New theory of secondary inflation expands options for avoiding an excess of dark matter

January 14, 2016
A new theory suggests a shorter secondary inflationary period that could account for the amount of dark matter estimated to exist throughout the cosmos. Credit: Brookhaven National Laboratory

Standard cosmology—that is, the Big Bang Theory with its early period of exponential growth known as inflation—is the prevailing scientific model for our universe, in which the entirety of space and time ballooned out from a very hot, very dense point into a homogeneous and ever-expanding vastness. This theory accounts for many of the physical phenomena we observe. But what if that's not all there was to it?

A new theory from physicists at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, and Stony Brook University, which will publish online on January 18 in Physical Review Letters, suggests a shorter secondary inflationary period that could account for the amount of estimated to exist throughout the cosmos.

"In general, a fundamental theory of nature can explain certain phenomena, but it may not always end up giving you the right amount of dark matter," said Hooman Davoudiasl, group leader in the High-Energy Theory Group at Brookhaven National Laboratory and an author on the paper. "If you come up with too little dark matter, you can suggest another source, but having too much is a problem."

Measuring the amount of dark matter in the is no easy task. It is dark after all, so it doesn't interact in any significant way with ordinary matter. Nonetheless, gravitational effects of dark matter give scientists a good idea of how much of it is out there. The best estimates indicate that it makes up about a quarter of the mass-energy budget of the universe, while ordinary matter—which makes up the stars, our planet, and us—comprises just 5 percent. Dark matter is the dominant form of substance in the universe, which leads physicists to devise theories and experiments to explore its properties and understand how it originated.

Hooman Davoudiasl, a physicist at the US Department of Energy'sBrookhaven National Laboratory, along with colleagues from Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, and Stony Brook University, is an author on a new theory in Physical Review Letters, which will publish online on Jan. 18, that suggests a shorter secondary inflationary period that could account for the amount of dark matter estimated to exist throughout the cosmos. Credit: Brookhaven National Laboratory

Some theories that elegantly explain perplexing oddities in physics—for example, the inordinate weakness of gravity compared to other fundamental interactions such as the electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces—cannot be fully accepted because they predict more dark matter than empirical observations can support.

This new theory solves that problem. Davoudiasl and his colleagues add a step to the commonly accepted events at the inception of space and time.

In standard cosmology, the exponential expansion of the universe called cosmic inflation began perhaps as early as 10-35 seconds after the beginning of time—that's a decimal point followed by 34 zeros before a 1. This explosive expansion of the entirety of space lasted mere fractions of a fraction of a second, eventually leading to a hot universe, followed by a cooling period that has continued until the present day. Then, when the universe was just seconds to minutes old—that is, cool enough—the formation of the lighter elements began. Between those milestones, there may have been other inflationary interludes, said Davoudiasl.

"They wouldn't have been as grand or as violent as the initial one, but they could account for a dilution of dark matter," he said.

In the beginning, when temperatures soared past billions of degrees in a relatively small volume of space, could run into each other and annihilate upon contact, transferring their energy into standard constituents of matter-particles like electrons and quarks. But as the universe continued to expand and cool, dark matter particles encountered one another far less often, and the annihilation rate couldn't keep up with the expansion rate.

"At this point, the abundance of dark matter is now baked in the cake," said Davoudiasl. "Remember, dark matter interacts very weakly. So, a significant annihilation rate cannot persist at lower temperatures. Self-annihilation of dark matter becomes inefficient quite early, and the amount of dark matter particles is frozen."

However, the weaker the dark matter interactions, that is, the less efficient the annihilation, the higher the final abundance of dark would be. As experiments place ever more stringent constraints on the strength of dark matter interactions, there are some current theories that end up overestimating the quantity of dark matter in the universe. To bring theory into alignment with observations, Davoudiasl and his colleagues suggest that another inflationary period took place, powered by interactions in a "hidden sector" of physics. This second, milder, period of inflation, characterized by a rapid increase in volume, would dilute primordial particle abundances, potentially leaving the universe with the density of dark matter we observe today.

"It's definitely not the standard cosmology, but you have to accept that the universe may not be governed by things in the standard way that we thought," he said. "But we didn't need to construct something complicated. We show how a simple model can achieve this short amount of inflation in the early universe and account for the amount of dark matter we believe is out there."

Proving the theory is another thing entirely. Davoudiasl said there may be a way to look for at least the very feeblest of interactions between the hidden sector and .

"If this secondary inflationary period happened, it could be characterized by energies within the reach of experiments at accelerators such as the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and the Large Hadron Collider," he said. Only time will tell if signs of a hidden sector show up in collisions within these colliders, or in other experimental facilities.

Explore further: New theory of stealth dark matter may explain universe's missing mass

Related Stories

The dark side of cosmology

March 6, 2015

It's a beautiful theory: the standard model of cosmology describes the universe using just six parameters. But it is also strange. The model predicts that dark matter and dark energy – two mysterious entities that have ...

Recommended for you

Electron highway inside crystal

December 8, 2016

Physicists of the University of Würzburg have made an astonishing discovery in a specific type of topological insulators. The effect is due to the structure of the materials used. The researchers have now published their ...

Researchers improve qubit lifetime for quantum computers

December 8, 2016

An international team of scientists has succeeded in making further improvements to the lifetime of superconducting quantum circuits. An important prerequisite for the realization of high-performance quantum computers is ...

A nano-roundabout for light

December 8, 2016

Just like in normal road traffic, crossings are indispensable in optical signal processing. In order to avoid collisions, a clear traffic rule is required. A new method has now been developed at TU Wien to provide such a ...

191 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

theon
5 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2016
I bet that three periods would do better than two.
Benni
3.1 / 5 (25) Jan 14, 2016
Interesting how at inflation Baryonic & Dark Matter was all mixed up & then managed to segregate & coalesce into envelopes surrounding only Spiral Galaxies, this according to Zwicky the godfather of DM. Why does this guy imagine he is so much smarter than Zwicky?
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (24) Jan 14, 2016
Benni will Nil Physics only personal attacks claims
Interesting how at inflation Baryonic & Dark Matter was all mixed up & then managed to segregate & coalesce into envelopes surrounding only Spiral Galaxies, this according to Zwicky the godfather of DM. Why does this guy imagine he is so much smarter than Zwicky?
You still haven't answered my questions to you of 28 Dec 2015 ie
http://phys.org/n...pse.html

You have an unhealthy habit making feeble disparaging claims of other people's intellect that, unlike you, go to trouble writing papers as proper part of the process yet, you cannot *ever* support your claims with *any* Physics & Nil convergence :-(

Earlier you disparage Zwicky re 2nd law of thermodynamics (why?) & Now disparage "this guy" as thinking he's smarter, why worry at all what people imagine ?

No-one you admire in all Physics history ?

Articulate Physics Benni, instead of childish personal attacks please ?
dogbert
3.3 / 5 (19) Jan 14, 2016
Once you create imaginary matter to explain observational anomalies, it is easy to imagine multiple inflations or anything else you may need to normalize your models.
Benni
3.5 / 5 (22) Jan 14, 2016
You have an unhealthy habit making feeble disparaging claims of other people's intellect that, unlike you, go to trouble writing papers as proper part of the process yet, you cannot *ever* support your claims with *any* Physics & Nil convergence


More Mutterances by Mike: Hey, I don't look in a mirror & imagine 80% of me is "missing", which is the reason why Zwicky at least had the presence of mind to keep his Cosmic Fairy Dust in Envelopes on the outside of Spiral Galaxies.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2016
Interesting how at inflation Baryonic & Dark Matter was all mixed up & then managed to segregate & coalesce into envelopes surrounding only Spiral Galaxies, this according to Zwicky the godfather of DM. Why does this guy imagine he is so much smarter than Zwicky?

What if dark matter was just an up and down quark PAIR...
Not quite protonic...:-)
Oh... and what if - they were pulled in by varying space/time fluctuations caused BY the rotating galaxy... Hmmmm?
animah
4.3 / 5 (16) Jan 14, 2016
you create imaginary matter to explain observational anomalies

That seems a little unfair.

1. We assume that the same amount of mass generates the same amount of gravity wherever it is located in the universe. This is supported by observation of all individual stellar objects we can see without exception.

2. Yet at very large scales we observe motion that shows there's too much gravity.

3. So the simplest avenue of investigation is that there is other matter we can't see yet (dark matter).

How is that not reasonable?

Aren't you just replacing "imaginary matter" with imaginary gravity? How is that better in any way?
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (19) Jan 14, 2016
dogbert (& Benni) need Math
Once you create imaginary matter to explain observational anomalies, it is easy to imagine multiple inflations or anything else you may need to normalize your models
NB

1 Newton provided math basis for gravitational attraction & predicted many solar system orbital motions well but, failed to account for Uranus' orbit & inferred another planet was perturbing it, later Neptune discovered, confirming Newton. Mercury's variance however, could be explained by Newton's gravitation.

2 Einstein's Field equations went further than Newton & proved correction re Mercury.

Paradigm re Dark Matter (DM) is virtually identical & at huge scale although we aren't there to assess detail, in any case we're looking back in time. Therefore DM mere placeholder for observed pattern - this doesn't invalidate Relativity, as some claim, likely it merely adds correction in a similar vein as Einstein's equations added correction to Newton's gravitation
dogbert
4 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2016
Mike_Massen,

And neither Newton's nor Einstein's models require any dark matter in this solar system and we have detected none in this system. Yet the claim is that there should be more dark matter in our solar system than all the normal matter combined.

Dark matter was simply created (imagined) when we noticed that suns in spiral galaxies were moving faster than our models of gravity allowed. By our models, those suns should be flung out of their galaxies. Instead of trying to determine why our models failed to match our observations, dark matter was created to normalize our models. The imaginary nature of dark matter is evident in that there is always just enough in just the right places to account for the observation. Since we don't need any in our solar system, we just have to imagine that something cleared all of it out of here.
dogbert
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2016
animah,
Aren't you just replacing "imaginary matter" with imaginary gravity? How is that better in any way?


I am not replacing imaginary matter with anything. I am merely pointing out that dark matter was simply made up when our observations did not match our models. I seems that the scientific method would lead us to try to discover why our observations do not match our models rather than simply creating huge amounts of invisible matter.

