Still Doubting Dark Matter?

This image shows "the gravitational lensing effect of a dark matter ring-like structure." But Coe then goes on to say, "...we can't see it (dark matter)..."

Huh? Which is it? If dark matter is invisible, then how is it possible that we see this "dark matter ring-like structure" at all? It doesn't make any sense.

Worse, the lensing effect just happens to be centered around the cluster of elliptical galaxies in the middle of the image. Ellipticals are typically mammoth galaxies (often having many billions of stars each) which do a pretty darn good job of gravitational lensing in their own right. Here we have a cluster of these huge galaxies coincidentally in the center of the lens effect which Coe claims is caused by a (visible) ring of invisible dark matter.

What's wrong with this picture?

"Here we have a cluster of these huge galaxies coincidentally in the center of the lens effect which Coe claims is caused by a (visible) ring of invisible dark matter."

No, this not the way I understood it. The 'dark ring' is just background space. It is the bright ring at the outside that is a gravitationally lensed distant galaxy by the foreground galaxies. The diameter of this "Einstein ring" tells astronomers how much mass there must be in the foreground galaxies. It is many times more than what they reasonably expect from the visible matter there, hence there lurks some dark stuff as well.

Jorrie

That's not the way the article reads, at least to me. The ring-like structure is itself claimed by the author to be the actual cause of the lensing effect. An image of a more-distant galaxy is simply that - an image. Einstein rings are a product of gravitational lensing, not the cause of it. You and I know this, but that's not how the article reads. Sloppy science reporting, IMHO.

Hi Guest. "Sloppy science reporting, IMHO"

Yep, I have to agree with you. We'll have to wait for the full article to appear to have a better description, I guess.

Jorrie

Apart from the article, that's one fabulous picture! Thanks for posting.

Indeed.

Jorrie, I have seen a number of examples of this kind of science reporting where what is seen in an image is incorrectly attributed by an author as dark matter when, in fact, the image is of hot, baryonic gas gravitationally confined by dark matter. There's a big difference, as you know.

Here are a few pics from such articles and news releases. In each case the anomaly is described as dark matter. In all cases the image is of confined, hot baryonic gas:

The following is a NASA-released image of actual dark matter. Notice how what is seen in this image differs from the others:

Take care,
-e

great pictures! last picture now that is dark matter , so do we conclude it is equal to nothing

No. It's not nothing. Look closer.

just a solid dark patch ,not even that RGB phosphors on my old monitor

Hey Jorrie, just my two cents again, but I don't believe in magic. I do believe in other dimensions of space, (I don't believe time is a dimension, just a factor of all dimensions). If an elemental particle traveled faster than c, it would travel not at the speed of light, but at the speed of darkness, (to an observer traveling at <c. I believe that the next three, (4, 5 and 6) dimensions are simply above the speed of light. To us, it appears dark, hence dark matter. To an observer traveling at >c, it would appear light, (yes as in heaven).

We know that particles can travel at >c, cause they do after the event horizon of a black hole. Also, a physicist at CERN published some equations supporting the fact of superluminous velocity.

The question is: How to detect a particle which is invisible to us and is gone before we knew it arrived? figure that one out and you will answer the question of what dark matter is.

We know that particles can travel at >c, cause they do after the event horizon of a black hole.

-----

What particles?

do you mean which?

Yeah. That too.

Hi Europium... Take a look in my entry: "Black Holes An Issue For Discussion" 5/9/07 (general discussion)... In our discussion there Jorrie explains this subject... I thing any particle could travel at a speed higher than the speed of light in the inside of a black hole (e.g. behind the event horizon)...

Hi George, you wrote: "In our discussion there Jorrie explains this subject... "

One must be careful of the context here. Although the speed of an in-falling particle, v = -√(2GM/r) can theoretically exceed c inside the event horizon, no such observation is possible.

From outside, the particle is 'invisible'. On the inside, there can be no stationary observer. As a matter of fact, the observer will be falling in at about the same speed as the particle, so the relative speed may be zero! It is only light that will still move at c relative to the in-falling observer inside the black hole.

Jorrie

Perhaps what we see of gravity is merely the tip of the iceberg,poking thru to our dimension from another dimension, and matter, likewise.Gravity could be capable of muti-dimensionality.Perhaps this would also account for gravity's relatively weak force compared to the other forces. For every kilo of mass in this universe,perhaps there are many kilos elswehere, and all we can detect is the gravitaional force from that mass.We cannot observe this mass directly, only by it's effect on matter and energy in our limited universe.Sort of like the wind, we see only the effects, not the wind itself.I realize that is a very poor analogy, but it may suffice for those not willing to nit-pick about similes.

HTRN

so let me get this right. Beyond the event horizon particles might travel greater than C. But the observer would be moving at same. Greater than C and thus no relative measure of greater than C noted. But light would be moving at C.

Have I read correctly?

wouldn't you be accelerating to a terminal velocity?

If the observer was at the same point as the particle, they would accelerate together, so relatively the difference would be zero. But if the particle was above then it would be slowing, and below it would be accelerating?

Hi Snaketails.

You asked: "wouldn't you be accelerating to a terminal velocity?"

