Déjà-vu, new theory says dark matter acts like well-known particle

July 22, 2015
Conventional theories predict that dark matter particles would not collide, rather they would slip past one another. Hochberg et al. predicts dark matter SIMPs would collide and interact with one another. Credit: Kavli IPMU

A new theory says dark matter acts remarkably similar to subatomic particles known to science since the 1930s.

We owe a lot to dark matter – it is the thing keeping galaxies, stars, our solar system, and our bodies intact. Yet no one has been able to observe it, and it has often been regarded as a totally new exotic form of matter, such as a particle moving in extra dimensions of space or its quantum version, super-symmetry.

Now an international group of researchers has proposed a theory that dark matter is very similar to pions, which are responsible for binding atomic nuclei together. Their findings appear in the latest Physical Review Letters, published on July 10.

"We have seen this kind of particle before. It has the same properties – same type of mass, the same type of interactions, in the same type of theory of strong interactions that gave forth the ordinary pions. It is incredibly exciting that we may finally understand why we came to exist," says Hitoshi Murayama, Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Director of the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe at the University of Tokyo.

The new theory predicts dark matter is likely to interact with itself within galaxies or clusters of galaxies, possibly modifying the predicted mass distributions. "It can resolve outstanding discrepancies between data and computer simulations," says Eric Kuflik, a postdoctoral researcher at Cornell University. University of California, Berkeley postdoctoral researcher Yonit Hochberg adds, "The key differences in these properties between this new class of dark matter theories and previous ideas have profound implications on how can be discovered in upcoming experimental searches."

The next step will be to put this theory to the test using experiments such as the Large Hadron Collider and the new SuperKEK-B, and a proposed experiment SHiP.

Artist's impression of dark matter distribution. Left image assumes conventional dark matter theories, where dark matter would be highly peaked in small area in galaxy center. Right image assumes SIMPs, where dark matter in galaxy would spread out from the center. Credit: NASA, STScI; Credit: Kavli IPMU - Kavli IPMU modified this figure based on the image credited by NASA, STScI

Explore further: The dark side of cosmology

More information: "Model for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles" Physical Review Letters, 115, 021301 (2015) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.021301

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 ...

On the hunt for dark matter

August 22, 2014

New University of Adelaide Future Fellow Dr Martin White is starting a research project that has the potential to redirect the experiments of thousands of physicists around the world who are trying to identify the nature ...

Huge new survey to shine light on dark matter

July 9, 2015

The first results have been released from a major new dark matter survey of the southern skies using ESO's VLT Survey Telescope (VST) at the Paranal Observatory in Chile. The VST KiDS survey will allow astronomers to make ...

Galaxy clusters collide—dark matter still a mystery

March 26, 2015

When galaxy clusters collide, their dark matters pass through each other, with very little interaction. Deepening the mystery, a study by scientists at EPFL and the University of Edinburgh challenges the idea that dark matter ...

Recommended for you

Golden mystery solved

January 16, 2017

Gold is prized for its preciousness and as a conductor in electronics, but it is also important in scientific experimentation.

A novel way to put flame retardant in a lithium ion battery

January 16, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers at Stanford University has found a novel way to introduce flame retardant into a lithium ion battery to prevent fires from occurring. In their paper published in the journal Science Advances, ...

Phase transition discovery opens the door to new electronics

January 16, 2017

A group of European scientists led by researchers at TU Delft has discovered how phase transitions propagate throughout materials called nickelates. The discovery improves our understanding of these novel materials, which ...

Electron diffraction locates hydrogen atoms

January 13, 2017

Diffraction-based analytical methods are widely used in laboratories, but they struggle to study samples that are smaller than a micrometer in size. Researchers from the Laboratoire de cristallographie et sciences des matériaux ...

137 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (13) Jul 22, 2015
The mass which fills 'empty' space is beginning to be referred to as the 'dark mass' in order to distinguish it from the baggage associated with dark matter.

'Dark Energy/Dark Mass: The Slient Truth'
https://tienzengo...t-truth/

"That is, all that we are certain about [is] the dark mass, not dark matter, let alone to say about the dark 'particle'."

What physics mistakes for the density of the dark matter is actually the state of displacement of the dark mass.

Particles of matter move through and displace the dark mass, including 'particles' as large as galaxies and galaxy clusters.

The Milky Way moves through and displaces the dark mass.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the dark mass.

The Milky Way moves through and curves spacetime.

The Milky Way's halo is curved spacetime.

The state of displacement of the dark mass is curved spacetime.
Doug_Huffman
5 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2015
docile
Jul 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tadchem
5 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2015
The problem of pion instability is an excellent point. When a pion decays the mass of the pion must become associated with the decay products, and to form a pion one must have massive particles. So why can't we see the massive precursors / products for unstable pions?
The durability of dark matter suggests there is another phenomenon going on.
baudrunner
5 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2015
Dark Matter: Lots going on, nothing to see.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2015
Maybe its somehow out of phase with respect to our time passage, so that we observe it warping space-time, but because it doesn't pass through time in the same way we don't observe the particle directly.

or maybe it exists in another dimension, but the effects are felt here.

I don't like these explanations, but I'm just tossing them around.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2015
I don't like these explanations, but I'm just tossing them around.


