We Didn't Find 90% of the Universe's Mass... Maybe Because It's Kinetic Energy?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by windlass34

 

Well, you still have not explained how kinetic energy keeps rotating galaxies in one piece...

How does a spinning ball keep from blowing apart? Or a spinning coin?

It doesn't keep from blowing apart if it spins fast enough. Look on YouTube and you will find plenty of videos of things rotating at high enough speed to be torn apart by the form of kinetic energy known as centrifugal force.

However, there is one more theory that postulates that the "dark matter" exists at least partially in another dimension where we cannot detect it but it's mass would still provide a gravitational effect. You can read about it HERE. It is a spin off article from THIS ONE.

reply to post by swan001


Interesting. Sort of reminds me of process philosophy - suggesting that the transition(s) between becoming and being may be difficult to quantify and measure, and that most things most times are in a state of 'transition.' Or not.

S&F for creativity.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Oh look, our favorite skeptic.

All matter vibrates. All matter is held together by gravity. Cymatics is the study of how vibrations organize matter, but if the matter isn't held together by gravity, you may as well throw a grenade in a crate of marbles.

So thanks for that cynical contribution, but my statements are well-founded.

double effing post. grrrr....

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Oh look, our favorite skeptic.

All matter vibrates. All matter is held together by gravity. Cymatics is the study of how vibrations organize matter, but if the matter isn't held together by gravity, you may as well throw a grenade in a crate of marbles.

So thanks for that cynical contribution, but my statements are well-founded.

Actually matter is not held together by gravity. It is held together by the strong and weak nuclear forces and gravity is not one of them. Gravity may cause matter to aggregate but it is still the nuclear forces that hold it together on the atomic and molecular level.

Originally posted by windlass34

Originally posted by swan001


As two stars travel in space alongside, they are following the same principle than the two Galileo's falling objects. Kinetic energy is equal to KE=mv1/2. So, as their rest mass is, in a way, concealed to our detection because it is converted, they could be a lot more massive than what we detected from them... and maybe their actual rest mass could prove to hold the missing mass in our galaxy!

First of all, kinetic energy E(k) = 1/2 mv^2

Second, you are still wrong. Kinetic energy applies only to a "static" observer and even if it did'nt it is not ever remotely enough for the missing 90%.

The OP is correct and incorrect. In a nutshell, yes "kinetic energy" does produce gravity but no it hasn't been ignored and isn't enough.

The stress-energy tensor which forms the source term for general relativity (i.e. the thing that "makes" gravity) does include terms, such as pressure, which are related to kinetic energy. For exmaple, look here and scroll down to the version for an isolated particle, and you will see that the velocity enters into it in a square term, i.e. kinetic energy.

en.wikipedia.org...

This term has been known since 1917, and is not quantitatively sufficient to explain astrophysical observations without dark matter or dark energy.

If you look at that term you have things like v^alpha * v^beta / c^2.

Thus the additional increase vs rest mass is of the order of v^2/c^2, so for most massive particles, which are moving substantially slower than the speed of light, the correction is small. I.e. rest mass dominates.

Originally posted by mbkennel
This term has been known since 1917, and is not quantitatively sufficient to explain astrophysical observations without dark matter or dark energy.

In fact you are correct. Matter has to reach almost light speed for the relativistic effects to influence mass in any significant way. Even though much of the matter in the universe moves at truly incredible speeds, by earth standards, it doesn't even come close to light speed.

reply to post by happykat39


So if you took away all gravity, this table I'm sitting at wouldn't disintegrate? Doesn't it seem a little odd that gravity causes planets to orbit, but according to you, the same orbiting pattern in subatomic particles is completely unrelated to gravitational influence?

reply to post by happykat39


So if you took away all gravity, this table I'm sitting at wouldn't disintegrate? Doesn't it seem a little odd that gravity causes planets to orbit, but according to you, the same orbiting pattern in subatomic particles is completely unrelated to gravitational influence?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by happykat39

 

So if you took away all gravity, this table I'm sitting at wouldn't disintegrate? Doesn't it seem a little odd that gravity causes planets to orbit, but according to you, the same orbiting pattern in subatomic particles is completely unrelated to gravitational influence?

You need to bone up on your physics. There are four main forces in nature (and no, I am not referring to metaphysical forces) and they are the electromagnetic force, the two nuclear forces,strong and weak, and gravity. Only the nuclear forces are responsible for holding matter together at the atomic and subatomic level. One of them accounts for the orbital relationship of the electrons and the binding of the nucleus particles and the other accounts for the cohesion of the particles called quarks and such that make up the other particles.

