...
originally posted by: Dolour
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.
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Mechanism? Time + DM compression around Visible matter = Gravity
originally posted by: mbkennel
Well, to be exact, matter which is made of electromagnetically charged particles, which is everything we deal with, except neutrinos. And maybe hidden dark-matter sector particles?
At the particle physics level, 'dark matter candidates' are those which are expected to interact negligibly with electromagnetism.
At galactic + supergalactic cosmology, dark matter is an empirical effect which may be accounted for with
a) regular matter but cold and dim enough to be below electromagnetic detection thresholds
b) non-electromagnetically interacting particles [and neutrinos can't be it, alone]
There is no known fundamental mechanistic coupling to gravity beyond 'mass' (Ok streess-energy tensor)---but that's a problem with understanding gravitation of regular matter too. There's no obvious additional mechanism to ensure the equivalence principle (inertial = gravitational mass), or even determination of masses themselves which could be a collective effect (mach's principle???).
Why does mass/stress-energy work when you can sum up completely different mechanisms of stuff, rest mass (electromagnetic, strong force, weak), and energies?
It's the random grab bag of physics which is otherwise unnatural: charges interact with EM fields, every thing has its own specific linkage to other things with integer/rational numbers, but gravitation doesn't, it's the bin of mixed rubbish of physics: throw it all in with a magic coefficient.
originally posted by: Dolour
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Mechanism? Time + DM compression around Visible matter = Gravity
for starters: what is time? and why should it influence space? and what is space in the first place if it can be bent?
lemme reformulate time + dark matter = gravity
noideawhatitis + esotericforcethatmaynotexists = magical attraction *tard*
again: THAT will not get you any nobel prize money...
originally posted by: Nochzwei
posting on ats does not fetch you a np *tard*
briefly universe's own time is physical in nature as it is coupled to dm. gravity is essentially a compressive force acting thru the time domain which is perpendicular to our spatial 3d.
besides space cannot be bent
originally posted by: Dolour
originally posted by: Nochzwei
posting on ats does not fetch you a np *tard*
scientific curiousity *tard*
allso, scoll up, you were the one screaming for "your np".
briefly universe's own time is physical in nature as it is coupled to dm. gravity is essentially a compressive force acting thru the time domain which is perpendicular to our spatial 3d.
besides space cannot be bent
what part about "explain the origin of forces you assume" is at any rate hard to understand?
so time and space are "just there", and thats your glorious explanation?
allso, what indicators do we have time would be a seperate "domain"(whatever that means)?
spewing out theories without anything to back them up is not convincing by any means...
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol *tard* you brought up np, not me
You'll have to wait till I can publish my theory/hypothesis for any detailed analysis. for the moment, look up my posts / videos elsewhere and try to extrapolate and you will get an idea of what I am on about.
briefly time existed b4 space was born after the big bang/implosion.
don't you know that the time dimension is perpendicular to our 3d? why can't you understand a compressive force?
as an analogy, hold a spherical object in your palm, close your fist and apply pressure on the object. your fist is the time+dm and the pr you apply is gravity.
originally posted by: ErosA433
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
thus the statement that the blackbody radiation from planets is very small in comparison to the reflected light...
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol how moronic can you get.
You didn't look up at all did you. Force of gravity is time+dm compression. that is the nature of our reality im afraid
anyways look at these 2 videos that I found, which I have posted on my thread about bending or unbending of space and you'll get some idea about gravity, time, space
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol go back to your post and see the word moronic, that you used mister.
Anyway seems to me you are AI and whatever floats your boat about space gravity time.
originally posted by: ErosA433
the comparison is valid if you understand the context of what i was saying.
I was giving motivation to the reason while dark matter physicists refer to low luminosity items as dark matter. You really do not understand the data presented, nor the motivation for dark matter.
However this must be an old site because we now know from telescope searches looking for gravitational microlensing in our own galaxy and other lines of evidence that dark matter is most likely not made mostly of MACHOs, though we expect some of it is, but maybe not more than 30%.
Candidates for the Dark Matter
What is the nature of the "dark matter", this mysterious material that exerts a gravitational pull, but does not emit nor absorb light? Astronomers do not know.
