Faint glow within galaxy clusters illuminates dark matter

Faint glow within galaxy clusters illuminates dark matter
Two massive galaxy clusters — Abell S1063 (left) and MACS J0416.1-2403 (right) — display a soft blue haze, called intracluster light, embedded among innumerable galaxies. The intracluster light is produced by orphan stars that no longer belong to any single galaxy, having been thrown loose during a violent galaxy interaction, and now drift freely throughout the cluster of galaxies. Astronomers have found that intracluster light closely matches with a map of mass distribution in the cluster's overall gravitational field. This makes the blue "ghost light" a good indicator of how invisible dark matter is distributed in the cluster. Dark matter is a key missing link in our understanding of the structure and evolution of the universe. Abell S1063 and MACS J0416.1-2403 were the strongest examples of intracluster light providing a much better match to the cluster's mass map than X-ray light, which has been used in the past to trace dark matter. Credit: NASA, ESA, and M. Montes (University of New South Wales)

A new look at Hubble images of galaxies could be a step toward illuminating the elusive nature of dark matter, the unobservable material that makes up the majority of the universe, according to a study published online today in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Utilizing Hubble's past observations of six massive galaxy clusters in the Frontier Fields program, astronomers demonstrated that intracluster —the diffuse glow between galaxies in a cluster—traces the path of dark matter, illuminating its distribution more accurately than existing methods that observe X-ray light.

Intracluster light is the byproduct of interactions between galaxies that disrupt their structures; in the chaos, individual stars are thrown free of their gravitational moorings in their home galaxy to realign themselves with the gravity map of the overall cluster. This is also where the vast majority of dark matter resides. X-ray light indicates where groups of galaxies are colliding, but not the underlying structure of the cluster. This makes it a less precise tracer of dark matter.

"The reason that intracluster light is such an excellent tracer of dark matter in a galaxy cluster is that both the dark matter and these stars forming the intracluster light are free-floating on the gravitational potential of the itself—so they are following exactly the same gravity," said Mireia Montes of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, who is co-author of the study. "We have found a new way to see the location where the dark matter should be, because you are tracing exactly the same gravitational potential. We can illuminate, with a very faint glow, the position of dark matter."

Montes also highlights that not only is the method accurate, but it is more efficient in that it utilizes only deep imaging, rather than the more complex, time-intensive techniques of spectroscopy. This means more clusters and objects in space can be studied in less time—meaning more potential evidence of what dark matter consists of and how it behaves.

"This method puts us in the position to characterize, in a statistical way, the ultimate nature of dark matter," Montes said.

"The idea for the study was sparked while looking at the pristine Hubble Frontier Field images," said study co-author Ignacio Trujillo of the Canary Islands Institute of Astronomy in Tenerife, Spain, who along with Montes had studied intracluster light for years. "The Hubble Frontier Fields showed intracluster light in unprecedented clarity. The images were inspiring," Trujillo said. "Still, I did not expect the results to be so precise. The implications for future space-based research are very exciting."

"The astronomers used the Modified Hausdorff Distance (MHD), a metric used in shape matching, to measure the similarities between the contours of the intracluster light and the contours of the different mass maps of the clusters, which are provided as part of the data from the Hubble Frontier Fields project, housed in the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST). The MHD is a measure of how far two subsets are from each other. The smaller the value of MHD, the more similar the two point sets are. This analysis showed that the intracluster light distribution seen in the Hubble Frontier Fields images matched the mass distribution of the six galaxy clusters better than did X-ray emission, as derived from archived observations from Chandra X-ray Observatory's Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS).

Beyond this initial study, Montes and Trujillo see multiple opportunities to expand their research. To start, they would like to increase the radius of observation in the original six clusters, to see if the degree of tracing accuracy holds up. Another important test of their method will be observation and analysis of additional galaxy clusters by more research teams, to add to the data set and confirm their findings.

The astronomers also look forward to the application of the same techniques with future powerful space-based telescopes like the James Webb Space Telescope and WFIRST, which will have even more sensitive instruments for resolving faint intracluster light in the distant universe.

Trujillo would like to test scaling down the method from to single galaxies. "It would be fantastic to do this at galactic scales, for example exploring the stellar halos. In principal the same idea should work; the stars that surround the galaxy as a result of the merging activity should also be following the gravitational potential of the galaxy, illuminating the location and distribution of dark matter."

The Hubble Frontier Fields program was a deep imaging initiative designed to utilize the natural magnifying glass of galaxy clusters' gravity to see the extremely distant galaxies beyond them, and thereby gain insight into the early (distant) universe and the evolution of galaxies since that time. In that study the diffuse intracluster light was an annoyance, partially obscuring the distant beyond. However, that faint glow could end up shedding significant light on one of astronomy's great mysteries: the nature of dark matter.


Explore further

BUFFALO charges towards the earliest galaxies

More information: Mireia Montes et al, Intracluster light: a luminous tracer for dark matter in clusters of galaxies, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2018). DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sty2858 , dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty2858
Citation: Faint glow within galaxy clusters illuminates dark matter (2018, December 20) retrieved 19 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-12-faint-galaxy-clusters-illuminates-dark.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
597 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Dec 20, 2018
Dark matter is a supersolid that fills 'empty' space, strongly interacts with ordinary matter and is displaced by ordinary matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter. The state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter is gravity.

The supersolid dark matter displaced by a galaxy pushes back, causing the stars in the outer arms of the galaxy to orbit the galactic center at the rate in which they do.

Displaced supersolid dark matter is curved spacetime.

Dec 20, 2018
Intercluster starlight is no evidence of dark matter, so silly.

Dec 20, 2018
"astronomers demonstrated that intracluster light—the diffuse glow between galaxies in a cluster—traces the path of dark matter, illuminating its distribution..."

All these decades Pop-Cosmology has been explaining that DM interacts with NOTHING except to create intense gravity fields. But NOW, expects us to believe that "diffuse glow" can ONLY be caused by the presence of DM ? Hey, 21st century OBSERVATIONS here, intergalactic dust.

Dec 20, 2018
"astronomers demonstrated that intracluster light—the diffuse glow between galaxies in a cluster—traces the path of dark matter, illuminating its distribution..."

All these decades Pop-Cosmology has been explaining that DM interacts with NOTHING except to create intense gravity fields. But NOW, expects us to believe that "diffuse glow" can ONLY be caused by the presence of DM ? Hey, 21st century OBSERVATIONS here, intergalactic dust.


Dickhead. Didn't read the paper, did you. sh!tforbrains? (Rhetorical). For anybody interested, a free version is here;

Intracluster light: a luminous tracer for dark matter in clusters of galaxies.
Mireia Monte & Ignacio Trujillo.
https://arxiv.org...1488.pdf

Dec 20, 2018
This is actually pretty interesting. It's a much better trace of the gravity field in a cluster than any we had before. Congratulations to this team for finding signal in the noise.

Dec 20, 2018
This is actually pretty interesting. It's a much better trace of the gravity field in a cluster than any we had before. Congratulations to this team for finding signal in the noise.