Originally posted by happykat39

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by happykat39

 

So if you took away all gravity, this table I'm sitting at wouldn't disintegrate? Doesn't it seem a little odd that gravity causes planets to orbit, but according to you, the same orbiting pattern in subatomic particles is completely unrelated to gravitational influence?

You need to bone up on your physics. There are four main forces in nature (and no, I am not referring to metaphysical forces) and they are the electromagnetic force, the two nuclear forces,strong and weak, and gravity. Only the nuclear forces are responsible for holding matter together at the atomic and subatomic level. One of them accounts for the orbital relationship of the electrons and the binding of the nucleus particles and the other accounts for the cohesion of the particles called quarks and such that make up the other particles.

what is the force that binds atoms together?

dont all matter have gravity?

could gravity be a left over force from the strong force of the septiquntigiliaplextrianquadrillmillions of atoms of a massive body attracted to another collective mass of atoms?

gravity is the reason why planets and stars and galaxies form in general isnt it? so is the way protons and neutrons attract gravity? and is the answer to my first question, what is the force that binds ( i guess i should say brings) separate atoms together, gravity?

i need boneing up too,, so go easy on my tiger!

double post

reply to post by happykat39


Alright then - a question for you. Does the rapid motion of mesons weaken the static resistance, or does it generate another force that counters the resistance so as to allow the cohesion of protons?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by happykat39

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by happykat39

 

So if you took away all gravity, this table I'm sitting at wouldn't disintegrate? Doesn't it seem a little odd that gravity causes planets to orbit, but according to you, the same orbiting pattern in subatomic particles is completely unrelated to gravitational influence?

You need to bone up on your physics. There are four main forces in nature (and no, I am not referring to metaphysical forces) and they are the electromagnetic force, the two nuclear forces,strong and weak, and gravity. Only the nuclear forces are responsible for holding matter together at the atomic and subatomic level. One of them accounts for the orbital relationship of the electrons and the binding of the nucleus particles and the other accounts for the cohesion of the particles called quarks and such that make up the other particles.

what is the force that binds atoms together?

dont all matter have gravity?

could gravity be a left over force from the strong force of the septiquntigiliaplextrianquadrillmillions of atoms of a massive body attracted to another collective mass of atoms?

gravity is the reason why planets and stars and galaxies form in general isnt it? so is the way protons and neutrons attract gravity? and is the answer to my first question, what is the force that binds ( i guess i should say brings) separate atoms together, gravity?

i need boneing up too,, so go easy on my tiger!

edit on 12-11-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

Look at it this way; the strong and weak nuclear forces are MICRO forces that only have an effect at atomic and subatomic level. They are responsible for the constituents of matter holding together and it is these atoms, held together by the nuclear forces, that generate gravity. Then consider gravity and electromagnetism as MACRO forces that only have an effect on matter already held together by the nuclear forces.

BTW - because you are a fungi (fun guy) do they call you Mr. mushroom???

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by happykat39

 

Alright then - a question for you. Does the rapid motion of mesons weaken the static resistance, or does it generate another force that counters the resistance so as to allow the cohesion of protons?

I am going to have to tell you to go to Wikipedia for an answer to that. I may be knowledgeable but I am not that knowledgeable. I am a retired manufacturing engineer with a great deal of interest in physics and quantum mechanics but I am not a physicist myself. For a sampling of my interests CLICK HERE

Apply your math to the Reciprocal System formulae, see if it holds up.

I have a feeling that community will soon be vindicated. I think they have it right.

Originally posted by happykat39
Actually matter is not held together by gravity. It is held together by the strong and weak nuclear forces and gravity is not one of them. Gravity may cause matter to aggregate but it is still the nuclear forces that hold it together on the atomic and molecular level.

Thanks for the post. But we need to be more precise here, as matter can exist in different forms. In some, like solid matter etc, electromagnetic interaction keeps the atoms together to form a solid. If we are talking about nuclear matter, it's indeed strong interaction. Then if we think of a star as a blob of matter, gravity in fact is of prime importance. I frankly can't think of an example of how weak interaction holds anything together. It's both weak and short range.

Originally posted by happykat39

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by happykat39

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by happykat39

 

So if you took away all gravity, this table I'm sitting at wouldn't disintegrate? Doesn't it seem a little odd that gravity causes planets to orbit, but according to you, the same orbiting pattern in subatomic particles is completely unrelated to gravitational influence?

