Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Arbitrageur

First I must ask if it would be easier or more difficult and/or more chance for inaccuracies to use our own galaxy?

What is the length of the perimeter of that galaxy (in units compatible with what we will use for all other discussions of lengths etc.)?

Right away we are met with some difficulty, well first I must ask if it is a spiral galaxy, for that is where there might be difficulty with question of perimeter, and according to my potential theory these considerations are relevant.

What determines the proper perimeter (or material extent?) of a spiral galaxy, is it drawing as perfect a circle as one can with the inside of the circle ring touching as many spiral tips as it can?

Or would the perimeter not be a circle, but collapse in where there is no spiral arm, and then curve back out to engulf the spiral arm and repeat for all the spiral arms and lackings there of.

So my questions;

1. Perimeter (1 or more, trial/version of measurement thereof) of spiral galaxy in question?

2. (I dont personally believe in spatial expansion theory, but do I presume it is assumed to be the case or not related or relevant to measurements and theories of spiral galaxy rotation and dark matter?)... The rate of dark energy expansion,

First I must ask is the associated energy of dark energy, massless? When it is said 'spatial expansion is true, area of space expands' it obviously is not referring to the concept of 'nothing space' right, it is not saying a 5 by 5 by 5 area of pure nothing expands to a 10 by 10 by 10 area of pure nothing right? (I would hope not and I would hope you would intuit why, because nothing space is unlimited, because it is nothing, it is only limited by any 'wall' or perimeter one would build around it, to say 'this is a nothing space of 5 by 5 by 5', and then only can alter such a space by altering the walls or perimeter).

So that suggests, concepts of dark energy and spatial expansion is not referring to 'nothing', but referring to energy/matter. Thus it is referring to matter, because, the term 'energy' cannot exist without relation to matter, material. What I mean by material is 'something' not nothing. Energy is a quality of something, Energy cannot exist without something. The term energy refers to an aspect of the existence of something. Thus, dark energy, must be referring to something. I am not sure the theory of dark energy and spatial expansion is correct, but I must play along if it was assumed to be correct, and subsequent assumptions effected later efforts and assumptions which resulted in theories of galaxy rotation and dark matter.

2. Using units compatible with the result of the perimeter of the spiral galaxy; what is the theorized rate of spatial expansion and/or dark energy (is that how cosmological constant fits in? Einstein didnt like it right, but it turned out to for some reason, way and how, show up in his equations... this is all push and pull, something isnt working out something must be off somewhere down the line)?

I will stop here for now, but I have more related follow up questions. Please do not treat me badly, please respect these questions and just attempt to play along, please do not involve ego or emotion in these relations.

Are you familiar with any physics problems which rely or utilize prime numbers numbers?

I need ideas for an independent project for C programming and prime numbers are a fun system to work with. I could always work in cryptography as a default, but that isn't very novel and a lot of work has already been done which makes me worry about how critical the grading would be.

Thanks!

-FBB

a reply to: ImaFungi

You also need to determine what defines the boundary of this galaxy. Is it where its gravitational influence is 'negated' by another or is it some level of luminescence maybe?

Hope you get an answer.

-FBB

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: ImaFungi

You also need to determine what defines the boundary of this galaxy. Is it where its gravitational influence is 'negated' by another or is it some level of luminescence maybe?

Hope you get an answer.

-FBB

Yes, thanks. That is where I was headed with asking for the general perimeter. It would be best to do multiple trials of thought utilizing different arguable perimeters for each, and likely different trials for all the questionable variables. For now or these early trials of thought and working out variables and theory, I would utilize concepts of the boundary being roughly that of the boundary of visible matters such as the stars in the spiral arm; though this concept of boundary does get near the heart of at least one aspect of one of my lines of thinking of attempting to tackle the mystery of dark matter, and that is the relation between theorized dark energy and the relation of gravity field inside the galaxy meeting and interacting. But thats skipping ahead I think, I am trying to be thorough, and all these questions and scenarios and topics and variables are deep so I figured to just ask a few questions first to start things off.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

First I must ask if it would be easier or more difficult and/or more chance for inaccuracies to use our own galaxy?

