 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / July 2006The phrase 'dark matter'
Does anyone know when and by whom the phrase 'dark matter' was first coined? Stephen Dear stephen: > Does anyone know when and by whom the > phrase 'dark matter' was first coined? I get in the 1930s by Fred Zwicky (1933 - 1937, somewhere in there), but he may have called it "missing mass". I do not have a direct quote. http://astralavista.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_astralavista_archive.html David A. Smith > Dear stephen: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have a direct quote. > http://astralavista.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_astralavista_archive.html Still no quote. Actual name "Fritz" rather than Fred. Quite a character. http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/f/fr/fritz_zwicky.html David A. Smith "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote: > Dear stephen: >> Does anyone know when and by whom the >> phrase 'dark matter' was first coined? > I get in the 1930s by Fred Zwicky (1933 - 1937, somewhere in > there), but he may have called it "missing mass". I do not have > a direct quote. > http://astralavista.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_astralavista_archive.html > David A. Smith From what I have read, he is credited with first noticing the missing mass, but I have seen nothing that says he used the phrase 'missing mass' or 'dark matter'. From what I have seen, it looks like 'dark matter' did not appear until much later. Stephen The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning God created " virtual particles ". Astrophysics approve, that in the beginning the God created " latent mass ","invisible particles ", "'missing mass'" or "'dark matter'". >From them the God created everything. But nobody knows, what is " virtual particles ","'dark matter'" what is " latent mass ", " invisible particles ". And then the physicists are very surprised : "Why is the nature of the microworld so paradoxical ?" We use words not understanding their meaning Who are we? Dear socratus: ... > We use words not understanding their meaning > Who are we? We are the race of Adam. Whose first job in the Garden of Eden was naming things. 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.' http://www.bloomsburymagazine.com/Ezine/Articles/Articles.asp?ezine_article_id=212 Language did not come from God. Language is an agreement between people. David A. Smith > The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning God > created " virtual particles ". [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "Why is the nature of the microworld so paradoxical ?" > We use words not understanding their meaning When we say "dark matter" the words are not arbitrary. This hypothesized matter is called "matter" because it has gravitational mass. It is called "dark" because it isn't radiating energy we can see. - Randy > > The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning God > > created " virtual particles ". [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > When we say "dark matter" the words are not arbitrary. Yes, they are. DM is not dark at all, so that term used to describe it or even define it is clearly a misnomer no matter how hard you wish upon a star that it isn't. In fact, DM can be more accurately described as invisible matter because we can see right through it, obviously. Physics is not all that precise in term-usage as you once imagined, eh? > This hypothesized matter is called "matter" because it > has gravitational mass. It is called "dark" because it > isn't radiating energy we can see. We assume it has gravitational mass, based on the observed effects, but that conclusion is only one among others that are possible; therefore, it is not a fact yet, as you assert. Also, to say it is call "dark" because it does not radiate is another phony explanation, since blackbodies do not radiate either, they only absorb radiation. For such absorption, they must have at least some gravitational attraction, I would guess, and to have that requires real matter having positive energy. Would it have politically improper to call it "black matter" instead? Obviously, the most appropriate term would have been "Invisible Matter", or, IM. The closest thing to a blackbody I can think of is a black hole, which is invisible to us because light cannot escape it. But we could tell where a blackbody or a black hole may be located because we do not see through them like we see through DM. Since the two are not like DM, it should not be explained in comparison to them. > > > The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning God > > > created " virtual particles ". [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > Yes, they are. DM is not dark at all, It doesn't radiate. That makes it dark. > In fact, DM can > be more accurately described as invisible matter Astronomers can only see that which radiates energy to be picked up by their instruments. > because we can see right through it, obviously. You can also see through the air, and you can't see air in your telescope. That does not mean "air" is some exotic material. The need for dark matter in cosmology was very simple: The gravitation from the shiny stuff was not enough to explain the behavior of the shiny stuff. If our gravitational models are correct, then there's more MASS out there, but it isn't shiny. One proposal I heard many years ago was "cold neutrinos". It was put forward by a respectable cosmologist in a physics seminar, something you no doubt have never been to. Wherever you get your views of what "real physicists" think and say, as far as I can tell it isn't from hearing the words or thoughts of any physicist. Neutrinos are not exotic. They are invisible, and there are a great many of them running free in the universe. The cold neutrino explanation relies on the neutrino having a certain minimum mass, and I think it would now be ruled out based on our current estimates of the neutrino mass. But at the time it was one plausible candidate, and one thing that made it plausible was the MASS. You are apparently trying to cook up some hypothetical substance which doesn't gravitate like ordinary matter. But since having gravitational mass is the single most important property needed by the "missing mass", your "theory" is thus pretty useless as an explanation of the form of the missing mass of the universe. - Randy > > > > The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning God > > > > created " virtual particles ". [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > You can also see through the air, and you can't see air in > your telescope. That does not mean "air" is some exotic material. It does to me. I still have my "childhood wonder", esp. about the things that are so ho-hum to others. > The need for dark matter in cosmology was very simple: The > gravitation from the shiny stuff was not enough to explain the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > put forward by a respectable cosmologist in a physics seminar, > something you no doubt have never been to. Yes, we know, you are a far, far Better man than me, Genghis Poe, for You have been to a physics seminar. > Wherever you get > your views of what "real physicists" think and say, as far as I > can tell it isn't from hearing the words or thoughts of any > physicist. Are you blind, then? Isn't PD one, or you? Or Worms? Or any of the other pedantic trolls who hover over this ng? Do you have someone reading this to you? Have you analyzed yourself to see why you tend toward exaggeration? > Neutrinos are not exotic. They are invisible, and there are a great > many of them running free in the universe. The cold neutrino [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > plausible candidate, and one thing that made it plausible was > the MASS. But that was based only on the notion that neutrinos had some mass. It is only recently they have been shown to have some mass but not until and unless they interact w/a tau neutrino. That means they are massless until they are transformed into particles having mass and energy, just like my model predicted. > You are apparently trying to cook up some hypothetical substance > which doesn't gravitate like ordinary matter. But since having > gravitational mass is the single most important property > needed by the "missing mass", your "theory" is thus pretty > useless as an explanation of the form of the missing mass of > the universe. Wait now. 1st you say, "...gravitate like ordinary matter." Next you call it "gravitational mass", which does not equate to the same thing. To have gravitation like we know it, it must have the force of attraction, and that force is evident only in massive objects we can observe. For us 2b able to see them, they must have energy and the property of time, as we know those qualities 2b. However, we cannot see DM, so we can only guess it has gravitational attraction like visible objects have. Chew on this: How can additional gravitational attraction cause the observed effects? Oh, sure, more attraction force will help keep galaxies together better, yes. But how does that explain the effect where the outer orbiting bodies move faster than can be expected? And also, if DM is everywhere