Actually, it is amazing how many alternative 'theories' are going down in flames with recent observations. MOND is in the poo. VSL theories are dead, due to the neutron star merger. Looks like GR is right, except at the quantum level. That is the next interesting area of research.

Dec 20, 2018
All these decades Pop-Cosmology has been explaining that DM interacts with NOTHING except to create intense gravity fields. But NOW, expects us to believe that "diffuse glow" can ONLY be caused by the presence of DM ? Hey, 21st century OBSERVATIONS here, intergalactic dust.


They theoretically do interact, though weakly. You must have missed that part of the lecture while you were mopping.

Pauli first postulated the existence of the neutrino in 1930, and it wasn't detected until 1955. If the internet existed then, surely there would have been some Benni there to tell everyone how dumb the pop-physicists were for believe in imaginary particles that seemingly avoid all methods of detection. Fortunately, the benefits of the internet far outweigh the consequences of having to deal with people like him.

Dec 20, 2018
For those who insist, that since they can't see DM? Therefore it cannot exist.

The divinity you keep agitpropping for? Is invisible to the sane. So, it therefore cannot exist by your own logical trainwreck.

Gravity is invisible, so you deny it's existence. Which explains how you all drift around your fairyland of hallucinatory belief without any gossamer wings!

Dec 20, 2018
For those who insist, that since they can't see DM? Therefore it cannot exist.

The divinity you keep agitpropping for? Is invisible to the sane. So, it therefore cannot exist by your own logical trainwreck.

Gravity is invisible, so you deny it's existence. Which explains how you all drift around your fairyland of hallucinatory belief without any gossamer wings!


Then explain why all your dark matter detectors keep coming up empty......?

Dec 20, 2018
Then explain why all your dark matter detectors keep coming up empty......?

It's not matter in the normal sense..
It only exhibits gravity like matter does...
Should be just called gravitational anomaly...

Dec 20, 2018
If the Big Bang Theory is wrong (and there are numerous reasons to think so, which won't fit in 1000 characters) then galaxies and their stars could be hundreds of billions of year old or thousands or whatever.

Then, as stars burn out, collapse (in many, but not all cases) to become solid blocks of medium to high atomic weight elements, and as they cool radiatively to become solid (might take billions of years or more) then there is a substantial mass of these relatively small heavy solid objects floating around and near galaxies.

When they occasionally collide, they fracture into billions of smaller objects, some large but most small. Then these collide and over time there are not many original cores left - just a bunch of objects from dust size up to planet size, with a few still cooling cores which are soft enough not to fracture when impacted.

This would explain the galaxy rotation curves, MACHO gravitational lensing of LMC stars and this dim light.

Dec 20, 2018
just a bunch of objects from dust size up to planet size, with a few still cooling cores which are soft enough not to fracture when impacted.

This would explain the galaxy rotation curves, MACHO gravitational lensing of LMC stars and this dim light.


Just look at the rings of Saturn. All the rings are structured within the same orbital plane exactly as we see arms of Spiral galaxies structured in an orbital plane about the central hub, and so also the orbits of the planets around our Sun also being coplanar.

Dec 20, 2018
If you can't deal with the basics. there's no point in responding to your elaborations.

F = GMm/r²

Dec 21, 2018
Then explain why all your dark matter detectors keep coming up empty......?

It's not matter in the normal sense..
It only exhibits gravity like matter does...
Should be just called gravitational anomaly...
says Whyde

The query asked was regarding the "detectors" and why they are always EMPTY.
IF it isn't normal matter - then it is not Matter of any kind - normal or not. Perhaps ghosties and long leggedy beasties?
If the "stuff" reacts to gravity like Matter - then it IS Matter. If it isn't Matter - then the "ghosties and beasties" would be the proper answer.
But, in what way does it react to or with, gravity? If gravity is able to pull it down or in any other direction, then it is possible that it is/was DERIVED from Matter at one time, and is now FREE from the confines of its material existence - IOW, it has EVOLVED.
AGAIN - ghosties & long leggedy beasties.
:)

Dec 21, 2018

"A new look at Hubble images of galaxies COULD BE a step toward illuminating the ELUSIVE NATURE of dark matter, the UNOBSERVABLE MATERIAL that makes up the majority of the universe, according to a study published online today"

**Elusive nature of dark matter, the unobservable material... could be GHOSTIES &.

"The reason that intracluster light is such an excellent tracer of ELUSIVE UNOBSERVABLE dark matter in a galaxy cluster is that both the ELUSIVE UNOBSERVABLE dark matter and these stars forming the intracluster light are free-floating on the gravitational potential of the cluster itself—so they are following exactly the same gravity,"

••Uh huh - they cannot SEE any Dark Matter - BUT they KNOW that the Stars/intracluster light AND dark matter are following exactly the same gravity. POTENTIAL gravity, that is.

"This method puts us in the position to characterize, in a statistical way, the ultimate nature of dark matter,"

Statistical way = Meaning No Pictures

Dec 21, 2018
If this stuff is so pervasive, why aren't they looking for some on Earth?

Dec 21, 2018
If this stuff is so pervasive, why aren't they looking for some on Earth?


There is the gravitational pull at the surface of the Earth's Mass that should prevent anything that even reeks of Matter, (such as Dark Matter or anything that has been derived from original Matter) from escaping into interplanetary space. Therefore, if DM is a derivation of normal Matter, then it should still be present on the Earth's surface, as it is being kept in place by Earth's gravity.
Since it is unobservable and elusive, which are two of its "properties", and none of its other properties are known as yet, the only other probability is that, on Earth at least, DM may be that substance of which are seen by some but not others - ghosts, spirits, apparitions, etc. which are not admissible as scientific reality.
After all, there has to be a proper explanation for all the sightings throughout human history of such "entities" floating about and frightening people. It is conjecture, for now

Dec 21, 2018
-contd-
They would not be looking for DM on the Earth since it would not be expected by scientists to be found anywhere on this planet. And if scientists themselves have no desire to look for DM anywhere on the Earth, then it is considered settled. Scientists hold a very special place in the opinions of governments and the public, so it would be sacrilegious to propose that such a substance as DM could possibly be a part of Earth in whatever shape or form.
You brought up a very good point, ThoriumBoy, but unless a bona fide scientist writes a paper on the possibility and is published, the idea/possibility won't hold much water. You might even be laughed at and scorned.
Personally, I don't see why DM, if it exists, couldn't be existing on Earth also since it supposedly interacts with gravity. The stuff might also be the embodiment of the aforementioned "ghosties and long leggedy beasties" and other often recorded apparitions seen by just plain folks and others.

Dec 21, 2018
The Matter formerly known as Dark.


Dec 21, 2018
If this stuff is so pervasive, why aren't they looking for some on Earth?


Please ignore Egg_unit, it is not correct.

Actually we are and so far it's the only place where we can try to directly detect it (LHC's, gravywavy-, DM- and neutrino detectors aren't quite suitable to shoot up into space), but so far we only know it seems to pass through a lot of dense stuff.