You need to bone up on your physics. There are four main forces in nature (and no, I am not referring to metaphysical forces) and they are the electromagnetic force, the two nuclear forces,strong and weak, and gravity. Only the nuclear forces are responsible for holding matter together at the atomic and subatomic level. One of them accounts for the orbital relationship of the electrons and the binding of the nucleus particles and the other accounts for the cohesion of the particles called quarks and such that make up the other particles.

what is the force that binds atoms together?

dont all matter have gravity?

could gravity be a left over force from the strong force of the septiquntigiliaplextrianquadrillmillions of atoms of a massive body attracted to another collective mass of atoms?

gravity is the reason why planets and stars and galaxies form in general isnt it? so is the way protons and neutrons attract gravity? and is the answer to my first question, what is the force that binds ( i guess i should say brings) separate atoms together, gravity?

i need boneing up too,, so go easy on my tiger!

edit on 12-11-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

Look at it this way; the strong and weak nuclear forces are MICRO forces that only have an effect at atomic and subatomic level. They are responsible for the constituents of matter holding together and it is these atoms, held together by the nuclear forces, that generate gravity. Then consider gravity and electromagnetism as MACRO forces that only have an effect on matter already held together by the nuclear forces.

BTW - because you are a fungi (fun guy) do they call you Mr. mushroom???

edit on 12-11-2012 by happykat39 because: (no reason given)

no they dont... but you can call me...... anytime

so is it gravity that binds atoms together? or that force of nature is a chemical bond? what is the attractive force between atoms that causes them to bond in the first place?

and i think back to originally what afterafinity was getting at was why doesnt gravity effect the relationship between atoms and the inner workings of atoms.... and your saying,, what holds an atom together is known as the strong force,, and because gravity doesnt effect this atom internally gravity is known as a weak force.....

at the moment the universe came into existence,, did gravity exist?

reply to post by ImaFungi

so is it gravity that binds atoms together? or that force of nature is a chemical bond? what is the attractive force between atoms that causes them to bond in the first place?

No, the force that forms chemical bonds is the electromagnetic force. It is caused by the imbalance of charges created by either extra electrons or not enough electrons in the atoms shell. That creates an attraction between atoms that have opposite charges due to the electron imbalance. In fact, the PH of a particular element is controlled by the number of electrons in the shell. I forget which is which but one with extra electrons will either be an acid or a base and the other one with too few electrons will be the opposite. The higher the imbalance the farther from a neutral PH an element will be.

and i think back to originally what afterafinity was getting at was why doesnt gravity effect the relationship between atoms and the inner workings of atoms.... and your saying,, what holds an atom together is known as the strong force,, and because gravity doesnt effect this atom internally gravity is known as a weak force.....

While gravity is considered to be a "weak force" that does not mean it has any relationship to the actual weak nuclear force. Both the weak and strong nuclear forces are responsible for holding the atoms together and the quarks and such that make up the electron, neutron and positron. I looked up and posted in an earlier reply which force is responsible for which level of binding but it is the middle of the night here and my brain is all Googled out. In spite of their names both of the nuclear forces are very strong over subatomic distances but rapidly disappear as the distances increase. Gravity, on the other hand, follows the square of the distance law that light does. That means that unless you reach enormous distances where something like the Planck Constant takes effect gravity only fades but never completely disappears. Just, for one example, consider Haley's Comet. It appears only once in about 75 years. That means that at the enormous speed it is traveling it takes about 37-1/2 years for it to slow down in relation to the sun and start it's journey of another 37-1/2 years back; all the while still under the influence of the sun's gravity. And even at that it only travels into interstellar space a tiny fraction of the distance to the nearest star.

at the moment the universe came into existence,, did gravity exist?

I have no idea but according to some theories I have heard most of the forces that hold things together didn't come into existence until shortly after the big bang.

Originally posted by windlass34

Originally posted by swan001
Well actually, you might not need to fill the whole 90%. According to Wikipedia, Scientists has agreed that neutrinos can cover 10% of the missing mass, photons can cover another 15%, and atoms another 12%. So the figures would be 63% which is really hard to find. Quantum Jitter would cover some of this 63%, so we are left with what, around 30% left? Other energies, for instance kinetic, could cover that.

edit on 12-11-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)

Well, you still have not explained how kinetic energy keeps rotating galaxies in one piece...

The galaxy is stretching space and time. It is more stretched in the center of the galaxy. We are following the path of least resistance. A singularity is a point where there is no space or time. That is, infinite unresistance. The concepts of energy and work don't even exist within the black hole because there is no such thing as velocity. Since there is no energy and no potential energy, there can be no mass either because mass is also dependent on those equations that require space and time.

So there is literally nothing in the way for us to move towards the center of the galaxy. That is the path of least resistance.