Inside a black hole, the "terminal velocity" is infinitely fast relative to an outside static observer, who (as we said before) can never measure that because he can't 'see' inside. To any inside observer, the 'terminal velocity' for any particle is still the speed of light.

"If the observer was at the same point as the particle, they would accelerate together, so relatively the difference would be zero. But if the particle was above then it would be slowing, and below it would be accelerating?"

Relative to the free-falling observer inside the hole, both free-falling particles 'above' and 'below' will be accelerating away from her. If it is an extremely large black hole, she will measure both particles to approach the speed of light away from her, but never quite reaching it. The particles are however all accelerating towards the central singularity.

Jorrie

High David... Dark Matter (DM) is a long storie... After the discovery of the existence of the DM scientists were attempting to explain it... Many years ago many scientists had suggested that it could be black holes, brown dwarfs (e.g. dead stars), huge planets (similar or much bigger than Jupiter) e.t.c.... But after a while they came to the conclusion that the DM could not consist of the ordinary, barionic matter... It must consist of another kind of "exotic" and invisible matter... In the recent years they have suggested some other options: Neutrinos (with extremely small mass very close to zero), WIMP particles (that come up from the "symetry theories"), axions, magnetic monopoles (that is supposed that they were produced in huge quantities after the Bing Bang and a sufficient quantity of them may still exist today... their mass is large...)... They have, also, suggested the hypothetical "tachions" which are particles that they move at a speed higher than the speed of light... These "tachions" is what you refered to... I don't know, though, if we could observe them or not... It is supposed that they are moving in the opposite direction of time (due to their speed)... Is this mean that, actually, we can not "see" them???... I'm not sure... Just think that a positron could be considered as an electron which is moving in the opposite direction of time (e.g. from the future to the past)... From a mathematical point of view these two perceptions of the positron are equivalent... Although, the positron is real and visible... So, maybe, the tachions could be observable too...

This is nothing more than proper anthropology by the elder races who conceal their presence by this means so as to reduce their impact on our primitive civilization. How many times have we meddled with isolated island races and given them pop bottles and transistor radios and thus destroyed their gourd storage mechanisms and created a need for dollars o buy batteries.

Any contact with these races would soon have us using their devices and create a trade in quodium to power them, holding us in perpetual thrall. Their cottagers would come here and set up getaways and before long we would be in reservations.

We already are on reservations. We simply don't realize it yet. Such is the exceedingly sublime nature of our captors.

Psst: Wanna start a new Cargo Cult? They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...

wow. aren't we kinda already a cargo cult. the ritualistic mathematics.

ahhh nevermind. Oooh look, something shiny....D'oh!

I'm still having a hard problem thinking that if you travel faster than light, you'll travel backwards thru time, this is utter BS, and at most it's only a theory, not all "theories" pan out to reality.

What was the going "theories" about traveling faster than sound 100 years ago, and they were found to be BS.

Actually, first you would need a solid and absolute textbook definition of time to tell if you could or could not actually travel backwards or forwards in it!

I don't believe "time" is what most everyone thinks it is. I'm not talking about a clock, I am referring to "time" in a truly universal sense. I believe "time" is an aspect of changing quantum particle energy and is observed by us only in a conglomerated fashion.

I believe that the slower a particle travels (less than the speed of light), the faster the loss of quantum energy, the faster the forward "time". The faster the particle travels (still less than the speed of light) the slower the loss of quantum energy, the slower the forward "time". I believe that at above the speed of light, the particle would be ever increasing in energy, less the "use" of it's energy, therefore, for the individual particle "time" would be backwards so long as it traveled at greater than the speed of light, (increasing energy).

Since we cannot see individual, elemental particles, (I believe that only particles in their most elemental state can travel faster than the speed of light) then we will never see dark matter or dark energy.

btw, isn't that relative?

Hi Snaketails...

"What was the going "theories" about traveling faster than sound 100 years ago, and they were found to be BS."

Unfortunately the speed of light is an absolute and universal speed limit, whether we like it or not... That's because the special relativity says that an object is needed to obtain infinite energy (or the energy of whole Universe if you like) in order to be accelerated at exactly the speed of light (moreover to exceed the speed of light)... However the special relativity doesn't forbid an object to "already has" the speed of light... It doesn't need infinite power in order to accelerate and reach (or exceed) the speed of light, because it already moves at a higher speed than light... Maybe the the speed of light is just a kind of "barrier": anything which, already, moves slower than light can't be accelerated in order to pass this barrier and anything which, already, moves faster than light can't be decelerated in order to pass this barrier... So, in a way, tachions could exist... It is, also, supposed that the tachions can travel with an infinite speed (without the need of external energy), but they need to absorb energy in order to be decelarated (and I suppose that they would need infinite energy for reaching the speed of light)... They must, also, have imaginary mass...

Concerning an ordinary observer the "time flow" is "positive" for the ordinary particles and "zero" for the photons... So it must be "negative" for the tachions... I suppose that-maybe- tachions look like ordinary particles (for an observer's perception) but the "cause" and "result" sequence would be inverted... (i.e. if a bullet gun was a "tachion" we could see the bullet pull away from a target and arrive into the barrel of the gun)... So causality issues are arised... Also, we have "transfer of information faster than the speed of light" issues (that is opposed to the special relativity)... That's why probably there aren't tachions at all...