Simply explained, on earth we're mostly trying to figure out what kind of particle it is and on the large scale we're trying to figure out how big chunks of dark matter is interacting with other gravity causing stuff that we do know of. And what this article describes is actually a huge leap forward to understand how DM behaves, because we can see more accurately where the DM is.

Both will add to our understanding of it and hopefully one day we'll find out.

Dec 21, 2018
If this stuff is so pervasive, why aren't they looking for some on Earth?


Please ignore Egg_unit, it is not correct.


......then explain why none of this DM can be detected on planet Earth, but supposedly can be seen in all those blue halos all over the Universe as in the pic above?

Odd, isn't it, how ONLY our solar system is exempted from the supposed gravitational effects of dark matter? Maybe you know how to explain why our solar system has been exempted from the INFERRED GRAVITATIONAL EFFECTS of dark matter?

Dec 21, 2018
Benni, I can't reply you. You are on my ignooooooooore list!

OK, I'll have a go at it then.

- no I won't because it doesn't, it isn't and I can't because it hasn't.

You're welcome Benni.


Dec 21, 2018
"They theoretically do interact, though weakly. "

The interaction is non existent, like the one between your brain cell and incoming information relating to physics...

Dec 21, 2018
Recently two papers have been published. The first one deals with the measurement of the speed of rotation of galaxies and, in our view, closes the issue of the existence of dark matter. The second one argues that the expansion of the universe is not accelerating. However, this fact does not answer the question as to what in general is the cause of the universe's expansion and does not address the widespread opinion that 70% of the universe consists of dark energy.
https://www.acade...k_Energy
https://www.acade...rvations

Dec 21, 2018
If this stuff is so pervasive, why aren't they looking for some on Earth?


Please ignore Egg_unit, it is not correct.

Actually we are and so far it's the only place where we can try to directly detect it (LHC's, gravywavy-, DM- and neutrino detectors aren't quite suitable to shoot up into space), but so far we only know it seems to pass through a lot of dense stuff.

Simply explained, on earth we're mostly trying to figure out what kind of particle it is and on the large scale we're trying to figure out how big chunks of dark matter is interacting with other gravity causing stuff that we do know of. And what this article describes is actually a huge leap forward to understand how DM behaves, because we can see more accurately where the DM is.

Both...


Actually we are NOT and haven't been investigating if Dark Matter exists on or in the Earth. If you believe such lies, produce the evidence. Underground Neutrino detectors aren't made to detect Dark Matter.

Dec 21, 2018
Actually we are NOT and haven't been investigating if Dark Matter exists on or in the Earth. If you believe such lies, produce the evidence. Underground Neutrino detectors aren't made to detect Dark Matter.


False.
https://en.wikipe...periment
.

Dec 21, 2018
Recently two papers have been published.


Nope. Uploaded does not mean published.

Dec 21, 2018
-contd-
@vialing peerd

There is no such thing as "gravity-causing stuff". Mass/Matter doesn't CAUSE gravity, which is a state of Infalling action. It is only when TWO OR MORE sources of Mass approach each other, that their Masses become ATTRACTED to each other due to Electrons and Protons at the Quantum level trying to come together due to a mutual attraction.
Gravity is the INFALLING action of a body/object due to its weight; the closer the object - the faster the Infalling. Whereas, 2 or more clumps of Matter/Mass in the early SS would be attracted to each other, eventually forming a protoplanet, but NOT due to gravity. Not all of the clumps remained together, and many broke away. Consider the Moon's escape

Attraction and Gravity are two different forces and are too often regarded as the same thing.

All the "trying to figure out" is not going to come to a conclusion that DM "so far we only know it seems to pass through a lot of dense stuff." HOW do you KNOW this?


Dec 21, 2018
Actually we are NOT and haven't been investigating if Dark Matter exists on or in the Earth. If you believe such lies, produce the evidence. Underground Neutrino detectors aren't made to detect Dark Matter.


False.
https://en.wikipe...periment
.
says jones

Your link shows NO evidence that the Xenon experiment has any obvious success.

"Despite the wealth of (gravitational) evidence supporting the existence of non-baryonic dark matter in the Universe,[1] dark matter particles in our galaxy have never been directly detected in an experiment. LUX utilizes a 370 kg liquid xenon detection mass in a time-projection chamber (TPC) to identify individual particle interactions, searching for faint dark matter interactions with unprecedented sensitivity.[2]"

WHY ONLY OUR GALAXY??

Still, with all the acrobatics with photons, neutrons, WIMPS, etc. STILL NOTHING has come of it - except for some fruit loop hypothesising.

Dec 21, 2018
Actually we are NOT and haven't been investigating if Dark Matter exists on or in the Earth. If you believe such lies, produce the evidence. Underground Neutrino detectors aren't made to detect Dark Matter.


False.
https://en.wikipe...periment
.
says jones

Your link shows NO evidence that the Xenon experiment has any obvious success.


I didn't say that they f***ing found it, you arse. That would be headline news. You said they were not investigating on Earth. You lied. Apologise for lying, woo boy.

Dec 21, 2018
There is no such thing as "gravity-causing stuff". Mass/Matter doesn't CAUSE gravity, which is a state of Infalling action. It is only when TWO OR MORE sources of Mass approach each other, that their Masses become ATTRACTED to each other due to Electrons and Protons at the Quantum level trying to come together due to a mutual attraction.


What a load of scientifically illiterate shite! Read Einstein, you arse. Mass distorts spacetime. The greater the mass, the greater the distortion. F***ing astrophysics 101.
Why so many loons? Have they been banned from everywhere else?

Dec 21, 2018
Sure, I can do that.
I apologise to vlaaing peerd for not being aware of the silly and unproductive LUX experiment that STILL has not produced ANY obvious evidence that Dark Matter can be found on or in the Earth, or in the Solar System. Which, by extension, still doesn't PROVE that what is being touted as Dark Matter elsewhere in the Cosmos is actually a viable new particle (or some such thing) or a new type of Matter.
"What fools these mortals be" - Puck

Dec 21, 2018
There is no such thing as "gravity-causing stuff". Mass/Matter doesn't CAUSE gravity, which is a state of Infalling action. It is only when TWO OR MORE sources of Mass approach each other, that their Masses become ATTRACTED to each other due to Electrons and Protons at the Quantum level trying to come together due to a mutual attraction.


What a load of scientifically illiterate shite! Read Einstein, you arse. Mass distorts spacetime. The greater the mass, the greater the distortion. F***ing astrophysics 101.
Why so many loons? Have they been banned from everywhere else?
says jonesybonesy

Mass distorts SPACE. Mass does NOT distort TIME. There is no such thing as spacetime. It is one or the other, not both simultaneously. Einstein was either influenced by some crackpot to further such crackpottery as "spacetime". Or else he had his head up his arse in his desperate need for a placeholder in his math equations.


Dec 21, 2018
-contd-
Even the mythical Black Hole cannot distort Time, but only Space itself. Time moves forward freely, never stopping, standing still or reversing. THAT should be Physics 101. But you silly humans PERSIST in your claims that Time itself is a physical commodity that can be controlled, moved around and taken to the parlor for a spot of tea.
ROFLOL
"What fools these mortals be" - Puck

Dec 21, 2018
You can have it one of two ways:

Either mass generates a force that we call gravity, which is the quantum way of looking at it, same as the way we look at EM or the weak and color forces,

or mass warps space and all inertial bodies following geodesics move with the warp, which is the way relativity looks at it.

