Slashdot Mirror
Possible Dark Matter Signs At the Core
Scientific American has a piece on speculation that dark matter may be behind diffuse radiation in the galactic center. Beginning in 2003, researchers led by Douglas Finkbeiner noticed a curious excess of microwave radiation in the WMAP data, after all known sources of such radiation were accounted for. Data from NASA's Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope resulted in a similar anomaly in gamma rays. "A paper posted to the physics preprint Web site arXiv.org on October 26 and submitted to the Astrophysical Journal points to a possible signature of dark matter in the Milky Way, although the study's authors are careful to keep their observations empirical and table such speculation... In the new paper [the researchers] describe the Fermi gamma-ray haze and make the claim that it confirms the synchrotron origin of the WMAP microwave haze. And as with the microwave haze, the authors argue that the electrons responsible for the gamma-ray haze appear to originate from an unknown astrophysical process. ... 'We are absolutely in the process of exploring the Fermi haze in the context of dark matter physics,' [one of them] says."
Of course it's dark matter in the middle
The difference is that dark matter and dark energy can be tested for in various ways; a deity can't be.
When physicists can't explain something they may use a place holder at times but there's no chance of just giving up like the "god did it" explanation does.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
"god did it" is a little different from, "there seems to be a source of gravitational attraction, we're not sure what it is, but it seems distinct from 'regular' matter; let's call it 'dark matter' while we continue to investigate."
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
All slashdot dupes come from the dark matter.
Table-ized A.I.
CAPTAIN KIRK: Spock, come in here, can you make sense of these readings?
SPOCK: Captain, it appears that dark matter may be behind diffuse radiation in the galactic center.
CAPTAIN KIRK: It's the most magnificent thing I've ever seen!
SPOCK: It is...fascinating.
CAPTAIN KIRK: But why would diffuse radiation need a starship?
DR. MCCOY: Come on over here, boys! This galactic dick ain't gonna suck itself!
Thanks for reading and supporting fan fiction.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Purple haze all in my eyes Don't know if it's day or night You've got me blowin, blowin my mind Is it tomorrow or just the end of time? - Jimi Hendrix
I think humanity is at a pretty shit state when one hopes that a statement is a troll rather than sincere opinion
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
Like "gravity", dark matter is the name given to a phenomenon or set of phenomena that appear related, not necessarily an actual thing or force. We don't know what gravity actually "is" under the hood; we only know what it does. Gravity is a model that explains observations nicely. But the actual workings behind it are still elusive. We've yet to successfully break it down into sub-mechanisms or sub-models, like knowing that cars move and the patterns of their movements, but not why they move.
Dark matter may actually be many different forces or causes, and perhaps in the future may be split up or re-assigned to other "forces" (models). At this point in time it's merely a guess that it's all one thing. Gravity may also turn out to be multiple things that only appear to be one in the same from our limited perspective and observations. We have to peel the onion one layer at a time, and may never reach the final center layer (if there is such a thing).
Table-ized A.I.
Can't explain something, Dark Matter is the reason! Can't find a cause, Dark Matter is it!
This is completely incorrect. This work is the result of looking for Dark Matter. Dark Matter is the best explanation for galactic rotation curves and the cosmic microwave background. Depending on what the Dark Matter is it may annihilate with itself and produce, amongst other things, electron-positron pairs. In fact the paper is really a very beautiful and elegant bit of work since the first bit of evidence which lead to this comes from the background 'noise' of one of the major pieces of evidence for Dark Matter - the WMAP data! As such, far from noticing something and then attributing it to Dark Matter, this is actively looking for something that suggests evidence for Dark Matter. True the evidence does not show that it HAS to be Dark Matter but if you cannot attribute it to anything else which is known and you have models which suggest that Dark Matter might produce such a signal it is very interesting.
Arkani-Hamed et al have a model which may explain this and which, if correct, predicts jets of leptons (electrons or muons) at the LHC. This is actually one of the things which my colleagues and I are looking for on the ATLAS Experiment. If we do observe them then this will be further evidence for Dark Matter and not a "oh, something else we cannot explain and put down to Dark Matter". Until we have enough bits of evidence that, combined, show that Dark Matter is the only possible cause there will always be some doubt but that should not be construed as flailing around and using Dark Matter to explain every observation that is inexplicable. Indeed, the fact that we are using Dark Matter models to suggest observations and experiments to perform and then finding that these return "inexplicable" results is very, very interesting!
There appears to be something out there that interacts gravitationally with normal matter but does not glow or reflect light. Doesn't glow:-> dark. Has gravity: -> matter. Therefor we call it "dark matter", for now.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Why do we keep invoking "dark matter" to explain that which is adequately explained by the massive black hole at the center of this and almost every other galaxy?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
...like I like my cosmological hypotheses. Dark, with a nice distribution of heat.