There's conflicting information about our own galaxy and I think it's a case where it's hard to see the forest because of the trees.

What is the length of the perimeter of that galaxy (in units compatible with what we will use for all other discussions of lengths etc.)?

No matter what you define as the perimeter it would just be an approximate number and you could move it in or out and you could still call those other figures a perimeter. The stellar density doesn't stop, there's a gradual decline so unless you set up a specific criterion such as "the point where stellar density drops below X" it's hard to define a firm perimeter. Moreover this is complicated further because the perimeter of visible matter and dark matter may differ.

The rate of dark energy expansion

It's counteracted by gravity so depending on what you're trying to do I don't think it's a significant factor in galaxy rotation curves.

First I must ask is the associated energy of dark energy, massless?

dark energy is thought to be vacuum energy so yes if that guess is right.

the term 'energy' cannot exist without relation to matter, material. What I mean by material is 'something' not nothing. Energy is a quality of something, Energy cannot exist without something. The term energy refers to an aspect of the existence of something.

Dark energy refers to the acceleration of the metric expansion of space, and it's thought to be a property of the void between the galaxies but this isn't really confirmed.

Using units compatible with the result of the perimeter of the spiral galaxy; what is the theorized rate of spatial expansion and/or dark energy (is that how cosmological constant fits in? Einstein didn't like it right

Einstein knew if gravity was pulling things together and the universe was "static", that all the mass would end up getting pulled together and that didn't seem to be happening so a force counteracting gravity is what he came up with to explain why that didn't happen. When the expansion of the universe was discovered he didn't need that cosmological constant anymore, so he dropped it. It was only brought back by observation after the discovery of dark energy in 1998.

www.universetoday.com...

Space is expanding from the Big Bang and the acceleration of dark energy. But the objects embedded in space, like planets, stars, and galaxies stay exactly the same size.

I don't know if that word "exactly" is 100% accurate as theoretically there might be some change in the size of a galaxy from dark energy but it's probably too small to measure and is overwhelmed by larger effects, like all the galaxies in our local group tugging on each other, for example.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
No matter what you define as the perimeter it would just be an approximate number and you could move it in or out and you could still call those other figures a perimeter. The stellar density doesn't stop, there's a gradual decline so unless you set up a specific criterion such as "the point where stellar density drops below X" it's hard to define a firm perimeter. Moreover this is complicated further because the perimeter of visible matter and dark matter may differ.

Its interesting you say the stellar density doesnt stop. Does that mean that from 'top' to 'bottom', 'side' to 'side', 'front' to 'back' of the universe the stellar density of M-33 exists throughout?

Or you just mean to say its not a perfect circle (which can be assumed quite obviously)?

What do you actually mean by stellar density as well? I suppose what you are saying is a helpful hint to consider galaxies, spiral galaxies, M-33, are not 3d walled membranes which contain novel guts, for comparative example as a particular cell membrane might contain novel parts separated by a wall in regards to its environment.

But it is more as if, there is no membrane, no wall, (besides perhaps arguably the warping of the gravity field) but that the entire universe as an environment has collections of 'guts', stars, planets, but the 'stuff' (space) in between the stars and planets is more or less the same whether in the midst of a collection of stars and planets (galaxy) or away from collections of stars and planets.

Is it thought there are many stars and planets in between galaxies? (off topic, rather irrelevant, but interesting none the less)

So comparing our bodies to a galaxy, what you mean by the stellar density does not stop; if the insides of our bodies were the stellar density, they would stop, at the wall of our skin; but you are saying to make analogy, our bodies would be more like galaxies in relations to their surrounding environment, if we did not have skin, and the contents of our bodies just existed.