But there isn't any force without a charge, and whichever way you look at it, for gravity that charge is mass. Just as for EM that charge is the electric charge, for the color force that charge is the color charge, and for the weak force that charge is dual, isospin and hypercharge.

All this BS about gravity being EM is just that: BS. EM is a vector; gravity is a second-rank tensor. This is like claiming a dog is just like a cat.

Dec 21, 2018
IF it isn't normal matter - then it is not Matter of any kind - normal or not. If the "stuff" reacts to gravity like Matter - then it IS Matter.

There's normal PEOPLE and abnormal ones (See Young Frankenstein). Still people...
But, in what way does it react to or with, gravity? If gravity is able to pull it down or in any other direction, then it is possible that it is/was DERIVED from Matter at one time, and is now FREE from the confines of its material existence -

Personally? I have a gut feeling it's gravity wave interaction. So, yes, a derivation of sorts.
All matter produces gravity waves, no matter how small the amplitude and frequency, just by spinning and corkscrewing it's way thru the Universe. And when those waves interact with other waves it can produce even more waves. That collective of might possibly be interpreted as "unseen" mass.
No proof of this or even any papers that I am aware of, so it remains just a personal conjecture...

Dec 21, 2018
Mass distorts SPACE. Mass does NOT distort TIME. There is no such thing as spacetime. It is one or the other, not both simultaneously. Einstein was either influenced by some crackpot to further such crackpottery as "spacetime". Or else he had his head up his arse in his desperate need for a placeholder in his math equations.



Really? Says whom? Not you, you thick twat, eh? Not got a clue, have you? (rhetorical)

Dec 21, 2018
If mass doesn't distort time, why do we have to make sensitive adjustments to GPS signal timing for distortions of time by mass?

This is obvious. It's present in the GPS algorithms, if you know enough programming and physics to understand them.

Dec 21, 2018
You can have it one of two ways:

Either mass generates a force that we call gravity, which is the quantum way of looking at it, same as the way we look at EM or the weak and color forces,

or mass warps space and all inertial bodies following geodesics move with the warp, which is the way relativity looks at it.

But there isn't any force without a charge, and whichever way you look at it, for gravity that charge is mass. Just as for EM that charge is the electric charge, for the color force that charge is the color charge, and for the weak force that charge is dual, isospin and hypercharge.

All this BS about gravity being EM is just that: BS. EM is a vector; gravity is a second-rank tensor. This is like claiming a dog is just like a cat.


Don't get technical, DS. It is well beyond these loons. :)

Dec 21, 2018
Oh, if I was gonna get technical I'd talk about the evidence that gravity is a second-rank tensor and the evidence that EM is a vector, but that's exactly where it gets seriously technical. Like you I figure these EUdiots aren't equipped to deal with it. They can't even deal properly with a vector force, what's the use of trying to explain a second-rank tensor to them?

Dec 21, 2018
@Whyde
I believe it is called "MOTION" what you are describing. And motion is a physical property of Matter/Mass that is derived from atomic structures that are continuously moving about. There is no such thing as "motionless mass" - in which case the unconfirmed Dark Matter is constantly in motion. If in constant motion as is particles of normal Matter, that DM must exhibit some property that is a passable indication of movement, however small. It must move/react not only by gravity, but also on its own, where it has the ability to travel long distances to join with others like it. Possibly through attraction.

Dec 21, 2018
@SEU when you can explain the meaning of a vector force I might bother to take you off ignore and explain a tensor to you. Until then you are just another ignorant YEC. It's not going to go away because you are incapable of understanding it. Teh stoopit it burnz.

Dec 21, 2018
Mass distorts SPACE. Mass does NOT distort TIME. There is no such thing as spacetime. It is one or the other, not both simultaneously.
.....what it distorts is the MEASUREMENT of artificial increments when comparing artificial increments of events between two bodies.

Main thing to keep in mind: ARTIFICIAL INCREMENTS, that's what a clock is & thus is what TIME is. A clock, and thus TIME is a man made event.


Dec 21, 2018
If mass doesn't distort time, why do we have to make sensitive adjustments to GPS signal timing for distortions of time by mass?

This is obvious. It's present in the GPS algorithms, if you know enough programming and physics to understand them.
says DaSchniebo

When you make sensitive adjustments to GPS or any timepiece, even nuclear - you are making adjustments to the MECHANISM - not to Time itself. Your concept of Time has no bearing on clockworks of any type except to impart your sense of the passing of events/durations to that clock face that tells your how much time has gone by - or how much is left. A mechanism (mechanical work) is simply Mass that has been worked into an object that has a movable set of gears, etc. But Time is not captured and stuffed into the mechanism to keep the Time values consistent. It is YOU who has programmed that clock's mechanism - not some entity - however much you would like Time to be more than merely a concept.

Dec 21, 2018
If mass doesn't distort time, why do we have to make sensitive adjustments to GPS signal timing for distortions of time by mass?


Because that which is being distorted is MASS. TIME does not construe to MASS, is not a part of MASS, it does not make up any component of MASS, all MASS exists without it.

Dec 21, 2018
Mass distorts SPACE. Mass does NOT distort TIME. There is no such thing as spacetime. It is one or the other, not both simultaneously.
.....what it distorts is the MEASUREMENT of artificial increments when comparing artificial increments of events between two bodies.

Main thing to keep in mind: ARTIFICIAL INCREMENTS, that's what a clock is & thus is what TIME is. A clock, and thus TIME is a man made event.

says Benni

Precisely. Thank you.
A clock or GPS, etc, of whatever make and use is simply an extension of the human mind as that MIND seeks answers for certain problems, such as WHEN. The claim by many is that Time, (which is still sometimes regarded as an entity) as a TOOL is seen by science as a controllable and malleable thing, when all it is is a Tool and nothing but a Tool. They have even given Time a name - Father Time - which was silly.

Dec 21, 2018
@SEU when you can explain the meaning of a vector force I might bother to take you off ignore and explain a tensor to you. Until then you are just another ignorant YEC. It's not going to go away because you are incapable of understanding it.
says LOL

I have said many times in the past that I am but a mere scholar and an interested observer. jonesy already knows this.
As far as just another ignorant YEC - does that mean "young earth Christian" or "young earth Creationist"? Since I am neither, you might try/want to amend your mistaken characterisations to be so much more accurate - if accuracy is in your vocabulary. Knowing the true age of this planet has allowed me the pleasure of witnessing most of its history - all 4.50 billion years of it.
Being that I'm also a Creationist means that I disagree with parts of Genesis in the Bible that has made it impossible for Christians, Jews and Mooslims to know the precise age of the Earth.
Please keep me on ignore.