The difference is that dark matter and dark energy can be tested for in various ways; a deity can't be. When physicists can't explain something they may use a place holder at times but there's no chance of just giving up like the "god did it" explanation does.
It's worth echoing that. Even the really iffy, amorphous parts of physics like superstring theory will eventually have empirical evidence shaping (and perhaps falsifying) it. OTOH, we have no idea whether it is even possible to test the theory of "God exists."
You're absolutely right. I therefore suggest we call it "Colorless Jesus Powder", in accordance with our new invisible overlord.
I record my sleeptalking
Actually, they try to avoid the subject of dark matter. It is simply an unknown astrophysical phenomenon. Since they ran out of other possibilities, one could say that what ever remains, however unlikely is surely the truth (hence said a wise man). However, there are probably other researchers who will be able to further this discovery, determine the cause of the phenomenon and provide a non-darkmatterish explanation...just for your satisfaction of course.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
Clearly, God lives in the FFth dimension. Dimensions numbers are designed to be two byte fields. God never though anyone could ever need to use more than four dimensions.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
That's just not a logical conclusion. It leaves out the much more likely answer that our understanding of the equations of motion is wrong.
So, you take a WHOLE YEAR of Physics in school, and suddenly, you are ready to say with confidence that all the formulas of physics (which, coincidentally, are correct enough to land a robot on Mars and propel a satellite out past the Solar System) are wrong?!?!? Further, you even state that it's MORE LIKELY that they are wrong?
You and your friend were astute enough to notice that you were using overly simplified formulas in your (first year) physics class. You don't think that maybe it's (ahem) more likely that you were just being introduced to the basic concepts, and the formulas were simplified a bit so that students could grasp it? Oooh! ooh! I took a class in this once!
Try really explaining a firewall to somebody sometime - you know, the protocol number, the port number, the IP address, the Mac address - or maybe you don't know, either? Well, many people think they know what a firewall is because they managed to get one to work with the web-based router interface. But how much credence would you give an IT guy who says blithely that setting up firewalls is inherently broken and that we need to rebuild everything, because of flaws he saw in the simplified web-based router interface?
Personally, I think you should pursue physics some more! See what the real formulas are when they start talking about the higher level stuff.... Of course, if you just want to use your 1 year to say "aw, they are all idiots because I took a class!" then so be it.
Just don't expect me to think much of your opinion.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
GOD: I am defrosting my dinner.
Simulations of stars in galaxies are approximations because: />3) newton's equations are indeed incorrect however, Einstein's equations only dominate to a significant degree under unusual conditions.
1) there isn't an equation for an exact solution to any gravitationally bound system containing more than 5 objects.
2) stars in a typical galaxy are not uniform so the simulations must take this into account as a best guess. br
In so far as dark matter is concerned, you are incorrect. Experiments like the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search are attempting to detect dark matter particles directly, we've got neutrino detectors looking for evidence of annihilation events... Particle accelerator experiments attempting to actually synthesize dark matter candidates.. To claim that there isn't a way to test the dark matter hypothesis would be grossly inaccurate.
Disclaimer: Physics isn't my major but I did study quite a bit of it in high school and college.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
First, he was a fictional character. One who would not characterize himself as wise, I think, based on the stories I've read.
Second, that's not actually what he said.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
This is more along the lines of "our equations don't explain the observed motion of galaxies, therefore, there's matter there we can't see or touch."
Wow! I never thought they would do things like that! I would have expected things to go like this:
"our equations don't explain the observed motion of galaxies, therefore, it's reasonable to hypothesize that there's matter there we can't see or touch, let's test it."
And then they'd go and look for evidence or something. Thanks for correcting me!
That's just not a logical conclusion. It leaves out the much more likely answer that our understanding of the equations of motion is wrong.
So all that stuff I heard about MOND was just in my head? Thanks for grounding me in reality!
Most galaxy motion simulations are based on either Newtonian mechanics or "modified Newtonian" mechanics, even though both are known to be wrong. Einstein showed them to be wrong over a hundred years ago!
You're right! It's quite likely that thousands and thousands of astrophysicists have spent decades researching a problem that has such an obvious solution. You're a veritable font of wisdom!
I studied physics at University, and both me and a friend of mine noted during our studies that Physics seems to overuse simplified equations ... Those simple equations are the ones we learned about also. They're wrong. In many practical cases, the error can exceed 30%!
O M G ! - W T F ! Low level physics classes use lots of simplifications? That explains why I can't find massless ropes and frictionless pulleys on E-Bay!
Magic?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I second that, I would even add that God must have F fingers.