But it is easier to believe in imaginary matter which is so accommodating that it exists in just the right amounts in just the right places to account for whatever we see. However, in over 70 years, we have failed utterly in finding a single particle of it.
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 14, 2016
Benni tangentially says
.. I don't look in a mirror & imagine 80% of me is "missing", which is the reason why Zwicky at least had the presence of mind to keep his Cosmic Fairy Dust in Envelopes...
See my last post please
1 Algebraic inference/deduction is not imagination, part of Math
2 Zwicky didn't "keep" anything, its a hypothesis, scientific method

Benni, studying uni Electrical Engineering, didn't you *ever* do a series of lab exercise re circuit's characteristics re missing elements & apply Algebra ?

ie Typical lab experiment determine filter's reactances
Eg Circuit minus values, assign parts variables, test frequency sweep roll-off rate, plug in values to calculate reactances, very simple

Engineering practice verify, measure circuit elements, if they don't match reactance, you investigate & might discover correction needed as component hidden or mislabeled, doh

Benni, please articulate Why Algebra should *not* ever apply to DM - one good reason ?
Benni
3.9 / 5 (21) Jan 14, 2016
1. We assume that the same amount of mass generates the same amount of gravity wherever it is located in the universe. This is supported by observation of all individual stellar objects we can see without exception.
.... So then how was Einstein able to derive the calculations for gravitational lensing of starlight as it passed the peripheral disc of the sun based on his Field Equations which do not include 80% missing mass? " Without exception" huh?

2. Yet at very large scales we observe motion that shows there's too much gravity
What motion? The Rotation Rate of Spiral Galaxies which constitutes only 1/3 the mass of the Universe?

3. So the simplest avenue of investigation is that there is other matter we can't see yet (dark matter).

How is that not reasonable?
Because when I look in a mirror, I don't believe 80% of me is "missing".

Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (19) Jan 14, 2016
dogbert confused
..neither Newton's nor Einstein's models require any dark matter in this solar system and we have detected none in this system
Not issue of 'requirement', if not 'properly' observed at local scale doesn't mean not at galactic scale, until we are "there" with keen instrumentation, sensible use relevant investigative process cognisant of Algebra ie Proverbial missing 'x' term !

dogbert claims
Yet the claim is that there should be more dark matter in our solar system than all the normal matter combined
Where, no credible astronomer would claim it has to be here - as (local) date & re math don't show evidence !

dogbert claims
Dark matter was simply created (imagined) when we noticed that suns in spiral galaxies were moving faster than our models of gravity allowed
No. Observed rotation rate & re masses expect stars wouldn't be held & flung out but, time allow they don't, effect algebraically as 'missing mass' ie placeholder paradigm

cont
Benni
4.2 / 5 (20) Jan 14, 2016
Not issue of 'requirement', if not 'properly' observed at local scale doesn't mean not at galactic scale, until we are "there" with keen instrumentation, sensible use relevant investigative process cognisant of Algebra ie Proverbial missing 'x' term


Where, no credible astronomer would claim it has to be here - as (local) date & re math don't show evidence


No. Observed rotation rate & re masses expect stars wouldn't be held & flung out but, time allow they don't, effect algebraically as 'missing mass' ie placeholder paradigm


Will it ever be possible for you to write a sentence without all these kinds of convoluted ramblings which never make any sense?

Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (23) Jan 14, 2016
Benni desperately needing education asked
So then how was Einstein able to derive the calculations for gravitational lensing of starlight as it passed the peripheral disc of the sun based on his Field Equations which do not include 80% missing mass?
Leonard Susskind of Stanford described this far better than I or in space allowing here @ time 1:21:00
https://www.youtu...rYIZhm60

Benni blurted
" Without exception" huh?
Educate yourself instead of blurting childish noise showing you've not developed intellectual discipline !

Avoiding temptation to embarrass you further re your other questions, please take earnest advice, at the least, watch the lecture series by L.Susskind, start with lecture 1.

NB: The fact you ask lame questions & with tone of derision goes to prove you have never come across Gauss - upon which Einstein's field equations are soundly based & you *should* know Gauss really well as you claimed to be an "Electrical Engineer" !
Benni
3.8 / 5 (23) Jan 14, 2016
Muttering Mike,

Finally,and I really do mean FINALLY, finally I've figured out your intransigent Dark Matter stance.......you look in a mirror & wish that 80% of what you see were not there.
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (20) Jan 14, 2016
Benni feeble intellect proven by inability to focus/converge claims
Will it ever be possible for you to write a sentence without all these kinds of convoluted ramblings which never make any sense?
Benni, you again show immense childish impatience & just cannot comprehend language essentials & their utility which you *should* have been exposed to had you really achieved a university degree in Electrical Engineering !

Benni, show us how mature/smart you are & converge, start with my sentence 1. & exercise those wee brain cells to infer its meaning & yes I know I don't write in sound bites the media use to talk down to 15yr olds, you should be beyond that & especially so if you really had a university degree as it requires; discipline, intellect, maths, patience & willingness to converge on salient Maths points relevant to the dialectic process

Perhaps you're telling us unconsciously you're a waste of time, I hope not, so upon reflection, watch lectures first
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (20) Jan 14, 2016
Benni failure of intellectual discipline
..
Finally,and I really do mean FINALLY, finally I've figured out your intransigent Dark Matter stance.......you look in a mirror & wish that 80% of what you see were not there
Such distasteful comments & unwillingness to articulate your position and resort to personal attacks is not worthy of anyone who has gone through the work ethic & effort in gaining university qualifications - especially the two you claim ie Electrical & Nuclear Engineering.

Get yourself organised, smarter to focus on the Physics & essential Math woven in, even though its clear you have Nil university based credentials as you claim you show interest in Electronic/Electrical - maybe just in PCB design, it doesnt matter, if that were really the case & you are not here to waste everyone's time then, at least, get a grasp of Gauss theorems, they are nowhere as difficult as they might appear & relate well to Maxwell., can you please ?

Then understand
ian_miller
5 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2016
My concern with this is that we have one new proposition to explain one problem. I would prefer more output than input, but I guess we have to wait and see what develops.
HannesAlfven
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 15, 2016
"Often the toughest task for leaders in effecting change is mobilizing people throughout the organization to do adaptive work. Adaptive work is required when our deeply held beliefs are challenged, when the values that made us successful become less relevant, and when legitimate yet competing perspectives emerge ..."

"MANY MANAGERS TREAT ADAPTIVE CHALLENGES AS IF THEY WERE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS."

The Work of Leadership, Harvard Business Review, 1997
http://www.nhcue....-2/4.pdf

"many, if not most, of the change challenges you face today and will face tomorrow require something more than incorporating new technical skills into your current mindset. These are the 'adaptive challenges,' and they can only be met by transforming your mindset, by advancing to a more sophisticated stage of mental development."

Immunity to Change, Kegan and Lahey (Harvard)
humy
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2016
Benni

The existence of large amounts of matter we cannot see (dark matte) are inferred from gravitational effects we observe on visible matter. Without such invisible matter, according to our current best understanding of how gravity works, each spiral galaxies should be flying apart; and yet we clearly observe they are not.

That doesn't necessarily mean dark matter exists because we cannot yet rule out the possibility that there is something wrong with our current understanding of gravity when operating over very large distances.

However, we, and that includes you, do not yet have a compelling theory supported by good evidence of how our current understanding of gravity could be so wrong assuming that it is.
Therefore, until if and when we (or you) DO have such an alternative credible theory to dark matter, you cannot dismiss dark mater theory as being unreasonable. Simply stating that dark matter is "imaginary" doesn't make it so -please state your premise and inference.

thingumbobesquire
3 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2016
Sounds like inflationary epicycles of dark matter. Where is Ptolemy when you need him?
trevor_white
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2016
I look at these theories and as much as they answer some interesting things. The moment I see "10-35 seconds after the beginning of time" or the like I have to wonder what theory of physics they are working from. A point source as exists at the big bang would have no effective time and would maintain that condition until the energy matter balance exceeded the chandrasekhar limit and even measuring the flow of time after that would be problematic without an accurate measure of starting mass, ignoring the minor issue of how fast time is running in this expansion.
omatwankr
3.4 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2016
so epicycles are the ponzi schemes of physics, and apparently very popular these days

om out
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 15, 2016
Of course we could have more phase changes, but adding degrees of freedoms without gaining much is not likelu useful. In this case, the gain is theoretical, allowing more than "some theories" to estimate the DM mass. The standard cosmology doesn't have that problem.

@trevor: "The moment I see "10-35 seconds after the beginning of time" or the like I have to wonder what theory of physics they are working from. A point source as exists at the big bang would have no effective time ..."

They are looking at the expansion at early times, guided by the sum of data. The description of cosmology has some problems, "Big Bang" can be defined in many ways and our data can only guarantee a minimum of expansion that is seen. That the expansion started from a singularity is to use a peculiar constraint, and the observed theory implies an indefinite exponential expansion.

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 15, 2016
[ctd] The "10^-35 seconds after the beginning of time" is an estimate using the lowest expansion amount and using the singularity (rather, a Planck time after, at a guess) as a constraint of "beginning".

It is better to define the Hot Big Bang era as the end of inflation, and acknowledge that inflation extends and modifies earlier Big Bang cosmology.

[But FWIW the latest Planck data release has model free fits to the data that show that the inflation potential runs up against a finite expansion. Still, our universe could be a late one among the many that inflation spawned, the definite expansion amount is still too unconstrained.]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 15, 2016
As usual there are comments that doesn't even touch the subject, and some that troll from a position of misunderstandings. FWIW on the latter:

@Benni: "envelopes surrounding only Spiral Galaxies, this according to Zwicky".

A strawman that has nothing to do with modern cosmology. DM is observed in many ways, and its distribution in large galaxies is understood. It is large subject for small comments, so I'll point to Wikipedia on cosmology for starters. [Then see the Planck legacy archives for all the latest observations. It is a *massive amount* of non-Zwicky, non-spiral observations!]

@dogbert: "Once you create imaginary matter to explain".

Good thing that no one is doing that, and nowhere in the article can you find such a reference.

On the other hand there are those that tries to create "imaginary matter" out of observed matter... [See the Planck legacy archives for all the latest observations. It is a *massive amount* of observations of "non-imaginary" matter!]
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 15, 2016
. A point source as exists at the big bang would have no effective time and would maintain that condition until the energy matter balance exceeded the chandrasekhar limit and even measuring the flow of time after that would be problematic without an accurate measure of starting mass, ignoring the minor issue of how fast time is running in this expansion.

Couple of misconceptions in this:
- Matter did not gel out of the early state till after inflation
- Chamdrasekar limit is only relevant to matter (see first point)
- spacetime (and more specifically spacetime expansion) is not subject to the speed of light limit.
SnowballSolarSystem _SSS_
3.6 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2016
Rather than adding an inflationary variable during the isothermal epoch of Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), when hydrogen fusion was in thermal equilibrium with photodisintegration, I suggest isothermal gravitational collapse into proto-spiral-galaxies, complete with supermassive black holes.