RM is not, how does it know what to attract and what not to attract? It is quite possible that instead of gravitational attractive forces, they are gravitational repulsive forces. Since DM appears 2b quite opposite to RM, why should we not think that its gravita- tional force - if it has any - would be the opposite as well? Or, why cannot it be some force other than gravitational? It could be just "interactional", to coin a word, and not gravita- tional at all. E.g., it could be that RM gathered into galaxies via its own gravitational forces and also via interactions with DM as well. DM gravitational forces could help keep RM together by "pushing" or "herding" the matter, or by repulsing it into galaxial forms. Or, if it is not gravitational forces in play, it could interactions that repulse RM away from DM, and since DM is everywhere RM is not, the effect could be to herd RM into various galaxial shapes. At this point, we only surmise the forces to be gravitational, and it may indeed turn out that way. But at this point, I do not see all the questions being answered by the same attractive force of RM gravitation, while my model proposes that it is not just the gravitational forces that change the universe second-by-second, but also the various types of interactions that go on between the stuff of the universe. > > > > > The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning God > > > > > created " virtual particles ". [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Better man than me, Genghis Poe, for > You have been to a physics seminar. The point is that when I attribute an idea to a physicist, it is because I heard it from a physicist. > > Wherever you get > > your views of what "real physicists" think and say, as far as I > > can tell it isn't from hearing the words or thoughts of any > > physicist. > > > Are you blind, then? Isn't PD one, or you? Or Worms? Oh, are you now saying that what PD and Sam Wormley write is what "real physicists" say? Funny, I thought you were lecturing all of us, including them, that none of us knew what real physicists say. For instance, your claim that all real physicists say "motion relative to each other" means "zero velocity relative to each other". Yet neither PD nor Sam said such a thing. > > Neutrinos are not exotic. They are invisible, and there are a great > > many of them running free in the universe. The cold neutrino [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But that was based only on the notion that neutrinos had some > mass. Yes it was. The point was these not-at-all-exotic things with mass potentially met all the requirements of dark matter. Yet you claim dark matter can't be anything with mass. > Wait now. 1st you say, "...gravitate like ordinary matter." Yes. As in, contribute a nonzero force F = GMm/r^2 when interacting with the visible mass. That is why dark matter was hypothesized in the first place: Something appears to be contributing Newtonian gravitational force, and we can't see it. Much the same idea as why astronomers looked for Pluto. > Next > you call it "gravitational mass", which does not equate to the > same thing. To have gravitation like we know it, it must have > the force of attraction Exactly. > and that force is evident only in massive > objects we can observe. No, no such requirement. > Chew on this: How can additional gravitational attraction cause > the observed effects? Because the observed effects are additional gravitational attraction beyond what is explained by the shiny things. - Randy The Quantum physics approves that the " virtual particles " are connected with Vacuum. To which reference frame does the "'dark matter'" concern? If the "'dark matter'" also belongs to Vacuum, so what is the difference between " virtual particles " and "'particles of dark matter'" ? ========================= If you see a Lion in a cage with an inscription " Cat ", do not believe your eyes. > Wait now. 1st you say, "...gravitate like ordinary matter." Next > you call it "gravitational mass", which does not equate to the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > be expected? And also, if DM is everywhere RM is not, how > does it know what to attract and what not to attract? To answer your 2nd question, it's actually pretty simple. According to Newtonian gravity, the relationship between the speed of an orbiting body and the mass that is attracting it (and thereby coercing it to stay in orbit) is GM/r = v^2. (This comes from F=ma, and the left hand side is GMm/r^2 and the right hand side is mv^2/r.) Thus, if you can count the stars that make up M then you should be able to calculate what the velocity v of the orbiting body is and compare that to measurements. Or conversely, you can measure the velocity of the orbiting body and use that to calculate the mass M and compare that to the sum of the masses of the visible stars. There is an observational mismatch. This leads you to one of three conclusions: a) Newtonian gravity is grossly wrong. (GR says it is a little wrong but not as much as the mismatch.) b) There is mass other than the visible mass M obtained by counting stars and adding them up. This has to *increase* the value of M to account for the larger v. In other words, it is positive mass. Because it is not observable by counting stars and dust, it is called "dark" matter. c) There is some other force present that acts out the outer bodies preferentially for some reason, and due to some other, yet undiscovered agent. All three have been tried, making theoretical models, developing them enough to do some detailed calculations, and comparing the results of those calculations with measurements. The best fit so far to all data seems to be (b). Option (c) seems to match too poorly to data to be viable. There are some hold-outs that are still pursuing (a). Then, of course, there's you. PD > Thus, if you can count the stars that make up M then you should be able > to calculate what the velocity v of the orbiting body is and compare [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > preferentially for some reason, and due to some other, yet undiscovered > agent. > All three have been tried, making theoretical models, developing them > enough to do some detailed calculations, and comparing the results of > those calculations with measurements. The best fit so far to all data > seems to be (b). Option (c) seems to match too poorly to data to be > viable. There are some hold-outs that are still pursuing (a). > Then, of course, there's you. > PD Did this idea of any merit? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9655619/ I stumbled upon it while doing web search. It is a news item, and it is impossible to judge the scientific merits of something based on a news item. I have not found anything more substantial about their hypothesis. I also have not looked very hard either. :) Stephen > > Thus, if you can count the stars that make up M then you should be able > > to calculate what the velocity v of the orbiting body is and compare [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Stephen Why are you asking PD? He's a King Stooge, and that certifies he doesn't know his a.s from a black hole. Didn't you read his crapola above? Oh, that's right, you don't read well. > Why are you asking PD? He's a King Stooge, and that certifies > he doesn't know his a.s from a black hole. Didn't you read his > crapola above? Oh, that's right, you don't read well. TomGee's Rhetorical Strategies: Item 6: TomGee responds to his meaker understanding of what he reads with "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If that were true, then how do you explain..." [question follows] [Answer given] TomGee responds: "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard." It's like a reflex. He can't help it, really. PD >> Why are you asking PD? He's a King Stooge, and that certifies >> he doesn't know his a.s from a black hole. Didn't you read his [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It's like a reflex. He can't help it, really.  Signature"I don't claim to know what I'm talking about" - tomgee; 10 May 2006 "I don't know that much math." - tomgee; 2 April 2006 Dear stephen: ... > Did this idea of any merit? > http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9655619/ http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0507619 ... the paper http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-97876.html ... a blow by blow analysis. David A. Smith "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote: > Dear stephen: > ... >> Did this idea of any merit? >> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9655619/ > http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0507619 > ... the paper > http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-97876.html > ... a blow by blow analysis. > David A. Smith Thanks again. Stephen > > Wait now. 1st you say, "...gravitate like ordinary matter." Next > > you call it "gravitational mass", which does not equate to the [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > PD Be sure to let us know when you start counting stars, PD - that way we won't be wondering where you're gone off to. [...] > But that was based only on the notion that neutrinos had some mass. It > is only recently they have been shown to have some mass but not until > and unless they interact w/a tau neutrino. Where is the source for that info? Based on Superkamiokande, which verified that neutrinos could have mass, the neutrinos don't have to interact with anything to "indicate mass". > That means they are massless until they are transformed into particles > having mass and energy, just like my model predicted. Model, what model? Where is it published? [...] > Wait now. 1st you say, "...gravitate like ordinary matter." Next you > call it "gravitational mass", which does not equate to the same thing. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > DM, so we can only guess it has gravitational attraction like visible > objects have. That's the whole point! You can't see them, because they don't shine, but they have gravity, thus mass and thus are matter. The gravity is acting on things that do shine. - Think of it this way: Newton's Second Law of Motion says that the motion doesn't change unless a force is applied. So if the motion of a shining star changes, there should be a force on it, even if you can't see the thing causing the force. If the force is not electro-magnetism, weak or strong force, then what's left? Of course gravity. Thus there is some thing you can't see (dark) that is generating some gravity and thus has mass (matter). Hence it's dark matter; whatever dark matter turns out to be. > Chew on this: How can additional gravitational attraction cause the > observed effects? Oh, sure, more attraction force will help keep Gravity is a force. Force changes the motion of the thing it interacts with. Duh! > galaxies together better, yes. But how does that explain the effect > where the outer orbiting bodies move faster than can be expected? And Because they are *not* moving slower. Duh! > also, if DM is everywhere RM is not, how does it know what to attract What is RM? > and what not to attract? Same way gravity knows what to attract. Duh! > It is quite possible that instead of gravitational attractive forces, > they are gravitational repulsive forces. Since DM appears 2b quite If there are gravitational repulsive forces, you will need to show how that happens. Negative mass is not defined since "matter holes" don't really have any physical meaning. > opposite to RM, why should we not think that its gravita- tional force - I'll have to take your word on that since I don't know what you mean by "RM". [...] > Or, why cannot it be some force other than gravitational? It could be Because it would show up in the spectra of the shining star we could see. > just "interactional", to coin a word, and not gravita- tional at all. Gravity is interactional. So what's your point? [...] > At this point, we only surmise the forces to be gravitational, and it > may indeed turn out that way. But at this point, I do not see all the > questions being answered by the same attractive force of RM gravitation, > while my model proposes that it is not just the gravitational forces > that change the universe second-by-second, but also the various types of > interactions that go on between the stuff of the universe. I am open to other ideas as long as they are well-defined and consistent with observation. However, just saying that accepted ideas are wrong despite their consistency with observed fact, is like saying UFOs must exist because the government is hiding them. Signature// The TimeLord says: // Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us! > [...] > > But that was based only on the notion that neutrinos had some mass. It [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > which verified that neutrinos could have mass, the neutrinos > don't have to interact with anything to "indicate mass". I've read several accounts about what was observed in the Big Pool in '98, but the more recent one was by a ref. from SWormly in one of his Physics News posts. The one I refer to more often is at http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~jgl/nuosc_story.html. It's very long, but it seems to cover quite a lot. I have not read anywhere that the neuts have to interact with anything, that I can recall. That is my own opinion. The results are based on the apparent loss of about 1/2 the number of neuts that fall from overhead versus the number from the far side of the earth. Also, the experiment suggests that earlier claims of "oscillations" having been observed did have some basis in fact, as the effect of that in this case was deemed consistent with related data. Such motions are considered confirmation that neuts have mass. That in itself is a great discovery, but it was also found that only certain neuts oscillate, and that they do not do that all the time. It seems that when it happens, Cherenkov radiation occurs. Nothing better than a light flash to tell you something just happened, eh? Here's where it gets complicated, I think. Neuts do not move as fast as light does in the vacuum of space, but they are not restricted by matter the way light is, so in the case where light and neuts are moving in water, light only goes at 3/4 its regular speed in vacuum, which shows that the speed of light is affected by matter. On the other hand, neuts are not affected by matter, and so in water they can achieve speeds that exceed the speed of the light In The Water. At the instant that happens, the Cherenkov radiation occurs. Whether or not that happens when there is no light in the same water, I don't know. One of the neut flavors interacts with another flavor, and that results in the oscillations, indicating that mass has been created. I would think that the radiation is to be expected, as my model has predicted the process where photon radiation is created from DM and em waves. When a DM particle is struck by an em wave, some energy is imparted to the DM particle, and that transfer of energy transforms the DM particle into a real matter (RM) particle that flashes briefly very similar to the Cherenkov radiation process. The difference is that the neuts do not interact with each other as often as the em waves interact with the DM particles, and so their radiation is seen rarely compared to the rated of collisions of em waves with DM particle. I would say that neutrinos are DM particles just like photons are before they become transformed into visible light. In my model, the cause for what seems to be varying rates of collisions between em waves and DM particles is not well- developed as yet, but I'm working on that too. > > That means they are massless until they are transformed into particles > > having mass and energy, just like my model predicted. > > Model, what model? Where is it published? It is self-published but it is not available on a website. For readers of these ngs who show an interest in reading it and then discussing it here in these ngs, I can email it for free. I can snailmail a copy on a 3.25" floppy disk for $4.95USD, or mail a printed copy for $9.95USD. Or, anyone can search my posts from as far back as 1996 to find the many tidbits of my model that I have posted here. > [...] > > Wait now. 1st you say, "...gravitate like ordinary matter." Next you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That's the whole point! You can't see them, because they don't > shine, but they have gravity, thus mass and thus are matter. We don't know that for sure yet, and to jump to that conclusion is not wise, as there could be other processes involved we do not yet know about. That is one possibility, yes, but it is not the only one. > The gravity is acting on things that do shine. - Think of it > this way: Newton's Second Law of Motion says that the motion [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that is generating some gravity and thus has mass (matter). > Hence it's dark matter; whatever dark matter turns out to be. But there is the possibility it can be something other than gravity as we know it. It may be repulsive instead of attractive, and if you say it is attractive and explains the effects to your satisfac- tion, and later it is not attractive, you will have been wrong to be so satisfied. Or, it could be something else other than gravitational force, as I mention below. > > Chew on this: How can additional gravitational attraction cause the > > observed effects? Oh, sure, more attraction force will help keep > > Gravity is a force. Force changes the motion of the thing it > interacts with. Duh! But gravitation is only one of the four fundamental forces. Other forces could work to produce gravitation-like effects, duh! > > galaxies together better, yes. But how does that explain the effect > > where the outer orbiting bodies move faster than can be expected? And > > Because they are *not* moving slower. Duh! Yeah, right: Duh! > > also, if DM is everywhere RM is not, how does it know what to attract > > What is RM? My acronym for real matter. > > and what not to attract? > > Same way gravity knows what to attract. Duh! Gravity knows to attract RM only, duh! > > It is quite possible that instead of gravitational attractive forces, > > they are gravitational repulsive forces. Since DM appears 2b quite > > If there are gravitational repulsive forces, you will need to > show how that happens. Negative mass is not defined since "matter > holes" don't really have any physical meaning. Both Dirac and Gamow