Dec 21, 2018
Main thing to keep in mind: ARTIFICIAL INCREMENTS, that's what a clock is & thus is what TIME is. A clock, and thus TIME is a man made event.

says Benni

Precisely. Thank you.


yer welcome

Dec 21, 2018
If mass doesn't distort time, why do we have to make sensitive adjustments to GPS signal timing for distortions of time by mass?


Because that which is being distorted is MASS. TIME does not construe to MASS, is not a part of MASS, it does not make up any component of MASS, all MASS exists without it.

Wrong.
Mass exists in space (which can exist without mass).

And time is an integral component of space.

Dec 21, 2018
When you make sensitive adjustments to GPS or any timepiece, even nuclear - you are making adjustments to the MECHANISM - not to Time itself.
No, you are adjusting the timepiece to give correct results at the observer's location, not the timepiece's. Otherwise GPS would be wrong by kilometers. And you have to adjust twice; once for motion, and once for gravity.

The gravity adjustment can be made at the timepiece, because it's the same for all the expected observers, whose difference in gravitational potential from the timepiece is all the same since they are all on the same surface; but the motion adjustment can't. It's different for every observer.

So the satellites make an adjustment for gravity; but the observer's software has to make the adjustment for motion.

You're just not getting how this works, you see. And it's obvious from what you say.

And you still haven't explained the meaning of a vector force.

Dec 21, 2018

Main thing to keep in mind: ARTIFICIAL INCREMENTS, that's what a clock is & thus is what TIME is. A clock, and thus TIME is a man made event.

says Benni

Precisely. Thank you.
A clock or GPS, etc, of whatever make and use is simply an extension of the human mind as that MIND seeks answers for certain problems, such as WHEN. The claim by many is that Time, (which is still sometimes regarded as an entity) as a TOOL is seen by science as a controllable and malleable thing, when all it is is a Tool and nothing but a Tool. They have even given Time a name - Father Time - which was silly.

From what we have documented at this time - "Father Time" was from Greek Mythology - the god Kronos. To explain to a populace how events seem to happen in a sequential manner
It would appear, then, it has a religious background, not scientific.

Dec 21, 2018
And in any case, @SEU thinks alien lizards control the world with telepathy and radio waves, so this is rather like trying to explain relativity to a dog.

Dec 21, 2018
If mass doesn't distort time, why do we have to make sensitive adjustments to GPS signal timing for distortions of time by mass?


Because that which is being distorted is MASS. TIME does not construe to MASS, is not a part of MASS, it does not make up any component of MASS, all MASS exists without it.

If that were true, any nuclear processes wouldn't happen.
(A Nuclear Engineer should know that...)

Dec 21, 2018
And in any case, @SEU thinks alien lizards control the world with telepathy and radio waves, so this is rather like trying to explain relativity to a dog.

Well, there IS the (rather low) probability that this might be possible...

I mean, my Great Pyrenees seemed to get it when I explained it to her...
(She was a pretty smart dog)

Dec 21, 2018
I'm sorry but I'm uncomfortable with anthropomorphizing an animal whose main vocalization seems to be "hey."

Dec 21, 2018
I'm sorry but I'm uncomfortable with anthropomorphizing an animal whose main vocalization seems to be "hey."

LOL...
Hers was an eye roll and shoulder shrug...
Kinda like - "Duh.. everybody knows that..."

Dec 21, 2018


I haven't read the article yet: "Intracluster light: a luminous tracer for dark matter in clusters of galaxies" https://arxiv.org...1488.pdf . The abstract indicates that the authors interpret the optical observations of the intracluster light as the emanations of a small population of stars which happen to have the same distribution as the long sought after, and still invisible, dark matter.

I propose they are observing ordinary matter which accounts for most of the mass of galaxies, illuminated by starlight. This Matter formerly known as Dark is primarily broken up pieces of rock which first solidified as burnt out cores of stars and which have since then been broken up by collisions with other objects of the same nature. There would also be neutron stars & BHs, which do not reflect light.

http://astroneu.c...vidence/ This includes mention of the lack of time dilation in the gravitationally lensed light curves of distant quasar.

Dec 21, 2018
Might wanna read the article; they're seeing stars in the ICM.

Dec 22, 2018

Main thing to keep in mind: ARTIFICIAL INCREMENTS, that's what a clock is & thus is what TIME is. A clock, and thus TIME is a man made event.

says Benni

Precisely. Thank you.
A clock or GPS, etc, of whatever make and use is simply an extension of the human mind as that MIND seeks answers for certain problems, such as WHEN. The claim by many is that Time, (which is still sometimes regarded as an entity) as a TOOL is seen by science as a controllable and malleable thing, when all it is is a Tool and nothing but a Tool. They have even given Time a name - Father Time - which was silly.

From what we have documented at this time - "Father Time" was from Greek Mythology - the god Kronos. To explain to a populace how events seem to happen in a sequential manner
It would appear, then, it has a religious background, not scientific.
says Whyde

Words such as "chronology" and "chronicle" were derived from the Greek.

Dec 22, 2018
If mass doesn't distort time, why do we have to make sensitive adjustments to GPS signal timing for distortions of time by mass?


Because that which is being distorted is MASS. TIME does not construe to MASS, is not a part of MASS, it does not make up any component of MASS, all MASS exists without it.

Wrong.
Mass exists in space (which can exist without mass).

And time is an integral component of space.
says Whyde

He is correct, Whyde. Mass/Matter reacts with gravity, not Time - that Time which is too ambiguous is ONLY a product of the human mind. Time is a Tool for measuring, that's all, and clocks were INVENTED.
We have all gone through this before in other forums. Of course Mass exists in space. You are living on Mass (the Earth). Time is NOT an integral component of space. If it were, then there would be no collisions between galaxies; Stars would not merge; and everything would run like clockwork - including YOU.


Dec 22, 2018
And in any case, @SEU thinks alien lizards control the world with telepathy and radio waves, so this is rather like trying to explain relativity to a dog.

Well, there IS the (rather low) probability that this might be possible...

I mean, my Great Pyrenees seemed to get it when I explained it to her...
(She was a pretty smart dog)
says Whyde

Nope. DaShniebo is lying again to attract attention to himself. I have never seen lizards in space suits, but extraterrestrials DO read minds. And why not? What are brain waves that the gov't are building machines that can read such brain waves to know what you're thinking.

Dec 22, 2018
Poor DaSchhhh still doesn't understand about MECHANISMs such as clocks that have to be adjusted because they are objects made of Mass that are reactive to altitude, direction, gravity, electrons (nuclear), temperature, and weather. He seems to think that the human concept of Time is captured and crammed kicking and screaming into the body of a clock that may run on an element such as Caesium. Perhaps DaScniebo thinks that astronauts could go into outer space to find and capture something called Time, bring it back in a cage, and then stuff it into a clock/timepiece. Then every so often, somebody has to go to the clock - open it up and adjust the Time and close the back of the clock.
What weird thoughts must go through that head.