Well Skippy if you don't the explanations you are explaining, why you think we want to hear them? If they are so silly that not even you like them, why not just throw them in trash instead of tossing them at us?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2015
@tadchem not my agreement with you means very much (as a layman) but there are a couple of points about the article of which makes me wonder. You may be able to point me in the right direction though.
a. '..."We have seen this kind of particle before. It has the same properties...' To me this sounds like that they have already 'identified' particles of DM and are comparing it to (a) known particle(s). I appreciate that there are 'candidates' for the DM position but I've seen nothing in the media that such a momentous discovery had been made.
b. 'The next step will be to put this theory to the test using experiments such as the Large Hadron Collider... Perhaps it's just my suspicious nature but I wonder if this has anything to do some team wanting to 'get in' on the LHC experiments or perhaps LHC directors want to keep fresh experiments coming to justify further upgrades etc.
Urgelt
3 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2015
Well. The study is behind a paywall. Phys.org has told us so little about what it says, it leaves me in a darkness easily as profound as the question of dark matter (or dark mass) itself does.

A pion is the lightest hadron, composed of a quark and an antiquark (u and d). There are three flavors: pi+, pi- and pi-neutral.

All three flavors decay *very* rapidly in very tiny fractions of a second.

Left unexplained in the article is how the study authors explain durable missing mass in terms of an ephemeral and inherently unstable particle.

It makes just as much sense to explain the missing mass in terms of loose unbound quarks. Because if you put your bet on pions, that's what you'll get.

I could wish for a little science journalism here, but I don't suppose anyone cares. This is just a site for wisecrackers and trolls (me) and cranks (sometimes me) and really extreme, I'm-Napoleon-Why-Won't-You-Believe-Me, clinically insane cranks (not me) anyway.
rpaul_bauman
not rated yet Jul 23, 2015
IF you went to KRISER University and took physics, you need to ask for a refund of your tuition.
rpaul_bauman
not rated yet Jul 23, 2015
Urgelt, you sound like you would like a little physics you can believe on the subject of dark matter. Be happy to try to answer ONE question just to see, make it to the point and stright forward..
Urgelt
not rated yet Jul 23, 2015
rpaul, my one question is in my comment above. Why do the cited researchers think that durable dark mass can be explained by an ephemeral particle? The answer is not contained in their abstract, and the study itself is behind a paywall.
docile
Jul 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (1) Jul 23, 2015
A stable quantity of pions produced in interstellar - and in some cases extra-galactic - gases would require energetic interactions that simply can't be done with the densities of gases involved, no matter the temperature.

If they're banking on that idea, they're bankrupt.

Vacuum fluctuations are another way of saying that space-time has intrinsic mass even when matter is not present. But dark matter isn't uniform. Why would vacuum fluctuations vary so much from one place to another?

It's an incomplete explanation that doesn't explain the data, and therefore, as stated by you, docile, is irrelevant to the search for dark matter. Or dark mass. Whatever.

Explain how vacuum fluctuations - quasiparticles, if you prefer - can clump. Then we can talk about it in the context of the search for the missing mass.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2015
The dark matter is the bonanza for theorists. During time many probable constituents of dark matter were proposed. I ordered them by their average rest mass, which differs in twenty(!) orders of magnitude: scalar field, quintessence, mirror matter, axions, inflatons, heavy high spin and dark photons, fat strings, sterile neutrinos, chameleon particles, dark fluid and dark baryons, fotinos, gravitinos and WIMPs, SIMPs, MACHOs, RAMBOs, DAEMONs and micro-black holes. And I probably missed many others.
Yeah, you missed the most likely one, the tird.
docile
Jul 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2015
docile, your crank credentials just leaked out again.

"...the full Moon effects are example of this dynamic clumping of dark matter particles at the case of solar eclipses and planetary conjunctions..."

You *think* you are explaining physics. What you are actually doing is stringing words together to form nonsense.

Get help.
swordsman
not rated yet Jul 23, 2015
Dark matter exists everywhere, not just in outer space or in some high-energy earth experiment of which little or nothing is known.
docile
Jul 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2015
Vacuum fluctuations are another way of saying that space-time has intrinsic mass


What is referred to as virtual particles is actually the chaotic nature of the dark mass.

'NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE'

"arise from the interaction of the particle with a "subquantic medium" which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call "empty space"."

The "subquantic medium" is the dark mass.

'Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy'
http://newsoffice...ics-0912]http://newsoffice...ics-0912[/url]

"The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic."

A fluidic pilot-wave system is the dark mass.

'Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy'
http://newsoffice...ics-0912]http://newsoffice...ics-0912[/url]

"If you have a system that is ... 'chaotic,'"

In a double slit experiment the dark mass waves.
mytwocts
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2015
https://en.wikipe...vitation states that the problem is that drag is implied and not observed, or we would not have Newtons laws. Says Feynman and he has a point. It is an interesting idea but not as a theory of gravity. Also the wiki does not mention dark matter. Apparently not even non-mainstream physics considers that a viable idea.
But hey why not click on your link. There I find one paragraph of vague text. Not the kind of Landau&Lifshitz textbook I would expect from someone who routinely explains dark matter.
docile
Jul 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
shavera
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2015
To the above, wondering about the instability of pions and dark matter, what this theory does is extend the symmetry group of QCD to one that admits new pions not in the current standard model. (to the best of my read of the material). So the dark matter "pions" here are not precisely the same pions we are talking about in terms of mediating the nuclear force. (also here, docile is wrong about what scientists mean in mediating the nuclear force, but that's a distracting side conversation).

The point being that the actual paper (which I have access to through my work) is extremely thick in terms of group theory and quantum field theory, so having access to it is not particularly enlightening unless you have the specialized training to read it. (which I have, but not wildly successful at doing so)
shavera
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2015
Moreover, their point, in the paper, is that this model allows for thermalization of dark matter in the early universe (ie, it interacts with regular matter enough to come to the same temperature), and then after some freeze-out (a phase-change, like water freezing from liquid to solid, the fields "freezing" from one configuration into another as the energy goes below some critical threshold) the dark matter becomes non-interacting (ie, it goes dark).

