| |
Main
Date: 21 Aug 2006 11:22:08
From: Klaatu
Subject: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
|
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/media/
http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0306/devil/
"...Using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, plus Hubble Space Telescope, the
Magellan telescope and the ESO 2.2 m telescope, astronomers have seen a
separation between normal and dark matter for the first time. Messing
around with gravity to avoid dark matter cannot explain this result. The
nature of dark matter is still a mystery, but this invisible stuff won't go
away."
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 13:55:01
From: Llanzlan Klazmon
Subject: Re: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
|
Klaatu <mutster8_nospam_@netscape.net > wrote in
news:12ejuegna0ftj3d@corp.supernews.com:
> NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
Just a gripe at the headline. It should say direct "evidence" not "proof".
Klazmon.
>
> http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/media/
>
> http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0306/devil/
>
> "...Using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, plus Hubble Space Telescope,
> the Magellan telescope and the ESO 2.2 m telescope, astronomers have
> seen a separation between normal and dark matter for the first time.
> Messing around with gravity to avoid dark matter cannot explain this
> result. The nature of dark matter is still a mystery, but this invisible
> stuff won't go away."
>
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2006 17:48:28
From: Stupendous_Man
Subject: Re: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
|
canopus56 wrote:
> Klaatu wrote:
> > NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
> > http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/media/
> > http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0306/devil/
>
> I'm not sure I understand this correctly. It looks like what they did
> was astrophoto two colliding galaxies at mulitple wavelengths. In one
> wavelength, they can see "ordinary" optically visible dark matter.
> Because the galaxies are colliding, their cores are putting out an
> enormous amount of x-ray energy. This has lit up ordinarily "invisible"
> but "extraordinary" dark matter, so it could be seen by the Chandra
> X-ray satellite. Is that about right? - Canopus56
Step 1: use visible image to measure properties of very distant, very
faint,
very small galaxies which are far behind the big obvious galaxies in
the cluster.
Step 2: notice small distortions in the shapes of the distant
background
galaxies. Use them to figure out the total gravitational mass which is
bending the light from these distant galaxies as it passes through the
cluster.
Make a map of the "gravitational mass" in the cluster.
Step 3: use Chandra to measure the X-rays emitted by hot gas within
the cluster. This hot gas represents most of the ordinary matter --
protons, electrons, neutrons, aka "baryonic matter" -- in the cluster.
Step 4: use the Chandra data to make a map of the "baryonic" matter
within the cluster.
Step 5: Note that the "gravitational mass" map does not have the
same features as the "baryonic mass" map. Voila -- evidence that
the dark matter and ordinary matter have different distributions.
Step 6: write up results, send out press release.
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2006 16:58:44
From: canopus56
Subject: Re: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
|
Klaatu wrote:
> NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
> http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/media/
> http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0306/devil/
I'm not sure I understand this correctly. It looks like what they did
was astrophoto two colliding galaxies at mulitple wavelengths. In one
wavelength, they can see "ordinary" optically visible dark matter.
Because the galaxies are colliding, their cores are putting out an
enormous amount of x-ray energy. This has lit up ordinarily "invisible"
but "extraordinary" dark matter, so it could be seen by the Chandra
X-ray satellite. Is that about right? - Canopus56
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2006 11:39:01
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
|
Dark matter is what you get when you try to explain the motion of the
planets around the Sun using a local solution*,then you apply another
ad hoc solution to keep the solar systems pinwheeling around" the
galactic axis and another ad hoc solution to explain ' accelerating
expansion.
Soon you are choc-a-bloc with ad hoc solutions that do not mesh and
then you go with wishful thinking 'dark matter' into existence from
being a speculative empirical balloon.Dark matter is a means to tell me
that astrophotographers have yet to enjoy the heliocentric experience
by looking at a planet and attempting to put our motion on Earth in
comparison with the other planet's in our common heliocentric motion
around the Sun.
* "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
Klaatu wrote:
> NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
>
> http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/media/
>
> http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0306/devil/
>
> "...Using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, plus Hubble Space Telescope, the
> Magellan telescope and the ESO 2.2 m telescope, astronomers have seen a
> separation between normal and dark matter for the first time. Messing
> around with gravity to avoid dark matter cannot explain this result. The
> nature of dark matter is still a mystery, but this invisible stuff won't go
> away."
|
|