Proof: if you want to know the n-th number of pi, you have to calculate all numbers up to n-1 to calculate n. However, in binary, octal, hexadecimal and any base 2^n you can calculate that number independently. So, to know the last "3" of "3.141592653" we need to calculate all numbers before. To know the last "0" of "3.243F6A8885A308D313198A2E0" we do not have to calculate all numbers before it. As we see here, God of course has his shortcuts to omnipotency. So, he has 2^n fingers. The actual number of his fingers must be close to ours, since we were created to his semblance. Having less fingers than us would make him less perfect (a god without thumbs would be plainly absurd), so he must have F.
That's actually not such a bad idea. Maybe we could refocus all of those creation "scientists" on something worthwhile. You know, take their argument and turn it around: "Well, if you proved Colorless Jesus Powder exists then we'd have to believe in God" and then once they do we can switch to "Oh come on, only crazy people didn't believe in Colorless Jesus Powder, to really prove science wrong, you'd need to show exactly how the Jesus Explosion occurred". And so on..
> Evolution is the answer to everything and the answer to nothing at the same
> time.
What is your answer?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Please note I used the symbol "n" in 2 different meaning here. I should have written the "n-th position of pi" and "base 2^b" or something.
The difference is that dark matter and dark energy can be tested for in various ways; a deity can't be.
Well, technically you can test for existence of a deity.... you just can't come back to tell the rest of us about it afterwards.
...rather than the evolution of universe as a whole (one which incorporates physics with chemistry and biology)
Obligatory xkcd: http://www.xkcd.com/435/
Homonyms are fun!
You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
Dark matter explains several things that changing the laws of gravity does not. The rotation curve of galaxies is only one of those observations.
As a simple example, you can describe the rotation curves of galaxies by either including some dark matter or modifying gravity at large scales. You can also explain the configuration of large clusters by including some dark matter or modifying gravity... and including some dark matter. Now which is the more attractive solution?
Yes, when you start out learning physics you start with the basics. Sometimes those same basics are used to do real physics with because they're the only thing that's really practical in a given situation - and they either work very well in that domain or the errors are fairly well characterized. Newton's equations aren't really wrong, they're approximations that perform badly in certain extreme environments. In most of the universe they do just fine.
Nevertheless, there are physicists pursing all promising approaches, and lots of not so promising ones. Your assertion that you can't test for dark matter is ridiculous, and completely unsupported by anything in your post. To be taken seriously a dark matter hypothesis requires that the distribution be realistic and that the dark matter behave in a way that is consistent with other dark matter solutions. The possibilities for what dark matter actually is have been narrowed down considerably by theorists and there are several particle searches underway, using several different techniques. The likely decay modes of dark matter are also being investigated, and studies like this one could provide evidence for particular decay characteristics.
So what are you proposing anyway? That physicists shouldn't investigate a promising hypothesis because... it offends you personally? Because of what was not included in your physics class? Fortunately science doesn't work that way.
Welcome to the internet, how long will you be staying?
-The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
I love it. Especially the inevitable acronymicalisation (yep) down to CJP.
I record my sleeptalking
...all the formulas of physics (which, coincidentally, are correct enough to land a robot on Mars and propel a satellite out past the Solar System) are wrong?!?!?
Hi! That's engineering; don't put us in the same boat as the string theory wankers. Thanks!
On a more serious note, the key point in your statement is "correct enough". The equations used for that kind of stuff is wrong, we know it's an approximation, but the error is small and we can account for it. That's before you try and linearize!
As for the GP, he's right. As the saying goes a physicist will approximate a horse as a sphere. He could have been far further than 2nd semester physics and still reached the same conclusion. He just missed that while a horse isn't a sphere, if you squint real hard, you can get some useful insights out of a round horse.
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
In so far as dark matter is concerned, you are incorrect. Experiments like the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search are attempting to detect dark matter particles directly, we've got neutrino detectors looking for evidence of annihilation events... Particle accelerator experiments attempting to actually synthesize dark matter candidates.. To claim that there isn't a way to test the dark matter hypothesis would be grossly inaccurate.
Disclaimer: Physics isn't my major but I did study quite a bit of it in high school and college.
When you start getting successful results you can start using it to make your theories work when they otherwise wouldn't.
The problem is proving that nothing else remains possible.
Your "Fermi Haze" has rusted my "Occam's Razor," and now I can't cut my "Coulombian Cocaine."
Right. So long as we can make the math work, and keep slagging each other off in the popular press, we can keep ourselves on the gravy train for life. How does that sound? ;^)
--
Toro
(Apologies to the late Adams Douglas Adams)
How do you propose that we expand our knowledge without acquiring more evidence? How would you test a hypothesis or a theory without searching for more evidence for or against it?
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Black magic
Technically dark magic. [-5 overly pedantic]
How do you propose that we expand our knowledge without acquiring more evidence? How would you test a hypothesis or a theory without searching for more evidence for or against it?
Why waste time looking for evidence to support a theory based on a known-wrong theory?
Why wouldn't we first re-try the simulations of galactic motion with the known-correct theory, before wasting millions of dollars looking for some mythical invisible matter to match the error term of a simplified equation?
