Abell 383: Getting a full picture of an elusive subject

Feb 28, 2013
Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Caltech/A.Newman et al/Tel Aviv/A.Morandi & M.Limousin; Optical: NASA/STScI, ESO/VLT, SDSS

(Phys.org)—Two teams of astronomers have used data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and other telescopes to map the distribution of dark matter in a galaxy cluster known as Abell 383, which is located about 2.3 billion light years from Earth. Not only were the researchers able to find where the dark matter lies in the two dimensions across the sky, they were also able to determine how the dark matter is distributed along the line of sight.

Dark matter is invisible material that does not emit or absorb any type of light, but is detectable through its . Several lines of evidence indicate that there is about six times as much dark matter as "normal", or baryonic, matter in the Universe. Understanding the nature of this mysterious matter is one of the outstanding problems in astrophysics.

Galaxy clusters are the largest gravitationally-bound structures in the universe, and play an important role in research on dark matter and cosmology, the study of the structure and evolution of the universe. The use of clusters as dark matter and cosmological probes hinges on scientists' ability to use objects such as Abell 383 to accurately determine the and masses of clusters.

The recent work on Abell 383 provides one of the most detailed 3-D pictures yet taken of dark matter in a . Both teams have found that the dark matter is stretched out like a gigantic American football, rather than being spherical like a basketball, and that the point of the football is aligned close to the line of sight.

The X-ray data (purple) from Chandra in the show the hot gas, which is by far the dominant type of normal matter in the cluster. Galaxies are shown with the optical data from the (HST), the Very Large Telescope, and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, colored in blue and white.

Both teams combined the X-ray observations of the "normal matter" in the cluster with information determined from optical data. Gravitational lensing - an effect predicted by Albert Einstein - causes the material in the galaxy cluster, both normal and dark matter, to bend and distort the optical light from background galaxies. The distortion is severe in some parts of the image, producing an arc-like appearance for some of the galaxies. In other parts of the image the distortion is subtle and statistical analysis is used to study the distortion effects and probe the dark matter.

A considerable amount of effort has gone into studying the center of galaxy clusters, where the dark matter has the highest concentration and important clues about its behavior might be revealed. Both of the Abell 383 studies reported here continue that effort.

The team of Andrea Morandi from Tel Aviv University in Israel and Marceau Limousin from Université de Provence in France and University of Copenhagen in Denmark concluded that the increased concentration of the dark matter toward the center of the cluster is in agreement with most theoretical simulations. Their lensing data came from HST images.

The team led by Andrew Newman of the California Institute of Technology and Tommaso Treu of University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) used lensing data from HST and the Japanese telescope Subaru, but added Keck observations to measure the velocities of stars in the galaxy in the center of the cluster, allowing for a direct estimate of the amount of matter there. They found evidence that the amount of dark matter is not peaked as dramatically toward the center as the standard cold dark matter model predicts. Their paper describes this as being the "most robust case yet" made for such a discrepancy with the theory.

The contrasting conclusions reached by the two teams most likely stem from differences in the data sets and the detailed mathematical modeling used. One important difference is that because the Newman et al. team used velocity information in the central galaxy, they were able to estimate the density of dark matter at distances that approached as close as only 6,500 light years from the center of the cluster. Morandi and Limousin did not use velocity data and their density estimates were unable to approach as close to the cluster's center, reaching to within 80,000 light years.

Another important difference is that Morandi and Limousin used a more detailed model for the 3-D map of dark matter in the cluster. For example, they were able to estimate the orientation of the dark matter "football" in space and show that it is mostly edge-on, although slightly tilted with respect to the line of sight.

As is often the case with cutting-edge and complex results, further work will be needed to resolve the discrepancy between the two teams. In view of the importance of resolving the dark matter mystery, there will undoubtedly be much more research into Abell 383 and other objects like it in the months and years to come.

If the relative lack of dark matter in the center of Abell 383 is confirmed, it may show that improvements need to be made in our understanding of how normal matter behaves in the center of galaxy clusters, or it may show that particles can interact with each other, contrary to the prevailing model.