defined them well enough for me. Now, once you show me how gravity attracts, I'll be glad to show you how it may repulse. > > opposite to RM, why should we not think that its gravita- tional force - > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Because it would show up in the spectra of the shining star we > could see. Why would it? What other forces show up in the light spectrum? > > just "interactional", to coin a word, and not gravita- tional at all. > > Gravity is interactional. So what's your point? All forces are interactional, not just gravitational forces, that's why I excluded them from my statement above, to make my point. > [...] > > At this point, we only surmise the forces to be gravitational, and it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is like saying UFOs must exist because the government is hiding > them. It is a most consistent feature of history that 99 percent or more of "accepted ideas" have been found to be wrong. The U. no longer revolves around us, we can no longer fall off the edge of the world, there are no turtles holding us up, there is no martian invasion of earth, etc., etc. > It is a most consistent feature of history that 99 percent or more > of "accepted ideas" have been found to be wrong. It is a consistent feature of the internet that 87.43% of the statistics you find people quoting are made up, and wrong. Including this one. - Randy > Also, to say it is call "dark" because it does not > radiate is another phony explanation, since blackbodies do > not radiate either, they only absorb radiation. Good grief. What is the second word in the phrase "blackbody radiation", Tom? For bonus points, the first great success of Planck's quantum theory was a correct prediction of the radiation from what kind of object? - Randy [...] > Yes, they are. DM is not dark at all, so that term used to describe it > or even define it is clearly a misnomer no matter how hard you wish upon > a star that it isn't. In fact, DM can be more accurately described as > invisible matter because we can see right through it, obviously. Through it? How do you know? Generally stars don't resolve below the Raleigh limit anyway in a telescope. So how would you be able to tell that dark matter is transparent? > Physics is not all that precise in term-usage as you once imagined, eh? That statement is moot. [...] > We assume it has gravitational mass, based on the observed effects, but > that conclusion is only one among others that are possible; therefore, If dark matter is not interacting with the stars gravitationally, then what is the underlying force? It can't be electromagnetic, because that force would be evidenced in the spectra (Zeeman splitting and/or synchrotron radiation). It can't be weak force, since that only involves nuclear decay. It can't be the strong force, since that only involves the nuclei. So what's left if it's not gravity? > it is not a fact yet, as you assert. Also, to say it is call "dark" > because it does not radiate is another phony explanation, since > blackbodies do not radiate either, they only absorb radiation. For such Blackbodies do radiate. Example = an incandescent light bulb (3000 degK black-body radiation). Another example = the sun (5600 degK black-body radiation). Blackbodies do not absorb radiation. > absorption, they must have at least some gravitational attraction, I That is completely non-sensical. Have you even taken a physics course? > would guess, and to have that requires real matter having positive > energy. Would it have politically improper to call it "black matter" > instead? Obviously, the most appropriate term would have been > "Invisible Matter", or, IM. Irrelevant. > The closest thing to a blackbody I can think of is a black hole, which Bull. Blackbodies and black holes are completely different. Just look at their definitions in any basic astronomy book. [...] It's clear you don't know about this. You should be posting this to alt.sci.physics.new-theories, which is an NG devoted to crank ideas. Signature// The TimeLord says: // Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us! > [...] > > Yes, they are. DM is not dark at all, so that term used to describe it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > below the Raleigh limit anyway in a telescope. So how would > you be able to tell that dark matter is transparent? Because we can see through it, just like we see through light, apparently. We are talking about two states: visible and invisible. Those researching DM state today state that it is invisible and can only be detected by its observed effects. We can see "through" light, as explained in my model, because we only see one layer of it at a time, and each layer gives us so much information that changes with succeeding em waves, that we see the universe similar to the way we see movies as if they are real people up on the screens. So nothing is really trans- parent to us, it just seems that way. We cannot see beyond our retinal screens, we can see only the light that strikes them wave by innumerable wave. It appears to us that space is empty between objects, so if DM exists, we do not "see" it the same way we do not "see" light. They are two different things that appear to be transparent to our eyes, but for different reasons. Light is energy as we know it, but DM is not, since it seems to exist even where there is no light. Recent reports show that it is everywhere objects are not. > > Physics is not all that precise in term-usage as you once imagined, eh? > > That statement is moot. Yes, it is. Sorry. > > We assume it has gravitational mass, based on the observed effects, but > > that conclusion is only one among others that are possible; therefore, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > because that force would be evidenced in the spectra (Zeeman > splitting and/or synchrotron radiation). Yes, I agree that it would be evidenced in the spectra, but how do we know it is not? The Cherenkov radiation is evidence of the creation of mass, and my model shows the creation of light in a very similar way, and perhaps if we looked for it we might find in the interactions between between other energy exchanges such effects that may not create matter but only act to influence it in other ways. Perhaps I'm just trying to stay out of the same box everyone seems to have lept into in the excitement of new discoveries. > It can't be weak force, > since that only involves nuclear decay. It can't be the strong [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (3000 degK black-body radiation). Another example = the sun > (5600 degK black-body radiation). Yes, of course blackbodies radiate. I was wrong about all that. It was a bad day for me and I had a hard time concen- trating on what I was doing. I do not know enough about blackbodies to have tried to use them as an example, and I should have known better. SNIP > > The closest thing to a blackbody I can think of is a black hole, which > > Bull. Blackbodies and black holes are completely different. > Just look at their definitions in any basic astronomy book. That does show how little I know about blackbodies. Sorry. > It's clear you don't know about this. You should be posting this > to alt.sci.physics.new-theories, which is an NG devoted to crank > ideas. I am grateful you said no more than that. Others would not be so lenient. As I've said before, I am just as fallible as others, esp. when I try to respond to everyone in a single day. I am a skeptic, but I'm not a pessimist, and tomorrow is another day! > > [...] > > > Yes, they are. DM is not dark at all, so that term used to describe it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > Because we can see through it, Why do you think that? There is nothing about the dark matter hypothesis that insists it has to be somewhere that we can see a star through it. The statements about "dark matter is everywhere shiny stuff is not" come from you, not from anyone actually thinking about where dark matter is and how much of it there is. Brown dwarfs and neutron stars sitting NEXT TO, not IN FRONT OF other stars are dark matter candidates. - Randy >> [...] >> > Yes, they are. DM is not dark at all, so that term used to describe [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > Because we can see through it, just like we see through light, apparently. What's the evidence that we can see through it? > We are talking about two states: visible and invisible. Those > researching DM state today state that it is invisible and can only be > detected by its observed effects. Which is what I said. > We can see "through" light, as explained in my model, because we only see I'm not sure that seeing through light even makes any sense. Nevertheless, I don't know your model. Have you submitted a paper or have a URL you can share? [...] > It appears to us that space is empty between objects, so if DM exists, The reason that space appears empty is because it is there are so few small particles (1 per cubic meter approx.) and even fewer larger objects in the space between galaxies. However, we can tell from the behavior of light if there are unseen objects/particles between us and stars/galaxies. An example of this is the North American Nebula in Cygnus or the Horsehead Nebula in Orion. The starlight behind the dust is