So all that stuff I heard about MOND was just in my head? Thanks for grounding me in reality!
Did you read read ANY of that? MOND stands for Modified Newtonian Dynamics.
My entire point was that physicists are using simplified newtonian equation of motions instead of the known correct General relativity.
It's basically a type of laziness. Newtonian equations are simple, and solutions for the rotation of galaxies can be done on a blackboard. Even MOND is relatively straight forward. Full General Relativity is hard to solve, and galaxy rotations are particularly complex because of the complex axial distribution of matter. An exact solution for a system as complex as a galaxy is probably impossible, and even if it was possible, it would be way out of the league of any human mathematician.
This is what computers were designed to do, but instead of just doing a numerical simulation, physicists insist on waving their hand and dismissing the error term like it's not even there, so they can keep using nice pretty exact solutions that... don't agree with reality.
O M G ! - W T F ! Low level physics classes use lots of simplifications? That explains why I can't find massless ropes and frictionless pulleys on E-Bay!
Except that I found this general tendency to dismiss higher order error terms to persist through every year I studied physics at University. I didn't drop out in first year, just so you know.
Simplifying equations is not straight forward, you have to be able to show mathematically that the error term is truly insignificant, but this part seems to be glossed over. Students learn a huge array of simplified equations, and are never really exposed to the original thinking and justification behind them, and often don't even realize they're working with techniques that may not work in corner cases. These same students become researchers and write papers about dark matter.
Umm... I took more than a year of physics. I have a Bachelor of Science. That particular story actually happened in second year (it came up while we were studying Quantum Mechanics), but I've seen similar hand-wavy assumptions made even in very advanced materials later on.
NASA uses Newtonian mechanics for solar system navigation because it is precise enough for that application, and it's predictions agree with reality.
Newtonian mechanics is not good enough for dealing with the motion of galaxies, and it's predictions do not agree with reality.
Well, what do you expect when you're supposed to assume the existence of a spherical cow of uniform density?
Good, inexpensive web hosting
If you're talking about newton being the known-wrong theory then you're not understanding the fact that the discrepancy is tiny under the conditions which these stars orbit. If you're claiming that something like MOND is correct then you're going to have to support that position a little better. As for the so called simplified equations that cause "errors" I'd like you to explain how that comes even close to this. Believe it or not, most physicists aren't idiots. Most of them use equations that are a little more accurate than the ones you used in introductory physics class in college.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
I can tell from that quote that you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. Even a sophomore physics student can see that these stars are no where near in the conditions where relativistic equations even matter. Jesus christ man, don't you think that if it was that simple a fix physicists would know about it?
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
we have no idea whether it is even possible to test the theory of "God exists."
Actually we do; it's explicitly impossible to test the theory of 'God exists'. Or rather, it's impossible to falsify it which is what any meaningful test should do.
.evom ton seod gis eht
Up to a certain point , all phenomenon we looked at shows essentially a neutral universe. Dark matter and energy were thought up to explain something which could not be explained with our normal theory without, but would neatly fit with a universe being neutral & flat (aka everything going to zero). And thus far it seems to fit. "God did it", does not fit the same type of explanation , as the more we know, the more we see natural process shugging alone without any design whatsoever. It is simply an ad-hoc thrown in belief without any basic of fundamental for it. It is fine for faith and belief, but does not offer any prediction one can falsify. Dark matter and energy actually does that.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
So because gamma rays are generated by electricity, the electric universe theory must be correct? It is well known that the force of gravity is the weakest of the four forces, and there are theories as to why, but this does not disprove modern physics and prove the electric universe theory.
Well, theres also that simulations would need to be exact duplicates to be accurate. You can't simulate a system in real time or faster than realtime without using more matter to simulate it than is involved in the simulation. Accuracy requires simulation of all elements involved, which when simulating something real, an actual object, not something virtual, then you have to actually simulate the entire universe, as everything in it effects everything else in it.
Making the ability to simulate physical objects in our universe accurately impossible. The very act of simulating it breaks changes the simulation. Maybe if we use some other dimension or something.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The simple, and logical conclusion to anyone who isn't blinded by arrogance, is that the equations are wrong, or at the minimum, incomplete. Unfortunately, there are about 3 high level scientists in the world that get that bit of it.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Maybe.
It could be that once you confirm the existence or lack of existence of a deity, that you simply don't care anymore, or know that its better not to tell anyone else.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
>> you just can't come back to tell the rest of us about it afterwards.
You can. You just need to pick the right deity.
