Dark Matter and Ejected Planets

GA!

I very much like the simple parsing of the word "think" in the second citation. Scientists "think" dark matter exists because there is so very many indirect observations that imply its existence. To "know" dark matter exists requires direct observation.

That excellent article was posted in Aug. 2014 and claims that direct observation of any form of dark matter has yet to be made. It has been proposed that the LIGO gravity wave detection of Feb. 2016 is the first direct observation of MACHO dark matter. AFAIK, that proposal has yet to be reputed or accepted.

Surely dark matter includes a substantial number of rogue planets ejected by all of those "HOT JUIPITER" plants being found

That's assuming "dark matter" exists. In my opinion it's a matter of hypothesis gone wild.

If acceleration of an object increases speed in a vacuum the further it gets from a strong gravitational field is unusual then there is something else happening that is also not dark matter.

As far as "hot jupiters" being found close to stars,, that's a product of solar system where the planets involved had wildly eccentric orbits that brought the hj closer to the star over time while destroying most other planetary systems before settling on a concentric orbit around it's star.

FTL travel would not be dangerous because of dark matter in space. It would be dangerous because of actual matter made from the ejected debris of starbirth. FLT travel is not worth discussion as it's another glaring case of hypothesis gone wild.

The moons of planets in our own solar system are made largely of our stars material.

I believe we should be on the moon finding the unique cosmic dust that rains on it every day, but is not cooked like that which hit's our atmosphere. Sample meteorite material from indirect impacts could be easier to find and hold a lot more clues as to what lies beyond our solar home planet and solar system. (in comparison to the twice cooked baked potato meteorites that scorch through our atmosphere)

Actually traveling at 10% of the speed of light could be pretty hairy if that stuff is out there and we can't see it.

Big stuff would become visible, but steering out of the way would require a lot of fuel.

The small stuff would still be dangerous.\

moho

Traveling at relativistic speeds probably requires a space warp engine. This bends severely any space-time near the vehicle, to that it sort of works like the gentlest martial art, by sweeping the attacking debris (world) et cetera out of the way.

What if primordial black holes were numerous, small objects? What if there were a mechanism leading to their evaporation? As these were swept out into the cosmos (early on due to velocity after the Big Bang), they would accelerate and drag gas clouds, nascent galaxies with them such that this may have played a strong role in regulating the motions of these galaxies, spiral arms, etc. Once the primordial black holes evaporated, the mechanical remnants shown in the velocities and momenta in the cosmos would remain...correct?

"Traveling at relativistic speeds probably requires a space warp engine. This bends severely any space-time near the vehicle, to that it sort of works like the gentlest martial art, by sweeping the attacking debris (world) et cetera out of the way."

Has this been observed? I would imagine space warp engines are all the rage with trillions of satisfied users. I hear they don't even require much fuel since they can stay put while traveling. (deafening groan)

What if primordial black holes were numerous, small objects?

What if my dog was green and flew around the yard leaving a trail of sparks and gold dust?

'What if there were a mechanism leading to their evaporation? As these were swept out into the cosmos (early on due to velocity after the Big Bang), they would accelerate and drag gas clouds, nascent galaxies with them such that this may have played a strong role in regulating the motions of these galaxies, spiral arms, etc. Once the primordial black holes evaporated, the mechanical remnants shown in the velocities and momenta in the cosmos would remain...correct?"

I want to answer all of that, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The universe acts like a 3 dimensional game of bumper cars with galaxies being the cars. Gravitational forces coupled with the spin of the tiny electron play a major role in the the shape of the cosmos.

Considering the latest published estimate of galaxies just raised it from 350 billion to 3.2 trillion, it could just be the dust settling from that rapid expansion!-)

I think number of known galaxies will always fall well short of the known.

-it you want to comprehend singularity and rapid expansion?.. those are topics I am have formulated opinions about, but don't have the energy to discuss.