There are a number of plausible speculations on the nature of the dark matter:
Brown Dwarfs: if a star's mass is less than one twentieth of our Sun, its core is not hot enough to burn either hydrogen or deuterium, so it shines only by virtue of its gravitational contraction. These dim objects, intermediate between stars and planets, are not luminous enough to be directly detectable by our telescopes. Brown Dwarfs and similar objects have been nicknamed MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo Objects) by astronomers. These MACHOs are potentially detectable by gravitational lensing experiments. If the dark matter is made mostly of MACHOs, then it is likely that baryonic matter does make up most of the mass of the universe.
So why do you suppose they go to all the trouble to use gravitational microlensing observations to look for MACHOs, which are much more complicated and take a longer time than direct observation of the emitted radiation? Could it be because the emitted radiation is below detection thresholds of the telescopes available?
Galactic rotation curves suggest dark matter halos in galaxies, constituting the vast majority of their mass. Some of this matter must be baryonic, and perhaps MACHOs make up a some or all of this part. To this end, the method of gravitational microlensing is put to use to detect massive compact objects in the halo of the galaxy, but observing microlensing events with the nearest extragalactic source, the Large Magellanic Cloud. Several large collaborations have invested large amounts of time and resources to this end, and though results are still controversial, it seems clear that MACHOs cannot account for more than ~30% of the dark mass in the halo.
So yes most baryonic matter gives off radiation, but detecting this radiation isn't always easy when it's in small amounts. Emphasis mine on the "Standard astronomical methods like radio, optical, and X-ray telescopes cannot be used, at least not in a standard way." statement.
Galactic rotation speeds, as well as the effects of dark matter on the motions of gas, stars,galaxies, and clusters of galaxies also suggest that ~90% of the matter in the universe does not emit sufficient electromagnetic radiation to be detected on Earth (dark matter)....
The need for baryonic dark matter in the galaxy suggests that the halos of spiral galaxies such as our own may be partly or wholly due to MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects) and that these objects may consist of aborted stars like brown dwarfs, dim stars, and planets; or of star remnants like neutron stars, white dwarfs, and black holes.
Dark matter can take many forms, including WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) and supersymmetric particles, but the amount of baryonic matter needed to satisfy the nucleosynthesis theory, leading to a critical density of the universe, is nearly matched by the additional mass needed by galaxies to explain their rotation curves. Thus, it seems rational to search for baryonic dark matter, and specifically MACHOs, in the halos of galaxies.
Detecting MACHOs
Without the aid of electromagnetic radiation emission, the detection of MACHOs becomes very difficult. Standard astronomical methods like radio, optical, and X-ray telescopes cannot be used, at least not in a standard way. A method for observing MACHOs that utilizes a consequence of general relativity was first proposed by Paczynski 3 – gravitational microlensing.
originally posted by: Nochzwei
all the ingredients you requested are there in the 2 videos posted, maybe not in so much detail as you would have liked. ive analysed them and suggest you do the same or discuss if you so wish
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Dolour
Here is a page from NASA explaining that even brown dwarfs, which do give off radiation, don't give off enough radiation to be reliably detected:
Could it be because the emitted radiation is below detection thresholds of the telescopes available?
o yes most baryonic matter gives off radiation, but detecting this radiation isn't always easy when it's in small amounts. Emphasis mine on the "Standard astronomical methods like radio, optical, and X-ray telescopes cannot be used, at least not in a standard way." statement.
What else besides gravity can cause gravitational microlensing, and is there evidence for this mechanism? And why are they searching for these gravitational microlenses if they can observe MACHOs radiation directly as you suggest?
originally posted by: Dolour
mircolensing can not only be caused by gravity, yet science refuses to look into any other cause, claiming thered be "dark matter" even if the ONLY thing we got are gravlenses.
I don't understand exactly what you are proposing here, is it some method of dark matter detection or what?
we even use magnetic fields on EARTH to direct particles, but in space this totally doesent work?
I did say the cloud of unseen objects was "hypothetical", but the comets are real enough, I can't deny that. The comets didn't come from nowhere, so the inference that they came from a region which may contain similar objects isn't a huge leap in logic, is it?
same as the oorth cloud: presumptive evidence is a no-go in justice, but its ok for science?
maybe you wanna consider becoming a preacher? you certainly seem to posess the attributes required if you buy that crap w/o questioning.