The FSM will have issues with this convection.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
I already read the actual paper, The problem with this, is that there is tons of models which can be fitted to the data. One can find a model which predict these plots, and works perfectly, but it's exactly like looking at the clouds and seeing faces in them. After the preliminarily results from the Pamela experiment, everyone tried to fit his model to the data. For all we know there other astrophysics model that can explain this without the need to inject dark matter in this. (Yes I am physicist, and yes I am working on dark matter)
This is what computers were designed to do, but instead of just doing a numerical simulation, physicists insist on waving their hand and dismissing the error term like it's not even there, so they can keep using nice pretty exact solutions that... don't agree with reality.
I think these people may disagree with you.........
Except that I found this general tendency to dismiss higher order error terms to persist through every year I studied physics at University. I didn't drop out in first year, just so you know.
Simplifying equations is not straight forward, you have to be able to show mathematically that the error term is truly insignificant, but this part seems to be glossed over. Students learn a huge array of simplified equations, and are never really exposed to the original thinking and justification behind them, and often don't even realize they're working with techniques that may not work in corner cases. These same students become researchers and write papers about dark matter.
I think you might be missing the difference between physics taught at an undergraduate level, where the emphasis is on understanding the underlying principles of physics which can be taught with simplified equations and what working physicists actually use (which often rely on solving equations numerically).
Sorry, I saw the post when it was modded "Score:2" and thought it was some random stupid comment, not a joke. You saw it when it was "Score:4, Funny", and you thought it was funny. You'd be surprised just how much impact the moderation has on how you read a post.
What ever remains, however unlikely is surely the truth (hence said a wise man).
The words of a cocaine addict, written by a man who believed in fairies.
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
we have no idea whether it is even possible to test the theory of "God exists."
Actually we do; it's explicitly impossible to test the theory of 'God exists'. Or rather, it's impossible to falsify it which is what any meaningful test should do.
It's not entirely impossible to falsify the theory of "God exists". But first, you have to have a concrete definition of what "God" is. If you define "God" as an omnipotent, omniscient, loving being, you can make predictions about what a universe run by an omnipotent, omniscient, loving being should look like. If it doesn't look like that, then you've falsified that definition of "God". Most people are unwilling to submit the idea of God to that kind of a test, though, because they're simply not interested in falsifying the idea in the first place.
This is what computers were designed to do, but instead of just doing a numerical simulation, physicists insist on waving their hand and dismissing the error term like it's not even there, so they can keep using nice pretty exact solutions that... don't agree with reality.
I think these people may disagree with you.........
You'll find most of those simulations are Newtonian. I just checked some of their latest papers, and they all use Newtonian or modified Newtonian (MOND) codes. The code they run is called "GADGET-3" (they also used earlier versions in the past), and according to this high level description, it's Newtonian. Admittedly, it's an impressive simulator, but it seems to concentrate on scale (many particles) and on including many effects like gas interactions, magnetohydrodynamics, etc... but not a relativistic metric.
If you can find even one of the published papers on that site that even mentions to worth 'relativistic', I'd be very interested in reading it. The papers are linked from here, they have links to the full papers on Arxiv.
You can't ever actually go to the milky way's core.. so, really, what you are doing is almost like standing on the beach with a blindfold on, guessing at what is in the bottom of the ocean, based on what you hear. Is that really, the only thing you can really do is assume that physics on mother earth is the same as elsewhere in the galaxy, and then extrapolate that to what you see in space. Frankly, what happens in the core of the milky way or even not too far outside of the solar system is essentially useless trivia anyway. It makes for a good story but there's not a damn thing we can do about it. If someone wanted to believe God made the entire universe in seven days, or the FSM did it in 27 minutes, there's absolute nothing about that believe that could measurably alter the human standard of living.
This is my sig.
Cause that's the only thing that we really know about it, just a accounted source of gravity, but nobody yet has proved that it is matter. Naming it as matter might be potentially misleading.
Dear
I don't think it'll work. First, it's not reproducible. Second, how will you know it's a deity and not some felloww mortal with a great after-death light show?
Lots of Dark Matter at the galaxy's core? So they just found the path to the Niblonians' home planet?
....disprove modern physics and prove the electric universe theory...
Nothing is ever proved or disproved in science, but we can weigh the evidence and see which theory has evidence for or against it. Because we have never discovered a means of generating electromagnetic waves, such as gamma rays, by any other means than movement of electric charges, it is reasonable to assume that there is no other way. To explain the gamma rays and the movement of galaxies by the electric theory, it is unnecessary to come up with complicated fictional constructs such as dark matter and energy as well as black holes.
To postulate that the majority of all matter in the universe cannot be directly discovered by any instruments it is ridiculous to put it mildly. It's not the math, but it is the data that science is all about. Math must be the servant of science, not its master.
Generally speaking, a simpler explanation is the better, usually correct one. Scientists know much more about electricity than gravity. Applying what is known about electricity to the data can and does explain that data very well.
All theory is gray
Why are you so pissed off that scientists don't know fucking EVERYTHING? Do you have a galaxy to pilot soon that might crash if you don't get the right equations?