Their discussion is mostly a way that you can get what will become dark matter to thermalize early on in the universe (otherwise, if dark matter is so dark, how does it know how hot its surroundings are?)

At least, as best as I can tell. I wasn't a theoretical particle physicist, so the details are still a bit beyond me.
mytwocts
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2015
Feynman ... This is the similar mistake like the belief, that the dense aether model implies frame drag (positive result of M-M experiment). The physicists just don't understand the difference between longitudinal and transverse waves, that's all. They never considered this difference in any deduction about aether - so what we could expect from their judging, after then?

Huh ? Feynman made a simple mistake ? Huh ? Feynman never realised that sound waves and EM waves are different ? Huh? What has Le Sage idea to do with waves ? Huh ? etc etc

mytwocts
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2015
@ shavera
Nice summary. That is probably what I was reading on arxiv.org ;-). See the link above.
docile
Jul 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2015
For all of this thread, it is taken as fact that dark matter exists, and all the arguments are about what it is made of. The real argument should be whether it exists at all, The ONLY evidence for it is that it is required to explain gravitic effects. But if gravity doesn't exist.....no dark matter, no dark energy, no gravity waves, etc. etc.
docile
Jul 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mytwocts
3 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2015
For all of this thread, it is taken as fact that dark matter exists, and all the arguments are about what it is made of. The real argument should be whether it exists at all, The ONLY evidence for it is that it is required to explain gravitic effects. But if gravity doesn't exist.....no dark matter, no dark energy, no gravity waves, etc. etc.

Gravity is what keeps your feet on the ground. Wait, could you check your feet ?
mytwocts
3 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2015
In addition, the pi-mesons are quite stable particles in term of collider experiments and as such easy to detect in indirect ways. We would detect the SIMPs already in colliders, if they could exist at similar mass and temporal scales. Not by their interactions, but simply with mass balance of nuclear reactions in similar way, like the neutrinos were detected during particle collisions some thirty years before they were directly observed in underground detectors.

You discard the paper as if you had read and understood it.
Why don't you just admit that you have not.
docile
Jul 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mytwocts
3 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2015
It's true that the original Le Sage theory worked with particle shielding, not wave shielding. It wasn't so silly though, as the Fatio considered, that these particles are "ultramundane", i.e. outside of our Universe - it just means, that the notion of parallel universes is four hundred years old already. In many aspects Fatio was way smarter than Newton - he for example realized first, that the gravitational law is based on inverse square root of distance - not just inverse scale, as Newton assumed because of lack of better clue. He just wasn't so stubborn and dedicated like Newton did. So, from Fatio theory follows, that the particles responsible for shielding of gravity must be extradimensional tachyons. These tachyons correspond the longitudinal waves in dense aether model. The wave shielding is way richer model than the tachyon shielding model - despite in their first approximation (the gravity force) both models are equivalent.

Huh ?
mytwocts
3 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2015
No matter how complex you make this 18th century model, it is still completely wrong.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2015
For all of this thread, it is taken as fact that dark matter exists, and all the arguments are about what it is made of. The real argument should be whether it exists at all, The ONLY evidence for it is that it is required to explain gravitic effects. But if gravity doesn't exist.....no dark matter, no dark energy, no gravity waves, etc. etc.

Gravity is what keeps your feet on the ground. Wait, could you check your feet ?

Silly boy, why don't you think about it rather than just accept mainstream dogma? There is no other evidence for dark matter other than the accepted laws of gravity. But gravity cannot be made, it just is. It cannot be detected other than by its effects - which can be explained in many other ways. It cannot be deflected, shielded against, circumvented, there are no waves or particles associated with it (can you quote ANY evidence where waves or particles have actually been found rather than just theorized?).
docile
Jul 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rpaul_bauman
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2015
Sorry Urgelt, I am late. Seems you did get a lot of answers already. There is NO Dark Matter. You can say I am wrong, or think it out for yourself. It's too long a story to explain here. There must be atleast 20 reasons why. But if you think I am wrong, why do you think someone else is right ? If you would like the list of reasons, I would be happy to do that.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2015
here must be atleast 20 reasons why.

Well, go ahead. All the other cranks have had their say, so why not hear from another one. I'm all ears whether you can get to 20 (or even 1)
docile
Jul 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 24, 2015
The alternative thinkers

Zeph, there's a very clear distinction between an "alternative thinker" and a crank. Look it up. Guess which category you squarely fit into.
docile
Jul 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2015
Which one?

An alternative thinker proposes hypotheses and ways to test them (and ideally then tests them). There's a job description for that: Scientist

A crank just strings together meaningless scientese blurb and thinks that none of his stuff needs to be backed up by some kind of rationale (you know...math n' stuff). That's just pointless brainfarting.

The Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier describes a phenomenon in which DNA emits electromagnetic signals of its own construction, "ghost DNA"

He got his Nobel Prize for the discovery of HIV - not the (non peer-reviewed!) paper on "ghost DNA" in his OWN journal (that alone should set some alarm bells ringing).
Even scientists can go cuckoo in old age.

So he is also a crackpot and nobody even bothers to replicate his experiments.

From the wikipedia article on Luc Montaigner:
"No third party has been able to replicate the findings as of March 2015." (conducted by DARPA, no less)
docile
Jul 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2015
With increasing distance from human observer scale the distinction between crackpots and real scientists becomes increasingly difficult....