(Particles may obtain speeds higher than the spped of light inside a Black Hole but there aren't any casuality problems, because the event horizon prevents us from the observation of such paradoxes (a kind of universal censorship)...

Maybe, Jorrie would like to make some comments on this...

I wrote: "However the special relativity doesn't forbid an object to "already has" the speed of light" (as photons do)... I, actually, wanted to write: "However the special relativity doesn't forbid an object to "already has" a speed higher than the speed of light" (as it is supposed that tachions do)... Just a correction...

My interest in Dark Matter is in search of overcoming on photons encoded holograms the coherence problem that wipes out all but the energy production when using the solar panel as an antenna.

My interest is in capturing hardy signals on photons.

These photons encoded with holograms would be only superior to TV signals if they could overcome the speed of light, and still be decoded to a screen or view box.

Otherwise if it is impossible we are stuck with the TV as it is.

100 years ago they knew from bullet velocities that the speed of sound could be exceeded, as the speed of sound was well known by then and bullet speeds were also known to exceed that speed from the 1870's.

this fascinating link is worth exploring

http://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/index.cfm

The only way I got that was imagining going so fast as to come up from behind on the past 'cause of the curved light thing. Like if you got going faster than light you ended up in the past because you had gone through the future, and then of course anything that has happened is by definition in the past. Seems like I read that of course you can make a time machine, but you don't get to come back. Then there was the idea that was the basis for that Sliders show, that I thought was essentially correct as far as known theories about how once you did travel in time you created another parrallel universe. I enjoyed that book by Clifford Simak Time and Time Again about the war over time between robots and humans where they kept trying to rewrite the Bible so robots had souls, or didn't.

Let's take the question 'Is c the maximum speed limit in this universe'?

There are two well known and very repeatable experiments. One is the Casimir experiment and the other is the the detection of the Lamb-Rutherford Shift.

The Casimir uses two separated but closely spaced plates. You can get the set up from the net. If zero-point energy is real and exists, the plates should experience a pressure from the zero-point radiation from 'without' but between the plates, the radiation is at a lower pressure so the gap between them narrows, which actually happens.

The point is, light moving within the gap in the plates has a velocity greater than c because the zero-point radiation is less. The papers are available on arXiv.

Additionally, papers have been published concerning superluminality and those are also available on arXiv.

If c is not the local speed limit, both of Einstein's Relativities fall to the ground together with theories based upon them.

alan.

Re; Still Doubting Dark Matter?

Oh in the Heavens, such Heavenly delight, as we ponder dark matter, cool man, way outta sight. It tickles me pink as i fabricate this response in blue ink, while i contenmplate the words on the Moniter, i repeat.

How to detect a particle which is invisible to us and is gone before we knew it arrived? figure that one out and you will answer the question of what dark matter is.

Dark matter is what it is and also what it is not, add these two factors and see what you got, Jack in the Box, relative is it not?

If i was to take a stab in the dark, and why not, i would venture this hypothesis, dark matter is simply Entropy, radiated exponentially in hyperspace, say what.

Quite cute!

One problem, the universe would not be expanding at an excelerating pace. Not entropy.

Quite cute though!

Dear Jorrie,

My interest in Dark Matter is in pursuit of a way to overcome what is reported to me as a coherence problem related to my antenna concept for a photonic hologram reciever decoder. My original hologram on photon antenna concept was a Solar Panel or Solar Sail capable of capturing clusters of holographically encoded photons that had overcome the light speed barrier through possibly wormholes? CR4 personalities such as Chtank and Del the Cat have pointed out problems with my vision, though also some prospects. The Dark Matter reflectance, or sink, or sandwich somehow may solve my antenna problem, though it still may have to be an antenna of exceptional size. I do suspect that what I am proposing is equvalent in odds to be greater than finding a message in a bottle, and that the only reason for us or another sort as us to do such a thing is the prospect of it working at all.

Certainly otherwise our regular tv signals ought to be transmitted from the Space Elevator platform as we look for similar signals which would be a long time away despite the speed of light.

Could I coat a Solar Panel or Sail with Dark matter? Would this overcome the coherence problem?

It seems farfetched.

"Dark matter is ghostly because it's everywhere in our universe. It's all around us. But we can't see it and we can't feel it. In fact, right now there might be a billion dark matter particles passing through your body every second."

I am sorry I overlooked your post til now. My current experiment proposal is to make a liquid circuit brain as most similiar to my own that was tabla rosa, and bore it and excite it to see what came out of it as a vision. Of the brain experiences I have had that amount to a mind. The vision was the most unique. My comparison experiences have been real life, dreams, and some drug induced hallucinations.

When discussing Dark Matter I feel as though I am discussing the unknown. It seems to feel like all of light and gravity that we don't quite understand.

So then it is okay to go to a feeling and experiment on the subject.

What if you make a brain and it gets a vision that is recognizable as different from static as was the leftover that buzzes the turned off tv of yesteryear?

