| |
Main
Date: 04 May 2007 01:29:14
From: Chris.B
Subject: Dark fantasies?
|
Why couldn't dark matter and dark energy be "leakage" across the
boundary with another dimension (or dimensions)?
|
|
| |
Date: 08 May 2007 01:09:49
From: Chris.B
Subject: Re: Dark fantasies?
|
On May 8, 8:00 am, Jim Klein <jamesekl...@earthlink.net > wrote:
> "Chris.B" <chri...@mail.dk> wrote:
> >Why couldn't dark matter and dark energy be "leakage" across the
> >boundary with another dimension (or dimensions)?
>
> I must appologize for Dr Image Nious' post.
>
> Jim Klein
No problem, Jim.
I like the idea of other dimensions to help explain "unexplained"
phenomena. i.e. Ghosts, UFOs etc. Perhaps the brain is sensitive to
alternative realities and the human psyche will become yet another
variable in the formul=E6 we use to describe the universe. While one
might easily dismiss a single observer how can one dismiss a pair, a
group or a crowd, of witnesses to the extremely unlikely? Given the
vast distances between possibly habitable planets, and the lack of
published evidence for time travel, a sideways step into another
dimension would be like boarding a taxi instead of spending a lifetime
of tedium in a sub-light-speed starship.
I find the lack of time travellers a little worrying. Does it mean the
human race failed to discover time travel at any time in the infinite
future? Or did they perish before they could invent it? Even if we get
past our warring ways and the present religious and climatological
conflicts we may still revert to a tiny population. Making charming
pots and hugging trees rather than following the technological path
into certain hell on an overpopulated earth. Perhaps time travel is
simply impossible and everybody left for another dimension where the
sun always shines and microsoft is just a long-forgotten expletive.
|
| |
Date: 08 May 2007 06:00:21
From: Jim Klein
Subject: Re: Dark fantasies?
|
"Chris.B" <chris.b@mail.dk > wrote:
>Why couldn't dark matter and dark energy be "leakage" across the
>boundary with another dimension (or dimensions)?
I must appologize for Dr Image Nious' post.
We had the little bugger locked up in an institution for mad geniuses,
but someone smuggled a computer with a wireless internet connection to
him.
Jim Klein
James E. Klein
jameseklein@earthlink.net
Engineering Calculations
http://www.ecalculations.com
ecalculations@ecalculations.com
Engineering Calculations is the home of
the KDP-2 Optical Design Program
for Windows.
1-818-507-5706 (Voice and Fax)
1-818-823-4121
"KDP2, not quite easy enough for a Caveman to use" :-)
|
| |
Date: 06 May 2007 03:11:14
From: Chris.B
Subject: Re: Dark fantasies?
|
On May 5, 6:12 pm, Jim Klein <jamesekl...@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
> Infact it can. The third corellary to the 5th Janeway/Riker law proves
> that as long as a trans galactic plenum continues to bend both time
> and space in the usual way, transmissions of both dark matter and dark
> energy not only leak from one dimension to another in the 11 dimension
> string space, but during leakage maximums, no other leakages are
> possible.
>
> Dr. Image Nius
> Professor Emeritus Max Platt Institute
> Department of Warp Studies, Thorne Chair
So there's still hope? ;-)
You seem to have an understanding of these matters which exceeds that
of Oriel's by several orders of magnitude. (if I may so boldly
speak) :-)
|
| | |
Date: 08 May 2007 05:54:25
From: Jim Klein
Subject: Re: Dark fantasies?
|
"Chris.B" <chris.b@mail.dk > wrote:
>On May 5, 6:12 pm, Jim Klein <jamesekl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> Infact it can. The third corellary to the 5th Janeway/Riker law proves
>> that as long as a trans galactic plenum continues to bend both time
>> and space in the usual way, transmissions of both dark matter and dark
>> energy not only leak from one dimension to another in the 11 dimension
>> string space, but during leakage maximums, no other leakages are
>> possible.
>>
>> Dr. Image Nius
>> Professor Emeritus Max Platt Institute
>> Department of Warp Studies, Thorne Chair
>
>So there's still hope? ;-)
>
>You seem to have an understanding of these matters which exceeds that
>of Oriel's by several orders of magnitude. (if I may so boldly
>speak) :-)
You may, you may
Image
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2007 16:12:17
From: Jim Klein
Subject: Re: Dark fantasies?
|
"Chris.B" <chris.b@mail.dk > wrote:
>Why couldn't dark matter and dark energy be "leakage" across the
>boundary with another dimension (or dimensions)?