OK, that post sounds like you just took an unhealthy dose of something illegal. Wanna try again when the meds wear off?

Only the Nobelists should judge the finding of Nobelist for the sake of balance.

Another one for my list of "most insane Zeph quotes"...the list is getting quite long (currently I'm thinking I should just list the stuff you post that is not stark raving mad. Would be a shorter list).
The rest of your post is, again...med-driven. Back on the ignore list you go. You'll never understand what science is. Go back to peddling homeopathy.

...and you're back on the ignore list.
docile
Jul 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2015
...The extremely dense bodies and particles reside in highly turbulent space-time,...

The key point here being turbulent. Why do we think turbulence has to be due to gravity? Can't space-time have its own turbulence? After all the big bang must have been as turbulent as any event since.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2015
rpaul, dark matter is an hypothesis: matter which does not interact (or has very little interaction) with the matter we know about. There is no direct evidence for it (yet), though not all candidates have been ruled out. Given uncertainty, we can entertain other hypotheses - even explanations which don't involve any sort of matter at all..

None of those hypotheses is supported by enough evidence to declare them winners in the race to explain gravity effects which can't be explained by normal matter we can detect.

Certainty in the presence of massive uncertainty and inadequate evidence is the province of cranks, not scientists.

You are certain that all possible dark matter candidates are false - despite the fact that available evidence cannot yet rule out all dark matter candidates. That's all I needed to hear to conclude that you are operating in crank territory.

Cranks cannot tolerate uncertainty. Scientists thrive in it. The frontier of knowledge is where the fun is.
docile
Jul 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2015
I don't like these explanations, but I'm just tossing them around.


Well Skippy if you don't the explanations you are explaining, why you think we want to hear them? If they are so silly that not even you like them, why not just throw them in trash instead of tossing them at us?


I don't like green peas either, but they exist, and I'll even eat them in small quantities to appease the chef.

mytwocts
4 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2015

Gravity is what keeps your feet on the ground. Wait, could you check your feet ?

Silly boy, why don't you think about it rather than just accept mainstream dogma? There is no other evidence for dark matter other than the accepted laws of gravity. But gravity cannot be made, it just is. It cannot be detected other than by its effects - which can be explained in many other ways. It cannot be deflected, shielded against, circumvented, there are no waves or particles associated with it (can you quote ANY evidence where waves or particles have actually been found rather than just theorized?).

What are you cranking about?
mytwocts
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2015


I don't like green peas either, but they exist, and I'll even eat them in small quantities to appease the chef.



Is your brain dissolving ?
mytwocts
4 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2015
Only the Nobelists should judge the finding of Nobelist for the sake of balance.

It is hard to stay polite when confronted with such nonsense.
docile
Jul 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2015
None of those hypotheses is supported by enough evidence to declare them winners in the race to explain gravity effects which can't be explained by normal matter we can detect.
.....this then discounts "gravitational lensing" because Einstein proved the calculations for that gravitational effect does not require the presence of of additional matter beyond the Visible Mass of our Sun.

Certainty in the presence of massive uncertainty and inadequate evidence is the province of cranks, not scientists
Do Einstein's calculations proving the angle of deflection of starlight as it passes the immediate periphery of the Sun's visible disk fall into this category?

Cranks cannot tolerate uncertainty. Scientists thrive in it.
Einstein proved beyond every level of uncertainty that DM does not cause deflection of starlight passing at the periphery of the Sun's visible disc. By your definition Einstein was one of those "cranks"?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2015
Once the space can move by itself, then it's not a space.

Doesn't seem very likely as long as we have the dark energy around.
mytwocts
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2015
It is hard to stay polite when confronted with such nonsense.
Because you don't understand, how the scientific method is working. It's just another version of the famous Sagan's claims: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", which the mainstream supporters argue with often. Only qualified scientists should therefore verify the breakthrough findings made with qualified scientists. Instead of this, the inconvenient findings are often disproved prematurely with using of fast superficial replications, which were made without deeper understanding of the subject. The history of cold fusion or antigravity drives is full of these examples.

More nonsense every day.
mytwocts
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2015
@Benni
The DM hypothesis does not imply a substantial DM contribution to the mass of the sun.
If it would it would indeed not be a viable hypothesis.
But it does not. Remember that and learn to live with it.
docile
Jul 25, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2015
@Benni
The DM hypothesis does not imply a substantial DM contribution to the mass of the sun.
If it would it would indeed not be a viable hypothesis.
But it does not. Remember that and learn to live with it.


The DM Narrative is unequivocally clear, DM constitutes 75-90% of all the mass that exists. You simply are looking for a DM exemption in our solar system because Einstein's calculations for gravitational lensing proves it can't exist anywhere we've sent spacecraft.

So you want to be the next nonscientist on this forum expounding how DM has this uncanny ability to show up everywhere in the Universe but never inside our solar system, it only exists at an undefined "cosmological distance".

Your problem is what your $.02 is worth when it comes to you comprehension of General Relativity. Seriously, have you ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve?
mytwocts
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2015
@Benni
You view on text seems to be blocked. Read the following slowly and carefully. Then repeat it three times:
The DM hypothesis does not imply a substantial DM contribution to the mass of the sun.
If it would it would indeed not be a viable hypothesis.
But it does not. Remember that and learn to live with it.
If that does not work, repeat three times:
Oh lord help me to keep my big mouth shut.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2015
Dark energy also doesn't move - it's distribution looks steady state.