We are obviously walking around with heads that are receivers of information.

Light is the life giving force.

What happened in Teslas brain to cause him to invent AC power?

I'd like to know if he ever sat next to a movie projector.

Digital image machinery has become as mature as the movie projector and will be around for a long time, if not forever now.

We would succeed as a species if we made an indestructible vessel for our souls.

We know that in this Solar System there is a limit to our Sun and Earth.

We do not know how to overcome this limit, but we must work at the problem.

It is an interesting problem and the thing to do is solve it in unison.

Our struggle is not with ourselves, but with the environment.

Russell/The Transcendian

Hi Transcendian. You asked: "Could I coat a Solar Panel or Sail with Dark matter? Would this overcome the coherence problem?"

I very much doubt it; the cosmological Dark matter does not stick well. They are postulated to penetrate rather well, as Charles pointed out in his last post.

Worm holes and faster than light? Forget about it!

Jorrie

I FOUND YOUR TOPIC INTRESTING. KEEP WORKING ON IT, NO DOUBT YOU ARE ON THE EDGE OF THE AGE OF NEW DISCOVERY.

GOOD LUCK, MARLON FEQUET.

Dear Marlon & others,

This Camirisi experiment, pardon spelling, is a bit odd for me to understand as far as the readings for the pressure. Is there a physics lab local to Carrboro NC any of you would recommend I visit? Physics & engineering local to me are NC State, or A&T, and my attempts with Duke were not successful as far as what turns up now as HAL.

I'd like to see that experiment and what tools produced it.

Certainly Marlon, I appreciate the encouragement, though I have my suspicions a bit whenever I see "New Age", since often enough it is accompanied by magical thinking. It is good to see some surfacing respect for Theodore Sturgeon. I haven't read a book of Science Fiction since Time and Time Again by Clifford Simak.

Was a story about robots with souls fighting with humans by time traveling so as to rewrite the bible allowing for souls in machines. Sort of Bhuddist if you think of it.

Now I am at a point of enlisting as many as possible to propose experiments. My own favorite is now the nano fluid brain replicated tabla rosa vision receptor. The program would be boredom and bliss for the new nanofluid brain. - That all to see what the blind machine envisioned.

Perhaps the matter that we can see and detect is merely the tip of the iceberg.Perhaps the gravity we detect from dark matter is merely leaking into our dimension from the rest of the "iceberg" that resides in another dimension.Gravity could be multi-dimensional in nature, as could we ourselves.We are truly stardust,yet we produce more energy, per unit of mass than a star.We are much more powerful than we realize, and perhaps much more massive as well.Perhaps instead of dark matter passing thru our bodies, it is actually part of our bodies.

I believe there is much truth within your comment, more than you even realize. you are getting warmer.

Let me see if I have this right:Because gravity appears to be present where no matter is otherwise detectable, then "dark" matter is assumed to be present?

On a basic level, what does matter do? It warps space time.Could space time be warped by anything besides matter? Extreme energy can produce gravity, even gravity can produce gravity of it's own.Perhaps there are circumstances where gravity can be magnified and focused.If gravity can bend light waves, perhaps it can also bend gravity waves, creating the illusion of matter where there is none.With all of the matter in a galaxy,perhaps a "standing wave" of gravity is produced, separate and apart from all the individual sources of gravity within the galaxy?

Everything here stems from both theories of Relativity. The question is whether those theories are indisputably true in the sense that they operate in reality. For example, do fast moving clocks run slower because of and due to Special Relativity? Again, does a moving particle composed of real matter follow a geodesic when in a gravitational field because General Relativity is fact, not a theory?

Concerning Special Relativity, I would agree that the proofs usually set out regarding mirrors in moving train carriages are very convincing, especially because the algebra is quite simple. Does that of itself solve the question of the moving clock?

Oleg D. Jefimenko produced three books from 2000 to 2006 that he calls a natural extension to Newton's Theory of Gravity and they are available on Amazon. Briefly, what he does is use Maxwell's equations to form a theory of gravity and in passing, finds a field intermediate between that of gravity and that of electromagnetism he calls the cogravitational field.

The books are stuffed with questions and worked examples but the point is that there is a whole section on the construction of clocks that will run slow when moving without any Special Relativity being involved. Extrapolating those findings, length contraction in the direction of flight and increase in mass with increasing velocity are questionable.

As to curvature of spacetime, my first question is whether we live in spacetime. After all, 4-space is an Einsteinian construct that is incapable of unifying gravity with electromagnetism whereas Kaluza-Klein theory does that very well using 5-space, uncovering a scalar field of solitonic nature in addition.

If you take Einsteins GR field equation and wiggle it about (see the paper on Matter, Gravity and Expanding Universe), you end up with a d'Alembertian operator that will show that the field equation is nothing more than the partial differential equation for the propagation of a light wave. As I commented in the paper, in the last 20 years of his life, using 4-space, Einstein was trying to unify e-m with itself.

Friedman elegantly solved that field equation and then along came deSitter who said, what happens if you set matter density to zero? He showed that a universe devoid of matter leaves the curvature of 4-space unaffected.

Again, it is well known that a strong e-m field has the same affect on 4-space as a gravitational field.