Deuterium burning in the cores of protostars is a regulating reaction that always occurs at 1 million Kelvins in the cores of brown dwarfs and in OB supergiants, and I suggest BBN is a similar regulating reaction which clamps the temperature, pressure, baryon-to-photon ratio, and the local baryon density, guaranteeing a canonical D/H ratio, allowing for baryonic dark matter.

Then DM in today's universe would merely be dark clouds of molecular hydrogen with its luminous stellar metallicity sequestered into the solid state of icy chondrules. So if DM converts to stars and luminous gas in globular clusters and galactic cores then the 'cuspy halo problem' was merely a ΛCDM construct.
Bloodyorphan
5 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2016
http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv
http://phys.org/n...ies.html

Possible explanations for dark matter and energy, if the big bang was spinning where was the "spin" energy coming from ?

If the Universe continues to spin, why ?, maybe the brane of space has more influence than we are accounting for.
Benni
3.7 / 5 (19) Jan 15, 2016
each spiral galaxies should be flying apart; and yet we clearly observe they are not.
So what, Spirals only make up 1/3 of the mass of the Universe.

That doesn't necessarily mean dark matter exists because we cannot yet rule out the possibility that there is something wrong with our current understanding of gravity
You mean with YOUR "current understanding", not mine, I can do some real simple math & conclude that it is not possible to cram 80% of the mass of the Universe into Spiral structures that compose only 1/3 of it's total mass.

compelling theory supported by good evidence of how our current understanding of gravity could be so wrong . When we DO have such an alternative credible theory to dark matter, you cannot dismiss dark mater theory as being unreasonable
You imagine there needs to be "an alternative" because it is beyond your comprehension that it is impossible to cram 80% of the mass of the Universe into 1/3 of it's mass.

viko_mx
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 15, 2016
"Measuring the amount of dark matter in the universe is no easy task. "

Of course is not easy task. Even more. It is impossible to measure the parameters of a non existent objects. But after DM investigators receive regularly wages, can continue until retirement this pointless quest. Тhe proud will never know the truth.
viko_mx
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2016
"In the beginning, when temperatures soared past billions of degrees in a relatively small volume of space, dark matter particles could run into each other and annihilate upon contact, transferring their energy into standard constituents of matter-particles like electrons and quarks. But as the universe continued to expand and cool, dark matter particles encountered one another far less often, and the annihilation rate couldn't keep up with the expansion rate."

So the big bang theorists claim that gravity cause the formation of the cosmic structure despite that the particle density in a given volume was not enough to stop the fictional expansion of the universe and to support the same annihilation rate in the fictional early period of the universe according to their fantasies.
humy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2016
each spiral galaxies should be flying apart; and yet we clearly observe they are not.
So what, Spirals only make up 1/3 of the mass of the Universe.


Benni:

what has what proportion of mass spirals make up of the total mass of the universe got to do with the fact that, unless our theory of gravity is wrong over very long distance, we need dark matter to account for why spiral galaxies, as we observe them rotate the way they do, don't fly apart?
Your comment here is irrelevant to what I just said.
humy
3 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2016

That doesn't necessarily mean dark matter exists because we cannot yet rule out the possibility that there is something wrong with our current understanding of gravity
You mean with YOUR "current understanding", not mine,



Benni:

No. I mean the general current understanding of how gravity works which is exactly the same as that of general relativity. If your current understanding of how gravity works is not the same as mine then that means you reject general relativity. Do you?
humy
3 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2016
I can do some real simple math & conclude that it is not possible to cram 80% of the mass of the Universe into Spiral structures that compose only 1/3 of it's total mass.



Benni:

strawman;

Who said/implied 80% of the mass of the Universe is in "Spiral structures"? Not me nor anyone else here.
please pay close attention to what is actually said.
How is saying that without dark matter spiral galaxies would fly apart imply that spiral galaxies, NOT dark matter, makes up 80% of the mass of the universe!? clearly it doesn't.
humy
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2016
the law of gravity according to general relativity + certain astronomical observations implies dark matter.
For there to be no dark matter, either those observations must be somehow wrong/illusory (how?) or the law of gravity according to general relativity doesn't hold true over very 'large' distances (I assume that is logically possible, but currently that is at least as assumptive as dark matter theory if not more so)
humy
3 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2016
Sorry, I should have said that as;

" the law of gravity according to general relativity (and also according to Newtonian physics but I say "according to general relativity" because general relativity gives a more accurate disruption of gravity) ... (same as before)..."
promile
Jan 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
humy
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2016
OK, lets try to recapitulate this: the Universe exploded during Big Bang, then suddenly stopped, after then it inflated and suddenly stopped (first inflation), after then it inflated and suddenly stopped again (2nd inflation) and now it expands with increasing speed again. All this occurred spontaneously, because this is what every normal Universe does.. Did I understand it correctly?


The universe never stopped expanding. And the universe never exploded -the rapid expansion of the universe is not an explosion but rather due to space itself expanding. An 'explosion' is a result of something violently moving through space away from a central point, not space itself expanding between that something! Note the universe isn't expanding away from a central point because there is no central point to the universe!
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 15, 2016
"Measuring the amount of dark matter in the universe is no easy task. "

Of course is not easy task. Even more. It is impossible to measure the parameters of a non existent objects. But after DM investigators receive regularly wages, can continue until retirement this pointless quest. Тhe proud will never know the truth.

It is not as difficult as pleasing your nonexistent god, but still the pastors and priests get their wages in their pointless quest.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 15, 2016
You mean with YOUR "current understanding", not mine,

Correct.
You have no understanding, current or not.
You are a fool and you know it!
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 15, 2016

I don't look in a mirror & imagine 80% of me is "missing",

Indeed, mainly your brains are missing but that is usually much less than 80%.
Please clarify how this is related to DM.
Wait, no brains ... drop it ...
my2cts
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 15, 2016

And neither Newton's nor Einstein's models require any dark matter in this solar system and we have detected none in this system. Yet the claim is that there should be more dark matter in our solar system than all the normal matter combined.

Nobody claims that, dogbrain. you just misunderstood. unfortunately, you also don't understand that you don't understand. you are an information black hole.
my2cts
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 15, 2016
I predict that here the same will happen as on other threads.
More and more cranks will emit more and more nonsense until a critical point is reached.
The hypercritical crap collapses onto itself into fathomless nothingness. All information entering within its horizon is destroyed. An expanding Crap Nebula is testimony that a catastrophe has occurred.
Benni
4.1 / 5 (18) Jan 15, 2016
You mean with YOUR "current understanding", not mine,


Benni:

No. I mean the general current understanding of how gravity works which is exactly the same as that of general relativity. If your current understanding of how gravity works is not the same as mine then that means you reject general relativity. Do you?


The Einstein Field Equations that Einstein used in deriving his calculations for gravitational lensing as starlight passes the peripheral disk of the sun in General Relativity are in fact not what you believe, in spite of your claims to "understanding" GR better than I do.

According to your DM Narratives, the Einstein Field Equations missed so much gravity by his overlooking so called missing 80% mass of the Sun that his calculations for gravitational lensing should never have worked, but they did. So back up your braggadocio about how much more you imagine you know about GR than I do, and explain why you know more than Einstein.
promile
Jan 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 15, 2016
@Benni
We always get back to this point. Your post is a copy/paste.
You misunderstood, but you do not understand that you misunderstood.
You are stuck in darkness.
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2016
@promile
The "mainstream physics religion" is still infinitely better that what the cranks propose.
promile
Jan 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2016
How is saying that without dark matter spiral galaxies would fly apart imply that spiral galaxies, NOT dark matter, makes up 80% of the mass of the universe!? clearly it doesn't.
Problem seems to be that DM is NOT matter, only entropic gravity resulting from BB turbulence. So now we can talk intelligently about the matter content of spiral vs elliptical galaxies, or whatever leftovers there might be out there in intergalactic space.
promile
Jan 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 15, 2016
the increase of density is not monotonous: the stars also exhibit a layers.

That is a non-sequitur. Layers do not imply non-monotonicity.
According to accepted models and observations the density of the sun increases monotonically.
http://solarscien...or.shtml
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2016
For there to be no dark matter, either those observations must be somehow wrong/illusory (how?) or the law of gravity according to general relativity doesn't hold true over very 'large' distances (I assume that is logically possible, but currently that is at least as assumptive as dark matter theory if not more so)
GR employs what they call an energy-momentum tensor. Entropic gravity, when it extends over large distances, drives this tensor as well as over short distances. So there is no conflict between GR and entropic gravity, or what unfortunately most people call DM.
promile
Jan 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 15, 2016
Try to propose some physical mechanism, which is behind these alleged periods of repeated fast and slow expansion - and we will see... Where in the universe we could experience similar thing?

The absence of a mechanism is a weakness but not sufficient to reject the theory.
promile
Jan 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2016
Note the universe isn't expanding away from a central point because there is no central point to the universe!
For example, what is the central point on the surface of a balloon?
promile
Jan 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 15, 2016
Of course, we experienced this situation already with epicyclic model of solar system: the planets did funny movements in this model, in completely unphysical way - but it wasn't sufficient to reject this model, until it provided correct agreement with at least some observations (being actually systematically fitted to these observations in fact).

The model was rejected in favour of a better one (that had already been around for 2000 years). I don't know of an alternative, let alone better model now. I do not exclude that a better model is possible.
humy
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2016
Note the universe isn't expanding away from a central point because there is no central point to the universe!
For example, what is the central point on the surface of a balloon?


Exactly except no analogy is perfect, and, unlike with a balloon that has a central point within the 3D volume under its 2D surface for its central point to be in, the universe has no 4D volume 'underneath' its 3D 'surface' for a central point to be in. This is impossible for us to picture because none of us can picture in 4D. It is like a balloon except there is no space within it even though is impossible for us to visualize having a blown up balloon with no space within it!!
3D space has 4D curvature without being curved within 4D volume!
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2016
For example, what is the central point on the surface of a balloon?
Actually I think the correct answer is every point on the surface of a balloon is its center.
humy
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2016

.... and explain why you know more than Einstein.


Benni

I never mentioned Einstein let alone claimed I know more than him. I merely mentioned I know relativity and didn't even claim/imply some kind of 'superior' understanding of it like you make out.
Here seems to be just part of the source of your confusion:

Relativity ≠ Einstein

Therefore saying I know relativity doesn't imply I know more than Einstein.
Benni
3.9 / 5 (19) Jan 15, 2016
.... and explain why you know more than Einstein.


Benni

I never mentioned Einstein let alone claimed I know more than him. I merely mentioned I know relativity and didn't even claim/imply some kind of 'superior' understanding of it like you make out.
Here seems to be just part of the source of your confusion:

Relativity ≠ Einstein

Therefore saying I know relativity doesn't imply I know more than Einstein.