Infact it can. The third corellary to the 5th Janeway/Riker law proves
that as long as a trans galactic plenum continues to bend both time
and space in the usual way, transmissions of both dark matter and dark
energy not only leak from one dimension to another in the 11 dimension
string space, but during leakage maximums, no other leakages are
possible.
Dr. Image Nius
Professor Emeritus Max Platt Institute
Department of Warp Studies, Thorne Chair
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2007 22:24:20
From: LarryG
Subject: Re: Dark fantasies?
|
On May 4, 3:29 am, "Chris.B" <chri...@mail.dk > wrote:
> Why couldn't dark matter and dark energy be "leakage" across the
> boundary with another dimension (or dimensions)?
There was an article in one of the science magazines (Sci Am ?) a few
years ago that dealt with a string theory conjecture that gravity was
relatively weak (compared to the other fundamental forces) exactly
because the strings that make up gravity do not stay bound to the
local membrane, and hence are free to drift away. Gravity then, is
the result of the few strings remaining in the local universe.
Cheers,
Larry G.
|
| | |
Date: 05 May 2007 14:27:00
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Dark fantasies?
|
LarryG wrote:
> There was an article in one of the science magazines (Sci Am ?) a few
> years ago that dealt with a string theory conjecture that gravity was
> relatively weak (compared to the other fundamental forces) exactly
> because the strings that make up gravity do not stay bound to the
> local membrane, and hence are free to drift away. Gravity then, is
> the result of the few strings remaining in the local universe.
>
> Cheers,
> Larry G.
>
Nothing to do with string theories. String theory has yet to make
a testable prediction!
From Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General
Relativity", Addison Wesley (2003)
"A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain
when gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational
force law
F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2
o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all
mass, and, since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all
forms of energy.
o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges
to cancel positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield
(screen) the gravitational interaction. Gravity is always
attractive.
o Gravity is a long-range interaction. The Newtonian force law is a
1/r^2 interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for
gravitational interactions as there is for the strong and weak
interactions.
o Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions acting
between individual elementary particles at accessible energy
scales. The ratio of the gravitational attraction to the
electromagnetic repulsion between two protons separated by a
distance r is
F_grav G m_p^2 / r^2 G m_p^2
-------- = -------------------- = ------------- ~ 10^-36
F_elec e^2 / (4 pi e_0 r^2) (e^2/4pi e_0)
where m_p is the mass of the proton and e is its charge.
These four facts explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in
physical phenomena. They explain, for example, why, although it is
the weakest force, gravity governs the organization of the universe
on the largest distance scales of astrophysics and cosmology. These
distance scales are far beyond the subatomic ranges of the strong and
the weak interactions. Electromagnetic interactions COULD be long
range were there any large-scale objects with net electric charge.
But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic forces
are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any large-scale
net charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the
structure of the universe on the largest scales.
For a more thorough comparison see: Observational and Experimental
Evidence Bearing on General Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2007 09:54:24
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Dark fantasies?
|
On May 4, 3:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com > wrote:
> Brian Tung wrote:
> > Sam Wormley quoted:
> >> What's the difference between dark matter and dark energy?
>
> >> From "Ask the Astronomer"
> >> http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=634
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >> Dark energy, which also goes by the names of the cosmological constant
> >> or quintessence...
>
> > Not the same things, incidentally.
>
> True... The candidates do not fit.
These 'dark' solutions are just a consequence of the original ad hoc
solution Isaac used to explain planetary motion via the Ra/Dec system.
Any person with a shread of astronomical common sense today would
marvel at how primitive Newton's view of the solar system in isolation
from the rest of the visible stars now is -
Cor. 2. "And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I." NEWTON
The chances are that Keplerian orbital geometries are a consequence of
compound heliocentric orbital motion and the motion of the planets for
6 months in the direction of galactic orbital motion and 6 months
against the direction of the solar system's galactic orbital motion or
the relationship of the orbital motions of the planets to the galactic
forward moving Sun.In any case, the solar system's galactic orbital
motion in tandem with the visible stars in their motion in one
direction about the galactic axis is already there for those who can
escape Newtonian celestial sphere views.