The Newman et al. paper was published in the February 20, 2011 issue of the Astrophysical Journal Letter and the Morandi and Limousin paper has been accepted for publication in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Explore further: A spectacular landscape of star formation

More information: Newman,A. et al. 2011 ApJ 728:L39; arXiv:1101.3553

Morandi, A., Limousin, M. 2011 MNRAS (in press); arXiv:1108.0769

Related Stories

Dark matter core defies explanation

Mar 02, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers using data from NASA's Hubble Telescope have observed what appears to be a clump of dark matter left behind from a wreck between massive clusters of galaxies. The result could ...

Discovery of the Musket Ball Cluster

Apr 12, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Using a combination of powerful observatories in space and on the ground, astronomers have observed a violent collision between two galaxy clusters in which so-called normal matter has been wrenched ...

Centuries-old math formula helps map galaxy clusters

Jun 09, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Across the universe, galaxies band together in clusters so huge it can take 10 million years for light to travel from one end of a galaxy cluster to the other. Probing these metropolises is ...

Mystery deepens around dark core in cosmic collision

Mar 02, 2012

Five years ago, San Francisco State researcher Andisheh Mahdavi and his colleagues observed an unexpected dark core at the center of Abell 520, a cosmic "train wreck" of galaxy clusters. With new space-based telescope observations, ...

Recommended for you

A spectacular landscape of star formation

3 hours ago

This image, captured by the Wide Field Imager at ESO's La Silla Observatory in Chile, shows two dramatic star formation regions in the Milky Way. The first, on the left, is dominated by the star cluster NGC ...

Exoplanet measured with remarkable precision

Aug 19, 2014

Barely 30 years ago, the only planets astronomers had found were located right here in our own solar system. The Milky Way is chock-full of stars, millions of them similar to our own sun. Yet the tally ...

New star catalog reveals unexpected 'solar salad'

Aug 19, 2014

(Phys.org) —An Arizona State University alumnus has devised the largest catalog ever produced for stellar compositions. Called the Hypatia Catalog, after one of the first female astronomers who lived in ...

User comments : 53

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tuxford
1 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2013
Again, note my prediction of March 3, 2012, that it will be found that dark matter is largely absent within galaxies.

http://phys.org/n...ion.html

This news too is supportive of SubQuantum Kinectics. It is the space surrounding the massive object that is affected, refracting light that is inferred as dark matter. Hence, the football shape surrounding an individual object. More detailed comments here for any interested:

http://phys.org/n...axy.html
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2013
The X-ray data (purple) from Chandra in the composite image show the hot gas, which is by far the dominant type of normal matter in the cluster.


Apparently "hot gas" is understood to be plasma by astrophysicists, according to Q among others. Yet, in both of these papers the "scientists" use hydrostatic properties of gas to arrive at their conclusions, not properties that govern plasma. This further confirms Alfven's POV that astrophysicists are clueless in their approach and this data need be examined by someone who has a fucking clue!

cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2013
Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century. The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of astrophysicists who have gotten their main knowledge from these textbooks. Earthbound and space telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory.
[Lamenting the traditional neglect of plasma physics]
— Hannes Alfvén
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2013
Sub: Cosmic Pot Energy
Abell 383, which is located about 2.3 billion light Years -is very clear and Further data is needed.
The Cosmic Pot Energy of the Universe and cosmology Structures -new modeling- presented by me will help advancement of Space Cosmology Studies.
http://www.scribd...del-2003
http://www.scribd...rse-2003
Vidyardhi nanduri
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2013
This study is looking at a cluster, not individual galaxies.

Again, note my prediction of March 3, 2012, that it will be found that dark matter is largely absent within galaxies.


Well you got that wrong then, the dark matter is about six times the total mass of the normal matter. What the article notes is that the distribution is less concentrated in the centre than expected, not that there is any deficiency overall.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2013
Yet, in both of these papers the "scientists" use hydrostatic properties of gas to arrive at their conclusions, not properties that govern plasma.


