Author Topic: A Quack theory on Dark Matter  (Read 28776 times)

Raistlin

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 481
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #45 on: April 14, 2016, 03:54:22 PM »
Black Holes 'NSinc: The SA discovery that's got astronomers in a spin
Marelise van der Merwe
Daily Maverick - ‎12‎ ‎April‎ ‎2016

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-04-12-black-holes-nsinc-the-sa-discovery-thats-got-astronomers-in-a-spin/#.Vw8wW_l96M8

Interesting article in around-about the topic - thought I'd share
Are you pondering what I'm pondering? It's time to take over the world ! - let's use ASSEMBLY...

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1382
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #46 on: April 14, 2016, 08:43:56 PM »
Wow - this article is really mind-blowing! Incredible! Surprising is too mild a word. Do you realize what this means ???

"A deep scan of the sky in radio waves revealed something completely unexpected to South African astronomers: that somehow, and for some unexplained reason, supermassive black holes in one region of space are all releasing radio waves in the same direction."

- South Africa is good for something !!!
I am NaN ;)

Raistlin

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 481
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #47 on: April 14, 2016, 10:01:45 PM »
Code: [Select]
- South Africa is good for something !!!
erm... thanks I think.

@rrr: I did'nt quite get WHY everyone is excited - please do tell !!!!

To my mind it could mean the universe comes from a single point in space that we might be able to trace back to ?
- but was'nt that true for the BIG BANG theory as well anyway ?

OR wait, do you mean the universe did'nt expand exactly from a single point in all directions at once - but an asymmetrical blow out ?

How does this help to know though?

 
Are you pondering what I'm pondering? It's time to take over the world ! - let's use ASSEMBLY...

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1382
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #48 on: April 15, 2016, 06:32:15 AM »
The BB didn't come from a single point in our 3-d space, rather it happened everywhere at once. Don't forget it might not have happened at all - but it is today's favorite theory so might as weil stick with it.

Galaxies started forming some time later, nobody knows, more than a million years anyway. The assumption is that the energy was very randomly directed at this time - that's why the Microwave Background Radiation is isotropic and thermal, blackbody radiation. Locally, random little vortices formed which swirled together into galaxies. There's not supposed to be any order or correlation among them.

Now they've observed strong correlation across a large area: all the massive BH's at centers of many galaxies are spinning in the same direction (which determines emission of radio waves in same direction). That's not supposed to happen according to current thinking. That's why they're surprised.

To me it's extremely stupid. They don't have enough data to understand origin of galaxies, or universe for that matter. What they should do is just observe, for the next 1000 years perhaps. Find out where the galaxies are, which way they're spinning, how big they are, how big their central BH's are, which way they're spinning, etc etc. Put it all in a big database, make it available to scientists and the public. Some day perhaps there's enough data to start theorizing.

Instead they theorize in the absence of facts. Therefore, every time they look through a telescope they find something else that doesn't fit their premature theory, and are surprised. What a waste of good amazement.
I am NaN ;)

xanatose

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 375
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #49 on: April 17, 2016, 01:31:09 AM »
What a waste of good amazement.

True  :biggrin: Altough without the periodic amazement, funding tends to magically stop.

We are a relatively young civilization. And yet we believe we have enough data to say how the universe works. Like a toddler believing it understands the world.

We have just starting level 1 (climate manipulation). We still need to go to the planet manipulation, then interplanetary colonization. Then star travel, then star manipulation, then galaxy travel, and finally galaxy manipulation before we can really claim to understand the universe.

My wild guess is in a million year or so, if we survive. Maybe our future AI, if we don't.

Then we will need to try and understand the multiverses.

Assuming of course this that we call reality is not just a big video game simulation made by a 5 dimensional being called Bob that lives on his mother basement.


Raistlin

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 481
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #50 on: April 18, 2016, 03:55:39 PM »
Code: [Select]
5 dimensional being called Bob that lives on his mother basement
I've got a view things to ask BOB when I see him or prove his existence.

1) What does chicken really taste like ?
2) Was Elvis a 4th dimensional being ?
3) Why is my computer so slow  ?
4) Was -hutch- really a bot ?
5) Can I hang in your man-cave basement - you must have such cool stuff ?


Are you pondering what I'm pondering? It's time to take over the world ! - let's use ASSEMBLY...