I have to laugh at how 'dark' matter survives in a forum full of
magnification guys.
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2007 13:46:59
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Dark fantasies?
|
On 4 May 2007 01:29:14 -0700, "Chris.B" <chris.b@mail.dk > wrote:
>Why couldn't dark matter and dark energy be "leakage" across the
>boundary with another dimension (or dimensions)?
Dark matter is probably nothing special, it just doesn't interact
strongly with EM (we are already familiar with such matter). You might
as well ask why ordinary baryonic matter isn't leakage from another
dimension (whatever that means).
Dark energy has nothing at all to do with dark matter (outside the
choice of the word "dark"), so I don't know why you would try to tie
them to a common "cause".
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2007 05:36:31
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Dark fantasies?
|
On May 4, 9:52 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com > wrote:
> Chris.B wrote:
> > Why couldn't dark matter and dark energy be "leakage" across the
> > boundary with another dimension (or dimensions)?
>
> To date there is no evidence for and extra dimensions or other
> universes for that matter.
>
> History of the Universe from This Week's Finds in Mathematical
> Physics (Week 196) -- First of all, we only "know" anything about
> the world on the basis of various assumptions. If our assumptions
> turn out to be wrong, our "knowledge" may turn out to be wrong too.
> Even worse, our favorite concepts may turn out to be meaningless, or
> meaningful only under some restrictions.
>
> So, when we talk about what happened in the first microsecond after
> the Big Bang, we're not claiming absolute certainty. Instead, we're
> using various widely accepted assumptions about physics to guess what
> happened. Given these assumptions, the concept of "the first
> microsecond after the Big Bang" makes perfect sense. But if these
> assumptions are wrong, the whole question could dissolve into
> meaninglessness. That's just a risk we have to run. What are these
> assumptions, exactly? They include:
>
> 1. General Relativity
> 2. Standard Model of particle physics
> supplemented by
> 3. Dark Energy (a non zero cosmological constant)
> 4. Dark Matter (electromagnetic non interaction)
>
> Assumptions 3 and 4 are the ones most people like to worry about,
> because our only evidence for them comes from cosmological
> observations, and if they're true, they probably require some sort of
> modification of the Standard Model. But if we don't make these
> assumptions, our model of cosmology just doesn't work... while if we
> *do*, it seems to work quite well. In fact, the WMAP experiment gives
> a lot of new evidence that it works surprisingly well.
>
> GTR fruitful tool to map Dark Matter!
>
> Scientists Map Dark Matter, Prove Einstein Right
> http://www.space.com/news/cosmic_shear_000512.html
>
> Particle Dark Matter: Evidence, Candidates and Constraints
> http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
>
> Dark Matter -- One Mystery Solved (Update)
> http://www.physorg.com/news7058.html
>
> Until recently cosmologists could not explain why
> elliptical galaxies did not appear to have dark matter
> haloes surrounding them, which is known to exist in other
> types of galaxies. Analyzing data from a simulation
> performed on one of the most advanced supercomputers in
> the world, an Israeli cosmologist showed that the existing
> model of elliptical galaxies was wrong, proving that dark
> matter was there all along.
>
> See:http://www.physorg.com/news7058.html
Dark energy,dark matter or dark anything are just the end products of
the empirical approach to astronomy,and catastrophic approach at
that.The appreciation of the maginficence of the great astronomical
cycles from axial rotation,heliocentric orbital motion ,galactic
orbital motion and any other cycle we participate in are within the
capabilities of everyone here who looks out into the celestial arena
but are lost in the babble of exotic 'dark' notions which exist only
in the imagination of people who care about meaningless equations
rather than physical considerations.
The stage is set for everyone here to appreciate the clear distinction
between the brilliant Western astronomical insights and the hideous
17th century mutations which give rise to conceptual monsters like
'dark' solutions,monsters that originate from the false Newtonian
approach to retrogrades.
The 24 hour/360 degree correlation as a heliocentric affirmation of
the correct Copernican approach to retrogrades and their resolution
stand opposite the false 23 hour 56 minute correlation of Flamsteed
allied with the false Newtonian approach to retrogrades and their
resolution.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
Those images rendered into time lapse footage of the Earth overtaking
the slower forward outer planets of Jupiter and Saturn awakes
astronomy from 3 centuries of the stony silence of celestial sphere
astrology.You can forget not only your 'dark' solutions and the
exotic 20th century science fiction concepts and you can even forget
the original terrestrial ballistics agenda applied to planetary motion
by Newton for none of it ever worked astronomically,observationally
and bottom line.