In my other paper discussing life after death, that is just a minor part because CPT violation is more important. So to is the factor set out near the start of the paper that, with simple algebra, can be used to substantiate all of Einstein's suggested tests of GR but without the use of tensor calculus. In fact, my personal opinion is that using tensor calculus in GR 'over-engineers' the proofs. Paraphrasing Eddington 's comment to Einstein, 'there are only three people who undertand your theory. You, me and I don't know who else'.

For me, dark matter and dark energy is a fashionable topic that can found PhD theses in the same way as string theory has done for the last 20 years. It focuses minds in a particular direction so that other avenues are ignored.

I'll give you an example. The Big Bang theory is often presented as historical fact. Within that theory, the result of the Big Bang is the 2.7 degree microwave background. Has anyone suggested an alternative to the Big Bang based on the fact that Cerenkov radiation has the same spectrum as the cosmic microwave background? Not to my knowledge. Why? Maybe because doing that will attract the same retribution from the scientific bullies as befell Galileo, Kepler, Eric Laithwaite and Evgeny Podkletnov to name but a few.

alan.

Imagine, if you will, the classical rubber sheet representing space time, and a large object, say a bowling ball in the center.The sheet is deflected as the ball stretches the fabric.Now imagine a hollow cylinder, larger than the ball, being pressed down into the sheet.This will create a circular indentation around the center indentation, causing a "wrinkle" in between the center and the cylinder impression.Now imagine many such concenteric indentations around the center, and various diameters.This will creat many such ridges in space time.The cylinders represent the masses orbiting around the galactic core. Could this not give the impression of matter where it did not exist (by warping space time)? With the proper spacing of the ridges, a cosmological frenel lens could be formed that would indeed magnify galaxies behind the subject galaxy.

I would expect that a normal galaxy that has not been disturbed by collisions with other galaxies to have the most massive elements concentrated near the center,and lighter elements near the outer edges.An undisturbed galaxy of this type would generate a very smooth "dimple" in space time.However, when two galaxies collide, the heavier elements are scattered out among the lighter ones, creating "ridges" in space time that could have all kinds of strange effects on energy passing nearby or thru it.

Hi HTRN.

You wrote: "However, when two galaxies collide, the heavier elements are scattered out among the lighter ones, creating "ridges" in space time that could have all kinds of strange effects on energy passing nearby or thru it."

This is exactly what is observed by light coming form sources farther and behind the foreground galaxy. What is more, the 'ridges' are more intense than what the visible (radiating) matter can provide, hence the requirement for dark matter. According to known theories, there are no 'ridges' unless there is concentrated energy (matter, luminous or dark) there. The simplest reading of the evidence is that there is an abundance of dark matter there.

Jorrie

Jorrie,

If a particle going past the event horizon into a black hole, according to the math, shrinks to infinity, and its velocity is 3 times the speed of light and more, then why couldn't it achieve escape velocity? The particle would be much smaller than a photon, posses much more energy and have three times the velocity or more! We currently don't believe anything can escape because not even light can, but a single particle would be much smaller and faster than a photon and the gravitational effects from the black hole would not be as great on it due to its infinitely small size.

Yes, I believe dark matter is made of particles being ejected from a black hole at super luminous velocities. yes, the speed of darkness. No, not tachyons, bosons.

Hi David, you wrote:

"If a particle going past the event horizon into a black hole, according to the math, shrinks to infinity, and its velocity is 3 times the speed of light and more, then why couldn't it achieve escape velocity?"

When the particle achieves the very high speeds (not faster than light, because in the same reference frame, light also goes 'faster than light' inside a black hole), the escape velocity also grows larger and not even light exceeds it, never mind a massive particle!

"Yes, I believe dark matter is made of particles being ejected from a black hole at super luminous velocities."

What you believe is one thing; what accepted theory tells us is another. It says the dark matter was made during the first instants of the universe's life.

Jorrie

Accepted by many, but certainly not by all. Big bang theory and singularity? I don't believe a recent, (13 billion years recent) big bang started the entire universe, much less, it all came from a single pin head point without matter being created! I certainly hope and pray that in my lifetime the real answer is found.

What if the Big-Bang isn't just a singularity of the whole cosmos, but a ongoing process where Black holes that are so dense that a lot of matter gets pulled in, then they fold and turn inside out, thus all matter is ejected in a final end causing a theoretical "Big-Bang" ...

Then go on to consider, if 2 black holes come together, if 1 sucks the other in, and the sucked one "folds", or if they slowly pull each other together to create a super massive event.

Everytime I get to the concept of Universe, and really think about it, it becomes Universes. One universe is like this, and another is like that, and some are in the past and some are in the future, and some far away. The Great God of All Universes is the Universe that doesn't exist. We call where we are The World, and sometimes I think that is a better name for what we know since it has high pressure and low pressure events, what we have confidence in calling "Weather". The recent discovery of much more vast than imagined areas of the "Universe" that have really nothing at all, not even gravity around inspire me to see things more simplistically.

My experiences are mostly with shooting film, or tv, and I think of AC power as on and off like the camera that has a shutter, plus the skew of DC.