Oh, I get it, you mean this:

I know relativity ≠ I believe relativity
humy
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2016

Oh, I get it, you mean this:

I know relativity ≠ I believe relativity


No, you don't get it. I understand and believe relativity. As I already said:

General relativity + certain cosmological observations logically implies the existence of dark matter

And the only way there could be no dark matter is for:

EITHER :

1, what general relativity implies about gravity is inaccurate over very 'large' distances (hundreds of light yours. Possible but dark matter would be less assuming I think)

OR

2, there is something faulty/illusionary with many of our cosmological observations (unlikely, I think)

ELSE

3, logically, dark matter must exist.

antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2016
I think there's a semantic misunderstanding here.

When science-literate people say they "believe X (e.g. relativity) is correct" it's always with the uspoken rider "...until someone comes up with something better"

Note that this is different from saying "...until someone shows up a problem with X". We all KNOW there's a problem there. (e.g. QM doesn't mesh well with Relativity so something is wrong - or at the very least not complete).

But until and unless someone comes up with something BETTER that's the theories we'll use.

The alternative would be to stop using them - which would stop science. Forever. Because you will NEVER come up with a theory that doesn't have any issues right off the bat.
And a theory can be very good within its context (note how Newtonian gravity was shown wrong by Relativity, but it is still usefull for a wide variety of applications).

That something isn't 100% correct doesn't mean it's bad to use it - especially if nothing better is at hand.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (18) Jan 16, 2016
Benni says
According to your DM Narratives, the Einstein Field Equations missed so much gravity by his overlooking so called missing 80% mass of the Sun that his calculations for gravitational lensing should never have worked, but they did
Hmmm, can you articulate the full logical position from your perspective in the same clear language & concise way humy did so well ~50mins ago, that would be Great Benni ?

Along with that please note my post to you re lab experience & finding the missing reactances, did you do *any* of these in your uni training in "Electrical Engineering" ?

Benni with personal attacks
So back up your braggadocio about how much more you imagine you know about GR than I do, and explain why you know more than Einstein
Ugh, every-time you do this you confirm immense self-esteem/insecurity issues !

Why can't you focus on the Physics/Math why do you *have* to show yourself up & litter the forums with personal attacks, are you very ill ?
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2016

.... and explain why you know more than Einstein.


Benni

I never mentioned Einstein let alone claimed I know more than him. I merely mentioned I know relativity and didn't even claim/imply some kind of 'superior' understanding of it like you make out.
Here seems to be just part of the source of your confusion:

Relativity ≠ Einstein

Therefore saying I know relativity doesn't imply I know more than Einstein.

Don't discuss Einstein with the psycho.
humy
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2016
...
When science-literate people say they "believe X (e.g. relativity) is correct" it's always with the uspoken rider "...until someone comes up with something better"

Note that this is different from saying "...until someone shows up a problem with X". We all KNOW there's a problem there. ...

But until and unless someone comes up with something BETTER that's the theories we'll use.

The alternative would be to stop using them - which would stop science. Forever.
...

That something isn't 100% correct doesn't mean it's bad to use it - especially if nothing better is at hand.


Very well put, antialias_physorg :)
humy
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2016


EITHER :

1, what general relativity implies about gravity is inaccurate over very 'large' distances (hundreds of light yours. ...



Sorry, misprint:
That should have been

"... (hundreds of light years ..."
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2016
Math says that Benni must have 4 sock puppets in the voting system.
Who else would vote him 5 stars but he himself.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2016
3 actually.
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (16) Jan 16, 2016
my2cts offered
Math says that Benni must have 3 sock puppets in the voting system.
Who else would vote him 5 stars but he himself
Indeed !

Also likely that either he or his 'cousin' bschott also having a personal attack & made a nick close to mine to muddy the waters !
ie https://sciencex...._Masson/

Which is *not* me by any circumstances, in any case pointless to use votes for anything other than basic flag function, its clear to the good thinkers around here that understand formalism of Physics & Science or example, that votes mean nothing & making socks wastes time

For anyone to go down that path re puppets etc betrays Huge lack of emotional security & low self esteem re comparative intellectual capacity & straight out childish vengeful behavior Eg
https://sciencex....thanyou/

Interesting is, one can get to read the server logs (in a round about way ;-) & feed them into a profiling script & discover heaps

*grin*
promile
Jan 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2016
sub:Big-Bang -In search of Revision
There lies no short cuts to Honesty. Cosmic Consciousness provides opportunity to cosmology Revision.
Better throw away Big-Bang and Search Origins- prime functional index. East West Interaction helps in time. Nature-Philosophy-Space Data filter all theories that mislead future digest.15 Books are available at your doorstep. www [dot] lulu [dot] com-shop-vidyardhi nanduri-cosmology vedas Interlinks -books-by dr vidyardhinanduri-ebook-product-22388039 [dot]html
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2016
Exactly except no analogy is perfect, and, unlike with a balloon that has a central point within the 3D volume under its 2D surface for its central point to be in,
Note the central point of some volume enclosing the surface is the central point of the volume, not the surface.
my2cts
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 16, 2016

That something isn't 100% correct doesn't mean it's bad to use it - especially if nothing better is at hand.

GRT is 100% correct, so far so good, where it is applied.
If it were not, it would be rejected.
The problem is that it does not apply everywhere.

It can not serve as a precedent for people to use faulty theories.
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2016
That something isn't 100% correct doesn't mean it's bad to use it - especially if nothing better is at hand


The same can be applied to dense aether model analogies like the water surface: they're not perfect, yet they represent at least some intuitive explanation of what we can observe around us.


You missed part of my post. I said: if there's something better: use that. Notice how we have something better than aether theory (well...everything is better than aether theory, really). There is no sense whatsoever (besides a psychological need for cuddly fuddly wishy washy fantasy) to use aether theory.

To spell it out: Aether theory is a spectacularly BAD idea to use, because it just helps you get everything vastly more wrong than with other theories.
Benni
3.6 / 5 (20) Jan 16, 2016
Notice how we have something better than aether theory (well...everything is better than aether theory, really). There is no sense whatsoever (besides a psychological need for cuddly fuddly wishy washy fantasy) to use aether theory.

To spell it out: Aether theory is a spectacularly BAD idea to use, because it just helps you get everything vastly more wrong than with other theories.


So, let us get this straight: Your godfather of the DM nut theory succinctly states in his hypothesis that his Cosmic Fairy Dust would be found ONLY in ENVELOPES surrounding SPIRAL GALAXIES. You've been sucked into the notion that DM makes up 80% of the mass of the Universe.

Now, put your vaunted math skills to work here, and explain how you DM Enthusiasts cram 80% of the mass of the Universe into a mass of the Universe already KNOWN to contain only 1/3 of its mass in the form of Spiral Galaxies.......... 80/33= 2.42 times more mass than Zwicky's hypothesis to accommodate it.
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (17) Jan 16, 2016
@Benni, why can't you articulate your full logical position from your perspective in the same clear language & concise way humy did so well ~50mins ago, that would be Great Benni ?

Along with that please note my post to you re lab experience & finding the missing reactances, did you do *any* in your precise uni training in "Electrical Engineering" ?

Benni, what's your position please ?

Do yah think:-

1. Relativity is wrong ie Field equations, if so how/where ?
2. Newton is wrong, details Eg Uranus vs Mercury ?
3. Rectilinear motion is wrong ie F=ma, ie Multiplication/Addition or even units ?
4. Maths is wrong, eg Calculus of either Integration and/or Differentiation ie Newton/Leibnitz ?

What is your specific position please Benni ?

or, even easier, just post the link where you made your position crystal before you barked personal attack & criticism at others ?

Can you do that please, because frankly otherwise Benni, you accelerate centrifugal motion ;-)
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 16, 2016
Benni gives a false summary of the DM hypothesis.
He lies to annoy others and gets a kick out of it.
There's no arguing with someone like that.
humy
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2016


So, let us get this straight: Your godfather of the DM nut theory succinctly states in his hypothesis that his Cosmic Fairy Dust would ...

Now, put your vaunted math skills to work here, and explain how you DM Enthusiasts cram...


Benni

So you respond to concise explanation and reason not with any intelligent reason but rather with hateful condescending unintelligent personal attacks? What do you think this tells us of your character? And how do you think anyone here will be persuaded by anything you assert with such personal attacks? Or what do you hope to achieve from doing this?
Benni
4.1 / 5 (18) Jan 16, 2016
Now, put your vaunted math skills to work here, and explain how you DM Enthusiasts cram...


Benni

So you respond to concise explanation and reason not with any intelligent reason but rather with hateful condescending unintelligent personal attacks?
.......80/33=2.42 is more "concise" than anything you've come up with so far. It would be real interesting to see your math for placing 2.42 gallons of water into a 1 gallon container. Show us that math?

What do you think this tells us of your character?
I can follow all the math in Einstein's calculations for gravitational deflection of photons in his GR, this has nothing to do with "character". You confuse my math skills with character due to the void that exists in your mind for explaining Zwicky's hypothesis versus the 80% missing mass conundrum.

And how do you think anyone here will be persuaded by anything you assert with such personal attacks?
So 80/33=2.42 is a personal attack.
humy
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2016
... So 80/33=2.42 is a personal attack.

Benni

No, Your comment of;

"...Your godfather of the DM nut theory succinctly states in his hypothesis that his Cosmic Fairy Dust would..."

is a personal attack.
Benni
4.3 / 5 (17) Jan 16, 2016
So 80/33=2.42 is a personal attack.

Benni

No, Your comment of;

"...Your godfather of the DM nut theory succinctly states in his hypothesis that his Cosmic Fairy Dust would..."

is a personal attack.


Seems to me, your willingness to put up with personal innuendos posited by My2cts labeling me "psycho" without one nuance of protestation from you is not something you have a problem with is it ?
humy
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2016
... So 80/33=2.42 is a personal attack.

Benni

No, Your comment of;

"...Your godfather of the DM nut theory succinctly states in his hypothesis that his Cosmic Fairy Dust would..."

is a personal attack.


I should add:

It is a personal attack for it OBVIOUSLY implies he (antialias_physorg) is a "nut" for believing it.

I should also point out that many of the greatest scientific mind with far greater intelligence than you or I concluded, rightly or wrongly, that dark matter exists. That doesn't mean dark matter exists but it is an indicator that our default assumption should be that, until you (or I) validly shows something wrong with the theory, which you so far haven't, it is a valid scientific theory (thus not a "nut theory" as you assert here)

+ where did I imply you were a "psycho" or support such a label? FACT: It wasn't me who said it.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 16, 2016
I just think DM is the best hypothesis currently out there. That's all.

Do I think it's a foregone conclusion that DM is the answer? No.
Do I think it's a sensible hypothesis? Yes (for the simple reason that we see things that have an effect that - to our current (testable!) knowledge - only gravity has. And the only thing that we know of that causes gravity is something that has mass.