Try reading the article before spouting you boring mantra, they are mapping the total mass distribution empirically from lensing without assuming ANY type of behaviour.

Of course the distribution is dominated by the mass of the dark matter which is not a charged particle therefore cannot produce plasma no matter what the temperature, it always behaves as a gas, but that isn't important in these studies.

The X-ray data shows where the normal matter lies and again it is only mapping its present distribution empirically with NO assumptions on how it got there.

Subtract the visible mass from the total mass and you get the dark matter distribution, again empirically.

..this data need be examined by someone who has a fucking clue!


That rules you out then, you can't even read a dumbed-down press article!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2013
The DM is inferred based upon an encyclopedia of assumptions. By ignoring the fact that the "hot gas" has behavioral properties of electromagnetically controlled plasma, all measurement of mass distribution and the expected lensing is moot. Any claim of "empirical" measurement/observation is ridiculous, to claim such one must have in situ measurements, not assumptions based upon assumptions that must rely on further assumptions such as lensing and any supposed behavior of some ridiculous invented matter.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2013
The DM is inferred based upon an encyclopedia of assumptions.


It is based on the measured gravitational bending of starlight, something solidly tested many times, notably by the Hipparcos project.

By ignoring the fact that the "hot gas" has behavioral properties of electromagnetically controlled plasma, all measurement of mass distribution and the expected lensing is moot.


Wrong again on two counts. First, electrical effects do not affect gravitational bending. Second the hot gas is ionised but overall the charges are balanced, the mix is not subject to potential differences or magnetic effects and its behaviour conforms accurately to a virialised gas. It is indeed a plasma but the EM effects are undetectably small compared to gravity which completely dominates in this case.

Any claim of "empirical" measurement/observation is ridiculous, to claim such one must have in situ measurements, ..


Rubbish, you appear not to know what the word "empirical" means.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2013
First, electrical effects do not affect gravitational bending. Second the hot gas is ionised but overall the charges are balanced, the mix is not subject to potential differences or magnetic effects and its behaviour conforms accurately to a virialised gas.

First, if there is in fact "gravitational bending". Second, quasi-neutral does not mean electrically neutral! Plasma is not like a solid where the charges cancel out. And by making the above statement you are assuming that the "hot gas" is homogeneous (i.e. same temp and density) throughout the entire cluster, which of course is completely asinine to claim.
barakn
5 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2013
First, if there is in fact "gravitational bending".
Here's a hint, Cantdrive - look up the Eddington Experiment and the generations of similar experiments that came after. And then just shut the hell up.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2013
First, if there is in fact "gravitational bending".
Here's a hint, Cantdrive - look up the Eddington Experiment and the generations of similar experiments that came after. And then just shut the hell up.


You are assuming, which is the M.O. of relativity theoreticists, the the observed affect is gravitational. Lensing could very well be described by EM radiation being bent by EM forces, rather than the relatively weak force of gravity. If lensing was gravitational as suggested, we should see Einstein Rings littering the sky, yet there are very few. And the few that are claimed could well be produced by well understood plasma formations.
Here is a website that shows the errors involved in the accepted dogma, but as with most uncomfortable facts, it will be ignored.

http://www.extinc...ings.htm
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2013
the dark matter is stretched out like a gigantic American football, rather than being spherical like a basketball, and that the point of the football is aligned close to the line of sigh
It violates MOND/TeVeS/STVG theories, in which dark matter is the byproduct of gravitational field or result of polarization of vacuum with it (Haydukovic) - because they lead into spherically symmetrical solutions. It rather supports the AWT model, which is based on preferable orientation of dark matter fibers along connection lines of large galactic clusters (it manifest itself like the Allais effect during planetary conjunctions and solar eclipses too). Being a shielding effect of LeSage shielding, the dark matter fibers manifest the more, the more massive galaxies are sharing the single line.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2013
You are assuming, which is the M.O. of relativity theoreticists, the the observed affect is gravitational.


No, you are assuming that scientists just guess which is the M.O. of clueless cranks who don't know how science is conducted.