I don't know why you've spent this entire thread bitching. Will you calm down if I get a few guys in lab coats to say they're wrong and admit you're smarter than them? Would it help if it was in writing?
Exactly what are you going on about?
Indeed, I stand corrected.
...Can't explain Dark Matter, we got Dark Energy! ...
Neither dark matter nor dark energy are needed to to explain what we observe if the models would take into account the 36 orders of magnitude greater electric interaction in addition to gravity.
All theory is gray
So, you take a WHOLE YEAR of Physics in school, and suddenly, you are ready to say with confidence that all the formulas of physics (which, coincidentally, are correct enough to land a robot on Mars and propel a satellite out past the Solar System) are wrong?!?!?
I'm sure with just about any equations you use, flying in a straight line through space is serious business.
Browse at -1 to keep an eye out for abuses.
...Newtonian mechanics is not good enough for dealing with the motion of galaxies, and it's predictions do not agree with reality....
That's only because today's cosmologists totally ignore the electric force. It is 36 orders of magnitude greater than gravity. The motion of the Pioneer space probes is also slightly off, because it is being influenced by a "mysterious force" that causes it to move differently than if gravity alone is taken into account. Because the electric force is so much more powerful than gravity, only a small charge on the space probe will interact with tenuous electric and magnetic fields in space to exert a force that will alter the motion of the spacecraft.
For the short distances involved in the solar system, the application of purely gravitational equations is accurate enough. However, if you're talking about galactic or even cosmic distances, the electric force must be taken into account, but unfortunately it is studiously ignored by mainstream cosmologists.
All theory is gray
....Experiments like the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search ....
Are all coming up empty, because dark matter is only a mathematical construct in computers and math models, but not in measured reality.
All theory is gray
....on a known-wrong theory?...
It is not the case that the theory is totally wrong, just incomplete. The reason it is incomplete is that present-day cosmologists totally ignore the electrical force which is 36 orders of magnitude bigger than gravity. Both electricity and gravity are involved in and are necessary to explain the behavior of galaxies and stars.
For example, an immeasurably small electric field of a few microvolts to the kilometer applied to a charged particle over cosmic distances, can accelerate such a particle to enormous energies. That is what we observe in cosmic rays.
All theory is gray
...either light or gravity to cross one....
You are assuming that light and gravity travel at the same speed. This has never been observed to occur in nature. This limitation on gravity exists only in mathematical models.
The sun and the earth "feel" each others gravity instantly, not eight minutes from now. If gravity took eight minutes to travel from the Sun to the Earth, the earth would have left its orbit long ago. The fact that it's still here where it is, is evidence that gravity is either instantaneous or incredibly fast, much much faster than light.
All theory is gray
Seems there is a more mundane explanation.
...it's reasonable to hypothesize that ...
the electric force which is 36 orders of magnitude greater than gravity is ALSO involved in controlling the motion of stars and galaxies. Sad to say, current cosmologists and astrophysicists totally ignore the action of the electric force in the large-scale universe. Nobody ever seems to ask the question of how a slightly charged, that is not exactly neutral body, would move in a weak, but not zero magnetic or electric field. There are theories that can explain some of the anomalous data without resorting to black holes, dark matter or energy, singularities or other purely mathematical constructs.
All theory is gray
You sound very certain regarding matters you don't seem to know much about.
And do you suppose that these cosmically large electric fields would have no observational consequences on spectral lines emitted in their presence, or on actual ionized gas in HII regions? I don't understand why you're so enamored with the "36 orders of magnitude" stuff. It has consequences --- the effects of such powerful fields should be 36 orders of magnitude easier to detect than gravitational effects. Where are they?
I suppose, then, that the electric interaction is also infinitely fast, since otherwise electrons would have left their orbits around protons long ago.
So we'll just mark you down for "6000 years" then?
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
People can agree to disagree without being sardonically arrogant.
Yes, it would have been nice if "bertok" could have made his point without accusing a large swath of scientists of being unscientific and unable to come up with ideas he found obvious.
Sure, I'd be happy to wake you, Mr. ... oh noes! He didn't sign his name. Oh, well.
The simple, and logical conclusion to anyone who isn't blinded by arrogance, is that the equations are wrong, or at the minimum, incomplete.
The simple, and logical conclusion to anyone who isn't blinded by arrogance, is that astrophysicists have already thought of that, and decided that it wasn't the best possible explanation.
the electric force which is 36 orders of magnitude greater than gravity
But expends itself on neutralizing the charges that generate the force, gravity clumps matter together and the larger lumps generate a stronger gravitational field.
a slightly charged, that is not exactly neutral body, would move in a weak, but not zero magnetic or electric field
The largest effect this would have is attracting particles of opposite charge from the surrounding plasma, negating itself.
current cosmologists and astrophysicists totally ignore
Well, they don't ignore Io ...