Still we would see how and why I initially believed and thought that in theory and realities practice, there is still a boundary, as the extent of our innards would not be infinite; thus I am inclined to say, the extent of a single galaxies innards (stars and planets...dust, gas, asteroids etc.) is not infinite;

But you may be suggesting the sense that there are no true boundaries the galaxies, that intergalactic area contains the same contents as inner galactic area, it is just that inner galactic area (galaxies) contains extremely greater quantity of content;

As if we had a map of the earths population, and we labeled all cities as analogies of galaxies, and said they were the densest regions, I can say where is the cities boundary, and it would be arguable, if people were analogies of stars and planets, we could say the cities are the dense regions of stars and planets and they are the galaxies (perhaps D.C. is the supermassive black hole...side joke, lets be serious) and yes we say what is the cities boundary, and you say the quantity of stars and planets, drops off, but does not end, as we view from city to city we still see people in between them.



Regardless, I suppose we can start with a general figure for the perimeter, for M-33; if you wouldnt mind finding that out for me.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

It's counteracted by gravity so depending on what you're trying to do I don't think it's a significant factor in galaxy rotation curves.

This is in response to me asking about the rate of dark energy expansion, in units ( of square or cubed length I guess, I am the theory guy, you are the hard math guy) relatable to the perimeter of the galaxy.

I am asking all of these questions for a reason, please, you dont think its a significant factor, and you dont have your own theory as to what might be causing the discrepancies in these equations, I do, and I think dark energy might be a significant factor in understanding dark matter.

Please, I am asking these series of questions, I would much appreciate you helping me answer them, and then little by little we will progress towards seeing whether my insight has any validity or not.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

dark energy is thought to be vacuum energy so yes if that guess is right.

I sense the use of circular logic.

At one point, the term 'vacuum' itself, was potentially defined to = absolute perfect pure nothingness.

Either I am right or wrong in thinking that.

We agree that 1 = 1 we agree that A = A; we must agree what the word Vacuum =.

Either vacuum = absolute perfect pure nothingness; or it does not.

If the word vacuum does not equal, absolute perfect pure nothingness,

The word vacuum = somethingness.

What type of somethingness does the word vacuum equal?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Dark energy refers to the acceleration of the metric expansion of space, and it's thought to be a property of the void between the galaxies but this isn't really confirmed.

And the metric expansion of space, is thought to be the cosmological constant? and the fact the cosmological constant is thought to have its function accelerated, is what dark energy is thought to be?

I already said, if space = nothing. The concept of metric expansion of nothing occurring, is a self falsifying concept or statement.

If space = not nothing, than what is it thought the 'something' is that is expanding, where is the (energy cannot be created or destroyed) energy coming from to expand it?

Einstein knew if gravity was pulling things together and the universe was "static", that all the mass would end up getting pulled together and that didn't seem to be happening so a force counteracting gravity is what he came up with to explain why that didn't happen.

Thats very interesting because it doesnt seem so necessarily certain, that all the mass would end up getting pulled together;

Because firstly, something mysterious occurred such that the mass was not all together 'to begin with', so this implies many masses with many motions, and if there were only two masses that existed at all, and they were traveling opposite directions from one another, and there was no spatial expansion or anything, I dont know why one would assume the masses would be pulled together.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
And the metric expansion of space, is thought to be the cosmological constant? and the fact the cosmological constant is thought to have its function accelerated, is what dark energy is thought to be?

I already said, if space = nothing. The concept of metric expansion of nothing occurring, is a self falsifying concept or statement.

If space = not nothing, than what is it thought the 'something' is that is expanding, where is the (energy cannot be created or destroyed) energy coming from to expand it?

If you have to walk 10 paces to get to a wall, then later you have to walk 15 paces to get to the same wall then there's more space between you and the wall. If space was nothing then you'd be touching the wall.

Thats very interesting because it doesnt seem so necessarily certain, that all the mass would end up getting pulled together;

Because firstly, something mysterious occurred such that the mass was not all together 'to begin with', so this implies many masses with many motions, and if there were only two masses that existed at all, and they were traveling opposite directions from one another, and there was no spatial expansion or anything, I dont know why one would assume the masses would be pulled together.