Lensing could very well be described by EM radiation being bent by EM forces, rather than the relatively weak force of gravity.


Clueless, if EM interacted with itself, the second order effects would be obvious in lasers etc.. Hipparcos confirmed the gravitational bending to better than 0.1%.

If lensing was gravitational as suggested, we should see Einstein Rings littering the sky, yet there are very few.


Perfect rings need perfect alignment, lensed arcs do indeed litter the sky, just look at this example:

http://apod.nasa....620.html

And the few that are claimed could well be produced by well understood plasma formations.


Go ahead then, show your calculations of the "plasma formations" which explain that image.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2013
the dark matter is stretched out like a gigantic American football, rather than being spherical like a basketball, and that the point of the football is aligned close to the line of sigh


It violates MOND/TeVeS/STVG theories, ... because they lead into spherically symmetrical solutions.


ROFL, MOND was wrong so was replaced by TeVeS and STVG which try to duplicate GR. Both they and GR predict gravitational collapse from arbitrary shapes first into discs, then filaments and finally virialised spheres due to Jeans Instability. The timescales are several billions years so all those forms still exist and are observed in dark matter maps.

.. the AWT model, ..


You forget, you have already admitted that "AWT" doesn't exist. If you're going to play at trolling, you need to keep better track of your posts (and learn some science too).
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2013
.. quasi-neutral does not mean electrically neutral! Plasma is not like a solid where the charges cancel out.


On small scales that's true but over the millions of light years of a cluster, it behaves exactly like a neutral material.

And by making the above statement you are assuming that the "hot gas" is homogeneous (i.e. same temp and density) throughout the entire cluster ..


Am I?

which of course is completely asinine to claim.


Of course, just as you would be asinine to claim that the Moon was the same temperature and density throughout, yet by your argument that must be what you are claiming because it is electrically neutral.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2013
The timescales are several billions years so all those forms still exist and are observed in dark matter maps.
The problem is, the Abell 383 cluster is just very old and already collapsed into spherical shape. Whereas in dense aether model the fiber structures of dark matter are forming at the very end instead. The dark fibers should be rather modeled with Gregory Laflamme instability, because they're extradimensional effects.
you have already admitted that "AWT" doesn't exist
No theory cannot disappear at the moment, when it's defined with its postulates. Or do you believe, the general relativity or quantum mechanics could disappear and become invalid at the moment, when Einstein would get crazy and he would claim suddenly, he was wrong with it? The validity of theory is independent to its author, which enables to falsify it in objective way, after all.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2013
"No theory cannot disappear" should be "No theory can disappear". Czech language allows double negation in the meaning of single one with compare to English.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2013
Perfect rings need perfect alignment, lensed arcs do indeed litter the sky, just look at this example: http://apod.nasa....620.html

That's just a 'False Alarm';
http://www.extinc...08_B.htm
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2013
On small scales that's true but over the millions of light years of a cluster, it behaves exactly like a neutral material.


Can you point to one piece of research that confirms this statement? Absolutely 100% of the research I have seen has shown there is no differentiation to the way plasma behaves, regardless of size. Alfven proposed that plasma is scalable over 27 orders of magnitude, others have proposed even more, up to 40. I'll wait patiently for you to provide evidence that this wasn't just some baseless claim.
barakn
5 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2013
First, if there is in fact "gravitational bending".
Here's a hint, Cantdrive - look up the Eddington Experiment and the generations of similar experiments that came after. And then just shut the hell up.


You are assuming, which is the M.O. of relativity theoreticists, the the observed affect is gravitational. Lensing could very well be described by EM radiation being bent by EM forces, rather than the relatively weak force of gravity.
I wasn't kidding about studying the later generations of experiments. The Sun is only 1000x more massive than Jupiter but 250,000,000x brighter, i.e. 250,000,000x more EM radiation. If light bending was due to "EM forces," the small amount of bending caused by Jupiter would be undetectable with modern instruments. And yet in 2000 Kopeikin and Fomalont were able to measure the bending of light in the radio spectrum by Jupiter.
barakn
5 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2013
If you spent more time researching what experiments have already been done and less time hinting at non-existent ad hoc mechanisms to explain your pet theories, people might take you more seriously.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2013
The timescales are several billions years so all those forms still exist and are observed in dark matter maps.
The problem is, the Abell 383 cluster is just very old and already collapsed into spherical shape.