My entire point was that physicists are using simplified newtonian equation of motions instead of the known correct General relativity.
THAT was your central thesis? I'm sorry, I thought it was "astrophysicists are way stupider than me".
Did you read read ANY of that? MOND stands for Modified Newtonian Dynamics.
Did you read ANY of the context. You claim that scientists are unwilling to look at anything other than Newtonian dynamics (and now you claim it's your central point), but the #2 theory for certain effects is practically called "Not Newtonian Dynamics". I thought the glaring contrast would get the point across.
It's basically a type of laziness.
And we're back to this. Thanks for letting me get a +5 Insightful off your -1 Troll. :)
So we'll just mark you down for "6000 years" then?
How is it any different than a "guess" of billions of years? Where is the evidence? By evidence, I mean "physical" evidence.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Dark matter and dark energy bother me considerably.
I don't think that the observations those thing were invernted, er... postulated, to explain falsify current theories. Well not completely, anyway.
Firstly, when it was pointed out that a constant speed of light is inconsistent with Newton, we didn't throw the whole framework out. In fact almost all of it survives today. Moreover, it has take a huge effort and expense to conduct experiments that confirm the various differences in predictions of Einstein over Newton.
The fact is that observations match incredibly closely with predictions, with a few exceptions.
Admitedly that means that out theories are either wrong or incomplete, but they are still useful, and will survive the next big shakeup in physics at least as well as Newton survives general relativity.
So we'll just mark you down for "6000 years" then?
Go watch this movie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
Science in the English speaking world is out of touch with what science is supposed to be about. It has become a religion in the UK, and the US especially. People have lost their jobs for questioning the dogma or even giving any audience to alternative points of view "within" the scientific community. People often complain about the "religious right" but what about darwinism within the scientific community of the US pretending to be "science"? When I heard a scientist talk about being a "good Darwinist" I threw up in my mouth a little. Real science has not existed in the Anglophone world for over a century now.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
...But expends itself on neutralizing the charges that generate the force....
That is only true of static charges, but not of currents moving through space in the form of charged particles.
(...is attracting particles...)
You are assuming that only tiny particles, such as electrons and other atomic bits and pieces can carry charge. It is assumed that larger bodies are neutral against each other, but that is an unwarranted assumption. Because the electric forces are so powerful, only a slight imbalance of charge, will produce immense electrical forces between such charged objects. Most of the matter in the universe is not nicely neutral like we fortunately have here on earth, but highly charged plasma.
When you rub a comb with a silk cloth, only an extremely tiny number of electrons compared to the total electrons in the comb is moved. Yet that tiny charge imbalance is sufficient to overcome the gravity of the entire earth and pick up bits of paper or plastic.
The fact that there are magnetic fields in space and on the Sun, attests to the fact that there are flowing currents. Flowing currents can only happen if there is a potential difference within that current flow.
All theory is gray
..gravitational radiation emitted from binary pulsars...
Gravitational radiation and gravity waves exist only in mathematical theories, but have never actually been observed or measured. Great gobs of money have been expended to measure such waves, but so far nothing has been found.
(...electric interaction is also infinitely fast...)
As a matter of fact, the speed of the electric force within the atom has never been determined. The distances within the atom are so tiny, that even something as slow as the speed of light would be fast enough to communicate between electrons and protons within it.
All theory is gray
...cosmically large electric fields would have no observational consequences...
They do have observational consequences right here on earth. They are called cosmic rays. These are charged particles and electromagnetic radiation of incredible energies are constantly bombarding Earth. An electric field of only a few microvolts per kilometer, applied over cosmic distances, would accelerate a charged particle to immense energies. When such a charged particle slams into a bit of matter, powerful electromagnetic radiation results which we call gamma rays.
All theory is gray
...Do you disagree that gamma rays are produced in nuclear reactions, like radioactive decay...
No. Electromagnetic radiation arising within the atom or the atomic nucleus even is still ultimately the result of charges being accelerated. Whether the accelerating field arises within the atom or by some other means is immaterial. No electromagnetic radiation, whether by radioactivity or other means, arises without the acceleration of charges by an electric field. These electric fields happen to be incredibly intense inside the atom, hence the high energy of the emitted radiation.
All theory is gray
You are assuming that only tiny particles, such as electrons and other atomic bits and pieces can carry charge.
No, I'm not. I'm just observing that (in comparison to their gravitational equivalents) it's difficult to generate large voltages and even harder to get large objects to maintain a charge.
Because the electric forces are so powerful, only a slight imbalance of charge, will produce immense electrical forces between such charged objects. Most of the matter in the universe is not nicely neutral like we fortunately have here on earth, but highly charged plasma.
The problem is that the plasma (which has no overall charge even though it's made of charged particles) will be the first thing to respond to that immense electrical force - and it will respond in exactly the right way to cancel that charge imbalance.