K_F

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1477
  • Anybody out there?
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #51 on: April 24, 2016, 02:43:32 AM »
I'd be careful what one reads into all this stuff....

When the Big Bang was all the rage.. people just wanted to prove it.. researchers also have to live..somehow!!
- Hubbles Expanding Universe conveniently forgot about Einstein's gravity wells that bent light/radiation, and in doing so shifted it in the red.. OMG!!  there's a shyte load of gravity stuff out there.. Big Bang Theory IIRC originated from this observation.
- Cosmic Back Ground Radiation ignored the same principle, where all the light/radiation bending would create interference patterns in 3D... but it proved part of the Big Bang Theory anyway...

As I've mentioned before on isotope age dating methods... let me repeat :bgrin:

When the Earth cooled down from a molten magma ball, natural isotope elements began to decay.. and this is the basis of isotope age dating (4.3 billion years).. I pricked the bubble saying that molten magma still exists down below and in volcanoes, and also with continental drift the crust is some areas is forced down into this molten morass - essentially resetting the 'isotope clock'.
They avoided me like the plague.. but the Geochemistry researcher I drank beer with, laughed, and we drank more beer - they won't believe you he said.. I know.. I'm not a geologist  ;)

Edt: Someday I promise to proof read my spelling and grammar ;) Although I got a higher pass mark for my second language than my mother tongue..  :icon_exclaim:
« Last Edit: April 24, 2016, 07:43:00 AM by K_F »
'Sire, Sire!... the peasants are Revolting !!!'
'Yes, they are.. aren't they....'

hutch--

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6335
  • Mnemonic Driven API Grinder
    • The MASM32 SDK
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #52 on: April 24, 2016, 10:24:20 AM »
Thinking back into the archives of doing a course in Cosmology at uni about 40 years ago, the two competing theories back then was steady state (ALA Newton) and the big bang theory (ALA Georges Lemaître). The latter seems to better fit the observation that the doppler effect of red shift says the rest of the universe is receding away from us at an accelerating rate. There was also a theory of a pulsating universe but its proof was even more tenuous than the others. It basically said that the universe shits between big bang and a following collapse in an endless cycle of BANG, POP from a single point to maximum expansion and back again.

I take all cosmology with a grain of salt as it involves no viable means of producing proof, both over time and distance.
hutch at movsd dot com
http://www.masm32.com    :biggrin:  :skrewy:

npnw

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 152
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #53 on: April 26, 2016, 02:05:34 PM »
I always thought that time was a measurement of light. That light is the clock in this universe. That one instant  or tick of the universal clock is when light goes past a point. Then the next moment is defined by the next particle of light passing that point.  The universe is defined in space by the initial release of energy. As the light reaches farther and farther into void, the universe is created by energy and mass. 

Why wouldn't all the galaxy's rotate. Who says the big bang was an outward force, why couldn't it have been a circular vortex of expanding energy instead of a straight line acceleration away from a point.  A circular vortex from a higher energy state into a void may have been needed to pierce and define our space.  This would have made the galaxy's all swirl in the same direction.  Science is suppose to theorize about what you observe, so if the theory doesn't fit with what you observe, then your theory isn't describing what you observe.

Read Einstein a few years back, but I'm not sure I understood everything.

npnw

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 152
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #54 on: April 26, 2016, 02:20:54 PM »
forgot to ask about gamma radiation from back holes. If matter is compressed and turned into pure energy, would gamma radiation account for the loss in mass?

Also if space time is curved due to mass. Then if light is traveling away and defining the border, limited mass on the edges of space, more mass and BH's where mass is recompressed to energy and returned to higher energy space, would this account for the discrepancies we have in our space time continuum.

If the universe was instead of a 2d surface in a 3D where matter from the 3d fell to the 2d, what if it was created by the mass slowing down creating a pocket which would seem still in the 3d world. Yet as with all chemical reactions there are different rates of energy.  In some instances such as BH, the energy can spring back into the higher realm. When all mass is converted back to pure energy the BH produce Gamma? radiation,  a high pulse of energy. Would this be matter converting back to a higher state? Crossing the event horizon. 

Is there an exponential loss of energy as the universe expands in diameter, and or loss of thermal ???

As we observe the edge of the universe as those initial light particles or energy expand, if they show the first tick of the clock,  is the reason we can't see anything because there is no defined universe to see?