As I said "all those forms still exist", specifics depend on the mass of the individual halo and the history of its surroundings.

you have already admitted that "AWT" doesn't exist
No theory cannot disappear at the moment, when it's defined with its postulates.


About a year ago (IIRC), you admitted that you used "AWT says" to indicate you were just expressing your own ideas, it wasn't actually a set of equations or even postulates. If you have postulates which could be the basis of a theory, state them.

The validity of theory is independent to its author, which enables to falsify it in objective way, after all.


Publish the equations of "AWT" so that anyone can compare them with observation objectively, postulates alone can't be tested.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2013
Perfect rings need perfect alignment, lensed arcs do indeed litter the sky, just look at this example: http://apod.nasa....620.html


That's just a 'False Alarm';

http://www.extinc...08_B.htm


ROFLMAO, that's classic, thanks for brightening my day :-)

You've quoted a single bit of wishful thinking from an obvious crank page without even looking at the APOD photo.

His comment claims "The intense light from the foreground galactic clusters, falsely claimed to be gravitational lenses, is forward scattered" referring to cases of increased luminosity of very distant sources which are aligned (which is also clueless as they are at very different redshifts).

The APOD photo shows sweeping arcs far displaced from the cluster galaxies, a completely different phenomenon and obviously one that cannot be explained by plasma IN the galaxies.

Next time, look at my link and think first, you might not appear so clueless.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2013
On small scales that's true but over the millions of light years of a cluster, it behaves exactly like a neutral material.


Can you point to one piece of research that confirms this statement?


Russell's Teapot applies, I'm sure we agree there are MHD effects detectable on small scales but the onus has to be on you to show evidence that they also occur on larger.

Absolutely 100% of the research I have seen has shown there is no differentiation to the way plasma behaves, regardless of size. Alfven proposed that plasma is scalable over 27 orders of magnitude, others have proposed even more, up to 40.


Then it is up to them to find the evidence to support that proposal. Studies of X-ray gas show it closely follows the virial distribution expected for a gravitational potential well, so accurately that it is one of the key ways to measure cluster masses. Obviously no one can prove that there are NO exceptions requiring plasma effects, you need to find some.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
Publish the equations of "AWT" so that anyone can compare them with observation objectively, postulates alone can't be tested.

It's like to say the Galileo: "OK, the Venus phases don't fit the geocentric model, so show us equation for us to believe you, the heliocentric model better."
This is pure ignorance and incompetence/unwillingness to understand anything, which is not expressed in form of formal rigor (complemented with blind belief in everything, which is already published in this form).
Q-Star
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2013
Publish the equations of "AWT" so that anyone can compare them with observation objectively, postulates alone can't be tested.

It's like to say the Galileo: "OK, the Venus phases don't fit the geocentric model, so show us equation for us to believe you, the heliocentric model better."


And Galileo could have pulled out his copy of Kepler (Which he did in fact have, along with personal correspondence.) Most people don't realize that Kepler produced the maths before Galileo got into trouble with the Pope.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
But my point is, that the Venus phases violate the geocentric model with equations or without it...;-) This argument is completely irrelevant to existence Kepler equations.

In addition, the Kepler equations described the motion of planets in helicentric model in the same way, like the geocentric - so they couldn't be used for the falsification of geocentric model anyway. The geocentrists already predicted the planetary conjunctions and solar eclipses with the same reliability, like heliocentrists - their equations simply contained more parameters, which were fitted to observations - but as a whole the geocentrists had no reason to switch their fringe model, until their equations worked well.
Q-Star
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2013
In addition, the Kepler equations described the motion of planets in helicentric model in the same way, like the geocentric - so they couldn't be used for the falsification of geocentric model anyway. The geocentrists already predicted the planetary conjunctions and solar eclipses with the same reliability, like heliocentrists - their equations simply contained more parameters, which were fitted to observations - but as a whole the geocentrists had no reason to switch their fringe model, until their equations worked well.