Einstein did call it a mistake and it seemed like a bad assumption after he learned about the expansion of the universe, but I don't see why you're having trouble understanding the assumption. If gravity is pulling everything together in a static universe what's to stop everything from coming together? He didn't know the universe wasn't static until Hubble showed that.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If you have to walk 10 paces to get to a wall, then later you have to walk 15 paces to get to the same wall then there's more space between you and the wall. If space was nothing then you'd be touching the wall.

Can you respond to my other 3 prior replies too?

Lets say originally the 10 paces, are on 10 square tiles that you can easily step from one to the other.

And then you are saying, it wouldnt be accurate to your statement to say, then there are 15 tiles, because that is introducing new matter, it would be more accurate to say, and then the tiles separated, so that you could not easily step from one to the other, you had to jump from one to another, but the square size of the tiles did not alter; all that altered was the distance between them;

If the distance is pure nothing; (imagine complete blackness, and only a wall existing and 10 tiles touching, and then the second trial the ten tiles are separated so you have to jump from one to the other)

You cannot say 'pure nothing expanded'.

you must say; some how, the tiles separated.

The tiles cannot separate from one another because 'nothingness moved'.

Nothingness cannot move... nothingness is only nothing... it has no qualities, its only quality is the absence of any qualities.

The only way the tiles can separate from one another, is due to physical facts about the nature of the tiles, i.e. the physical facts of what held/bond them together; the physical facts of the bonds, which would/could lead to them separating.

Possibly interesting side note; lets for instance say, these tiles rely on a continuous outside heat source of some high degree to remain bound, and (this is following my statement of considering that only 10 tiles and a wall exist in the middle of complete nothingness, for thought experiment) the tiles being in this condition , not receiving their outside heat source, over time begin to lose their binding strength;

Would it be proper to say then, that 'nothing' caused the tiles to separate?

This is a very interesting realm of thought, because it really gets to the heart of cause and effect, and the source of cause and effects, and such.

Similarly, I suppose I could make the analogy to; human needs water to survive, a human is lost in the desert and has no access to water, the human dies; is 'nothing' the cause of the humans death? is Negative water the cause of the death? Does negative water exist, a person who has 0 water but needs 10 litres of water, do they really have -10 litres of water? If they do not get water and die, will the cause of the separation of the bonds of their body, be the fault of 'nothing' it self?

If an ice sheet breaks into 7 pieces, and the pieces begin floating away, once they start floating away, do we say the water is responsible for the ice sheets floating away from one another, that the number of water in between the ice sheets is a number that is expanding/growing?

Well if we can at all contribute it to the water, that is one thing, because I would agree that water is 'something' and not nothing.

If an ice sheet was in space, we immediately notice to replicate we need a source of the breaking, or perhaps as originally said, we wait for 'time', or we add 'nothing' to the ice sheet, and it breaks and separates from one another;

The point I am trying to make is; Do we blame the 'something' or the nothing. Do we blame the fact that parts/pieces of something, is able at all to be unbound, or broken? i.e. if there are 10 tiles attached, and it is impossible for them to be separated, and there are 10 tiles attached and it is possible for them to be separated, is not a lot of the potential for separation, included in the fact of the material, is it not the nature of the bindings that is responsible, for any potential future scenario in which there is an increasing amount of nothing between the pieces?

Einstein did call it a mistake and it seemed like a bad assumption after he learned about the expansion of the universe, but I don't see why you're having trouble understanding the assumption. If gravity is pulling everything together in a static universe what's to stop everything from coming together? He didn't know the universe wasn't static until Hubble showed that.