Good to hear something looks steady state after the big bang. I was beginning to give up hope. Call it feelgood science.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2015
@Benni
You view on text seems to be blocked. Read the following slowly and carefully. Then repeat it three times:
The DM hypothesis does not imply a substantial DM contribution to the mass of the sun.
If it would it would indeed not be a viable hypothesis.
But it does not. Remember that and learn to live with it.
If that does not work, repeat three times:
Oh lord help me to keep my big mouth shut.


Have you ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve?
mytwocts
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2015
You cannot even calculate the amount of DM within a solar radius.
I bet you do not even know what a DE is.
mytwocts
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2015
Dark energy also doesn't move

That is just a random guess. No none knows.
it's distribution looks steady state.

It's distribution looks like the distribution of galaxies.
Now how does that look like a steady state?
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2015
You cannot even calculate the amount of DM within a solar radius.


No one can........ for something that doesn't exist. Is that what you mean?

I bet you do not even know what a DE is.
I asked you first & you punted it back to me. Which is the reason you should spend some time on a site featuring General Relativity so you can see what you've been missing, yeah, Differential Equations. Did a lot of them during my 6 years in Engineering School majoring in Electrical/Nuclear Engineering.

Most of the popular science crowd frequenting this site have never known that it was Einstein who set the parameters for the entire concept of calculating gravitational lensing, you just recently learned that when I brought it to your attention.

Oh, and by the way for the third time: Have you ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve?
mytwocts
5 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2015
@Benni
You think you are a big boy with 6 year engineering school but you are an intellectual midget.
You claim that a consequence of the DM hypothesis is that the mass of the sun would be different somehow. A simple calculation would be enough to show yourself that you are wrong.
A numerical handicap forces you to instead present lame evasions such as "No one can........ for something that doesn't exist. Is that what you mean?"
Pathetic.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2015
@Benni
The DM hypothesis does not imply a substantial DM contribution to the mass of the sun


If it would it would indeed not be a viable hypothesis
........$.02 worth of meaninglessness, if even $.02.

You're trying to tell me that an hypothesis(es) that loudly proclaims DM makes up 75-90% of the matter in the Universe in no way implies the same contribution of DM for our Sun. How does that work? Maybe it's hiding somewhere else in the solar system?

Or, is it because the hypothesis(es) has such presumed magical qualities about it that it knows how to avoid our solar system, of which it's mass is 99% contained within our Sun?

Now you understand better why there are those whose careers are totally entwined in science who don't swallow he DM concept model, what with all the concept models endowing it with such unique undetectable qualities, that of cosmic fairy dust sprinkled all around the universe at just the right locations to hide itself from us.

Benni
1 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2015
@Benni
You think you are a big boy with 6 year engineering school but you are an intellectual midget.
You claim that a consequence of the DM hypothesis is that the mass of the sun would be different somehow


A simple calculation would be enough to show yourself that you are wrong


If it's so "simple" then put it up. IMP9 said the same thing the other day in another thread, then asked me to do calculations for him on his numbers. Maybe you have some numbers by which to do a calculation like Einstein did for gravitational lensing? If you think Einstein's calculations were simple, I'd have to wonder what you're concept of "hard" is?

numerical handicap forces you to instead present lame evasions such as "No one can for something that doesn't exist. Is that what you mean?"
In the meantime you prattle on about how simple the math is yet you won't present it.

One thing I've learned about neophytes, they persistently talk in terms of how "simple" it is.

mytwocts
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2015
@Benni
Show that the DM hypothesis implies an impact
on the solar system that is contradicted by observation.
It is your opportunity for greatness.
Show us you undergraduate skills.
mytwocts
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2015
@Benni
You think you are a big boy with 6 year engineering school but you are an intellectual midget.
You claim that a consequence of the DM hypothesis is that the mass of the sun would be different somehow


If it's so "simple" then put it up. IMP9 said the same thing the other day in another thread, then asked me to do calculations for him on his numbers. Maybe you have some numbers by which to do a calculation like Einstein did for gravitational lensing? If you think Einstein's calculations were simple, I'd have to wonder what you're concept of "hard" is?
...
In the meantime you prattle on about how simple the math is yet you won't present it.

One thing I've learned about neophytes, they persistently talk in terms of how "simple" it is.

One thing I have learned about crackpots is that they have a big mouth but only a little brain!
mytwocts
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2015
You're trying to tell me that an hypothesis(es) that loudly proclaims DM makes up 75-90% of the matter in the Universe in no way implies the same contribution of DM for our Sun.

Yes. That is what I and others are trying to tell you.
You are sincerely invited to come up with a mechanism that shows otherwise and disprove the DM hypothesis.
mytwocts
4 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2015
cosmic fairy dust sprinkled all around the universe at just the right locations to hide itself from us.

Space is a mighty big place. Mighty mighty big. REALLY big.
I rep[eat myself, that is how big it is.
Having said this, yes, DM is smeared out very thinly.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2015
@Benni
Show that the DM hypothesis implies an impact
on the solar system that is contradicted by observation


Don't tell me, let me guess first, the above paragraph is your best excuse for not positing your "simple calculation"?

How is it neophytes ALWAYS claim "simple" for every hypothetical they posit? Then upon being challenged to produce the "simple" they duck it by challenging the respondent to disprove yet another hypothetical.

Your postings are one long litany of <$.02 worth of GIGO. As quickly as you are countered to produce what you brag about, you move on to the next preposterous statement while never producing the "simple". You do this because you only want the presentation of an argument, this in an effort to mire down respondents in a litany of details not suitable for the limitations of this site.

You imagine you're smarter than Einstein, you know you're smarter than Einstein because you have the calculations to prove it. When are you "putting up"?