Zeph, ya need to learn a little more about the history of astronomy,,, the geo-centrist model was falling to pieces by the time of Copernicus (only a little better), Brahe (somewhat better but still lacking) and Kepler (who got it just about perfect),,,

The geocentric model was getting more and unreliable in it's predictions as time passed,,,, the increasing unreliability is what fueled the pondering of alternate models.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2013
So... Baseless claim. That's what I thought. Peratt has shown that galaxies are a plasma formation using PIC simulations. Radio astronomers have detected birkeland currents extending for mega-parsecs. Some of the largest structures, molecular clouds, display plasma characteristics such as filamentation, cellular, magnetized, and ordering chemical comp.

As you say, it's up to the skeptic to disprove, once again please show how this plasma does not behave as expected. BTW, Alfven was very clear that MHD only applied to very dense plasmas and does not apply to the diffuse interstellar and intergalactic media.

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
the geo-centrist model was falling to pieces by the time of Copernicus (only a little better)
You should read the Wikipedia at least before posting. The geocentric model was actually abandoned just after finding of stellar parallax in 1729 with Bradley and it managed to survive until beginning of the 19th century - a well three hundred years after Copernicus! BTW Polls conducted by Gallup in the 1990s found that 16% of Germans, 18% of Americans and 19% of Britons still hold that the Sun revolves around the Earth...
Q-Star
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2013
You should learn the Wikipedia at least before posting. The http://en.wikiped...centrism was actually abandoned just after finding of stellar parallax in 1729 with Bradley and he managed to survive until beginning of the 19th century - a well three hundred years after Copernicus. BTW Polls conducted by Gallup in the 1990s found that 16% of Germans, 18% of Americans and 19% of Britons still hold that the Sun revolves around the Earth...


Did ya know that some people today actually believe the earth is flat? The earth is 6000 years old. Are ya one of those?

And that 0.1% of the crank science community actually still believe that there is some mysterious stuff called aether, even though there is no observational evidence of it? No empirical support. No maths. No models. It's true, 0.1%, actually believe that. (And electron ducks paddling on the aether waves.)
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
even though there is no observational evidence of it
Like the waves of energy and quantum fluctuations? All these things exist in particle environments. Their occurrence in empty space is hard to explain.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2013
Their occurrence in empty space is hard to explain.


But yet ya keep insisting that ya can.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
Because I'm sane and I can see the analogies of vacuum with particle environment.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2013
Because I'm sane and I can see the analogies of vacuum with particle environment.


Ya mean like this?

Vacuum equals empty. Empty means it has no particles (or aether) in it.

Or

Particle environment is not empty. It has particles in it so it is not empty.

Aether is incompatible with modern physics. And it's also, by definition, incompatible with a vacuum. Why ya ask? Because if it is a vacuum, then it has nothing in it, not even aether. Or if ya prefer, if it has aether in it, then it's not a vacuum, it's aether.

Zephyr, don't ya ever get confused with the way ya describe things?

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2013
Vacuum equals empty. Empty means it has no particles (or aether) in it.
So do you believe, that electron is made of amber and atoms are indivisible, because they're just called so?
Aether is incompatible with modern physics
Why do you mean? Water surface appears empty for its waves, yet it's full of matter. Why the vacuum couldn't behave in the same way? In AWT the aether is denomination of emergent geometry of space-time curvatures. Matter is nothing else, than just space-time curvature.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
It's like to say the Galileo: "OK, the Venus phases don't fit the geocentric model, so show us equation for us to believe you, the heliocentric model better."
This is pure ignorance and incompetence/unwillingness to understand anything, which is not expressed in form of formal rigor (complemented with blind belief in everything, which is already published in this form).