Dec 22, 2018
The internet in the 30s would have destroyed Pauli's reputation
MrBojangles> Pauli first postulated the existence of the neutrino in 1930, and it wasn't detected until 1955. If the internet existed then, surely there would have been some Benni there to tell everyone how dumb the pop-physicists were for believe in imaginary particles that seemingly avoid all methods of detection. Fortunately, the benefits of the internet far outweigh the consequences of having to deal with people like him

If the internet existed then, Pauli would be just another BH theorist simulator struggling to heard
Well that is what Pauli's research is used for
Neutron stars
He would be just another internet theorist struggling to heard
Look what's happened to all the BH professors
They disappear without trace as thought their life's work never existed

Dec 22, 2018
Poor DaSchhhh still doesn't understand about MECHANISMs such as clocks that have to be adjusted because they are objects made of Mass that are reactive to altitude, direction, gravity, electrons (nuclear), temperature, and weather. He seems to think that the human concept of Time is captured and crammed kicking and screaming into the body of a clock that may run on an element such as Caesium. Perhaps DaScniebo thinks that astronauts could go into outer space to find and capture something called Time, bring it back in a cage, and then stuff it into a clock/timepiece. Then every so often, somebody has to go to the clock - open it up and adjust the Time and close the back of the clock.
What weird thoughts must go through that head.


SEU, if I haven't mentioned this before, then I'll do it here and now; you are a scientifically illiterate gobshite.
How is Voyager getting along in the Oort cloud? Pillock.

Dec 22, 2018
What are brain waves that the gov't are building machines that can read such brain waves to know what you're thinking.


Jesus H. Christ! What a dickhead! Lol!


Dec 22, 2018
Metaphysical time measured in mechanical time

Metaphysical
as we all know
is in the mind
as what is in the the mind
cannot and does not exist
it exist in the shadowy existence of the mind
a fleeting feeling
of time passing by
as depending on our mood
time pass's in a thrice
or can be interminable in its existence
and as we follow our life's mundane routines each morn
our mind in bat like fashion
repeats the same routines as yesterday
that our mind gets that deja vu feeling
didn't we do this before
in our minds is where our daily activities exist
that we actually believe our minds tricks
time does not exist
it is a figment of our minds imagination
to give the impression of sequences of events
which we have devised mechanical time devices
To measure a figment of imagination

Dec 22, 2018
He is correct, Whyde. Mass/Matter reacts with gravity, not Time - that Time which is too ambiguous is ONLY a product of the human mind. Time is a Tool for measuring, that's all, and clocks were INVENTED.

What they were invented to measure is NOT an invention.
We have all gone through this before in other forums. Of course Mass exists in space. You are living on Mass (the Earth). Time is NOT an integral component of space. If it were, then there would be no collisions between galaxies; Stars would not merge; and everything would run like clockwork - including YOU.

And the funny part is - without it NOTHING would work...
As a matter of fact, the Universe would just be a flat piece o whatever... or even just a single point.
There would be no existence, which is counter to the fact that we are even here discussing it.

Dec 22, 2018
In Time

When it is known
a fact such as time
does not exist
is just a passing memory in mind
there is a quite acceptance of this fact
that although
our memories are just fleeting electro chemical signals in our minds
that as we remember each other and our daily life
we like to think there is much more
much more to this human emotion of time
but deep down
in our psyche
we know in our hearts
that even though these memories are so alluring
deep down we know its not to be
we know time does not exist
we just cling to this last prehistoric animal belief
as we slowly come round to the realisation
Time does not exist
Except in the memories of our mind

Dec 22, 2018
Poor DaSchhhh still doesn't understand about MECHANISMs such as clocks that have to be adjusted because they are objects made of Mass that are reactive to altitude
Because of its psychosis this individual does not understand that altitude implies difference in the force of gravity due to General Relativity Theory. It still thinks the universe is painted on a screen about 50,000 km from the surface of the flat Earth.

Oh, and the alien lizards are perverting science with Darwin and Einstein, a heretic and a jew.

Dec 22, 2018
Quite acceptance of the fact
Poor DaSchhhh still doesn't understand about MECHANISMs such as clocks that have to be adjusted because they are objects made of Mass that are reactive to altitude

Da Schneib> Because of its psychosis this individual does not understand that altitude implies difference in the force of gravity due to General Relativity Theory. It still thinks the universe is painted on a screen about 50,000 km from the surface of the flat Earth. Oh, and the alien lizards are perverting science with Darwin and Einstein, a heretic and a jew.

Time does not exist
Except in the memory of our minds

He's accepted it

Dec 22, 2018
Oh, and the alien lizards are perverting science with Darwin and Einstein, a heretic and a jew.


>schneibo

Oh,and just so you know mister site moderator, I left a note for you over on the Singularity article. You made the mistake of going back & changing just a few too many Comments when you didn't know I had downloaded a couple of them for later Comment, odd how many times those words kept changing.

Naughty, naughty, changing the wording of not only your posting Comments but also those of..............and how many others we don't know about?

granDy, SEU, others. It has been a worthwhile contention by some in the past that their Comments are being changed from their original posts & speculation in the past has had it that Da Schneib is the responsible party, he is in fact the responsible party as a site moderator.

Sometimes site moderators have access to your email address, be sure you firewall it by misdirection.

Dec 22, 2018
Dear USER, thanks for using our site, we sent you an email with your credentials:

User: iamtheboss

Password: myawesomekey1234
<-THIS IS THE SIGNAL........your Password identification. Schneibo may have acess to it.

When I subscribe to a website and i get an email like this, I immediately delete my account. Did anyone here ever get an email from Physorg similar to one one I described above? If so, the site moderator has your email address or if you signed up for automatic notifications Da Schneib may also have access to your email via that process as well, in other words your account is wide open to any changes a moderator can change to anything you post in the Comments.


Dec 22, 2018
Dear USER, thanks for using our site, we sent you an email with your credentials:

User: iamtheboss

Password: myawesomekey1234
<-THIS IS THE SIGNAL........your Password identification. Schneibo may have acess to it.

When I subscribe to a website and i get an email like this, I immediately delete my account. Did anyone here ever get an email from Physorg similar to one one I described above? If so, the site moderator has your email address or if you signed up for automatic notifications Da Schneib may also have access to your email via that process as well, in other words your account is wide open to any changes a moderator can change to anything you post in the Comments.

Since you copy/pasted that, you must have received it. Why haven't you deleted your account, yet?

Dec 22, 2018
Hi Da Schneib,

This paper cites others regarding the source of the observed ICL being stars. The first five, starting with Mihos 2016 are:

(1) - https://arxiv.org...1929.pdf
(2) - https://arxiv.org...1664.pdf
(3) - https://arxiv.org...4321.pdf
(4) - https://arxiv.org...3240.pdf
(5) - https://arxiv.org...4981.pdf

I perused these, but did not chase their references.

(2) mentions that the ICL constitutes 6 to 22% of the total cluster light, and I guess that this is far more than could be expected from cluster galaxy starlight being reflected of rocky debris, from dust to planet sized lumps. It is my impression that they did not observe individual stars, but assumed, not unreasonably, that the diffuse light was produced directly by stars, rather than being reflected off anything else.

Continued . . .

Dec 22, 2018
Dear USER, thanks for using our site, we sent you an email with your credentials:

User: iamtheboss

Password: myawesomekey1234
<-THIS IS THE SIGNAL........your Password identification. Schneibo may have acess to it.