If all that existed for eternity, in an infinite expanse of nothingness, were 2 bowling balls, and me and you stood back to back, and threw the balls away from ourselves in opposite directions, is there no amount of force (lets say we could throw them with any amount of force you could imagine) that we could throw them with, so that they would not be attracted back to one another?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If you took a 100 ft. by 100 ft. by 100 ft. wall-less volume of water, and magically poofed it into existence infinitely far away from the nearest mass, gravity field, radiation etc. etc.... if the water could not be touched or effected by anything... If this 100 x 100 x 100 cube volume of water appeared literally in the middle of nowhere surrounded by literally nothing;

What might happen to it? Would it retain its form?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Since you dont seem to be so excited to try to work with me step by step in attempting to plug in knowledge to my theory for potential candidate for the reason of the idea of dark matter, I will just list the variables, so I can stop wasting my time waiting to go piece by piece;

(why I asked if we might be able to use our galaxy, is partly for the obvious reason of greater ease in detecting massive objects such as stars and planets to account for visible mass in equation)

Total visible mass of galaxy (including central black hole... which may greatly add to uncertainty about all of this to begin with):

Minimum and maximum potential theorized quantity of gravitons in the galaxy:

Minimum and maximum potential theorized binding nature of graviton to one another (if such thing has potential):

To be most clear, by graviton, I may not mean the standard model interpretation, what I mean by graviton, and if you really need me to I will make up my own word for it: Gravyton; is the the building block material of the analogized 'sheet' (3d/4d) which 'warps/bends/curves'.

(So, imagine gravytons together to form a 3d/4d material (like a pool of water is a 3d/4d material))

One manifestation of the attempted theory would be built considering metric spatial expansion, and one would not; for according to my theory, if there is energy outside of a galaxy, called dark energy, and its quantity is increasing, there is potential there is force involved, which could be interacting with the edge of galaxy and or that edge of gravity field of galaxy, which could in some way contribute to the rotation of galaxy.


Also what is the possibility that galaxy clusters are spiraling as a cluster? For analogy, imagine one bowling ball spinning. Then imagine one bowling ball spinning while moving forward as well. Then imagine 3 bowling balls each spinning and each moving forward. Then imagine 3 bowling balls each spinning, each moving forward, and revolving around a common center. That last version is what I speak of when I say; what is the possibility that galaxy clusters (3 bowling balls) are spiraling as a cluster (3 bowling balls revolving around a common center while moving linearly in space (time).

Another thing to consider;

Imagine 100 ft by 100 ft flat surface (like a football field, though football field is 100 yards).

Imagine there is a hole in the middle of the surface, the size of a garbage can opening.

Imagine there are bowling balls surrounding the surface.

Imagine that in a circular 10 feet surrounding the hole was a downward slope that sloped downward toward the rim of the hole (representing the warping of gravity field surrounding black hole)

Imagine all the sudden the hole started moving towards 1 end of the surface.

Imagine bowling balls started dropping into the ramp, and rotating around the hole.

Interesting scenario it would seem. First we might notice that the bowling balls in front of the hole, would according to our understanding of nature, would go down the ramp and enter the hole, hole in one, just like that.

And bowling balls caught in the path, but not aligned straight away with the hole like that above scenario, but are on the sides, would likely go down the ramp, while the ramp surrounded hole continuously moved, and some of the balls may just ramp out, some of them may go down and rotate a little, but according to this scenario, maybe frustratingly enough, because there is already the macro version of what i am trying to represent existing, gravity, ultimately none of the balls will continuously rotate the hole without falling in;

Unless? I cant think of an unless right now, either the walls are a certain steepness... or the hole is moving a certain fast speed... or the walls are like treadmills rotating...or the balls are really small and a particular mass... and/or the hole is really small and ramp is really large?

Anyway, one reason I brought up that analogy/thought experiment, is to note that a galaxy is moving in a particular direction absolutely... Even though it is possible concepts such as metric expansion of space are concepts which desire to say that a galaxy is not moving but absolutely spinning in place...