Benni
1 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2015
You're trying to tell me that an hypothesis(es) that loudly proclaims DM makes up 75-90% of the matter in the Universe in no way implies the same contribution of DM for our Sun.


Yes. That is what I and others are trying to tell you.
You are sincerely invited to come up with a mechanism that shows otherwise and disprove the DM hypothesis.


....just what I thought you were saying. So now how about you prove our solar system is not located within the universe you proclaim is made up of 75-90% DM, this is in essence what you're saying. But the fundamentals of "physics locally" is the same as "physics distantly", unless you can prove otherwise

Einstein proved locally that DM is not required for gravitational lensing, but you have a better "simple calculation" that you persist in refusing to posit before the unenlightened.

By the way, have you ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve?
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2015
Have you ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve?


Maybe I did see one or maybe I did not see him. But I never did see one you could do Bennie-Skippy. Not even the easy one when I asked you 100 or 99 times to show me. I don't suppose it would do any good to ask you again would it?

Okayeei, I'll try one more time. Bennie-Skippy, I know you know how to write down "differential equations" because I just see you do it. Choot, that is nothing to crow about, ol Ira-Skippy just wrote that down too me. But will you please work out one for the solution so I can see how it is done? Please?
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2015
cosmic fairy dust sprinkled all around the universe at just the right locations to hide itself from us.


Space is a mighty big place....Having said this, yes, DM is smeared out very thinly.


Smeared out very thinly huh? How do you know it's so thin? Everything thing I hear about it is that it composes 75-90% of the Universe. That's "smeared out very thinly"?

How does DM exist within a 4 part to1 part ratio of Visible Matter & be so thin it creates no gravitational anomalies within our solar system? At a 4:1 ratio of DM vs. VM, it can only be concluded that the VM is smeared around even more thinly than DM? Maybe all this is part of your "simple calculation" that we're all so breathlessly waiting for you to produce?

Don't forget now, Einstein already produced his calculations in support of gravitational lensing without DM, it isn't up to me to reproduce what he's already done. It's up to you to produce the contrary, you know, your "simple calculation".
Elmo_McGillicutty
1 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2015
Our orbital and thus gravitational equations are based on visual observation. Orbits appear to be elliptical. But the true path is helical. In a stable orbit, the period of the helix is equal to the period of the orbit. That's why we don't see it. The area of the helix causes apparent inclination.

No dark mass needed.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2015
Seriously, have you ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve?

Hey here's one: F=ma. One solution being, I think, a=F/m. Now if the force of dark matter is the same for both you and me and the sun and is proportional to our mass, then we all experience the same acceleration. So just looking at you and me and the sun we see no acceleration from the dark force, as we're all riding the same elevator if we're all experiencing the same dark force. I think the moral of this story is we have no way of knowing how much of our weight comes from dark matter and how much comes from normal matter. Did I solve that equation correctly?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2015
Seriously, have you ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve?

Hey here's one: F=ma. One solution being, I think, a=F/m. Now if the force of dark matter is the same for both you and me and the sun and is proportional to our mass, then we all experience the same acceleration. So just looking at you and me and the sun we see no acceleration from the dark force, as we're all riding the same elevator if we're all experiencing the same dark force. I think the moral of this story is we have no way of knowing how much of our weight comes from dark matter and how much comes from normal matter. Did I solve that equation correctly?


How then do you know anything is "missing"? You're plainly stating it's all accounted for and is nondetectable, just opposite of the claims DM Enthusiasts make for vast amounts of detectable gravity that has no detectable mass to account for it.
mytwocts
4 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2015
"DM enthousiasts".

You are completely ignorant of physics,
yet claim that it's the others who are.
Bringing up Einstein is silly.
It does not take GRT to show you wrong.
I would gladly show the errors in your argument were it not for your arrogance.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2015
How then do you know anything is "missing"? You're plainly stating it's all accounted for and is nondetectable, just opposite of the claims DM Enthusiasts make for vast amounts of detectable gravity that has no detectable mass to account for it.
Yes what I meant to say is the only way to account for the additional gravity is that there is additional undetected matter.
docile
Jul 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2015
Yes what I meant to say is the only way to account for the additional gravity is that there is additional undetected matter.
Unless there really is additional gravity due to additional acceleration. That is, different galaxies may be accelerating away from us at different rates. I think I said something about that talking about space-time turbulence.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2015
Yes what I meant to say is the only way to account for the additional gravity is that there is additional undetected matter.
Unless there really is additional gravity due to additional acceleration. That is, different galaxies may be accelerating away from us at different rates. I think I said something about that talking about space-time turbulence.


F=ma= ( VM + DM) x (accel VM + accel DM)

I expanded the equation to account for the DM components. Now what do you want to do? There are two unknowns in this equation assuming you already know how to calculate the gravity component for acceleration of DM, three if you don't. F is unknown because that is what you're solving for. To solve the other side of the equation you need all four of the components on the other side, but you have at most only three. So you just go right ahead & start plugging some numbers & apprise us as to your progress.

Egleton
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2015
Still can't give up your beloved Materialism, can you?
There is nothing "out there". Dark matter has to be back loaded into history as a kludge in order to make the present observations possible.
There is no Dark Matter. Just a rule set that is necessary to make the present observations possible.
In the same way, there are no magnetic lines of force, just a rule set that dictates how pieces of something we observe as "iron" will behave.
Interpretation of the Quantum Erasure Experiment.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2015
"DM enthousiasts".

You are completely ignorant of physics,
yet claim that it's the others who are.
Bringing up Einstein is silly.
It does not take GRT to show you wrong.
I would gladly show the errors in your argument were it not for your arrogance.