Your magnification /theortical cult will bet that people are too
indifferent and too stupid to know the difference but I assure you
that I have seen the interest of people in their almost lost
astronomical heritage,the 'Longitude story' being one of the first
signs of recovery of the great astronomical principles.
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2007 08:52:39
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Dark fantasies?
|
Chris.B wrote:
> Why couldn't dark matter and dark energy be "leakage" across the
> boundary with another dimension (or dimensions)?
>
To date there is no evidence for and extra dimensions or other
universes for that matter.
History of the Universe from This Week's Finds in Mathematical
Physics (Week 196) -- First of all, we only "know" anything about
the world on the basis of various assumptions. If our assumptions
turn out to be wrong, our "knowledge" may turn out to be wrong too.
Even worse, our favorite concepts may turn out to be meaningless, or
meaningful only under some restrictions.
So, when we talk about what happened in the first microsecond after
the Big Bang, we're not claiming absolute certainty. Instead, we're
using various widely accepted assumptions about physics to guess what
happened. Given these assumptions, the concept of "the first
microsecond after the Big Bang" makes perfect sense. But if these
assumptions are wrong, the whole question could dissolve into
meaninglessness. That's just a risk we have to run. What are these
assumptions, exactly? They include:
1. General Relativity
2. Standard Model of particle physics
supplemented by
3. Dark Energy (a non zero cosmological constant)
4. Dark Matter (electromagnetic non interaction)
Assumptions 3 and 4 are the ones most people like to worry about,
because our only evidence for them comes from cosmological
observations, and if they're true, they probably require some sort of
modification of the Standard Model. But if we don't make these
assumptions, our model of cosmology just doesn't work... while if we
*do*, it seems to work quite well. In fact, the WMAP experiment gives
a lot of new evidence that it works surprisingly well.
GTR fruitful tool to map Dark Matter!
Scientists Map Dark Matter, Prove Einstein Right
http://www.space.com/news/cosmic_shear_000512.html
Particle Dark Matter: Evidence, Candidates and Constraints
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark Matter -- One Mystery Solved (Update)
http://www.physorg.com/news7058.html
Until recently cosmologists could not explain why
elliptical galaxies did not appear to have dark matter
haloes surrounding them, which is known to exist in other
types of galaxies. Analyzing data from a simulation
performed on one of the most advanced supercomputers in
the world, an Israeli cosmologist showed that the existing
model of elliptical galaxies was wrong, proving that dark
matter was there all along.
See: http://www.physorg.com/news7058.html
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2007 08:44:39
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Dark fantasies?
|
Chris.B wrote:
> Why couldn't dark matter and dark energy be "leakage" across the
> boundary with another dimension (or dimensions)?
>
Astrophysics, abstract
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407
From: Marusa Bradac [view email]
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 17:51:03 GMT (119kb)
A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter
Authors: Douglas Clowe (1), Marusa Bradac (2), Anthony H. Gonzalez (3),
Maxim Markevitch (4), Scott W. Randall (4), Christine Jones (4), Dennis
Zaritsky (1) ((1) Steward Observatory, Tucson, (2) KIPAC, Stanford, (3)
Department of Astronomy, Gainesville, (4) CfA, Cambridge)
Comments: Accepted for publication in ApJL
We present new weak lensing observations of 1E0657-558 (z=0.296), a
unique cluster merger, that enable a direct detection of dark matter,
independent of assumptions regarding the nature of the gravitational
force law. Due to the collision of two clusters, the dissipationless
stellar component and the fluid-like X-ray emitting plasma are
spatially segregated. By using both wide-field ground based images and
HST/ACS images of the cluster cores, we create gravitational lensing
maps which show that the gravitational potential does not trace the
plasma distribution, the dominant baryonic mass component, but rather
approximately traces the distribution of galaxies. An 8-sigma
significance spatial offset of the center of the total mass from the
center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained with an
alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the
majority of the matter in the system is unseen.