The interesting thing (and what sets it apart from most all other proposed theories is): Going from the above observation and assumption we can make predictions (DM distribution, interaction models, etc.) and check them. If the predictions fail the model fails (note that there isn't just one DM model, There are several. Some of which have already been excluded by this process)

What allmost all other theories do is make either an infinite number of possible predictions (not useful because not falsifiable) or no predictions at all (which is about as useful as saying: "stuff exists/happens").
Benni
3.9 / 5 (19) Jan 16, 2016
(thus not a "nut theory" as you assert here)
It's a "nut theory" to imagine that 80% of the Universe can be contained within 1/3 of the mass of the Universe as the the present day DM Enthusiasts.

Your biggest problem is that you have yet to study Zwicky's hypothesis on DM. Or maybe you have, & you see the obvious disparities between his "envelopes of DM around Spiral Galaxies" versus the present day pop-sci that has created a conundrum gap with the 80% missing mass of the entire Universe.

Zwicky knew Einstein in case you didn't know that. And because Zwicky was well aware of Einstein's photon deflection calculations in GR, Zwicky knew he needed to keep his DM well beyond the orbit of our Sun within our Spiral Galaxy, because he knew he'd run into conflict with Einstein's Field Equations in his calculation for the mass of the Sun & his calculations for photon deflection.

my2cts
3 / 5 (14) Jan 16, 2016
Benni, the self appointed representative of Einstein on Earth.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2016
It is like a balloon except there is no space within it even though is impossible for us to visualize having a blown up balloon with no space within it!!


The surface area we inhabit receives light from billions of years ago when the universe was much smaller. So we are looking back at a much smaller visible universe which actually doesn't exist anymore.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2016
Now, put your vaunted math skills to work here, and explain how you DM Enthusiasts cram 80% of the mass of the Universe into a mass of the Universe already KNOWN to contain only 1/3 of its mass in the form of Spiral Galaxies.......... 80/33= 2.42 times more mass than Zwicky's hypothesis to accommodate it.
That would be 1/3 of the VISIBLE mass.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2016
And the only thing that we know of that causes gravity is something that has mass.
Hate to waist your time with pet theories, but it works for me. The reason mass causes gravity is it displaces the vacuum pressure, or dark energy, causing a gradient in this pressure. More dark energy pressure from the vacuum, less from inside the earth. However there are many greater gradients in the vacuum pressure than this, which accounts for most of the 80% people are talking about.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2016
1, what general relativity implies about gravity is inaccurate over very 'large' distances (hundreds of light yours.
If you plug in the right energy-momentum tensor for GR you get accurate results over any distance.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2016
According to accepted models and observations the density of the sun increases monotonically.
http://solarscien...or.shtml
I was thinking the sun was mostly hollow. Guess I'll have to look it up.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2016
The reason mass causes gravity is it displaces the vacuum pressure, or dark energy, causing a gradient in this pressure.
In that case it would be just proportional to volume filled. But it's proportional to volume times density. I don't see where density comes into play in your theory.

Anyhow the vacuum pressure can be shown with Casimir force - and that isn't in the same ballpark as gravity magnitude-wise.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2016
According to your DM Narratives, the Einstein Field Equations missed so much gravity by his overlooking so called missing 80% mass of the Sun that his calculations for gravitational lensing should never have worked, but they did.
Einstein missed 80% of the mass of the sun? He must have really been lucky.
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (16) Jan 16, 2016
@Benni, why can't you articulate your full logical position from your perspective in the same clear language & concise way humy did so well ~50mins ago, that would be Great Benni ?

Along with that please note my post to you re lab experience & finding the missing reactances, did you do *any* in your precise uni training in "Electrical Engineering" ?

Benni, what's your position please ?

Do yah think:-

1. Relativity is wrong ie Field equations, if so how/where ?
2. Newton is wrong, details Eg Uranus vs Mercury ?
3. Rectilinear motion is wrong ie F=ma, ie Multiplication/Addition or even units ?
4. Maths is wrong, eg Calculus of either Integration and/or Differentiation ie Newton/Leibnitz ?

What is your specific position please Benni ?

or, even easier, just post the link where you made your position crystal before you barked personal attack & criticism at others ?

Can you do that please, because frankly otherwise Benni, you accelerate centrifugal motion ;-)
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2016
Benni gives a false summary of the DM hypothesis.
He lies to annoy others and gets a kick out of it.
There's no arguing with someone like that.

My score is 2.7 for 7 ratings, so 3x5 + 4x1.
The 4x1 could well be from Benni and his 3 sockpuppets.
That adds up.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2016
Well, it's his three sockpuppets (Mike_Masson. GoshURStupid and iamsmarterthanyou)...the typical no-post wonders all registered within a short while of each other.

Nah Benni. You ain't smarter than anyone. You're just dumb as rocks if you have to get imaginary friends to vote you up (and others down). Ya think anyone would fall for that? If you really do - then you're more stupid than anyone can possibly imagine.

Pick up your game or get out (or get reported). Your choice. The sockpuppeting is on record.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 16, 2016
the Einstein Field Equations missed so much gravity by his overlooking so called missing 80% mass of the Sun

The shear nonsense of it. But look at the score, 3.4 out of 5 ratings.
That is 3x5+2*1. The 3*5 is from Benni's sockpuppets, since he can't vote with "Benni" on his own posts.
We all like appreciation, that's vanity. But this ? What is the diagnosis here ?
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2016
...the only thing that we know of that causes gravity is something that has mass.

More precisely, energy. Even more precisely, energy-momentum.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 16, 2016
So Benni you have been unmasked as a pathetic fraud.
Repent and better your life, to the benefit of all notably yourself !
Or will you continue this pathetic charade and live without dignity ?
You have a choice.
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (16) Jan 16, 2016
Benni claims
I can follow all the math in Einstein's calculations for gravitational deflection of photons in his GR
Really - Prove it ?
Did you work it out yourself or from L.Susskind Stanford link I offered (ie @1:21:00)?
https://www.youtu...rYIZhm60

Benni off tangent
.. the void that exists in your mind for explaining Zwicky's hypothesis versus the 80% missing mass conundrum
There you go, personal attacks again & again.

Why can't you be smarter & articulate YOUR hypothesis please ?

AND Benni, at the least, identify the assumptions re your comment re 80%, its sensible to clearly articulate the assumptions in *any* scientific endeavour, ie Its part of training you *should* have received in your claimed uni degree in "Electrical Engineering", why didnt you ?

Why focus on Zwicky anyway, it leaves a hole re movements closer to galactic center, so isnt it smarter to articulate YOUR idea ?

Isn't that more intelligent, do you have one ?
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (15) Jan 16, 2016
Benni says,
It would be real interesting to see your math for placing 2.42 gallons of water into a 1 gallon container. Show us that math?

Just a matter of density/pressure. The ocean does it all day long. That math has been around for a while, I heard...
And if THAT doesn't describe relativity, I couldn't tell ya what does...
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2016
Love to give a sermon on sunday morning!
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (17) Jan 16, 2016
antialias_physorg offered
Well, it's his three sockpuppets (Mike_Masson. GoshURStupid and iamsmarterthanyou)...the typical no-post wonders all registered within a short while of each other
Indeed & betrays an emotional vindictive pattern too with the classic selective behaviour to distract, that & Benni/bschott's immense inability to articulate their own position is almost icing on the cake proving not just incompetence but, immense insecurity !

antialias_physorg suggested
Pick up your game or get out (or get reported). Your choice. The sockpuppeting is on record
Damn right, seconded :-)

Now, if Benni/bschott & their gang could actually further their particular view with a smidgen of maths or even basic rationale we might get somewhere...

Instead Benni/bschott litter the forums & play sloppily, ie First proposes Zwicky & mixes in 2nd law of thermodynamics then backs away when challenged then claims others favour Zwicky to criticize

Benni, grow up !
trevor_white
3 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2016
antialias_physorg
\Couple of misconceptions in this:
- Matter did not gel out of the early state till after inflation
- Chamdrasekar limit is only relevant to matter (see first point)

Assuming the origin of the universe formed from energy, at the point of matter formation and up until the matter had expanded beyond the Chamdrasekar limit there would be no effective time. The assumption that the matter formed instantly throughout the early universe, not withstanding, there would still be a period where time moved at an unknown pace until it had moved beyond that limit significantly.

- spacetime (and more specifically spacetime expansion) is not subject to the speed of light limit.

the expansion of space time creates it's own limits which have nothing to do with time and to quote the speed of light which obviously relates to a baryonic universal state is simply just miss direction as the 2 do not relate
Benni
4.1 / 5 (18) Jan 16, 2016
Benni. You ain't smarter than anyone. You're just dumb as rocks if you have to get imaginary friends to vote you up (and others down). Ya think anyone would fall for that? If you really do then you're more stupid than anyone can possibly imagine.


.....coming from someone whose education is a degree in Biology versus mine in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering.

anti_physics, I can design a nuclear reactor.......what can you do beyond autopsy on cadavers with your degree in Human Biology? It's such great entertainment watching you flip into the usual foul mouthed name calling routines after you & your vote brigade have run out of cliches.

Cliched narratives is all Zwicky's Cosmic Fairy Dust narrative has ever been about & the same is what the ludicrous current Pop-Sci Narrative of the 80% Missing Matter narrative is about.

If the math isn't beyond you, give up the name calling routine & spend some time studying the GR section on photon deflection & weep some more.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 16, 2016
the Einstein Field Equations missed so much gravity by his overlooking so called missing 80% mass of the Sun

The shear nonsense of it. But look at the score, 3.4 out of 5 ratings.
That is 3x5+2*1. The 3*5 is from Benni's sockpuppets, since he can't vote with "Benni" on his own posts.
We all like appreciation, that's vanity. But this ? What is the diagnosis here ?

If it's Benni, why would his sock puppets high 5 me, then?
Benni
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 16, 2016
If it's Benni, why would his sock puppets high 5 me, then?


.....then it must be you?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2016
The reason mass causes gravity is it displaces the vacuum pressure, or dark energy, causing a gradient in this pressure.
In that case it would be just proportional to volume filled. But it's proportional to volume times density. I don't see where density comes into play in your theory.
Yes the greater the density the greater the volume of dark energy displaced.
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2016
so Skippy has a question , assuming 'inflation' is not just like an explosion ,what is filling the spaces between matter ,. Dark matter ? so is dark matter density decreasing ? or where does more originate.
I suspect we can barely scratch the surface of what we need to know.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2016
Anyhow the vacuum pressure can be shown with Casimir force - and that isn't in the same ballpark as gravity magnitude-wise.
So dark energy must be more than just the vacuum pressure. I was thinking of vacuum pressure as entropy of the dark energy.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2016
Anyhow the vacuum pressure can be shown with Casimir force - and that isn't in the same ballpark as gravity magnitude-wise.
So dark energy must be more than just the vacuum pressure. I was thinking of vacuum pressure as entropy of the dark energy.
Similar problem discussed at http://www.math.c...?p=5327, QFT predicts a huge vacuum energy, whereas measurements show that it is small. So with gravity we may be looking more at QFT (quantum field theory, I suppose).
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 17, 2016
If it's Benni, why would his sock puppets high 5 me, then?