I'm not sure what you mean by "folds", and I have to admit I had not really kept up with Tachytons. I think as far as Dark Matter is concerned a full understanding of gravity is needed. I think a complete understanding of gravity will come from understanding a place, a universe, of unimaginable, absolute nothing, with no ever prospect of having anything, the end end of no beginning and no ending so nothing it can't be called anything, unimaginable is really Dark Matter. Death crying out about not being.

It is the "folding" part of your post that I do not see.

So if 2 Black Holes somehow come together one could not suck the other in unless one was a more pure black hole than the other black hole. It does seem to me that Black Holes would tend towards Equality of thing different from stars. Frankly I feel as though a Black Hole is a Black Hole, and they are all the same and equal.

If it is possible for two black holes to come together you posit that is the Big Bang? Then you posit that it might be continuously happening?

I am amazed at how many insects there are.

One of the most interesting designs to me is the infinity circle that was one of the measures on the lens of the camera that helped me to focus.

Dark Matter to me is not matter and somehow it comes to be of a scale that I wonder if it is possible to tap into for any purpose.

I believe it is something like that, but I don't personally believe in singularity at all. I don't believe matter cannot be created and I don't believe it can't be destroyed. I believe photons are a prime example of perpetual motion, (there are others). I also don't doubt that there was a large explosion somewhere nearby about 13 billion years ago, but as to the origin of the entire universe... absurd. I strongly believe that in a few hundred years from now, or much less even, we will look back upon our nowaday understanding of physics and laugh at the archaic foundations. Major breakthroughs are on the horizon that I believe will rock the entire scientific communities and re-write the science books.

Hi David, you wrote: "I strongly believe that in a few hundred years from now, or much less even, we will look back upon our nowaday understanding of physics and laugh at the archaic foundations. Major breakthroughs are on the horizon that I believe will rock the entire scientific communities and re-write the science books."

I agree with this view. That revolution may come out of the present work on quantum gravity/cosmology, perhaps sooner than we think. As you said: "on the horizon ..." Then, it may require something totally new...

Jorrie

Hi Jorrie,

I couldn't more agree with you if I tried a lot harder.

I'd love to have your comments on my Matter, Gravity, Expanding Universe paper published to CR4. It uses two basic propositions. One is that the universe is a simple system. The other is that nothing unreal can exist.

So far, the feedbacks have been from those who have not really read the papers and you can view the blogs posted.

The other paper has distracted attention by its title (Can it be Scientifically Proven there is Life After Death). However, it is more to do with General Relativity without tensors, CPT violation and superluminality.

Regards,

alan.

Check out this link for a sobering alternate view of our universe.I mentioned in a previous post(I don't remember which one) the possiblity of space time being composed of discrete elements, which I termed STELS (Space Time Elements) for want of a better acronym.

It seems I may have stumbled onto something after all.

And Einstein was right when he said reality is an illusiion.

Check out this link:You may have to copy and paste, for some reason it didn't copy as a link:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327247.000-13-more-things-noise-from-the-edge-of-the-universe.html

Jorrie,

Check out this link. http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-cosmicray9nov09,1,4445226.story?ctrack=1&cset=true If a particle was just a little bit faster, it would exceed c. whats to say it isn't happening, but we just can't see it or detect it.

Hi David, you wrote: "If a particle was just a little bit faster, it would exceed c. whats to say it isn't happening, but we just can't see it or detect it."

The 'saving grace' is that for a particle to reach c, its kinetic energy must be infinite and we do not think even black holes can muster that...

Only hypothetical particles (tachyons) that are created moving faster than light can and must forever move at c+. I doubt if we would be able to detect them, if they exist, which is also doubtful.

Jorrie

But the "theory" to calculate energy needed to propel mass to c+ is still only a theory, until it can be proven or disproven.

what if things reversed above c3/4 (3/4 of c) or mass x c formula had a intrinsic value that we have yet to discover, the formula is correct for the understanding we currently have and can prove, until it can be proven otherwise, it cannot also be dismissed.

Hi Snaketails, you said: "But the "theory" to calculate energy needed to propel mass to c+ is still only a theory, until it can be proven or disproven."

It is proven more than once a day in particle accelerators, where we can measure the speed, energy input and actual energy of massive particles moving at near the speed of light. The values agree with relativity theory to incredible accuracy. This tells us with reasonable certainty that we will not be able to accelerate any particle with mass to c, never mind c+.

Jorrie

Fair enough, but is there any "missing" matter that is found to be "missing" at close to c?

could this be caused by the effects of something, say if dark matter is created, or converted?

Hmmm the 1st line isn't right, don't know how to change it to fix it.

Is there any differances between accelerating hydrogen atoms as against something higher up the elemental table? does it actually take more energy to accelerate a heavy atom as opposed to a lighter one? I guess by E=mc^2 what I'm saying would be yes?

Hi Snaketails, you answered it correctly: "I guess by E=mc^2 what I'm saying would be yes?"

The energy of a particle with mass m at velocity v is: E = mc²/√(1-v²/c²), so it definitely depends on the velocity and the mass of the particle.

Jorrie

Why isn't there any magnetics in those equations? or are they related to some part in another way?