I'm tired now.


npnw

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 152
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #55 on: April 26, 2016, 04:12:46 PM »
Can't sleep now.   sigh...  if the universe is made of energy and mass. Okay we agree on that. Then when the universe was first created was time different because the particles of light(??) were densely packed. Therefore moving past a particle of light required less movement, therefore time was faster than it is now.  At the outer edges of the universe as matter and energy travel farther away from the point of origin.  Does time lessen because the density of matter that defines this universe, and our relativity of space as defined by einstein changed because there is more space between the defining particles of light or energy at his location?

Would the loss of energy in the universe be like heat transfer of a water molecule where it evaporates and changes energy state which we cannot discern being 2D beings in a 3D world.  Do the other water molecules discern water vapor or steam?

Didn't they do a study on the background radiation, and postulate that due to the frequency the universe was xx billion years old? They tried to use a thermal view of the universe?


FORTRANS

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #56 on: April 26, 2016, 11:37:39 PM »
Hi,

Didn't they do a study on the background radiation, and postulate that due to the frequency the universe was xx billion years old? They tried to use a thermal view of the universe?

   Yes.  Search on COBE, WMAP, and Planck studies.  They determined
the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation.
From that measurement WMAP said about 13.7 billion years, Planck
(newer) said 13.8.  The universe is expanding, therefor cooling.  One
makes some assumptions about the initial temperature and Hubble
Constant, and then given the present temperature the age can be
calculated.

Cheers,

Steve N.

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1382
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #57 on: April 30, 2016, 02:16:15 AM »
xanatose: Assuming of course this that we call reality is not just a big video game simulation ...

- There's no justification for that assumption. Put more simply: It's reasonable to suspect the universe is a simulation.

- By saying this, I'm violating one of my cardinal rules: if you repeat it thrice and they still don't hear you, give up. Well - one more time, in bold letters.

xanatose: Then we will need to try and understand the multiverses.

- It's not unreasonable to suppose there are no multiverses of the type presented in contemporary physics. (Although of course there may be, who knows?)

K_F: When the Earth cooled down from a molten magma ball, natural isotope elements began to decay.. and this is the basis of isotope age dating (4.3 billion years).. I pricked the bubble saying that molten magma still exists down below and in volcanoes, and also with continental drift the crust is some areas is forced down into this molten morass - essentially resetting the 'isotope clock'.

- You're right, as far as it goes. Oldest rocks on Earth (AFAIK) are NOT believed to be "original" - they were created some time after formation, from volcanoes. So we can say Earth is at least 4 billion years old or so (the age of those rocks). Based only on that, it could be a trillion years old.

- BUT we know it's not much more, from space rocks: the moon. asteroids, etc; and other supporting evidence. All together these data make a convincing case that the solar system itself can't be older than 4.5 billion or so.

K_F: Hubbles Expanding Universe conveniently forgot about Einstein's gravity wells that bent light/radiation, and in doing so shifted it in the red..

- What you're getting at is: the redshift of galaxies, roughly proportional to their distance from us, may be due to gravity wells. I don't see how to use this explanation - without very awkward assumptions. Which is not to say it can't be done.

- My favorite alternative explanation is: speed of light has been steadily (linearly) slowing down since whenever the universe started.

- But, for the time being, my favorite explanation remains the standard one: expansion of spacetime. Perhaps I'd give it 15% chance of being proven right someday. 60% chance we'll never know, with any confidence. (Of course "we" refers to sensible people, not physicists.) The other alternatives appear under the remaining 25%.

- BTW don't blame Edwin Hubble! He never accepted any explanation, not even recession. He felt there was far too little data and knowledge yet. Today he'd still say that, no doubt, but less emphatically; we have a lot more data (not, however, more knowledge).

hutch: ... the observation that the doppler effect of red shift says the rest of the universe is receding away from us at an accelerating rate.

- There's definitely a redshift but it may not be due to recession, rather slowing speed of light, gravity wells, ... who knows. If it is due to recession, the establishment says the recession is due to expanding spacetime. In that case it's not a doppler shift (although similar). If there's no expansion of universe, but those galaxies are actually all running away from us in the conventional fashion: that would be a doppler shift. Yet another alternative explanation which for all I, or anyone else, knows, may be right. But it's harder to believe than the expanding universe.

hutch: I take all cosmology with a grain of salt as it involves no viable means of producing proof, both over time and distance.