.....then it must be you?

Sorry, Benni.. Too easy.
Already maintain a 4 before they arrived..
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 17, 2016
Benni's vain appeal to (his) authority but Fails in comprehension
.. whose education is a degree in Biology versus mine in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering
Prove your degree Benni ?
IIRC you made another mistake antialisa_physorg didnt claim a Biology degree !

Benni claims
I can design a nuclear reactor....
Prove it ?
Especially so as you *Need* training in radiative transfer, yet cannot solve that DE - why ?

Benni insecure again ..watching you flip into the usual foul mouthed name calling routines.. Talking about yourself - why can't you focus on the Math foundations for Physics ?

Benni on his soap box
Cliched narratives is all Zwicky's Cosmic Fairy Dust..
FFS! then WHY keep bringing it up, what is YOUR position ?

Benni says
...spend some time studying the GR section on photon deflection & weep some more
LOL, So link I supplied you for Susskind's lecture useful to you then, why don't you go beyond his approximation to a precise DE ?
Benni
4.1 / 5 (17) Jan 17, 2016
LOL, So link I supplied you for Susskind's lecture useful to you then, why don't you go beyond his approximation to a precise DE ?


As I've told you in the recent past, I NEVER click on anything for which you create a link. Furthermore, I don't care what Susskind the plumber has to say about anything, I fully comprehend Einstein's SR & GR and don't need much else on which to base my professional endeavors in science.
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2016
.what can you do beyond autopsy on cadavers with your degree in Human Biology?

I have a lot of interests in scientific subjects (some people have "food porn". Others have "porn porn". I like "science porn")
I like to go in depth where I can. The degree doesn't limit me in that way. I have a masters in EE along with the degree,. But even at uni I was spending a lot of time also going to other lectures (philosophy, psychology, physics, ... ) I like to think I used that time as well as I could to cram as much pan-subject understanding as possible. It's amazing how many things are intimately connected by stuff like statistics, information theory, game theory, ...

Grad school did give me the tools to know how to go in depth on a subject in a reasonable amount of time. It also gave me the experience how to delineate good science from crank stuff.

But yeah: your sockpuppet attack speaks for itself. Back on ignore you go..
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2016
LOL, So link I supplied you for Susskind's lecture useful to you then, why don't you go beyond his approximation to a precise DE ?


As I've told you in the recent past, I NEVER click on anything for which you create a link. Furthermore, I don't care what Susskind the plumber has to say about anything, I fully comprehend Einstein's SR & GR and don't need much else on which to base my professional endeavors in science.

You float in splendid omniscient isolation together with your sockpuppets, clicking away at the stars. Ummmmmm ....
Benni
3.7 / 5 (19) Jan 17, 2016
I have a masters in EE along with the degree,. But even at uni I was spending a lot of time also going to other lectures (philosophy, psychology, physics, ... )


Muttering Mike should demand you prove it in face of the many gaffes in which I've caught you when you wander into subject material involving Electrical Engineering.

Your many gaffes carry so many tones of someone who failed a transition from a Biology curriculum into a REAL SCIENCE curriculum & found yourself way over your head & flunked out. When an undergrad, I saw many Pre-Med students try to make the transition into Engineering, the failure rate was just about 100%. With your many gaffe prone responses in my field of professional endeavor it's clear your resume exceeds even the inflation of the subject material under discussion.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2016
I have a masters in EE along with the degree,. But even at uni I was spending a lot of time also going to other lectures (philosophy, psychology, physics, ... )


Muttering Mike should demand you prove it in face of the many gaffes in which I've caught you when you wander into subject material involving Electrical Engineering.

Your many gaffes carry so many tones of someone who failed a transition from a Biology curriculum into a REAL SCIENCE curriculum & found yourself way over your head & flunked out. When an undergrad, I saw many Pre-Med students try to make the transition into Engineering, the failure rate was just about 100%. With your many gaffe prone responses in my field of professional endeavor it's clear your resume exceeds even the inflation of the subject material under discussion.

That is boring. Rather, tell us all what Einstein is doing at this moment.
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (17) Jan 17, 2016
Benni deluded claims
Muttering Mike should demand you prove it in face of the many gaffes in which I've caught you when you wander into subject material involving Electrical Engineering
Top 3 please ?

Well known your memory is flawed, you confused me with runrig, I'm not a meteorologist & not in UK

Benni claims
Your many gaffes carry so many tones of someone who failed a transition from a Biology curriculum into a REAL SCIENCE curriculum & found yourself way over your head & flunked out
Huh - prove it ?

I did EE at Western Australian Institute of Technology, Bentley Western Australia, 1976-82, Ba Sci 2008 then post grad Food Science (with microbiology) 2010, thats it

Benni very confused
With your many gaffe prone responses in my field of professional endeavor it's clear your resume exceeds even the inflation of the subject material under discussion
Prove it - top 3 please ?

My student no 7602128 call em
http://www.curtin.edu.au/

Yours please ?
baudrunner
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2016
When problems keep bringing other problems, then the math is bad to begin with, and this is the only logical reason as to why "dark matter" had to be invented in the first place.

So now, anyone who was enamored of the "Dark Side" back in the seventies and then later got themselves a pseudoscience degree at some private college, and in spite of the fact that they never really grew up, is compelled to expound and resolve any and all issues surrounding the inexplicabilities of all that ridiculous dark matter nonsense by extending theory upon theory to explain and justify it. These guys are literally going out on a limb here, in my opinion.
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 17, 2016
Benni claims
.. I don't care what Susskind the plumber has to say about anything, I fully comprehend Einstein's SR & GR and don't need much else on which to base my professional endeavors in science
Don't believe you, munting credentials isnt particular clever tactic to give impression you didnt watch the video I urged, Leonard Suskind is a Physics lecturer at Stanford.

Proof of your falsity Benni is you asked about light's deflection & how to calculate it, efficient I refer you to the lecture on youtube as space/time/format here at phys org not conducive.

To claim you "fully comprehend" is a laugh, all you do is evade after making groundless claims which *only* go to boost your ego, you have serious self-esteem issues, ugh

Tell us about your studies in the term you coined "Statistical Probabilities" & why a claimed Nuclear Engineer doesnt know squat about radiative transfer, betrayed by your facile retorts on climate change, geesh !

Fish in a barrel...
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
IMP-9
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2016
surrounding only Spiral Galaxies, this according to Zwicky the godfather of DM


Spouting nonsense as always. Zwicky's pioneering work on dark matter was in clusters, not spiral galaxies. Clusters are in fact dominated by elliptical. He didn't use the rotation of spirals. He also made no claims about it's distribution either, all he could see is that according to standard light to mass ratios clusters couldn't be in equilibrium.

Fabricated quotes are pretty low.
Old_C_Code
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2016
dogbert says:
Once you create imaginary matter to explain observational anomalies, it is easy to imagine multiple inflations or anything else you may need to normalize your models.


Easily the best, most sensible comment about this article. It can't be overstated.

Dark matter was originally proposed to be actual matter that could not be seen/reflected, not fantasy matter.
promile
Jan 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (17) Jan 17, 2016
Old_C_Code obviously failed at Algebra claims
dogbert says:
Once you create imaginary matter to explain observational anomalies, it is easy to imagine multiple inflations or anything else you may need to normalize your models
Easily the best, most sensible comment about this article. It can't be overstated
For the uneducated absolutely right !

Those that are simplistic, naive & cannot do Algebra it IS an imaginary only in an equation & as any intelligent person *knows* full well (who's done math) an 'unknown' in equations represents a quantity ie with dimension - whether Kg, Meters, Newtons etc

Old_C_Code stumbles
Dark matter was originally proposed to be actual matter that could not be seen/reflected, not fantasy matter
Still is, what idiot now says it *has* to be a fantasy ?

Rules of algebra haven't changed, gravitation hasnt changed, observations add to weight of evidence but, bear in mind can be equivalent to matter Re Gravity, Capisce' ?
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 17, 2016
Similar problem discussed at http://www.math.c...?p=5327, QFT predicts a huge vacuum energy, whereas measurements show that it is small. So with gravity we may be looking more at QFT (quantum field theory, I suppose).

Because we're not measuring the aggregate, only a small spot in space?
Gravity as a field? Good.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2016
Anyhow the vacuum pressure can be shown with Casimir force - and that isn't in the same ballpark as gravity magnitude-wise.
Not really. The vacuum energy permeates the plates. The vacuum energy displaced by the atomic matter in the plates is really almost immeasureable. For example the hydrogen atom is 4x10^-13 full, the rest being empty space per http://education....ce.html. Should have thought that one out before. Never was the smartest kid in class. And my classes weren't that big either.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2016
4x10^-13 full,
Make that 4x10^-13%. Sorry.
viko_mx
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2016
There is no such thing as empty space. The space is geometric object. Physicists are interested of physical objects such as vacuum of space. Thing about electromagnetism. Where is stored electromagnetic energy of the coil before to release it and induce voltage in the conductor?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2016
There is no such thing as empty space.
Yes it's filled with some sort of energy at least in our neck of the woods. Anyway the Casimer force is probably the force of gravity between the plates. But don't try doubling the weight of the plates and think you'll get twice the force because of the 1/r^2 term in the gravitational field. Only the atoms near the inner surfaces will contribute very much to the gravitational force.
viko_mx
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2016
No some sort of energy but perfectly organized physical structure which dictate the behavior of elementary particles locally or globally.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (15) Jan 18, 2016
viko_mx claims
There is no such thing as empty space. The space is geometric object. Physicists are interested of physical objects such as vacuum of space. Thing about electromagnetism Where is stored electromagnetic energy of the coil before to release it and induce voltage in the conductor?
Previously you viko_mx have claimed "I know Physics well", so obviously you know very little at all, go learn electrical fundamentals about reactances from Inductance to Capacitive etc

https://en.wikipe...eactance

Eg v=Ldi/dt & I=Cdv/dt

Heard of Calculus ?
Essential to understand almost any basic Physics & especially so as all gods are very bad communicators - exactly as if they don't exist, ie ONLY mere claim !

Please go away viko_mx, you are embarrassing, this is not midlde school, you get caught out so very often making things up "false witness" & lying, you don't know "Physics Well" so stop making such stupid unsupportable claims !