So imagine focusing on the central black hole of a galaxy, and tracking it over space and time compared to the space that surrounds it, draw a visual 3d grid that extends well past 1 galaxy. And mark the direction the galaxy is traveling over space and time.

Would it not be, like it is in the analogy, that stars would more easily fall into the black hole, as the black hole is moving in direction 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and a star is located at position 6 on the grid?

Or is a point, that the stars are relatively fixed, like horses on a merry go round, and the merry go round can rotate and be pushed on wheels linearly, but the horses will not fall towards the center?

So anyway, and aspect of my potential theory on dark matter, is that there are 2 forces of gravity, so it has to be counted twice.

First of all, I believe the graviton, has mass. It may or may not have a binding force to one another (to give it the stretchable/warpable sheet like quality) which would certainly be relevant to this path of thought.

So graviton has mass. Which means it can also have relativistic mass, which is one part of how the force of gravity occurs. Why I said it must be counted twice, and now I am thinking potentially more than twice but I am not fully thinking all this out and thoroughly at this moment, is because if we go back to the 100 ft by 100 ft surface, with hole and ramp and bowling balls;

As the hole moves, the surface of the entire field must be such that, the ramping maybe continuously generated everywhere the hole goals; correct me if I am wrong, but would not a subsequent force of this, being the restoration to average, of where the ramp for a moment was, but now was not; And thus is potentially one error in thinking, in terms of negative energy, which cancels out; you might say; there is flat, then there is slope (less than flat) then there is flat: 0, - 1, +1 = 0. But can it not be seen and/or said, that really it is a net force of +2, (I am imagining a scenario in which the moving hole and ramp pass by a particular ball that is right near the precipice or edge of the ramp, and is not head on, but off to the side, and it slightly begins to fall into the ramp, but the hole and ramp are moving forward at such a speed, the ball 'lips' right out the back (back in reference to the direction the hole is heading)) because the scenario occurring on a mass/body/ball sitting at rest; from an absolute perspective, would go from having its rest mass to having an increase in relative energy as it dips down the ramp, would it then be given more relative energy as it ramps off and out of the ramp?

I guess I am talking about, a mass makes an indent in a sheet, 1 aspect of the force is that a smaller mass falls toward the one making the large indent, the other aspect of force, is that when the large mass moves, there is the force of the mass of the sheet, moving back to equilibrium. This is something I have known for 2-3 years and just explaining like this now. It was and still is quite the Eureka!

a reply to: ImaFungi
What might happen to it? Would it retain its form?


No. It would form a sphere.
The shape which can contain the greatest volume with the least surface area. Due mostly to the effects of surface tension and to a much lesser degree, gravitation. It would then proceed to freeze and/or sublimate, depending on any ambient radiant energy levels. But since you specify no external energy sources, it would freeze, while radiating it's latent heat as infrared radiation.

Why?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If you took a 100 ft. by 100 ft. by 100 ft. wall-less volume of water, and magically poofed it into existence infinitely far away from the nearest mass, gravity field, radiation etc. etc.... if the water could not be touched or effected by anything... If this 100 x 100 x 100 cube volume of water appeared literally in the middle of nowhere surrounded by literally nothing;

What might happen to it? Would it retain its form?

No it would turn to a gas among other things. But let's say some act prevented that it would form a sphere. The tile thing well I read that and that was just stupid. If your tiles represent the distance between you and a wall the tiles would expand. Since the tiles in this case represent space.

I'll make this real easy for you space itself expands. This is called metric expansion and is only valid on large scales. Meaning things like galactic clusters below this gravity can hold objects together like our galaxy.Hubble's Constant: H0 = 67.15 ± 1.2 (km/s)/Mpc. For every million parsecs of distance from the observer, the rate of expansion increases by about 67 kilometers per second.