In mass accelerators, your measuring more energy to accel the mass up to light speed, as there are no 100% super conductors (but pretty close) isn't some of the energy used to propel the mass on the crest of the magnetic wave lost in the the construction of the equipment?

Still trying to get my head around, more mass more energy to accel.

Hi Snaketails, you wrote: "Why isn't there any magnetics in those equations?"

The total energy given in E = mc²/√(1-v²/c²) takes all the rest-energy of a particle and "add" the kinetic energy. Included in the rest energy would be electrical charge energy, but I do not think a particle is magnetizable!

You asked: "isn't some of the energy used to propel the mass on the crest of the magnetic wave lost in the the construction of the equipment?"

AFAIK, the losses in the equipment are taken into account and then the energy actually transferred to the particle is calculated, not the raw input energy. In any case, one can simple crash the particles into something and measure the momentum in order to know how much energy they absorbed. That energy corresponds to Einstein's equation to an extremely high accuracy.

Jorrie

Only if Special Relativity is correct and I have already posted a long blog concerning both Realtivity theories.

alan.

Please see my blog on the speed of light between Casimir plates. No accelerating mechanism is required.

alan.

Regarding the Casimir plates, has anyone tried to determine if there is a particular orientation or shape of the plates that influences the effect, or is the effect uniform in all directions? Does the type of material affect the results or range of the effect?Could one not construct a more effective "shield" to produce a desired shape of the weakened field?What are the results using magnetised plates?Perhaps you can provide a link to your blog referenced above.

Thanks

Hi,

Just seen your reply to my number 97.

Have a look at the foot of page 115 of the paper

www.angmalta.net/clients/alan/

where the reference you want is given with some comments.

I invited Jorrie to comment on that paper but so far, without any luck.

If you ahve any difficulty retrieving the paper, send yourself an email of the reference and then click on it.

Regards,

alan.

Jorrie, just a thought. If a particle, after the event horizon of a black hole, mathmatically shrinks to infiniti, and the smaller the particle, the greater the energy, then couldn't an elemental particle's energy grow infinitly great as it shrunk infinitly small? Maybe even enough to escape the gravity of the black hole?

Just a thought.

Hi David, you asked: "... then couldn't an elemental particle's energy grow infinitly great as it shrunk infinitly small?"

No, it's only the energy density of the particle that (might) go to infinity, not its energy - that remains the same.

Jorrie

Ok, if a single sub atomic particle is accelerated past the speed of light after the event horizon of a black hole, and the particle shrinks to infinity, could not its velocity also increase proportionately, which would increase it's energy?

I understand what we observe in particle accelerators, however we have yet to even find the basic elemental particle, (hicks boson or whatever it may be referred to as) much less have tried to accelerate it. We have never tried to accelerate a particle which contains another particle within it.

In a typical lens, magnification is achieved by the varying thickness of the lens material.(Compare this to warped space-time). It requires more mass at the center, or at the edges to produce the desired effect.However, a Fresnel lens achieves the magnification effect with a perfectly flat lens, instead, using grooves of a specific spacing to achieve magnification.

Instead of interpreting the extra lensing effect of galaxies as we would a typical lens, perhaps the effect is achieved by an effect similar to the Fresnel Lens.

Perhaps these two effect combine under certain conditions?

Or perhaps there is a fuzzy focus in my understanding of the lensing effect as currently observed?

Please help me to clarify my understanding of gravitational lensing, or to verify or reject my theory.

Hi HRTN.

Gravitational lenses are not understood as the varying thickness of anything that light moves through. It is gravitational bending of the light, just like Earth's gravity bends the path of the space station so that it follows more or less a circle around Earth. In other words, gravity attracts light just as it attracts material objects.

A good example is a black hole, where the light has to go around it - it can't go through it. This 'going around and being bent' causes gravitational lensing. There is even a radius (1.5 times the event horizon radius) where light can orbit the black hole. In the case of galaxies, light can 'go through' them and the bending depends on the density if matter near the path, not on the density in the path of the light.

I've written something on gravitational lenses in this old CR4 Blog post.

Hope this clear some of the questions.

Although light goes tru a lens, the material the lens is made of affects the amount of bending, similar to the density of matter affecting the space-time curvature.I realize that light is bent by the curvature of space time, caused by gravity, proportional to density of matter in the vicinity of the light path.Light always follows the path of least resistance.If we were riding on alight beam when it was deflected, we would feel no g-force as we changed direction, because we are following the curvature of space time.Only when we try to violate the path of least resisitance do we encounter G Forces.

Back to the lens analogy.The lens material effects the path of the light passing thru it, but the light does not know it is passing thru anything.It is simply following the path of least resistance.Same with gravitational lensing.However,I believe that certain combinations of bending can result in an overall gain in perceived magnification, much like a telescope multiples its force by combining two lenses.

Am I still way out in left fielsd on this?

Thanks for your input, it is always enlightening.(No pun intended)

Hi HTRN, you wrote: "I believe that certain combinations of bending can result in an overall gain in perceived magnification, much like a telescope multiples its force by combining two lenses."