Leave !
viko_mx
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2016
Do you bother to understand what you quote? My hobby is electronics and I know how works coils, capacitors or transistors.
Where is stored electromagnetic energy of the coil before to be induced electromotive force in the conductor? Where are distributed magnetic field lines? In nothingness - in geometric space? This does not work. Does the coils works in the vacuum of space? Are you aware of the process of induction?
Digging wikipedia does not help if you do not bother to understand what you read.
antialias_physorg
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2016
My hobby is electronics

My "don't buy"-meter just 'sploded.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (15) Jan 18, 2016
viko_mx claims
Do you bother to understand what you quote? My hobby is electronics and I know how works coils, capacitors or transistors
Hobby maybe but, your knowledge of Physics NIL !

You claim "I know Physics well" is a LIE, you are false & fake !

viko_mx
Where is stored electromagnetic energy of the coil before to be induced electromotive force in the conductor?
Learn electromagnetics (EM) & difference between maths description vs Physics interpretation & value of maths re predictions, those that "know physics well" understand this, you NEED to learn

viko_mx asks
Where are distributed magnetic field lines?
There are none, its merely a mathematical description, learn Gauss !
https://en.wikipe..._theorem

viko_mx asks
In nothingness - in geometric space?
In space but, no proof its mere "geometric", why don't you ask your god & ask it why its always deadly silent ?

EM works in space doh & *should* know it, air irrelevant !
promile
Jan 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2016
@Mike_Massen

Give scientific arguments and explanation. Not usual emotional declarations.

Where is stored electromagnetic energy? Which physical media conducts the magnetic field?
I have answer. The structure of cosmic vacuum.
Let heat you answer.
Tri-ring
3 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2016
We know that there are various sizes in black holes determined by the Schwarzschild radius and that the strength of at that point is the same escape velocity is the same as speed of light.
If we pump in more mass into a black hole the Schwarzschild radius simply becomes bigger suggesting the unit amount of energy within the black hole remains the same which means we have a ceiling to the amount of energy space can hold within a unit size.
This leads to suggest that within our capacity of physics the big bang can only be observable at the Schwarzschild radius of the Big bang and not at the very start which inflation may or may not have occurred.
Quantum mechanics also suggests that within the Schwarzschild radius the quantum singularity would be anywhere and everywhere so the energy of the big bang would have been equally spread out at surface of the Schwarzschild radius sphere of the big bang when it occurred.
antialias_physorg
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2016
If we pump in more mass into a black hole the Schwarzschild radius simply becomes bigger suggesting the unit amount of energy within the black hole remains

This is tricky stuff because space is not flat within a black hole. So talking of the amount of space inside it isn't as straightforward a taking the Schwarzschild radius cubed and multiplying by 4Pi/3

The definition of a space relies on the definition of a length. And our definition of a length is dependent on the definition of time (because the only constant ruler we have is the speed of light). However, inside the event horizon the length between a point 'further in' towards a point 'further out' is inifinite because light would never reach it (take an infinite amount of time)

Note the reverse (from a point 'further out' to one 'further in') does not hold true. That length is finite.
So a black hole is 'larger on the inside'. Speaking of density metrics becomes iffy.
Tri-ring
3 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2016
You're talking within the event horizon I am talking strict observation outside the Schwarzschild radius watching the Schwarzschild radius grows as mass surpass the event horizon.

As I also posted beyond the event horizon based on quantum mechanics the quantum singularity is anywhere and everywhere within the event horizon so the mass passing will be accumulated instantaneously and yet infinitely since time does not exist as we know it beyond our known relm of physics.
bschott
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 18, 2016
@Mike_Massen

Give scientific arguments and explanation. Not usual emotional declarations.

Where is stored electromagnetic energy? Which physical media conducts the magnetic field?
I have answer. The structure of cosmic vacuum.
Let heat you answer.


Mike has made his lack of understanding about magnetic fields blatantly clear, repeatedly. His answer when questioned is deflect to course selection....for others. It's sad that someone who understands physics only through math would attempt to lessen the understanding of those who don't need the equations to get what is going on.

Mike will never understand what is going on.
Benni
4.3 / 5 (17) Jan 18, 2016
Mike will never understand what is going on.


I'd make it a point to never vote Muttering Mike anything less than a 5 Star, this so as to never dilute the voting selector for those who come to this site seeking only to read 5 Star rated Comments. It is just so much fun putting Muttering Mike's Funny Farm Science before the eyeballs of naive starry eyed readers, this so they can see for themselves the plethora of Funny Farm Science this site attracts, you know, like when Docile & Stumpy used to be here.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (15) Jan 18, 2016
There is no such thing as empty space. The space is geometric object. Physicists are interested of physical objects such as vacuum of space. Thing about electromagnetism. Where is stored electromagnetic energy of the coil before to release it and induce voltage in the conductor?

You DO realize how dumb that question sounds, right?
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (15) Jan 18, 2016
Where is stored electromagnetic energy of the coil before to be induced electromotive force in the conductor? Where are distributed magnetic field lines? In nothingness - in geometric space? This does not work. Does the coils works in the vacuum of space? Are you aware of the process of induction?

Magnetic Field "lines" are just an artifact of the way baryonic material reacts to field variations.
Coils need power supplied TO them before they produce electromagnetic field. And then, it's not "stored", it just sits there waiting for a "conductor" to "induct" it too. It's "wasted", for lack of better term..
Sheesh, Viko... I'm just an artist and even I know that, fer crissake...
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (16) Jan 18, 2016
Mike will never understand what is going on.


I'd make it a point to never vote Muttering Mike anything less than a 5 Star, this so as to never dilute the voting selector for those who come to this site seeking only to read 5 Star rated Comments. It is just so much fun putting Muttering Mike's Funny Farm Science before the eyeballs of naive starry eyed readers, this so they can see for themselves the plethora of Funny Farm Science this site attracts, you know, like when Docile & Stumpy used to be here.

You do realize Promile and Docile are both Zeph, right?
my2cts
2 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2016
@Mike_Massen

Give scientific arguments and explanation. Not usual emotional declarations.

Where is stored electromagnetic energy? Which physical media conducts the magnetic field?
I have answer. The structure of cosmic vacuum.
Let heat you answer.

If not there then somewhere else in the universe. Hope this helps.
Benni
4.5 / 5 (15) Jan 18, 2016
Mike will never understand what is going on.


I'd make it a point to never vote Muttering Mike anything less than a 5 Star, this so as to never dilute the voting selector for those who come to this site seeking only to read 5 Star rated Comments. It is just so much fun putting Muttering Mike's Funny Farm Science before the eyeballs of naive starry eyed readers, this so they can see for themselves the plethora of Funny Farm Science this site attracts, you know, like when Docile & Stumpy used to be here.


You do realize Promile and Docile are both Zeph, right?
.............Yepo, WG, isn't it nice having Axemaster's nemesis back? It'll be great fun again to see if the ol' MIT axe wielder is as proficient with that club as he is teaching his glorified kinematics course. This is just gonna to be a pile of entertainment to sit back & watch unfold.

my2cts
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 18, 2016
... Funny Farm Science this site attracts, ...

You are part of that.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 18, 2016
@viko_mx
No some sort of energy but perfectly organized physical structure which dictate the behavior of elementary particles locally or globally.

Let me guess. The Holy Matrix is at it again !
Who are the 5 readers that gave you 5 stars?
Your 5 sockpuppets?
5 disciples ?
Benni
4.5 / 5 (15) Jan 18, 2016
Let me guess. The Holy Matrix is at it again !
Who are the 5 readers that gave you 5 stars?
Your 5 sockpuppets?
5 disciples ?


Ya know, this gives me some thoughts for contemplation.

The new Docile is about to begin competing with Axemaster for clever insight(s) about DM. Axo will be in no frame of mind to put up with someone stealing his thunder, so he will make another move to get him banned by using the "sock puppet" censorship technique. I was po'd when Axo did not include me in the old Docile sockpuppet list, I guess because I only gave him 5's only 2 or 3 times.

So what I'm thinking, if I start giving Muttering Mike & the new Docile unbroken repertoires of 5's, no matter how disconnected & convoluted their Funny Farm Science becomes, then maybe I can be Axo's fallback sockpuppet of an excuse for not only censoring the New Docile but also the old Muttering Mike?

Hey, MM, got an opinion?
my2cts
2 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2016
Wrong number Benni.
Old_C_Code
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2016
Mike_M says:
Old_C_Code obviously failed at Algebra claims


Modesty is proportional to accomplishment.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 18, 2016
Wrong number Benni.

He's trying reverse psychology - an old trick...
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (15) Jan 18, 2016
Old_C_Code cant use paste attempts idle invective
Mike_M says
Old_C_Code obviously failed at Algebra...
Modesty is proportional to accomplishment
Maybe, how about focusing & be relevant articulating well your claim & with keen Science communication re your idle/arbitrary view "fantasy matter", can you do that, even a little, show us you have some intelligent basis to your vague pub talk one liners ?

Old_C_Code have you ever looked at the source of that cliche "Modesty is proportional to accomplishment", re context here in detail ?

How is asking a question about a claim a reflection on modesty ? Does that betray you are unable to explain why you imagine a fantasy, not an issue of Algebra ?

ie When you state "Dark matter was originally proposed to be actual matter that could not be seen/reflected, not fantasy matter" do you realise how facile & irrelevant you appear

Obviously not re modesty, where is your accomplishment to articulate claims well please ?
Benni
4.2 / 5 (15) Jan 18, 2016
He's trying reverse psychology - an old trick..


Axemaster & New Docile:
:-)(-:

OK then WG, how's this for kissyface? Axo & ND making up..........Now no French kissing you two, just keep those tongues inside your protruding cheeks.
omatwankr
5 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2016
https://en.wikipe..._McGaugh
"McGaugh found surprising support for the Modified Newtonian dynamics proposed by Mordehai Milgrom as an alternative to Dark matter in his work on Low Surface Brightness Galaxies. This has proven to be very controversial since it implies the non-existence of the non-baryonic dark matter that is central to physical cosmology. Nevertheless, his predictions for the mass distribution of the Milky Way and the velocity dispersions of the dwarf Spheroidal satellites of the Andromeda spiral galaxy have largely been confirmed by subsequent observations."
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2016
non-baryonic dark matter that is central to physical cosmology.
Most likely explains why my posts at https://www.faceb...pinions/ are being censored.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacy_McGaugh
"McGaugh found surprising support for the Modified Newtonian dynamics proposed by Mordehai Milgrom as an alternative to Dark matter in his work on Low Surface Brightness Galaxies. This has proven to be very controversial since it implies the non-existence of the non-baryonic dark matter that is central to physical cosmology. Nevertheless, his predictions for the mass distribution of the Milky Way and the velocity dispersions of the dwarf Spheroidal satellites of the Andromeda spiral galaxy have largely been confirmed by subsequent observations."