And stop thinking the universe is expanding into something. It is not a requirement for the expansion of space. The two are not connected. The expansion of space is not the expansion of the universe. The universe is infinite so we don't know if it's expanding. Theory has it we could create our own universe in a lab here on earth. It's not going to expand into our space it makes its own. Do not think of space as being the universe it is simply one property of it. And the other thing we have no idea how you would begin trying to calculate the volume of infinite space. But it isn't a requirement for it to do so. What we do know is the space in which we live simply has the property that the distances between objects are getting larger as time goes on.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Can you respond to my other 3 prior replies too?

I'm glad to answer a question you're having a hard time finding the answer to, but when you post 4 posts in a row with several questions each of things which can easily be googled, that's a bit much. I didn't even try to count how many questions are in your last post. The title of the thread is "ask any question you want about physics", not ""ask any 20 questions you want about physics". So I suggest you search for answers and then try to narrow down what you're having a hard time finding an answer to and state the question more succinctly. To make calculations that are anywhere near accurate you will need a deep understanding that you might get from education, but you probably won't get from posting in internet threads since it would take you 50 years to get a 4 year education at this rate and our knowledge of science will have changed in that time.

The tiles cannot separate from one another because 'nothingness moved'.

Two galaxies are objects. If the distance between them increases, there's more space between them. This isn't a difficult concept to me so I'm not sure why it's difficult for you.

If all that existed for eternity, in an infinite expanse of nothingness, were 2 bowling balls, and me and you stood back to back, and threw the balls away from ourselves in opposite directions, is there no amount of force (lets say we could throw them with any amount of force you could imagine) that we could throw them with, so that they would not be attracted back to one another?

If you knock a paper clip off a desk, is the paper clip moving toward the Earth, or is the Earth moving toward the paper clip? It's the same type of question. Do you really care if the Earth is moving toward the paper clip if the effect is too small to measure, and if so, why?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If you took a 100 ft. by 100 ft. by 100 ft. wall-less volume of water, and magically poofed it into existence infinitely far away from the nearest mass, gravity field, radiation etc. etc.... if the water could not be touched or effected by anything... If this 100 x 100 x 100 cube volume of water appeared literally in the middle of nowhere surrounded by literally nothing;

What might happen to it? Would it retain its form?

What form do you see water taking on the ISS videos? wobbly spheres right?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Since you dont seem to be so excited to try to work with me step by step in attempting to plug in knowledge to my theory for potential candidate for the reason of the idea of dark matter, I will just list the variables, so I can stop wasting my time waiting to go piece by piece;

Given your barrage of simultaneous questions we have vastly different ideas of what "step by step" means.

Total visible mass of galaxy (including central black hole... which may greatly add to uncertainty about all of this to begin with):

Minimum and maximum potential theorized quantity of gravitons in the galaxy:

Minimum and maximum potential theorized binding nature of graviton to one another (if such thing has potential):

To be most clear, by graviton, I may not mean the standard model interpretation, what I mean by graviton, and if you really need me to I will make up my own word for it: Gravyton; is the the building block material of the analogized 'sheet' (3d/4d) which 'warps/bends/curves'.

Here is a paper on M33 estimating the dark matter is significantly larger than the visible matter and it outlines all the methods and assumptions used in the calculations. The only caveat would be that there could be more recent and more accurate observations I'm not aware of but barring those this is as good a starting point as any to answer your questions though you'll actually have to read it:

Dark matter and visible baryons in M33

a reply to: Phage

As to why;

I suppose I was thinking of a condition in which an orientation of matter might exist, (and I did not know what the answer to my question would be, but did consider it was possible, something would occur) and without an outside source interacting with the matter in anyway, the matter would change;

And if 'nothing' is added to the orientation of matter, and the orientation changes when 'nothing' is added, is 'nothing' responsible for the orientation changing?

I guess I was wondering, what would be the cause of its orientation changing (though when I asked I truly didnt know what the result might be, from my perspective it might have been possible that the water molecules would drift apart from one another), but as you say what you say, it does seem that the source or one of the source reasons of orientation change would be the fact that the water molecules are moving in relation to one another, and the radiation of latent heat would be the fact of these motions compared to the fact of magnetic attractions and the fact of gravity, in a sense 'creating friction' or slowing down the rate of motion?