dimmed and reddened by the dust. In some dust clouds there even seems to be evidence of polarization of the starlight that comes through it. > we do not "see" it the same way we do not "see" light. They are two > different things that appear to be transparent to our eyes, but for > different reasons. Light is energy as we know it, but DM is not, since > it seems to exist even where there is no light. Recent reports show > that it is everywhere objects are not. Which reports would that be? If there are no objects to reveal the dark matter, then how do we know it's there? Remember that the fundamental definition of dark matter is that it is not directly seen, but that it exerts a force on another *object*. >> > Physics is not all that precise in term-usage as you once imagined, >> > eh? >> >> That statement is moot. >> > Yes, it is. Sorry. Name something where physics is imprecise. >> > We assume it has gravitational mass, based on the observed effects, >> > but that conclusion is only one among others that are possible; [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yes, I agree that it would be evidenced in the spectra, but how do we > know it is not? The Cherenkov radiation is evidence of the creation of If we don't know that the evidence is there then how would we know that it is there? I know this question sounds a bit stupid, but it goes to the heart of why observable data is so important. If it's not observed, then it is not really important for practical application. > mass, and my model shows the creation of light in a very similar way, No. Cherenkov radiation is the evidence that particles are going faster than the speed of light in a particular medium. Example is electrons in a nuclear reactor going faster than c/1.33. If you are lookin for mass creation, then the best bet is to look for absorbtion lines corresponding to that mass creation. An example would be the 511 keV line for electron-positron events. If your model shows Cherenkov radiation for mass creation, then it is faulty, since it does not square with observation. [...] >> > it is not a fact yet, as you assert. Also, to say it is call "dark" >> > because it does not radiate is another phony explanation, since [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > doing. I do not know enough about blackbodies to have tried to use them > as an example, and I should have known better. No problem. [...] >> Bull. Blackbodies and black holes are completely different. Just look >> at their definitions in any basic astronomy book. >> > That does show how little I know about blackbodies. Sorry. No problem. >> It's clear you don't know about this. You should be posting this to >> alt.sci.physics.new-theories, which is an NG devoted to crank ideas. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > respond to everyone in a single day. I am a skeptic, but I'm not a > pessimist, and tomorrow is another day! [smile] No problem. I kind of view myself as an intellectual adventurer too, even though I have degrees in physics and math. Signature// The TimeLord says: // Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us! > >> [...] > >> > Yes, they are. DM is not dark at all, so that term used to describe [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Which is what I said. Then why ask for the evidence if you already knew what it was? > > We can see "through" light, as explained in my model, because we only see > > I'm not sure that seeing through light even makes any > sense. Right. Note that my "through" is in quotes, meaning it appears that way. I have explained that we really do not see through it, since our eyes do not project any- thing outwardly. > Nevertheless, I don't know your model. Have you > submitted a paper or have a URL you can share? I already responded to that question from you in this same thread. I have no URL but I can email you the free current version, which I am revising at this time, under your agreement that you will respond to it in these physics ngs, just as you are doing now. Email me your email address at typropress@yahoo.com. > > It appears to us that space is empty between objects, so if DM exists, > > The reason that space appears empty is because it is > there are so few small particles (1 per cubic meter approx.) > and even fewer larger objects in the space between galaxies. I'm sure that is one explanation for it, yes, but that is not the only explanation. > However, we can tell from the behavior of light if there are > unseen objects/particles between us and stars/galaxies. An [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the fundamental definition of dark matter is that it is not > directly seen, but that it exerts a force on another *object*. Haven't you answered your own question, then? > >> > Physics is not all that precise in term-usage as you once imagined, > >> > eh? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Name something where physics is imprecise. In naming invisible matter "dark matter". > >> > We assume it has gravitational mass, based on the observed effects, > >> > but that conclusion is only one among others that are possible; [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If it's not observed, then it is not really important for > practical application. I agree it may sound that way, but I don't think it is. What I meant is that C-radiation is emr, which is part of the light spectrum, and it is visible as flashes of light when it occurs, therefore, that is the evidence that you claim is not seen. I am arguing that it is seen when the muon neutrino interacts with the tau neutrino and begins to oscillate. > > mass, and my model shows the creation of light in a very similar way, > > No. Cherenkov radiation is the evidence that particles are going > faster than the speed of light in a particular medium. Yes, but it is a one-time event, similar to a sonic boom, that occurs when the neuts first exceed c. > Example is > electrons in a nuclear reactor going faster than c/1.33. If you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If your model shows Cherenkov radiation for mass creation, then > it is faulty, since it does not square with observation. As I understand it, that is the explanation for the creation of the mass in a neutrino. There can be no oscillations until and unless there is mass, and it appears that oscillations occur only when a muon interacts with a tau, which is when the C-radiations occur. That is my own conclusion, but I don't see where it conflicts with observation. > >> > it is not a fact yet, as you assert. Also, to say it is call "dark" > >> > because it does not radiate is another phony explanation, since [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > // The TimeLord says: > // Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us! > >> [...] > >> > Yes, they are. DM is not dark at all, so that term used to describe [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > the fundamental definition of dark matter is that it is not > directly seen, but that it exerts a force on another *object*. There is a lot on the 'net about DM experiments. The reports I refer to are those from CFHT in Hawaii: www.cfht.hawaii.edu/news/lensing/ The 2000 report tells you how they're trying to measure it, and the newer reports bring you up to date on their progress. I contend that DM appears to be everywhere RM is not, based on the 2003 report that clearly leaves open that question. They acknowledge that the density of DM appears to vary widely and that the areas where galaxies are located seem to be the most dense, such that it seems DM "filaments" connect the galaxies. They also acknowledge that the areas that seem empty appear that way due to the distances involved and the focal quality of the camera. I think the calculations cannot be so fine as to detect the lensing effects on the areas where DM is not as dense, thus giving the impression that those areas are empty of DM. len SNIP > > We assume it has gravitational mass, based on the observed effects, but > > that conclusion is only one among others that are possible; therefore, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Blackbodies do not absorb radiation. Not so. That's false. SNIP > > The closest thing to a blackbody I can think of is a black hole, which > > Bull. Blackbodies and black holes are completely different. > Just look at their definitions in any basic astronomy book. False again. They have some startling similarities between them, as shown below. > It's clear you don't know about this. You should be posting this > to alt.sci.physics.new-theories, which is an NG devoted to crank [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > // The TimeLord says: > // Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us! As I said, I should not have been comparing BBs and BHs because I did not know enough about BHs. But I did have some time to look up something about it this weekend, and below is what I found: "The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite was launched on November 18, 1989, to study the weak cosmic background radiation left over from the beginning of the universe. COBE instruments, operating in a near- polar orbit some 900 kilometers (558 mi.) above the earth, found that the radiation fit the emanations expected from a so-called black body (a perfect absorber and emitter of radiation) to better than 1 percent."(Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.) So you were wrong about more than just one thing. I did not say BBs are the same as BHs, I just compared their similaries based on what I remember but forgot that all real matter must radiate because it has temperature. I was thinking of BBs as ideal creations and it has not been too long ago that we became aware that all bodies must radiate, even BHs, so apparently due to my age, my brain did not internalize that tidbit of info deep enough for me to recall it without first having to refresh my memory. > > Bull. Blackbodies and black holes are completely different. > > Just look at their definitions in any basic astronomy book. > > > False again. They have some startling similarities between > them, as shown below. Your quote is about the blackbody radiation known as the cosmic background. There is nothing there about black holes. > "The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite was > launched on November 18, 1989, to study the weak [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft > Corporation. All rights reserved.) Yes, the famous cosmic background is blackbody radiation characteristic of a blackbody at about 2.7 K. So where's the part that says this has some similarity to black holes? - Randy > > > Bull. Blackbodies and black holes are completely different. > > > Just look at their definitions in any basic astronomy book. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > So where's the part that says this has some similarity > to black holes? Since black bodies do not exist, the cbr cannot be attributed to them, can it? I mean, they can't be talking about the cbr being from a black body, can they? What is accepted as not an ideal body but one that more likely exists, is a black hole. I believe one has been discovered in our own galaxy. The closest thing to a blackbody is a black hole, AFAIK. The BBT proposes that the universe exploded from what has been a "singularity", which is immediately disclaimed as being, "whatever that is...." Some are willing to go out a little on a limb and say that a singularity could be - or could have been - the collapse of a star or galaxy that somehow ended up sucking up whole galaxies and eventually an entire universe. Some refuse to talk about that, saying that we cannot talk about what was before the BB because we cannot know anything before than. That's like telling a cat, "don't go looking around in the pantry because there may be some catnip in there." Of course we have to talk about it! We are no less nosy than any cat! So a singularity has been described tentatively as a mass, probably very large and containing elements that when compressed into a smaller space would act to create a gravitational suction that would grow exponentially as more matter was brought into it. As the suction grew stronger, we can imagine that the extent of it also grew far beyond that expected for its mass density. If this object existed in a universe like ours, there will have been a lot of matter to fuel the process of simultaneous collapse and growth until it reached the limits of compressibility and growth, or until there was no more matter to suck in and that caused it to blow. Now that's the way to tell a fairytale, but even that has problems. If it was mass that was being accumulated, how could the explosion melt it all and then spew it out as primordial soup that after 15 million years the explosion is still increasing? The meltdown could have been part of the explosion, but what caused the melt- down? I suggest that the closest thing we know of to a singularity is a black hole, and while we may never get any closer than that to a singularity - and that is not very close at all - the bh process is similar to that of the conjecture of how a singularity could have formed. So yes, there is no mention of a bh in my quote above, but what do you think they're talking about, a non-existent black body that magically left us with the cbr? Or do you have some better idea of it? > > So where's the part that says this has some similarity > > to black holes? > > > Since black bodies do not exist, The theory of blackbody radiation was developed to explain the observed radiation of blackbodies. That would be hard to observe if they didn't exist. - Randy > > > So where's the part that says this has some similarity > > > to black holes? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > - Randy Poe, you're a real kook to think blackbodies can or do exist. Either that, or you don't know any better. What did they do to you at that physics seminar you claim to have attended? Didn't you sign up for the classes they told you they were offering? > > > > So where's the part that says this has some similarity > > > > to black holes? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > Poe, you're a real kook to think blackbodies can or do exist. Quiz for Tom: Why did Planck develop the quantum theory? What empirical data did he correctly predict using quantum theory? > Either that, or you don't know any better. What did they do > to you at that physics seminar you claim to have attended? Hint for Tom: The fact that I quoted a seminar as a source of a theory of neutrinos as dark matter candidates, does not mean I claim to have attended only one physics seminar in my life. Attendance at the weekly seminars was required before they'd let you eat the cookies :-) > Didn't you sign up for the classes they told you they were > offering? Why don't you go into your voluminous physics background and answer the question about Planck? - Randy > > > > So where's the part that says this has some similarity > > > > to black holes? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > Poe, you're a real kook to think blackbodies can or do exist. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/radiation.html "Generally, blackbody conditions apply when the radiator has very weak interaction with the surrounding environment and can be considered to be in a state of equilibrium....Blackbody radiation corresponds to radiation from bodies in thermal equilibrium." Note to Tom: That thing in the sky called "the Sun" (you may have run across it in your studies) has a blackbody spectrum characteristic of a blackbody at 5800 K. There's a graph of the spectrum of the Sun and other stars (you know about "stars", right?) on that web page. - Randy > > > > > So where's the part that says this has some similarity > > > > > to black holes? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > can be considered to be in a state of equilibrium....Blackbody > radiation corresponds to radiation from bodies in thermal equilibrium." Note that the above refers to when bb conditions apply and to what bb radiation corresponds to, and nowhere does it refer to observed blackbodies. > Note to Tom: That thing in the sky called "the Sun" (you may > have run across it in your studies) has a blackbody spectrum > characteristic of a blackbody at 5800 K. There's a graph of > the spectrum of the Sun and other stars (you know about > "stars", right?) on that web page. Come on, Poe, go back and read up on blackbodies like I had to do. It won't hurt you, honest. And stop believing bbs are anything more than an idealized concept like abs. zero. > > > > > > So where's the part that says this has some similarity > > > > > > to black holes? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > what bb radiation corresponds to, and nowhere does it refer > to observed blackbodies. Well, except that thing in the sky that keeps us warm during daylight hours. And every piece of coal in your charcoal grill. > > Note to Tom: That thing in the sky called "the Sun" (you may > > have run across it in your studies) has a blackbody spectrum [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Come on, Poe, go back and read up on blackbodies like I had > to do. Keep reading. You haven't got the point yet. > It won't hurt you, honest. And stop believing bbs are > anything more than an idealized concept like abs. zero. And what is the ideal, Tom? Is it a thing which doesn't radiate? That's what we're arguing about, right? That "blackbody" means an object which absorbs all, radiates zero? An ideal blackbody radiates an ideal blackbody spectrum. An ideal blackbody at 5800 K radiates a spectrum that looks an awful lot like the spectrum of that warm shiny thing in the sky. Agree or disagree? - Randy > > > > > > > So where's the part that says this has some similarity > > > > > > > to black holes? [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Agree or disagree? Agree or disagree, Tom? - Randy > > > > > > > > So where's the part that says this has some similarity > > > > > > > > to black holes? [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Agree or disagree, Tom? Randy, you continue to labor under a miscomprehension even after I have told you that a blackbody is an ideal concept, and ever after I have pointed out to you that the quote you used to support your contention that blackbodies exist clearly does not refer to blackbodies themselves but to bb conditions and radiation. The reason that a bb is an idealized concept is because it requires complete absorp- tion of all light that