The fact that there are magnetic fields in space and on the Sun, attests to the fact that there are flowing currents. Flowing currents can only happen if there is a potential difference within that current flow.
Which is why it's silly to say that they "totally ignore the action of the electric force in the large-scale universe".
...why it's silly to say that...
Pulsars and other extremely intense radiation sources are caused by the gravity of black holes. Gravity has absolutely nothing to do with and has never been demonstrated to generate so much as a single photon. All electromagnetic radiation which we receive, including intense gamma ray bursts, cosmic rays and radio signals are of electrical origin. None of them, not even one, has ever been nor can be generated by gravity, no matter how much matter you pile together. The equations of gravity do not include electrical components. It is an ironclad law that electromagnetic radiation can only be produced electrically.
(...and it will respond in exactly the right way to cancel that charge imbalance..
If there is an electrical field, a difference of potential, currents will flow in a plasma to SEPARATE the charges. This happens for example, with the solar wind. The Earth's magnetic field bends and focuses the current, until the plasma switches from dark mode to glow mode. We then see that glow as Northern lights. We do this here on earth every day with neon signs. The positive ions flow toward the cathode and the electrons to the anode. If the current density in the plasma is even higher, there is what is known as arc mode, such as in a welder or lightning. However, in most of outer space the current density is very low, so the plasma currents flow in the dark mode. There are places however, where the current density is high enough to enter glow mode. We then see those places as some of the beautiful colorful nebula and luminous clouds.
Cosmologists and astrophysicists who theorize that there is a gigantic black hole in the center of our galaxy are totally wrong. There is intense electromagnetic radiation issuing from the middle of our galaxy. All of that, every bit, has its origin in the electric force acting either in free space or within the atom.
All theory is gray
Dark matter has Sweet Fuck All to do with the cosmic microwave background, which was explained very well in the 1960s using conventional physics and the big bang theory.
I'd suggest you do a little reading about the WMAP probe and the fluctuations it measured in the Cosmic Microwave background. So far the only consistent Big Bang models which can explain these fluctuations involve large amounts of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Indeed Dark Matter and Energy is the only way we can make the observed fluctuations consistent with existing physics and the Big Bang so you really could not be more wrong if you tried because without Dark Matter we MUST have either new, unconventional physics or something other than a Big Bang.
Of course there is considerably more evidence than just WMAP. One in particular, the bullet cluster, is extremely hard to explain using modified newtonian dynamics or the other models which at the alternatives to Dark Matter. However science has advanced from the 1960s and with the data we now have it is not possible to construct consistent models with conventional physis
It is an ironclad law that electromagnetic radiation can only be produced electrically.
I'd accept that as true.
None of them, not even one, has ever been nor can be generated by gravity, no matter how much matter you pile together. The equations of gravity do not include electrical components.
Directly - yes. But there are may indirect ways that gravity can produce electrical effects.
If there is an electrical field, a difference of potential, currents will flow in a plasma to SEPARATE the charges.
Yes, the charges in the plasma separate, so they negate the electric field that comes from other sources. The net effect is that the field strength is reduced.
Cosmologists and astrophysicists who theorize that there is a gigantic black hole in the center of our galaxy are totally wrong. There is intense electromagnetic radiation issuing from the middle of our galaxy. All of that, every bit, has its origin in the electric force acting either in free space or within the atom.
That radiation is caused by many effects. One of them is that gravity accelerates charged particles with mass, and accelerating charges generate electromagnetic radiation. That's a perfect example of how gravity can produce electromagnetic radiation as a side effect.
...that gravity accelerates charged particles with mass...
Until you realize that gravity affects charged particles with mass by an order of 36 magnitude times less than an electrical field. I don't think either you or I can imagine the size of a number one 36 zeros after or in front of it. Gravity, even if you make it 1,000,000 times as big as the sun's, is still insignificant.
Besides, if they were such thing as a black hole in the middle of the galaxy, these charged particles would fall inward toward the middle and be absorbed by all that matter. The radiation produced somewhere in the supposed black hole would never make it out again. No, the only way radiation of the enormous energies we observe can be obtained is by the action of electrical fields over great distances. Gravity is simply too tiny to have any significant effect on charged matter. Gravity, directly or indirectly is too weak a force to be in the radiation generation game.
All theory is gray
Until you realize that gravity affects charged particles with mass by an order of 36 magnitude times less than an electrical field.
Which is irrelevant because gravity accumulates, while charge tends to cancel out.
The radiation produced somewhere in the supposed black hole would never make it out again.
It isn't generated "in" the black hole, it's created around it in an accretion disk and in gas jets.
Gravity, directly or indirectly is too weak a force to be in the radiation generation game.
That's only your intuition talking - if there was actual evidence to back it up you'd have shown it to me.