And what you mean by surface tension is, magnetic attraction of molecules ala electron bonds?

And the reason I said to imagine this existing far away from every other object, is to escape thinking about it in relation to earths gravity; so are you sure the effects of surface tension are not a carry of thought from the surface tension effects of water in relation to earths gravity?

How would the surface tension compare to the tension increasingly below the surface?

a reply to: ImaFungi

And what you mean by surface tension is, magnetic attraction of molecules ala electron bonds?

The force is cohesion, it is due to the shape of the molecules, not magnetism or electron bonds.

so are you sure the effects of surface tension are not a carry of thought from the surface tension effects of water in relation to earths gravity?

Yes.

How would the surface tension compare to the tension increasingly below the surface?

There is no difference. The effects of cohesion are observed as surface tension at the interface between the water and the surrounding medium, or lack thereof. The cohesive bond is stronger than the bond between water and the surrounding medium (or lack thereof) so it dominates and causes the water to assume the smallest surface area possible.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I'm glad to answer a question you're having a hard time finding the answer to, but when you post 4 posts in a row with several questions each of things which can easily be googled, that's a bit much. I didn't even try to count how many questions are in your last post. The title of the thread is "ask any question you want about physics", not ""ask any 20 questions you want about physics". So I suggest you search for answers and then try to narrow down what you're having a hard time finding an answer to and state the question more succinctly. To make calculations that are anywhere near accurate you will need a deep understanding that you might get from education, but you probably won't get from posting in internet threads since it would take you 50 years to get a 4 year education at this rate and our knowledge of science will have changed in that time.

ImaFungi

That is the initial post, I asked 2 questions. And wrote at the bottom, I will stop there, I have more questions but I want to be thorough and this is a linear process. After I made that post, and saw that you did not answer the two questions (besides that, posts I made after that, were referring to different things, and we went off on a tangent about dark energy), I wrote one of the more recent posts I just did, which attempted to include all the points I wanted to make and ask about regarding my theory about dark matter; the post with the hole, ramp, 100 x 100 surface, bowling balls... That post contains a rough concept of some of the ideas involved with my theory of dark matter. Ignore everything but that post.

Two galaxies are objects. If the distance between them increases, there's more space between them. This isn't a difficult concept to me so I'm not sure why it's difficult for you.

Is space an object or objects? or is 'space itself' 'the absence of object itself'?

The concept is difficult because I have heard it said;

The distance between two galaxies increases, but the galaxies are not moving (and not moving faster) the space in between them is expanding and expanding faster.


"If all that existed for eternity, in an infinite expanse of nothingness, were 2 bowling balls, and me and you stood back to back, and threw the balls away from ourselves in opposite directions, is there no amount of force (lets say we could throw them with any amount of force you could imagine) that we could throw them with, so that they would not be attracted back to one another?"

If you knock a paper clip off a desk, is the paper clip moving toward the Earth, or is the Earth moving toward the paper clip? It's the same type of question. Do you really care if the Earth is moving toward the paper clip if the effect is too small to measure, and if so, why?

You said, without spatial expansion or accelerated spatial expansion, all objects would be attracted toward one another and all would come together. I tried to propose a scenario that depicts that it does not seem as if it is true that objects must come together; No spatial expansion or accelerated spatial expansion, only two bowling balls exist and they are forced to move in opposing directions, you are suggesting that gravity will force them together? And there is no initial force the bowling balls can be put into motion with that would change your mind?

What form do you see water taking on the ISS videos? wobbly spheres right?

The water in the ISS is infinitely far away from any gravity wells right? Especially the suns. Read my response to Phage to discover more of why I asked that question.

a reply to: ImaFungi

The water in the ISS is infinitely far away from any gravity wells right?

No.

Especially the suns.

No. There is no superlative to infinite. "Especially infinite" is a meaningless phrase.