falls onto it without the bb emitting any radiation at all. Here are two refs. I have that may help you to understand: "Blackbody, in theoretical physics, an idealized object that absorbs all the radiation that strikes its surface, without reflecting any of the radiation or emitting any of its own. No such object is known to exist, although a surface consisting of carbon black may absorb all but about 3 percent of incident radiation. In theory, a blackbody is therefore also a perfect emitter of radiation, and at any specific temperature it would emit the maximum amount of energy available from a radiating body, at any wavelength, through temperature alone. It was through the failure of attempts to calculate ideal blackbody radiation in terms of classical physics that the basic concepts of quantum mechanics were first developed. See Boltzmann, Ludwig; Quantum Theory. see also Quantum Theory emission of radiation laws involving continuous spectrum research Stefan-Boltzmann law" [Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.] "An object that absorbs all the radiation incident upon it has an emissivity equal to 1 and is called a blackbody. [It]...is also an ideal radiator. The concept...is important because the charac- teristics of the radiation emitted by such an object can be calculated theoretically. Materials such as black velvet come close to being ideal blackbodies." (Paul A. Tipler, 'Physics For Scientists and Engineers', Worth Publishers, New York, NY,1991, 531) I would add that it remains an idealized concept because any- thing having temperature must radiate. The original bb did not radiate, but since it was found later that is not possible, such a bb cannot exist as other than an ideal concept. Today, it is accepted that a bb must also radiate and that the radiation it emits can be used to calculate its temperature. Note that modern physicists still hedge on the concept such that they lead others to think ideal bbs do exist, because they toss the concept around as if anything that absorbs light is a bb. Well, if that is so, then a black hole is also a bb, no? Is black velvet more of an ideal bb than a bh? > > > > > > > > > So where's the part that says this has some similarity > > > > > > > > > to black holes? [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > even after I have told you that a blackbody is an ideal > concept I agree. And I ask you the characteristics of that ideal. Does it radiate or not? >, and ever after I have pointed out to you that the > quote you used to support your contention that blackbodies [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tion of all light that falls onto it without the bb emitting any > radiation at all. OK, in other words, you believe that an ideal blackbody does not radiate. You are incorrect. Let's examine the references you think support your misconception. > "Blackbody, in theoretical physics, an idealized object that > absorbs all the radiation that strikes its surface, without > reflecting any of the radiation or emitting any of its own. I see what's confusing you. "Emitting any of its own". Does that mean it emits no radiation at all? No. Read on. > No > such object is known to exist, although a surface consisting > of carbon black may absorb all but about 3 percent of incident > radiation. In theory, a blackbody is therefore also a perfect > emitter of radiation, You will note that here it says an ideal blackbody is an emitter of radiation. > and at any specific temperature it would > emit the maximum amount of energy available from a radiating > body, at any wavelength, through temperature alone. You see again that it not only emits energy, but emits a MAXIMAL amount of energy. > It was > through the failure of attempts to calculate ideal blackbody > radiation in terms of classical physics that the basic concepts > of quantum mechanics were first developed. You will note that it is the RADIATION of a blackbody which formed this difficulty. In other words, an ideal blackbody radiates energy as I said. As I also said, Planck's quantum theory explained the observed radiation vs. temperature of a blackbody. If nothing even close to a blackbody had ever been observed, why would physicists think that classical physics had failed them? What is there to compare the theory to, to say "this theory is a failure, this theory is wrong"? Now let's look at your second concept. > "An object that absorbs all the radiation incident upon it has an > emissivity equal to 1 and is called a blackbody. [It]...is also an > ideal radiator. You will note that this idealized blackbody has an EMISSIVITY and is a RADIATOR. > The concept...is important because the charac- > teristics of the radiation emitted by such an object can be > calculated theoretically. You will note that this is talking about radiation EMITTED from an ideal blackbody. > Materials such as black velvet come > close to being ideal blackbodies." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > thing having temperature must radiate. The original bb did not > radiate, What is this "original bb" that did not radiate? Your references all talk about an ideal blackbody that does radiate, that in fact radiates in a very specific temperature-dependent way. - Randy > > > > > > > > > > So where's the part that says this has some similarity > > > > > > > > > > to black holes? [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > I see what's confusing you. "Emitting any of its own". Does > that mean it emits no radiation at all? No. Read on. You're the one confused about that. You think that "without emitting any of its own" means it emits some not its own. If you had read on before responding to the above, you would have read where I refute that claim. > > No > > such object is known to exist, although a surface consisting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You will note that here it says an ideal blackbody is an emitter > of radiation. Did you miss where it states no such object is known to exist? > > and at any specific temperature it would > > emit the maximum amount of energy available from a radiating [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > If nothing even close to a blackbody had ever been observed, > why would physicists think that classical physics had failed them? Why do you argue that nothing close to a bb has ever been seen, when I just quoted that black velvet is close to a bb? And which physicists think classical physics has failed them? > What is there to compare the theory to, to say "this theory is > a failure, this theory is wrong"? I don't understand why you say the bb concept is a failure, unless you have been unable to understand what I have quoted, which clearly states it is useful in determining a bb's temperature. > Now let's look at your second concept. These are not concepts, they are quotes. I did not invent the bb concept. > > "An object that absorbs all the radiation incident upon it has an > > emissivity equal to 1 and is called a blackbody. [It]...is also an > > ideal radiator. > > You will note that this idealized blackbody has an EMISSIVITY > and is a RADIATOR. Of course, that's what I said above. > > The concept...is important because the charac- > > teristics of the radiation emitted by such an object can be > > calculated theoretically. > > You will note that this is talking about radiation EMITTED from an > ideal blackbody. See, you understand that. > > Materials such as black velvet come > > close to being ideal blackbodies." [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > all talk about an ideal blackbody that does radiate, that in fact > radiates in a very specific temperature-dependent way. The original bb concept originally had it that no bb radiates, as Encarta claims. That is what was thought when the bb concept was first proposed. Tipler, OTOH, reports the current view of a bb, which came after Hawking was shown by a student his bhs had to radiate, even though he claimed they did not. If you cannot understand what you read any better than this, it explains why you don't make sense in some of your statements. You seem to be responding to posts sentence-by-sentence, which is not a good thing to do because the questions that develop as you read are often answered later on in the same post, just like in textbooks. You should read the entire post at least once before you begin to respond to any of it. [...] >> > it is not a fact yet, as you assert. Also, to say it is call "dark" >> > because it does not radiate is another phony explanation, since [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > Not so. That's false. I guess I can apologize. Strictly speaking blackbodies themselves are defined as perfect absorbers. However, my point was that blackbody radiation comes from a source that radiates according the rules generating blackbody radiation. [...] > As I said, I should not have been comparing BBs and BHs because I did > not know enough about BHs. But I did have some time to look up [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > tidbit of info deep enough for me to recall it without first having to > refresh my memory. The only thing that I think I could be counted as being wrong on was the technicality of the definition of the blackbody. Nevertheless, I'm actually trying to