Ok I just had to comment on this BS. Zephyr you have been playing this game of ignorance for years. You have shown an absolute dirth of understanding of modern physics yet you continually troll science sites with your unmitigated pseaudoscientific sounding garbage, then retreat into cries of "I'm being repressed" when you get called on it. Get real you fraud, learn some physics THEN come and comment.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2013
So do you believe, that electron is made of amber and atoms are indivisible, because they're just called so?


No, ya convinced that electron is made of ducks, and atoms divide into transverse-longitudinal waves.

Why do you mean? Water surface appears empty for its waves, yet it's full of matter.


No, Zephyr, water doesn't not appear empty, it appears full of water.

Why the vacuum couldn't behave in the same way?


Because the vacuum doesn't have any water in it. It doesn't have anything in it, that's why we call it vacuum.

In AWT the aether is denomination of emergent geometry of space-time curvatures.


Ya see, we can't model the "AWT", there is nothing there to model. You can't make a model of something that can't be seen, can't be felt, can't be inferred, and is made entirely out of contradictory phrases & words.

Physical properties must be consistent. If the model changes on a daily basis, it's good only for entertainment, your entertainment.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
No, ya convinced that electron is made of ducks
This is ad-ridicule fallacy.
water doesn't not appear empty, it appears full of water
Water surface is not water. The water surface appears empty for its waves. It it wouldn't, these waves couldn't spread along it.
It doesn't have anything in it, that's why we call it vacuum.
And atoms are indivisible, which is why we are calling it atoms..;-) You're like the silly opponents of Galilo, who just said: "Why the hell are you saying, that the Earth is moving around Sun - when every child can see, that the Sun revolves Earth? Isn't it quite obvious?" The history is just repeating again.
You can't make a model of something that can't be seen, can't be felt
AWT is based on particle gas model. It can be modeled with computers for example. In AWT the Universe is random dense gas and it never changed this model from the time of Oliver Lodge in 1904.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
This is ad-ridicule fallacy.


No, it is flat out ridicule. As in, mocking. As in, distain. As in contempt.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2013
In AWT the Universe is random dense gas and it never changed this model from the time of Oliver Lodge in 1904.


And that is exactly why it it crank-crackpot-pseudoscience. It's not been able to change, except in it's number of adherents, and that is not a change I'd crow about if I were ya.

"random dense gas",,, ya mean the stuff everyone else calls matter?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
Publish the equations of "AWT" so that anyone can compare them with observation objectively, postulates alone can't be tested.

It's like to say the Galileo: "OK, the Venus phases don't fit the geocentric model, so show us equation for us to believe you, the heliocentric model better."


Oh dear, no. Go back to the Ptolemaic System. They first proposed that heavenly bodies moved round the Earth in perfect circles at constant speed. Then they mathematically predicted where the bodies should be at certain times and found it didn't work. The first attempts to correct that, adding epicycles, were driven by maths.

This is pure ignorance ...


Yes, you are ignorant of the basic history and fundamental methods of all science. Without calculations, the "perfect circles" model would never have been found lacking. They didn't have our mathematical methods, simple geometry was enough, but it was still a quantitative approach.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
But my point is, that the Venus phases violate the geocentric model with equations or without it...;-)


Your point is wrong.

This argument is completely irrelevant to existence Kepler equations.

The geocentrists already predicted the planetary conjunctions and solar eclipses with the same reliability, .. the geocentrists had no reason to switch their fringe model, until their equations worked well.


Both the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems assumed circular orbits, the only difference was the change of centre so predictions were unchanged as you say.

Kepler made the leap to elliptical orbits and an equation to define the variable speed, that was what corrected almost all the errors, but it also required that the dominant mass in a two-body system was at the focus of the elliptical orbit of the smaller body. That meant everything MUST orbit the Sun, the Earth was not at the focus of the planets' orbits. The mathematical accuracy of Kepler's equations was what mattered.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2013
AWT is based on particle gas model. It can be modeled with computers for example. In AWT the Universe is random dense gas and it never changed this model from the time of Oliver Lodge in 1904.


Light is a transverse wave so cannot propagate through a gas. Lodge would have known that, the phenomenon of birefringence had been known for a long time before Lodge, but perhaps he didn't realise it's significance. For whatever reason, he published a paper outlining a speculation which was already provably wrong.