I know of no recorded case of a combination of gravitational lenses. Gravitational lenses act much like a single lens magnifying glass, as I've explained in that Blog post that I linked to last time. If two are aligned just right, I suppose a gain in overall magnification is possible. Such alignments are however highly unlikely, I think...

Jorrie

Hi Jorrie...

You wrote:"There is even a radius (1.5 times the event horizon radius) where light can orbit the black hole." ... Hmm... ... If the light orbit a Black Hole (due to gravity of the BH) this means that the light can't escape... ??? ... So, this seems to be the event horizon not the "1.5 times the event horizon" ... (afterall the event horizon is this "exact limit" of the BH where the light just doesn't succeed to escape from the BH ... or (in other words) the event horizon is the orbits of the last photons which were not able to escape...) I've read about this "1.5 times the event horizon" issue formerly but it has confused me... ... Could you clarify this please???...

Hi George. You wrote:

"If the light orbit a Black Hole (due to gravity of the BH) this means that the light can't escape... ??? "

No, light can easily escape from r=1.5Rs; all it needs is the slightest positive radial velocity component. The orbit of light at 1.5Rs is highly unstable and the slightest radial velocity component (due to some or other perturbation) will cause light to either escape (positive radial perturbation) or to spiral into the hole (negative radial perturbation). The event horizon is where light cannot even escape purely radially.

Jorrie

Perhaps matter has a crital mass, much as nuclear material has a critcal mass before anything happens.Perhaps when the last molecule,electron and photon, and all other forms of matter and energy are merged into one huge black hole, critical mass may be reached, and the whole process starts over again....perhaps...

My report of what I've read to this time:

The pictures are supposed to depict Dark Matter. There is evidence of more mass than there ought to be, therefore what is more mass is Dark Matter. Gravity effects prove there is more?

This may be baryonic gas?

I'd never thought of what might happen if two black holes collided. What would happen? If it could happen, it ought to have happened somewhere. Is there some picture that indicates such an even?

I heard a report a few weeks ago about a huge onetime event that the astronomers were puzzled about because of its power and shortness of duration.

I do not know all the details of the event but it would make sense to me that in the creating of one universe from another such an event could be rare.

To fully wrap my head around it I have to think that it is both rare, and then common since we are dealing with real infinity only limited by what can and does happen. In an infinity, a real universe without limit there would be so many universes that they were a layer of others always starting and ending in a circle of beginnings and endings that twist and cross into that infinity circle on the lens of the camera.

Is Dark Matter an alternate transitional component in the common Universes that tugs towards an internal universe mechanisim of new or parallel Spawning? Is the real void then struck by the tornado tail of the colliding Black Holes?

Or is one Black Hole enough?

About this Thread I do wonder what exactly is known as possible dependent on evidence. I did go on Wikepedia and read about the possiblities for a substancial period of time this weekend and noted that there were some competing theories about Tachons and even some discussion of Variable Speed Theories of Light as if it was of some validity at some time, in some universe.

Could there be a Universe where the speed of light was the only difference?

What if that was a reality?

Would that explain the Big Bang?

I'm not good at writing equations and would appreciate it if someone else could.

Say it was that there were many universes and their interactions were assured by unique speeds for light? Would this then cause intersection crashes? What would prevent another universe from having a uniquely different speed for Light?

It's another Universe, another state, like maybe Montana.

Anyway I'm not just joking around here and I have been reading outside the site for other views, and it is interesting to discuss, though I am a bit sad that I haven't talked to anyone in person about it.

Just because Dark Matter doesn't work for me, doesn't mean its not interesting.

Hi,

I'll talk to you about other universes. It is about Everitt;s multiverse concept.

I've published two papers to CR4 so please have a look at the second paper and don't be put off by the title - Can it be Scientifically Proven there is Life After Death. That is only the bit at the end and what you want is the section called 'Anthropic'.

Regards,

alan.

Dark matter, whether it exists or not shouldn't be a problem..

Think of the thoughts of a UFO, this doesn't actually mean its a space ship from another planet, it could just be a new aircraft that has just been released, or something, its unidentified, its flying, and its a object, thats all ;o)

Dark matter in my thoughts is similar, it's only "Dark" as in it is not currently seen, once the light is turned on, and its "discovered" whats really happening there, then the darkness will be no longer dark, could also turn out to be the basis of a "Zero-point" energy source, but we'll see when we get there.

I have mentioned before about "folding", I see this in this way... If the gravity of a Black Hole couldn't contain the pressures of material trying to fight against the gravity, and pushing back out, it would be almost like it "folds" or try to turn itself inside-out, I guess a Black Hole has a definite life span before it cannot "suck" anything more in, then would it go *BANG* or ignite into a new star?

You have sort of lost me. I thought the big thing about dark matter was that it added to the known mass, and therefore was a bit of a mystery. I guess it can't be that dark if it was detected, but apparently we don't know how much of it we have around, and then wonder if it is all around since we don't see ourselves as others might. Anyway that is where I am in my understanding of dark matter, which so far has not been useful for my purposes.

I'd love to know where I am as far as dark matter is concerned, and others who apparently know more about it than I do.

dark matter has not been detected. It presence is felt.