When I subscribe to a website and i get an email like this, I immediately delete my account. Did anyone here ever get an email from Physorg similar to one one I described above? If so, the site moderator has your email address or if you signed up for automatic notifications Da Schneib may also have access to your email via that process as well, in other words your account is wide open to any changes a moderator can change to anything you post in the Comments.

Since you copy/pasted that, you must have received it. Why haven't you deleted your account, yet?
.........waiting on the moderator for that, let's see if schneibo Da Schneib has the cahunnas for that.


Dec 22, 2018
Since you copy/pasted that, you must have received it. Why haven't you deleted your account, yet?
.........waiting on the moderator for that, let's see if schneibo Da Schneib has the cahunnas for that.

YOU said you delete an account (immediately) when you get that type of email...
Why haven't you?

Dec 22, 2018

. . . (5) mentions that there was no relationship betwen ICL fraction of light and the redshift of the clusters - which is an indication of their age in the BBT. The assumed younger ages of the high redshift clusters would be expected to produce less in the way of scattered halos, due to the shorter time available for this to occur. This applies to scattering and fracturing of dead star cores as much as to actual stars. However, the BBT assumes much younger ages for galaxies and clusters then need be assumed if the BBT is wrong. So this absence of correlation between BBT-assumed young clusters and smaller ICL halos constitutes evidence against the BBT.

It is possible that the collision and fracturing processes I propose also deflected a number of stars into the same general intra cluster areas as the still relatively dark and not yet clearly observed rocky matter which constitutes the bulk of the mass of the Matter formerly (and still currently) known as Dark. . . .

Dec 22, 2018
. . . It is also possible that these fragments formed gravitational seeds for the condensation of new stars.

With its 1000 character limit, this is not the place to discuss these things in the detail they require.

Dec 22, 2018
Why should spent stellar cores move differently than stars?

Dec 23, 2018
What are brain waves that the gov't are building machines that can read such brain waves to know what you're thinking.


Jesus H. Christ! What a dickhead! Lol!

says jones

Yes jones - we all know what a dickhead you are - LOL
So, perhaps this link will put some common sense into your disordered brain (but I doubt it).

https://www.compu...ink.html

Now make sure that you read it twice so that you won't misunderstand the gist of it, ok?

Dec 23, 2018
Since you copy/pasted that, you must have received it. Why haven't you deleted your account, yet?
.........waiting on the moderator for that, let's see if schneibo Da Schneib has the cahunnas for that.

YOU said you delete an account (immediately) when you get that type of email...
Why haven't you?
says Whyde

Firewalls are a handy thing to have, Whyde - amongst other things like code breakers and such.

Dec 23, 2018
Sometimes site moderators have access to your email address, be sure you firewall it by misdirection
I'm still trying to figure out WTF benji meant to say here...

@Whyde?
@anyone?

.

.

@Benji - if a moderator has access to your e-mail address, that means they can [gasp] send you an e-mail!

there are easier ways for a mod or admin to get your specifics, especially if you have an account at their site

Maybe you should anonymize your system files - Zip them, encrypt them, and make them hidden files

Likely they already infested your computer, Benji - They probably put a folder in your computer called System32, right next to your System folder! That means they can hack you

you should delete it right away, benji, just to be safe
You'll have to log in as the administrator to do it, and if they hacked you it will tell you it can't delete it or that you shouldn't delete it

whatever you do, don't copy it though

Dec 23, 2018
Hi Da Schneib,

> Why should spent stellar cores move differently than stars?

Stars are relatively flabby things compared to how I imagine the totally cooled - and so rock-like - cores of stars. I understand it would take dozens or hundreds of billions of years for such cores to cool to be solid all the way through, and of course there could be radioactive heating keeping it hot and molten for a few billion years or more.

(All this is based on the idea of the BBT being false, with galaxies being vastly older than currently assumed. I am working on a hypothesis of redshift of light in sparse space plasmas which would disprove the BBT.)

I envisage two colliding stars generally merging into bigger stars, or perhaps continuing as two stars but with some transfer of material from one to the other, and perhaps a small amount of loss as plasma and gas from the impact. As far as I know, two colliding stars will produce 1 or 2 objects, never 3 or more.

3 more parts follow:

Dec 23, 2018
Two solid or molten objects colliding will typically generate vast numbers of solid or molten objects, typically all smaller than the originals - and those smaller objects will cool to 3K or so much more rapidly than the original larger object. In some cases most of the mass may remain as one object, and in some cases that object might collapse to be a neutron star. Collisions between a neutron star (NS) and anything else may produce a heavier neutron star to the point of forming a black hole (BH).

A star might shed some of its mass if it has a close, curving, encounter with a NS or BH, but it will never fracture or emerge as multiple objects. It could be mashed into an accretion disk and some of its matter might be ejected, by processes unknown, in jets.

2 more parts follow:

Dec 23, 2018
Solid or molten objects could be torn into smaller pieces by the stresses of close encounters with other such objects, or NSs or BHs, and so break into smaller pieces with some of those objects emerging at large angles, even more than 90degrees, to the trajectory of the original object.

So I think solid or liquid cores of dead stars, and likewise solid or liquid planets, will typically break into many smaller pieces, which themselves will cause more such fracturing, and a significant subset of these fragments will wind up in totally different orbits from those of the original stars, forming, over *very* long timescales (far longer than the BBT's 13.7b years), the large, heavy, cloud of such fragments which constitutes the (supposedly) invisible mass of galaxies and clusters.

I have no idea how the Universe formed - the three dimensions, time, electromagnetism, gravity and in particular the wavelike properties of moving matter.

One more part . . .

Dec 23, 2018
This last property of space and matter is the most perplexing, and gives rise to the resonances of electron orbits which make atoms possible (and similar things inside the nucleus). This is the apparent wavelength of something like probability of existence which is inversely proportional to momentum - but the momentum of an object is relative to the motion of some other object.

Likewise I have no idea how matter and energy arose, so I have no idea how old galaxies are, or by what mechanism they what might exist for hundreds of billions of years.

I do have a tentative hypothesis on the redshift of light in the sparse plasma of inter- and intra-cluster space, and likewise within galaxies and near QSOs, which I regard not as galaxies, but as black holes sucking in the IGM. This is definitely not suitable for 1000 character limits.

Dec 24, 2018
Sometimes site moderators have access to your email address, be sure you firewall it by misdirection
I'm still trying to figure out WTF benji meant to say here...
Well, previously he would larp mathematicians, physicists, and nuclear engineers; looks like he's now including opsec and cointel..? Or new prescription strength meds?

Dec 24, 2018
I do have a tentative hypothesis ... This is definitely not suitable for 1000 character limit
Take all the time you need but first learn a lesson from Blaise Pascal who said something along the lines of, "I have made this longer than usual because I lack the time to make it short."