What? You already promised to submit your "simple calculation" without conditions several posts back up the page. Now that you realize you can't do the "simple calculation", because you never saw a Differential Equation you could solve, you want to back out?
mytwocts
4 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2015
@ Benni
Somebody with more patience for ignorant fools has already done that for you.
By the way your equation "F=ma= ( VM + DM) x (accel VM + accel DM)" is nonsense as well.
You do not understand Newtons second law.
Whence then you overly confident attacks on the DM hypothesis?
Dunning-Kruger. I hope. It could still be worse.
mytwocts
4 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2015
Still can't give up your beloved Materialism, can you?
There is nothing "out there".

This line of reasoning ultimately leads to the absurdity of solipsism.
A philosophically untenable position in my opinion.
See https://en.wikipe...olipsism
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2015
F=ma= ( VM + DM) x (accel VM + accel DM)

I expanded the equation to account for the DM components. Now what do you want to do?
Most important is put DM=0. Right, there is no dark matter. There is, however, a dark force. Then

VF+DF = VM(accel VM + accel DF).

VF and DF comes from the dark energy. VF is the pressure of dark energy which we observe. DF is the additional dark energy pressure observed in galaxies which people think have DM. Surprise. Acceleration comes from getting pushed around by the dark energy. Gravity is the gradient of the force between dark energy pressure in different regions of space-time. To make the theory work you have to set the dark force INSIDE matter particles = 0. Actually matter is a region of bound up dark energy. That is the e=mc2 energy comes from dark energy and gets bound up in massive particles. I'm getting restricted by the brevity enforcer so I'll have to continue in another post.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2015
I'm getting restricted by the brevity enforcer so I'll have to continue in another post.
The e=mc2 energy doesn't have to be supplied by the dark energy, it may also be supplied in the big accelerators. So the moral of the story is the pressure of the dark energy density inside heavy objects is less than that inside lighter objects, or the vacuum, because more of it is tied up in heavier objects. So the dark energy from lighter objects presses into heavier objects with less dark energy pressure. This is what we feel as gravity. The dark energy pressure around us is pushing us into the heavier objects. For systems of heavier objects, such as galaxies, the dark energy pressure outside the system is pressing the heavier objects together and holding the galaxy together, for example. So now you know where I'm coming from. Feel lucky you don't have to hear my dissertations on black holes.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2015
@ Benni
Somebody with more patience for ignorant fools has already done that for you.
By the way your equation "F=ma= ( VM + DM) x (accel VM + accel DM)" is nonsense as well.
You do not understand Newtons second law.
Whence then you overly confident attacks on the DM hypothesis?
Dunning-Kruger. I hope. It could still be worse.


The last guy who copped out on me blamed it on PhysOrg's adtracking programs. That was JeanTate, he/she posted a lot of unintelligible gibberish like you do, but at least he could string his words together avoiding the broken English so characteristic of your posts.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2015
So now you know where I'm coming from. Feel lucky you don't have to hear my dissertations on black holes.


I thought you were trying to do something else. I thought you were attempting to come up with a hard number to calculate the gravity component used in the acceleration of DM. I was pointing out to you that it can't be done using an equation (any equation, not just this one) that contains two or more unknowns.

But don't feel disappointed, there are myriads of airbrushed techniques currently in use that will prove just about anything you want.

What, with all that effort by Einstein in producing General Relativity, and he misses <$.02 worth of uncanny insight. This, by one who is keeping secret his "simple calculation". Yeah, a "simple calculation" threatening to relegate GR to the ashbin of science history by supplanting all of General Relativity.

mytwocts
4 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2015
Your feeble physics level is clear from your text that I quoted above: it is evident that you do not understand Newton's second law. That is a problem in view of your ambitions to overthrow "mainstream" physics. Work on it. JT was trying to teach you one or two things but you bite the hand that feeds you.
I have not had any successful comments on my English in decades so I am looking forward to your comments. See you on english.org ;-) .
mytwocts
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2015
Your feeble physics level is clear from your text that I quoted above: it is evident that you do not understand Newton's second law. That is a problem in view of your ambitions to overthrow "mainstream" physics. Work on it. JT was trying to teach you one or two things but you bite the hand that feeds you.
I have not had any successful comments on my English in decades so I am looking forward to your comments. Lets move this discussion to english.org ;-) .

Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 26, 2015
Your feeble physics level is clear from your text that I quoted above: it is evident that you do not understand Newton's second law. That is a problem in view of your ambitions to overthrow "mainstream" physics. Work on it. JT was trying to teach you one or two things but you bite the hand that feeds you.
I have not had any successful comments on my English in decades so I am looking forward to your comments


I'm much too far beyond where you're at for you to teach me anything about Calculus, Science, English, or even the value of my money. You're a typical wind bag with a grade school level comprehension of science & math. You shoot off your mouth in almost incomprehensible language, then expect me to take you seriously that you have a "simple calculation" by which you can explain how DM Cosmic Fairy Dust makes the Universe function.

So far, all you've proven is your math & science skills are worth <$.02.

I guess we won't be seeing that "simple calculation".
mytwocts
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2015
You were going to teach ME English, remember? Now you are confused again.
You do not have a clue who I am, so you jump to arbitrary conclusions.
You do not have a clue about science, so you jump to arbitrary conclusions.
How do you expect to ever be right on something ?
mytwocts
5 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2015
to take you seriously that you have a "simple calculation" by which you can explain how DM Cosmic Fairy Dust makes the Universe function.

Of course I never said anything remotely like that. Your fantasy is taking you for a ride.

I guess we won't be seeing that "simple calculation".