But:
"MOND has successfully predicted a variety of galactic phenomena that are difficult to understand from a dark matter perspective.[2] However, MOND and its generalisations do not adequately account for observed properties of galaxy clusters, and no satisfactory cosmological model has been constructed from the theory."
https://en.wikipe...dynamics
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2016
The wiki article on MOND is a must read. Very interesting and inspiring new ideas.
del2
4 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2016
The wiki article on MOND is a must read. Very interesting and inspiring new ideas.

John Moffat's modified gravitational theory (MOG) is also interesting (it's fully relativistic, while MOND is non-relativistic). Google "Moffat gravitation" for links.
my2cts
2 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2016
LSA may directly test MOND:
https://en.wikipe...xtension
viko_mx
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2016
@ Whydening Gyre

"Magnetic Field "lines" are just an artifact of the way baryonic material reacts to field variations."

Artifacts exist only in human made imperfect mathematical theories. In the real physical world such things does not exist. How are arranged the iron filings in a magnetic field? What is their obtained order? Artifact?

"Coils need power supplied TO them before they produce electromagnetic field. And then, it's not "stored", >it just sits there waiting for< a "conductor" to "induct" it too. It's "wasted", for lack of better term.."

Do not you think that "its just sits there waiting for" sounds like stored? Where? In the structure of vacuum of space? What happens when the power applied on the coil is interrupted suddenly? I guess you heard about the conservation energy low?

Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2016
Mike_M says:
Old_C_Code have you ever looked at the source of that cliche "Modesty is proportional to accomplishment", re context here in detail ?


That is my own observation, take your meds.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2016
The hobby of Albert Einstein was violin playing. Very suspicious and untrustworthy indeed....
Feynman was a drummer. Same thing but worse I should think.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2016
My school gave me an old cello to learn on. Slung over the handlebars of my bike for a ride over a half mile home. No buses in my time. Tricky indeed. I brought it back too.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2016
Old_C_Code with Nil Physics
Mike_M says:
Old_C_Code have you ever looked at the source of that cliche "Modesty is proportional to accomplishment", re context here in detail ?
That is my own observation, take your meds
Ah, so absolutely nothing useful to readers, no Science communication, nothing on topic at all re Gravity, Eg how about MOND ?

What about my question "Still is, what idiot now says it *has* to be a fantasy ?".

Write how YOU came to conclusion dark matter's fantasy or are you simply parroting propaganda, not able to offer useful dialectic or Algebra or a Position ?

@Benni/bschott
My comment re magnetism in response to viko_mx - the religious zealot who claims "I know Physics well", its obviously pointless engaging him when he often brings back to his Creator that can't ever communicate well

If you guys had read my posts re Magnetism you would see I take the same position as Feynman, as no-one actually knows, so u tell us your Position(s) ?
my2cts
2 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2016
My school gave me an old cello to learn on. Slung over the handlebars of my bike for a ride over a half mile home. No buses in my time. Tricky indeed. I brought it back too.

Boring.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2016

Artifacts exist only in human made imperfect mathematical theories. In the real physical world such things does not exist. How are arranged the iron filings in a magnetic field? What is their obtained order? Artifact?

iron filings predominantly arrange in "field lines" due to magnetic properties of iron.

"Coils need power supplied TO them before they produce electromagnetic field. And then, it's not "stored", >it just sits there waiting for< a "conductor" to "induct" it too. It's "wasted", for lack of better term.."

Do not you think that "its just sits there waiting for" sounds like stored?

Nope - exists until -
What happens when the power applied on the coil is interrupted suddenly?

when it stops existing.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2016
The hobby of Albert Einstein was violin playing. Very suspicious and untrustworthy indeed....
Feynman was a drummer. Same thing but worse I should think.

And Ziggy played guitar... Left-handed, no less...
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2016
Whydening Gyre offered
iron filings predominantly arrange in "field lines" due to magnetic properties of iron
Indeed they do & with gaps between the iron illustrating the iron pulls the field towards it as it is ferromagnetic ie. The iron affects & interacts with the overall field, so before the filings are added the field is 'smooth', once the filings are added the field has a ripple distribution as iron pulls etc...

Proof easy to procure via non ferromagnetic field probe - actually a probe which has as negligible effective magnetic properties as possible, whether; ferro, dia, para, anti-ferro etc such that it does not influence the field distribution in any significant way - if at all possible, some info here:-
http://www.emcesd...99-w.pdf
Key issue is of course to measure the vector too, with minimal field disturbance
http://www.vernie.../mg-bta/

iirc Gauss observed this too as fields couple so very easily & all the time...
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2016
Indeed they do & with gaps between the iron illustrating the iron pulls the field towards it as it is ferromagnetic ie. The iron affects & interacts with the overall field, so before the filings are added the field is 'smooth', once the filings are added the field has a ripple distribution as iron pulls etc...

I dunno, Mike. The field strength itself weakens (smoothly) the farther from the magnet source you get. The iron filings arrange themselves due to their own magnetic interaction (magnetism having been induced in each of them due to the field). Of course, without the proper equip to test this and actually know - I could be wrong...:-)
And, thanks for the constructive input. It helps me sort out stuff...:-)
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2016
Whydening Gyre replied
I dunno, Mike. The field strength itself weakens (smoothly) the farther from the magnet source..
Correct, case A

Whydening Gyre added
The iron filings arrange themselves due to their own magnetic interaction (magnetism having been induced in each of them due to the field)
Correct & in so doing filings reduce field strength outside (comparison to case A) in close proximity, from initially smooth field end up with reduced field not smooth...

Covered in "Electrical Machines" specific unit in uni Electrical Engineering, Benni *should* know if his claim to be an EE were true !

Whydening Gyre says
..without the proper equip to test this and actually know
Its fundamental interaction Very well known >100yrs, routinely observed in labs worldwide, field lines tend to congregate in ferrous materials as energy conservation phenomena

https://en.wikipe...ized.svg
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2016
Whydening Gyre replied
I dunno, Mike. The field strength itself weakens (smoothly) the farther from the magnet source..
Correct, case A

Whydening Gyre added
The iron filings arrange themselves due to their own magnetic interaction (magnetism having been induced in each of them due to the field)
Correct & in so doing filings reduce field strength outside (comparison to case A) in close proximity, from initially smooth field end up with reduced field not smooth...

Ahhh.... I get it... Thanks. I was kinda thinking the field strength stayed the same, but the filings (because of their proximity) generated their own stronger field due to their own, newly found, magnetism...
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2016
Whydening Gyre
.. but the filings (because of their proximity) generated their own stronger field due to their own, newly found, magnetism...
Hmm, close but not quite, bear in mind the iron filings are construed to be non-magnetised first before being applied, ie Non polarised with no initial field of their own - they are often so called 'soft iron' meaning they don't impose their own field but, rather are more receptive to externally imposed fields. So the field from the magnet tends to congregate withing the added iron fillings

So, given they start out neutral as such immediately before being jostled onto the paper they don't add or subtract from the existing field - they instead coalesce the existing magnet's field from the bar magnet as the field lines prefer to pass through the iron fillings instead of the free space around them (where possible), the result is the bits of iron filings only *then* become (polarised) domains by themselves & thus line up...
viko_mx
5 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2016
@Whydening Gyre

"iron filings predominantly arrange in "field lines" due to magnetic properties of iron."

No. This arrangement depends only on the distribution of the magnetic field in the structure of the vacuum of space rather than the source of the magnetic field.

"Coils need power supplied TO them before they produce electromagnetic field. And then, it's not "stored", >it just sits there waiting for< a "conductor" to "induct" it too. It's "wasted", for lack of better term.."

"when it stops existing."

Before to stop existing what happen? How it works L-C oscillators?
promile
Jan 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2016
[qNo. This arrangement depends only on the distribution of the magnetic field in the structure of the vacuum of space rather than the source of the magnetic field.
No, Viko. Think about what Mike just said. The field is smooth "density" gradient prior to intro of filings(a magnetic conductor), only developing the layered characteristics after said interactive introduction.

- "when it stops existing."

Before to stop existing what happen? How it works L-C oscillators?

The only oscillation comes from turning it on and off. I'm talking about the field, itself (in a vacuum). Other than that, I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2016
The action at distance remains unsolved problem in physics. It's not just about magnetic field, but about gravity and Coulomb force as well. If the force between electron and protons would propagate with speed of light, then the electron would collapse into atom nuclei fast. In accordance with it was observed, that the charge of electron http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2913 than the electron itself, actually with superluminal speed. Which is something, the Maxwell equations or special relativity cannot predict neither describe.

Which would mean that a "field" (or information, if you will) was already there when an atom encountered it. The "charge" of every single quantified single piece of space (big or small) is the aggregate charge of all things within it (who knows, it could even be more than). It is contiguous with all the other quantified spaces around it and so on. All constantly reacting to fluctuational input. Thus making anything and everything a "quantum".
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2016
Whydening Gyre encountered viko_mx, commiserations
Before to stop existing what happen? How it works L-C oscillators?
I'm talking about the field, itself (in a vacuum). Other than that, I'm not sure what you're getting at
Its been clear for a long time viko_mx's 1st language isnt English, he misses preparing basis for questions, which should be translatable from language he works from

In Elect Eng, we learn base Physics, ie The "Ideal Case", components have inherent ideal property deemed essential & dominant; L has zero R&C, C has zero L&R

So an inductor (L), even wire whether coiled or not, ideally has nil resistance (R) & nil capacitance (C) but, practically has non-zero series resistance & small distributed capacitances across each winding, its simplest yet good match to determine reactances, slightly more complex asymptotic corrections add small Rs in series & parallel with each C & permutations thereof. Ideal LC osc has no R's = no losses

TBC
promile
Jan 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2016
Continued @Whydening Gyre & indirectly viko_mx

The "L-C Oscillator" inductor connected to a capacitor. If ideal components & capacitor is first given a charge then connecting them will result in indefinite oscillation dependent upon the magnitude of capacitance (Farads) & Inductor (Henrys)

ie Charge from capacitor creates current in inductor which reverses voltage on the capacitor according to these fundamental principles (ideal non-resistive)

1 Voltage on a capacitor cannot change instantaneously i=Cdv/dt
2 Current through an inductor cannot change instantaneously v=Ldi/dt

Even in the ideal case where L & C have no resistive components the oscillation is subject to attentuation as charge on the capacitor requires its electric field impinge on space, likewise current through inductor requires its magnetic field impinges on space

For viko_mx , claims "I know Physics well" can take it away & Benni can solve the circuit's differential equation

*grin*

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.