Oh my. That does speak volumes about your scientific curiosity mate.
originally posted by: Dolour
originally posted by: Nochzwei
all the ingredients you requested are there in the 2 videos posted, maybe not in so much detail as you would have liked. ive analysed them and suggest you do the same or discuss if you so wish
theres nothing to analyze really. its a video like thousand others that could allso be rigged, and a "hobby scientist" telling us about his belief(!)system.
science is not about believes, they belong to the church, wich is something science seem to have forgotten.
without any MATH to back it up(i give a crap about fancy theories if they arent backed up by NUMBERS), im like curious what kind of "analasys" you suggest to do?
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
What else besides gravity can cause gravitational microlensing, and is there evidence for this mechanism? And why are they searching for these gravitational microlenses if they can observe MACHOs radiation directly as you suggest?
"we even use magnetic fields on EARTH to direct particles, but in space this totally doesent work?"
I don't understand exactly what you are proposing here, is it some method of dark matter detection or what?
I did say the cloud of unseen objects was "hypothetical", but the comets are real enough, I can't deny that. The comets didn't come from nowhere, so the inference that they came from a region which may contain similar objects isn't a huge leap in logic, is it?
originally posted by: ErosA433
Firstly Dolour, iv done the calculations personally, taking raw data from spectrometers, mapped rotational velocities, made corrections for apparent eccentricity, and found rotation curves of two galaxies to be flat, (2 is not high stats yes i know)
Also performed both analytical models and Monte Carlo simulations using the observed mass(luminosity) distributions to figure out what a standard gravimetic rotation curve should look like. They come out in agreement with each other (analytical and MC) and in big disagreement with the observed data. We did it as an Astronomy project in our 3rd year of Uni.
Furthermore, the smart phone comment doesn't mean anything. do you honestly think that the number of megapixels really matters?
Despite that, brown dwarfs are still extremely hard to detect, the faintness of objects in the night sky is far beyond the intrinsic noise level of a consumer camera, and at the threshold of astrometric cameras.
What you are suggesting is the opposite of what science does. Science always changes its views,
I disagree, research into dark matter is worth pursuing, it isn't soaking up funds like no tomorrow, governments around the world squander money on less useful things, science gets an absolute pittance. The average tax bill that large companies 'DON"T pay because they own the governments are larger than average research budgets.
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Oh my. That does speak volumes about your scientific curiosity mate.
Except we've never experimentally confirmed that magnetic fields can bend photons. We've put an upper limit on the amount of charge that a photon might have and while we suspect photons have no charge at all, if they do it's at least 41 orders of magnitude smaller than the charge of an electron, meaning if there's any bending of light due to magnetic fields, it's not going to be of the magnitude of lensing we observe due to gravitation.
originally posted by: Dolour
first: its microlenseing, adding "gravitational" is pure assumption(i left it for a reason). theres no proove its caused by gravity.
magnetic fields, wich surround every planet, every solar system, every galaxy, could equally be the cause for it.
I read that three times but sorry I don't get your point, except that it has something to do with ordinary matter. What about ordinary matter? Maybe using a verb would help in communication? My point was ordinary matter like the Earth exists, and in other galaxies objects like planets and brown dwarfs are too hard to observe when they are that far away. We have observed a 350 degree C brown dwarf 40 light years away (Which is a MACHO made of ordinary matter), but it's unlikely that with current technology we would be able to observe this same class of object in another galaxy. As I said, maybe as technology improves, so will detection capabilities.
second: MACHOS observable? how many times do i have to say ORDINARY MATTER, read it again ORDINARY MATTER, ORDINARY MATTER!
you finally got that?
Once we observed the brown dwarf 40 light years away, then we can say it's above our detection threshold due to the close distance. But we can also say that we expect other galaxies have similar objects which would not be detectable due to the greater distance, so those would be considered dark matter. I suppose you could say maybe that the only brown dwarfs in the universe are those close enough to us to actually observe directly, but would that be a logical point of view?
"baryonic dark matter" was NEVER prooven, and a freakin trained monkey reading my post would acknowledge that statement.
I don't see how I'm twisting your words but please stick to discussing the facts and stop trying to make this personal. Our discussion should be about dark matter, the topic of this thread, and not each other.
it is E-V-I-D-E-N-T that you AGAIN quote me wrong, twisting my words, ON PURPOSE.
is it time for me to file that promised complaint for you violating the TOS by perverting what i say?
or do you indeed just desperatly need some reading comprehention lessons?