- A real big grain of salt! But all you have to do is wait a few billion years; if lucky, we will have solid knowledge then.

npnw: Read Einstein a few years back, but I'm not sure I understood everything.

- You didn't :-) Here are some thoughts on your comments.

Light a measure of time: sure; Einstein says that in "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

All spiral galaxies rotate, and it's a key aspect of their dynamics (not well understood, of course). Although, there's at least one spiral which almost doesn't, evidently due to some unknown accident. Ellipticals more or less don't rotate; irregulars do so irregularly.

Spirals do not all swirl in the same direction! Distribution of rotation axes among them is not far from random - although I'll bet there are important correlations which astronomers aren't looking for because "theory" (which hobbles modern physics terribly) says there isn't.

Unless you mean, the spirals trail off opposite the direction of rotation, the way it looks intuitively? That's true, except in an unusual case or two, evidently due to some accident.

If you believe GR (which is tortionless) universe probably has no overall rotation. Actually even without GR common sense says that also; but don't forget, common sense would say the Earth doesn't rotate either.

BH and gamma radiation: establishment explanation (which makes a lot of sense) says matter accelerated while falling into a BH produces (one type of) gamma ray burst.

As universe expands (assuming it does) there is theoretically no loss of energy. However thermal radiation does decrease - linearly, not exponentially.

Observation has not yet reached the "edge of the universe", it's still about a billion light years short. Actually visual observations never will get there. (Remember this is all according to theory - and you know what that's worth). But this is nit-picking. The question is, is anything beyond that "edge"? According to latest theory (inflation) yes, there's approximately infinitely more universe beyond - in space. But in time, none.

Was time faster, or slower, back near the beginning? Establishment answer is no, true answer is maybe.

General advice, don't take theory too seriously. Concentrate on the data! Personally I love pictures of galaxies - especially colliding ones. I wish I could get more solid data on their size, composition, rotation velocities (there are many more than just one!), their central BH's, orientations relative to other galaxies, elemental abundances, etc etc. There's also stars: lots of fascinating data, for example re. novas. But it's very hard to find data. What's far too easy to find is theory, theory, theory.

General rule of thumb: if a popular-science book mentions Einstein more than just a few times, throw it away. Especially if it says "As Einstein taught us" - just once! If it mentions galaxies a lot; or stars, rocks, experimental equipment, experimental data, and stuff like that: read it. (Or animals, genes, peas, corn, tops, rotors, camshafts, light, clouds, trees, steam engines - anything real). Also, tell me about the book: I've only seen a handful of good ones.
I am NaN ;)

npnw

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 152
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #58 on: April 30, 2016, 05:06:51 AM »
rrr31459 ,

It was a small book on einstein theories.  I loaned it to my math professor and never got it back some years ago, 2003 or 2004.  There was something I was having him read to explain a problem, or perception that we have.  Fourier Transformations will never work due to Analog. Without enough data, the equation can't predict where things are. Therefore we have to develop a new algorithm. Break the problem down.

I whole heartily agree that using someone else's theory if it is not based on enough data will not lead you to the right conclusions. Everyone is fascinated with einstein, and while he was brilliant, lets think on our own.
That is the only way we are going to advance things.

I was kinda speaking my thoughts out loud from what I had read, not that i'm an expert, or that I have studied it in detail. It was a white or tan cover hard bound. Bought it at a book sale for 3 or 6 dollars. Since you hear about him all the time. Figured best to study up on him and his works.

CERN says the cosmology number they have is 1.6 which is right in between proving a single universe 1.3 and the multiverse was something like 1.9 ? Not sure on numbers been a couple years.  Anyway, that would make sense to be right in the middle of both. Otherwise know as they don't know what is going on :)

Have you seen where they used glass to store 360 TB of data?

Had another thought, but it has vanished. Kinda like our space time continuum.

I love the galaxy pictures from hubble, and it really puts us in perspective.


 

Zen

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 962
  • slightly red-shifted
Re: A Quack theory on Dark Matter
« Reply #59 on: April 30, 2016, 06:34:21 AM »
:bgrin: The really great thing about threads like this is that RRR314159 patiently explains to us,...
...why, in the light of modern physics, we seem to be so completely oblivious to reality. :bgrin:
Zen