___________________________________
Astrophysics, abstract
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608408
From: Marusa Bradac [view email]
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 20:06:48 GMT (373kb)
Strong and weak lensing united III: Measuring the mass distribution of
the merging galaxy cluster 1E0657-56
Authors: Marusa Bradac (1,2), Douglas Clowe (3), Anthony H. Gonzalez
(4), Phil Marshall (1), William Forman (5), Christine Jones (5), Maxim
Markevitch (5), Scott Randall (5), Tim Schrabback (2), Dennis Zaritsky
(3) ((1) KIPAC, Stanford, (2) AIfA, Bonn, (3) Steward Observatory,
Tucson, (4) Department of Astronomy, Gainesville, (5) CfA, Cambridge)
Comments: Accepted for publication in ApJ; Version with full-resolution
figures available at this http URL
The galaxy cluster 1E0657-56 (z = 0.296) is remarkably well-suited
for addressing outstanding issues in both galaxy evolution and
fundamental physics. We present a reconstruction of the mass
distribution from both strong and weak gravitational lensing data.
Multi-color, high-resolution HST ACS images allow detection of many
more arc candidates than were previously known, especially around the
subcluster. Using the known redshift of one of the multiply imaged
systems, we determine the remaining source redshifts using the
predictive power of the strong lens model. Combining this information
with shape measurements of "weakly" lensed sources, we derive a
high-resolution, absolutely-calibrated mass map, using no assumptions
regarding the physical properties of the underlying cluster potential.
This map provides the best available quantification of the total mass
of the central part of the cluster. We also confirm the result from
Clowe et al. (2004,2006a).
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2007 08:43:30
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Dark fantasies?
|
Chris.B wrote:
> Why couldn't dark matter and dark energy be "leakage" across the
> boundary with another dimension (or dimensions)?
>
What's the difference between dark matter and dark energy?
From "Ask the Astronomer"
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=634
Question:
I've been reading many clever answers here about dark matter and dark
energy that called my attention to this question. Since Einstein's
theory relates matter and energy as different states of the same thing,
is it valid to think about dark matter and dark energy in the same way?
Are they two states of the same dark "thing"? Are they interchangeable?
Answer:
The short answer to your question is that we don't know if dark matter
and dark energy are manifestations of the same dark "thing". We know
they both must exist to explain certain phenomena, but we still know
very little about their make up so we cannot assume they are linked.
For now, we think of them as separate, and we believe the cosmos to be
composed of roughly 0.03% heavy elements (anything other than hydrogen
and helium), 0.3% neutrinos, 0.5% stars, 4% free hydrogen and helium,
25% dark matter, and 70% dark energy. Here is how we define them
separately:
Dark matter must exist to account for the gravity that holds galaxies
together. If the only matter in the universe was matter we could
directly detect, galaxies would not have had enough matter to have ever
formed. The galaxies we observe today would fly apart because they
wouldn't have enough matter to create a strong enough gravitational
force to hold themselves together. Dark matter is also responsible for
amplifying small fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background back
in the early universe to create the large scale structure we observe in
the universe today.
Dark energy, which also goes by the names of the cosmological constant
or quintessence, must exist due to the rate of expansion we observe for
our universe. Not only is the universe expanding, but this expansion is
also accelerating so the unknown 'anti-gravity' force at work is termed
'dark energy'.
Some researchers are searching for an explanation that encompasses both
dark matter and dark energy. One example of such a theory uses a form
of energy called a scalar field (it is a field because it has
magnitude, energy and pressure, but it is scalar so it has no
direction). Things would certainly be easier if we didn't need to have
separate theories to explain dark matter and dark energy. However,
other researchers look at dark matter and dark energy as two separate
problems. For example, many string theories use super symmetric
particles to explain dark matter and make no connection to dark energy
at all.
See: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=634
|
| | |
Date: 04 May 2007 07:44:17
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Dark fantasies?
|
Sam Wormley quoted:
> What's the difference between dark matter and dark energy?
>
> From "Ask the Astronomer"
> http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=634
>
> [snip]
>
> Dark energy, which also goes by the names of the cosmological constant
> or quintessence...
Not the same things, incidentally.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | |
Date: 04 May 2007 14:54:09
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Dark fantasies?
|
Brian Tung wrote:
> Sam Wormley quoted:
>> What's the difference between dark matter and dark energy?
>>
>> From "Ask the Astronomer"
>> http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=634
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Dark energy, which also goes by the names of the cosmological constant
>> or quintessence...
>
> Not the same things, incidentally.
>
True... The candidates do not fit.
|
|