To say "AWT is based on particle gas model" is untrue, you don't have anything to show which is based on any model at all, and your bluff has been called many, many times on that.
aether_displacement
1 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2013
The Milky Way's halo is curved spacetime.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2013
Light is a transverse wave so cannot propagate through a gas.
Learn the physics first. Every particle environment enables to propagate both transverse, both longitudinal waves.
"AWT is based on particle gas model" is untrue
This is just a model, which explains, why the vacuum is mediating both transverse, both longitudinal waves.
Venus phases violate the geocentric model with equations or without it.. Your point is wrong.
Here is the picture, it belongs to University of Tennessee in Knoxville.
The first attempts to correct that, adding epicycles, were driven by maths.
Math does anything. They were driven with idiots, who didn't understand the physics, only math. The same attitude has mislead the modern physics again.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
Light is a transverse wave so cannot propagate through a gas.
Learn the physics first.


I have, here is a basic reference:

http://en.wikiped...ry_waves

As it says, only solids support shear stresses whihc is obvious if you think about it.

"AWT is based on particle gas model" is untrue
This is just a model, which explains, why the vacuum is mediating both transverse, both longitudinal wave.


Go ahead then, demonstrate how it supports transverse body waves without shear stress.

Venus phases violate the geocentric model with equations or without it.. Your point is wrong.


http://csep10.phy...hase.gif

, it belongs to University of Tennessee in Knoxville.


Fine, now imagine that in the diagram on the right, the Earth is fixed while the Sun moves but all relative motions are the same. That is indistinguishable from the heliocentric view. Kepler's Laws rule that out.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2013
now imagine that in the diagram on the right, the Earth is fixed while the Sun moves but all relative motions are the same
Just try to draw it and you'll see...;-)
how it supports transverse body waves without shear stress
So do you agree with assumption, every particle environment supports both transverse, both longitudinal waves - or not? If yes, then I don't understand your question.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2013
now imagine that in the diagram on the right, the Earth is fixed while the Sun moves but all relative motions are the same
Just try to draw it and you'll see...;-)


No need, the picture is in front of you. Note also that even with the two different locations for Venus, the prediction of a crescent versus full illumination comes from geometry, a branch of maths.

how it supports transverse body waves without shear stress
So do you agree with assumption, every particle environment supports both transverse, both longitudinal waves - or not? If yes, then I don't understand your question.

Of course not. Did you read the article?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2013
Of course not.
"Of course" is not a reason. Why not?
Did you read the article?
Why I should read it? How it solves your alleged problem of nonexistence of transverse waves in any particle environment?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2013
Of course not.
"Of course" is not a reason. Why not?
Did you read the article?
Why I should read it?


Because, if you had read the article, you would not have had to ask "why not". You might also learn some basic physics so that we can then have a sensible discussion but that may be expecting too much.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2013
Because, if you had read the article, you would not have had to ask "why not".

LOL, if you cannot answer me directly after reading of that article, why do you expect the opposite in my case? Maybe it doesn't contain the answer of my question at all...;-) So please, "RTFM" is not an answer acceptable in Socratic discussion. You just have matter of fact logical arguments - or you haven't. The links to articles don't count as an arguments.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2013
Because, if you had read the article, you would not have had to ask "why not".
LOL, if you cannot answer me directly after reading of that article, why do you expect the opposite in my case?
Why should I waste my time trying to teach you something I already know if you can't be bothered to read it for yourself? You remain clueless because you are too idle to learn.
Maybe it doesn't contain the answer of my question at all...;-)
Or maybe you know you are so stupid, someone has to simplify it for you.
So please, "RTFM" is not an answer acceptable in Socratic discussion. You just have matter of fact logical arguments - or you haven't. The links to articles don't count as an arguments.
Whether I type it myself or refer you to a page which contains what I would have said (and much more) to avoid the 1000 character limitation of the forum is irrelevant, the argument is the same. If you still can't work it out, ask again and I'll dumb it down for you.