The simple calculation can be done by anyone with minimal physics knowledge. Do your own simple calculations if your are such a genius.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 26, 2015
I was pointing out to you that it can't be done using an equation (any equation, not just this one) that contains two or more unknowns.
Good observation. So use my equation with one unknown, the dark force.
docile
Jul 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2015
I was pointing out to you that it can't be done using an equation (any equation, not just this one) that contains two or more unknowns.
Good observation. So use my equation with one unknown, the dark force.

.........never heard of dark force as anything applicable to the physical sciences.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 27, 2015
.........never heard of dark force as anything applicable to the physical sciences.
Intended to mean the pressure per unit area of the dark energy.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 27, 2015
.........never heard of dark force as anything applicable to the physical sciences.
Pressure might be a better term, that is the pressure applied to space-time by the dark energy. Pressure is the force applied to the surface of an object per unit area, not the other way around.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 27, 2015
But don't feel disappointed, there are myriads of airbrushed techniques currently in use that will prove just about anything you want.
Would like to find another one of those techniques used to prove gravity is the gradient of the pressure of the dark energy.
howhot2
not rated yet Jul 27, 2015
This is funny, but I heard a talk on dark matter about a year ago and it was all kind of a mystery to all of us. However our group conclusion was that a neutral particle type was involved. While we were certainly wrong, this new idea is just fascinating. Pions, or pion like things. Hum.
derphys
not rated yet Jul 27, 2015
read freely and understand before any comment :
http://arxiv.org/...2.5143v2
http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.5143

dark matter. could be a thermal relic like other cold photons cosmic relics and only experiments will prove or disprove this possibility in our complex world !
Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 27, 2015
Are the deviations in the straight line graph at http://www.space....ant.html merely measurement uncertainties or actual evidence of dark energy turbulence driving the expansion?
Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 27, 2015
If they are evidence of actual turbulence and we knew the actual dark matter content of the galaxy where the measurement was made, we may be able to correlate the results.
barakn
5 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2015

F=ma= ( VM + DM) x (accel VM + accel DM)

bla bla bla. - Benni

Observational evidence for DM suggests on the scale of thousand or even millions of light years it is lumpy, but at smaller scales, especially for models with warm or hot DM, the DM distribution is smooth, i.e. throughout the Solar System (<1 ly across) the DM density ρ is a constant, and therefore ∇ρ = 0. We can thus apply Newton's Shell Theorem to larger and larger shells of this DM "gas" centered at any point in the Solar System to show that the force of gravity (due to DM, not other matter) on a theoretical point mass at that point is zero. In conclusion, whether DM will be noticed at any particular scale depends on its homogeneity at that scale.
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 07, 2015
Would rather believe DM be treated as a gradient of a fluid pressure, not a gas. Use Navier-stokes, not Boltzman distribution. Also note the force of gravity at the center of a black hole is zero. Would say in general all forms of matter are some form of fixed energy blocking out the pressure of dark energy, causing a low pressure region of space. Ever note the similarity between a typhoon and a galaxy? Both driven by a low pressure region at the center.
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 07, 2015
That would actually be between a typhoon and a spiral galaxy.
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 07, 2015
So we can assert spiral galaxies have more active black holes.
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 07, 2015
Take a guess - why not - elliptical galaxies are the youngest form of Galaxy - formed before large black holes have accumulated.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Aug 07, 2015
Would rather believe DM be treated as a gradient of a fluid pressure, not a gas. Use Navier-stokes, not Boltzman distribution. Also note the force of gravity at the center of a black hole is zero. Would say in general all forms of matter are some form of fixed energy blocking out the pressure of dark energy, causing a low pressure region of space. Ever note the similarity between a typhoon and a galaxy? Both driven by a low pressure region at the center.

Unfortunately, comparision does not compute. Stars in galaxy have similar RADIAL speed, typhoons etc. go faster towards the centre. But nice try!
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 07, 2015
Guess I must have been thinking about the eye of the storm. Sorry.
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 07, 2015
Wonder if we can learn anything about black holes from the eye of the storm. Certainly they have the lowest dark energy pressure anywhere in the region surrounding the black hole. So would it be calm inside the black hole? Interesting. Thanks for the idea, Reg.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 07, 2015
It occurred to me that, at the centre of a black hole, just like the centre of the Earth or any other spherical object, there would be immense pressure, but no gravity. Is there a limit to the number of gravitational waves you can cram into a small space? At the centre of a black hole the gravitational wave density must be (almost?) infinite, yet they must cancel each other out for net zero effect. This is yet one more reason I do not believe in the existence of gravitational waves, or gravity itself.
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 08, 2015
Gravitational waves could be a form of local dark energy turbulence. Hard to detect, certainly. If so, how fast does this turbulence travel? For example if you have turbulence set off by an active galactic nuclei, do you detect the turbulence at the same time you receive the radiation? Would rather think we're talking about completely different physical phenomina/
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 08, 2015
Sorry make that phenomena.
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 09, 2015
It occurred to me that, at the centre of a black hole, just like the centre of the Earth or any other spherical object, there would be immense pressure, but no gravity.
Can't pass this one up, Reg. Right about no gravity. Would say at the center of a black hole there is less pressure from the dark energy. Sort of like in the eye of the storm there is less atmospheric pressure. So does this mean no pressure at the center of the earth? No, because gravity is the gradient of the pressure of dark energy and there is more gradient between the pressure at the surface of the earth and at the center. Inside a black hole there is less dark energy pressure and it is distributed more evenly if you can believe my comparison with the eye of the storm. So, less gradient, less gravity. Interesting idea. anyway.

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.