understand your model, to which you have alluded to. As a side note: Black hole radiation is still a bit controversial. Stephen Hawking came up with a mechanism which theoretically could make it possible, but it has nothing to do with black- body radiation. There are some astrophysicists that tactfully think Stephen Hawking is probably wrong. Personally I don't know. I'm willing to consider it until the issue is resolved completely one way or the other. As another side note: Microsoft Encarta should not be trusted as a source (even though in this case it is correct). Microsoft has a tendency to engineer the truth to conform to political correctness. Example = In the US edition, the first powered flight was done by Americans. In the French edition it was done by the French. (There are other examples of Microsoft engineering the truth for political correctness.) Signature// The TimeLord says: // Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us! > [...] > >> > it is not a fact yet, as you assert. Also, to say it is call "dark" [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > done by the French. (There are other examples of Microsoft > engineering the truth for political correctness.) It may surprise you to know I agree with what you say about Encarta. I have found errors in it and I do not trust it. I did not know about the information you provide above, but I don't doubt it. In fact, I have found that it is better to be as skeptical as possible regardless of the source. Scoundrels abound in all fields of endeavor, not just in politics. > -- > // The TimeLord says: > // Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us! Dear stephen: > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote: > > Dear stephen: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > what I have seen, it looks like 'dark matter' did not > appear until much later. http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/~lrj/obscos/vandenbergh.pdf <QUOTE> Zwicky writes (my translation) : "If this [overdensity] is confirmed we would arrive at the astonishing conclusion that dark matter is present [in Coma] with a much greater density than luminous matter." He continues: "From these considerations it follows that the large velocity dispersion in Coma (and in other clusters of galaxies) represents an unsolved problem." <END QUOTE> Zwicky, F. 1933, Helvetica Phys. Acta, 6, 110 I *think* the list of properties of DM is supposed to have was not finalized till much later. David A. Smith > Dear stephen: >> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote: >> > Dear stephen: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> what I have seen, it looks like 'dark matter' did not >> appear until much later. > http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/~lrj/obscos/vandenbergh.pdf > <QUOTE> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > <END QUOTE> > Zwicky, F. 1933, Helvetica Phys. Acta, 6, 110 > I *think* the list of properties of DM is supposed to have was not > finalized till much later. > David A. Smith Thanks! That also has this related piece of information: Zwicky's use of the words "dunkle (kalte) Materie" might be regarded as the Ãrst reference to cold dark matter, even though this expression was not used exactly in its modern sense. The term cold dark matter, with its modern meaning, was introduced by Bond et al. (1983). Stephen Dear stephen: > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote: > > Dear stephen: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > what I have seen, it looks like 'dark matter' did not > appear until much later. http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/~lrj/obscos/vandenbergh.pdf <QUOTE> Zwicky writes (my translation) : "If this [overdensity] is confirmed we would arrive at the astonishing conclusion that dark matter is present [in Coma] with a much greater density than luminous matter." He continues: "From these considerations it follows that the large velocity dispersion in Coma (and in other clusters of galaxies) represents an unsolved problem." <END QUOTE> Zwicky, F. 1933, Helvetica Phys. Acta, 6, 110 I *think* the list of properties of DM is supposed to have was not finalized till much later. David A. Smith > Dear stephen: SNIP > http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/~lrj/obscos/vandenbergh.pdf > <QUOTE> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I *think* the list of properties of DM is supposed to have was not > finalized till much later. Since there are still loose ends, why do you say the list has been finalized? There is still much supposition as to the properties of DM, and I see no theory to explain the processes involved, other than that of my model, which currently excludes the possibility of attractive gravitation since massless DM particles cannot contain the +energy required to have an attractive force. It just means "not lit" an average cloud of dust and hydrogen is not visible unless it is lit by a nearby star. Junk science. Chris. >> Dear stephen: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > attractive gravitation since massless DM particles cannot contain > the +energy required to have an attractive force. Dear The Real Chris: ... >> Since there are still loose ends, why do you say >> the list has been finalized? There is still much [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> massless DM particles cannot contain the >> +energy required to have an attractive force. > It just means "not lit" an average cloud of dust and > hydrogen is not visible unless it is lit by a nearby > star. The problem is, normal matter has to *not* be located where it can scatter light passing through it. This places it in very special places, impossible places and/or very temporary locations. We are getting the "normal and expected" amount of light from the sources that are held in place by Dark Matter. And closer in, we are getting normal and expected light from those sources too. Dust and hydrogen clouds don't work. > Junk science. I'd like to think so too. The facts are otherwise. David A. Smith The Quantum physics approves, that the " virtual particles " are connected with Vacuum. To which reference frame does the "'dark matter'" concern? If the "'dark matter'" also belongs to Vacuum, so what is the difference between " virtual particles " and "'particles of dark matter'" ? ========================= If you see a Lion in a cage with an inscription " Cat ", do not believe your eyes. Look below for enlightenment. The pioneer anolomy is the same. Chris. > Dear The Real Chris: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > David A. Smith Galactic Rotation The first thing to calculate before computing the distribution of galactic rotation is the distribution of mass in the galaxy. As a first approximation, I will take the galaxy to be a central point mass (the black hole) of 10 million solar masses and a flat disk of uniformly distributed matter (stars) of 1 solar mass per cubic light year. The disk will have a diameter of 10,000 light years and the thickness of 3 light years which I shall take as a disk of zero thickness to start off with. I will use Newtonian mechanics throughout with a conventional value of the gravitational constant. Point P is R Km from the hub, the hub is M Kg and the element dR has mass rhodR where rho is the mass per cubic Km. So the force on the element is the sum of all the gravitational pulls from all the other elements. Taking another arbitary point p, r Km from the Hub and at an angle theta from P, the total force on P is : F=GrhodRM/R^2+SUM(GrhodRrhodr/((R-rcos(theta))^2+(rSin(theta))^2)) [For all valid values of R and r] This force is proportional to the velocity of the star at this point so the velocity distribition can be calculated from this equation. The results show a region of Keplerian motion distribution merging into a region of rigid rotation like a solid disk then a further region of Keplerian motion distribution. This might explain the shape of the spiral arms and their winding up. These seem to be the remains of jets from the central black hole. Without the original existence of a central black hole the accretion disk that forms the rest of the galaxy cannot form. There was a programming error in the previous calculation so here are the new results and calculations The results At Radius 1 The velocity is 3.6389359455973 At Radius 101 The velocity is 1.52431631615868 At Radius 201 The velocity is 1.55069372627264 At Radius 301 The velocity is 1.60870229555325 At Radius 401 The velocity is 1.67724209061256 At Radius 501 The velocity is 1.7496636322689 At Radius 601 The velocity is 1.82318147441577 At Radius 701 The velocity is 1.89647424223648 At Radius 801 The velocity is 1.96887951991093 At Radius 901 The velocity is 2.04006314709391 At Radius 1001 The velocity is 2.10986529983757 At Radius 1101 The velocity is 2.17822253859875 At Radius 1201 The velocity is 2.24512588170758 At Radius 1301 The velocity is 2.31059724104851 At Radius 1401 The velocity is 2.37467574471415 At Radius 1501 The velocity is 2.43740961568833 At Radius 1601 The velocity is 2.49885127988138 At Radius 1701 The velocity is 2.55905440181375 At Radius 1801 The velocity is 2.61807209493829 At Radius |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message