Yes there is leftover dust as well as newly ejected dust that is not distributed evenly nor is it gravitationally married to a particular galaxy. As such this dust is free to distribute as much as it is free to clump together in formless masses that defy fractal geometry.

go cubs

Back to the subject matter at hand,

I still postulate that light has entropy.

As we know lights speed is constant relative to what it is radiating through.

I think light redshifts as a result of entropy as well.

Space, even deep space is full of matter and energy. The estimate for matter that is have heard is about one molecule for cubic meter. Not much until you travel thousands, millions, or billions of light years through it.

Light shifts speed for different mediums I think there is an energy loss. Quantumly small but accumulative.

If we could pin down this shift much of our fudge factor would be gone and lead to better numbers.

"I think light redshifts as a result of entropy as well."

While light can redshift due to energy loss, that loss is always due to an event, such as a UV photon hitting a 'UV reactive' dye molecule, which then emits a photon within the visible spectrum.

Light from distant objects being redshifted is due to the objects moving away from us. Objects moving towards us would blueshift the light they emit/reflect our way.

A photon experiencing 'entropy' would not redshift spontaneously, it would decay into whatever subatomic particles there are that make up a photon.

If I remember my 'death of the universe' theories, photon decay will be one of if not THE last thing to happen, if the universe is heading towards the 'heat death' end. We're fairly certain the universe is not going to end with the Big Crunch, so the argument is whether it will be Big Chill ('heat death') or Big Rip (As spacetime continues to expand, more and more of the universe passes the 'Knowable Universe threshold, the distance from the observer where spacetime is expanding at the speed of light. Everything past that point is forever Unknowable and unable to interact with the observer, as the photons and gravity waves cannot travel as fast as the spacetime is expanding. This expansion will then begin to overtake gravity, with Galactic Superclusters, then Galactic Clusters, then Galaxies flying apart, followed by solar systems, planets, atoms, atomic particles, quarks ... until we are left with nothing but solitary photons, each within its own 'universe bubble,' never interacting with another particle again.

that's a pretty awesome theory.. I Hope it can happen in a fraction of a second so we'll be none the wiser.. (unknown emoticon)

What's that movie where a planet is visibly heading towards the inhabitants over time?

Melancholia.. Decent .. about the end ..

"What's that movie where a planet is visibly heading towards the inhabitants over time?"

The movie is When Worlds Collide.

"that's a pretty awesome theory.. I Hope it can happen in a fraction of a second so we'll be none the wiser.. (unknown emoticon)"

Oh, we'll likely be long gone before even Superclusters start breaking up. All the research about the end of the universe is bordering on philosophy or sacred text studies; we can come up with some answers, but beyond saying "the math looks right" or "this part of the equation doesn't make sense" the answers provided are Untestable, Unprovable, and, aside from math errors or new discoveries to refine the equations, Unfalsifiable. The end of the universe is the ultimate "If a tree falls in the woods, and there is no life left to observe it, does it make any sound" question.

What no one apparently gets is that light when moving in a medium with refractive index greater than 1 slows down and has a longer wavelength. It does not change frequency. E = hν where ν if the frequency, therefore, it does definitely not lose any energy while traversing the medium.

The wavelength and speed restore to normal outside the medium (en vacuo).

As to entropy death of the universe, we cannot ascertain if some part of the universe already crossed some threshold of observability, and therefore do not know if the space-time boundary (with contents) has reversed course and has already begun contracting.

Oh don't be silly. There's a restaurant at the end of the universe. I like the waffles there.

Good one.

I enjoyed that second-to-last gag in the movie (which was also the last 'funny' gag, the last gag was more of a tribute/easter egg than a laugh-inducer):

Marvin: "Not that anyone's asked me, but the restaurant is at the OTHER end of the universe."

(Heart of Gold makes a tire-screeching U-turn in space)

Let me guess: It's all turtles down the street from there.

I've been away for a while so I am late at returning back to this question.

Thanks to everyone who responded to the question. Perhaps someone in the future will figure it all out. I suspect I will be worm food by then.

It is really great to be able to interact with smart people. I wish there were a few here at my workplace. Sooooo lonely!