Dec 24, 2018
@Protoplasmix
Well, previously he would larp mathematicians, physicists, and nuclear engineers; looks like he's now including opsec and cointel..? Or new prescription strength meds?
given the fixation on DaS and the continual degradation of coherency, I am thinking the latter, but it could be signs of dementia as well

of course, we can't rule out mini-stroke either

There seems to be a considerable amount of similar dementia manifestations among the trolls around the site and it makes one wonder

Dec 24, 2018
of course, we can't rule out mini-stroke either

There seems to be a considerable amount of similar dementia manifestations among the trolls around the site and it makes one wonder


More likely just scientific illiteracy, combined with Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Plus paranoia. And various other mental problems.

Dec 24, 2018
I think a habit of lying about what people say is indicative enough.

Dec 24, 2018
I think a habit of lying about what people say is indicative enough.

Hey, mister Pyhsorg Moderator, I just sent you a Report

Dec 24, 2018
I think that creating a reasonably final, concise, well-focused, properly qualified and referenced version of something takes a lot of time. Firstly there is the actual effort of working on the text. Secondly, there must be a lot of elapsed time spent not thinking about or working on the text - weeks, months or years - before the revisions are done.

I spent about 1.5 hours writing my reply about hard, fragmentable objects being flung into wider and more chaotic orbits then soft, unfragmentable stars. I don't recall reading this anywhere, but would be glad to know of any other similar or contrary theories of fragmentation, amalgamation and scattering of orbits.

As far as I know elliptical galaxies were spiral galaxies which were large, dense and old enough for most or all of their stars to break out of their relatively orderly circular orbits and perturb each other into an apparently chaotic series of orbits, some of which are much wider, at least at their apogees.

Dec 24, 2018
I think that creating a reasonably final, concise, well-focused, properly qualified and referenced version of something takes a lot of time. Firstly there is the actual effort of working on the text. Secondly, there must be a lot of elapsed time spent not thinking about or working on the text - weeks, months or years - before the revisions are done.


As far as I know elliptical galaxies were spiral galaxies which were large, dense and old enough for most or all of their stars to break out of their relatively orderly circular orbits and perturb each other into an apparently chaotic series of orbits, some of which are much wider, at least at their apogees.

You need an observation to test your hypothesis...

Dec 25, 2018
Robin_Whittle:
I spent about 1.5 hours writing my reply about hard, fragmentable objects being flung into wider and more chaotic orbits then soft, unfragmentable stars. I don't recall reading this anywhere, but would be glad to know of any other similar or contrary theories of fragmentation, amalgamation and scattering of orbits.


You just wrote a story, anyone can write a story.

Rather write a simulation that operates on the known and tested laws of physics and see if your story is anything but words. If you cannot prove it works, it doesn't mean anything.

Dec 25, 2018
Ojorf, I wasn't suggesting that the mechanisms I wrote about were proven to exist. I wrote it in answer to a question and it is for the interest of anyone who finds it so.

I know some accretion of solid objects does occur, such as with larger asteroids.

Do you know of any hypotheses or observations which indicate that a star can be fragmented into two or more stars by a collision? Its obvious that hard or molten objects can be fractured into innumerable smaller objects by collisions with other such objects.

My hypothesis about more divergent orbits for the hard fragments is based on the idea that these small objects survive as the same or smaller objects in close gravitational encounters with other such objects, potentially involving large changes in direction, whereas this is not, as far as I know, so common with stars. Stars are less dense and so they can't get close enough to each other to have big changes in direction without . . .

Dec 25, 2018
. . . the a higher chance that they would slow down with respect to each other, merge, or partially merge in that one star emerges with less mass. The star which loses mass emerges smaller and I think with less velocity relative to the common centre of mass. So overall I think star collisions and near-collisions are relatively lossy in terms of velocity, and never lead to a greater number of stars, whereas such encounters between rocky, molten or partly rocky and partly molten objects would lead to a greater chance of radical changes in direction, and in the case of collisions, generally more objects, with merging being a rarity.

Dec 25, 2018
... a higher chance that they would slow down with respect to each other
No, nothing chancey about it, it doesn't matter if an object is large or small, dense and rocky, or fluffy and icy. In the same gravitational field all objects will accelerate at the exact same rate, here's a random tutorial: The Elephant and Feather

Also, have you done any homework to inform yourself on what others have to say about it? Like:
Formation and Evolution and
Spiral Galaxies Might Evolve into Elliptical Ones Naturally for example?

Dec 25, 2018
Protoplasmix:

Of course I know that gravitation affects objects according to mass and not density, though when the size of the object is greater than some moderate fraction of the center-to-center distance, the closer parts of the objects experience greater gravitational forces than the more distant parts.

I think there is a difference between how stars and rocky or molten objects would behave in collisions and close gravitational encounters. The solid or molten objects can fragment while as far as I know, star's can't. The trajectories of the centers of solid and molten objects can be very close indeed and so result in sharp gravitational changes in direction, without losing any kinetic energy to collisions. There may be fragmentation without collisions, due to "tidal" (uneven) gravitational forces but that won't absorb any kinetic energy unless some of the fragments go into orbit around or fall onto the other body. . . .

Dec 25, 2018

Stars, being less dense than these objects will lose kinetic energy as their outer layers collide, when their centers are on trajectories which are separated by much greater distances than those for which solid or molten objects would have gravitational encounters which involve no loss of kinetic energy.

Even when the center-to-centre gap between two stars is somewhat greater than the sum of their photospheric radii, I think the gravitational forces could distort the photospheres and that one star could capture a significant amount of matter from the other, so lessening the kinetic energy of the two stars as they emerge from the encounter.

I didn't intend to indicate that what I mentioned about elliptical galaxies resulting from chaotic gravitation interactions between the stars of one (or two or more colliding) spiral galaxies was novel. It is conventional thinking, as far as I know, at least for collisions. . . .


Dec 25, 2018
Thanks for the softpedia link which leads to "Density-Wave Induced Morphological Transformation of Galaxies along the Hubble Sequence" 2010 https://arxiv.org...012.0277 . I can imagine, given a long enough time, that a spiral galaxy's stellar motions might become increasingly chaotic, without a collision. This is not conventional thinking, and I wouldn't make any great claims about this imagining without learning a great deal more about stellar dynamics.

In mathematics, there are proofs - according to the relevant axioms, rules etc. In science, hypotheses are evaluated and disproven according to their ability to explain and predict observations and experiments. They should not be regarded as disproven due to incompatibility with some other hypothesis. I think the BBT is a hypothesis with too many problems to be properly thought of as fact.

What I wrote in this thread assumes that the Universe is much older than the BBT's 13.7 billion years.

Dec 27, 2018
@Robin

Yeah it's all baryonic matter, dark only because it's not stars anymore, and space may be contracting, rather than expanding.

Age of the universe: 10^18 years give or take an order of magnitude or two, by my estimation. . . .if you assume C is decreasing by 0.02 m/s/yr and the energy of any putative photon remained constant in any given epoch, and, if the cosmic microwave background radiation started out as gamma-rays, way back when. . . Maybe only about 15 billion years left until the big crunch?

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Dec 27, 2018
Funny how both the trolls and the public coalesce on only the two types of propaganda articles here on phys.org: (1) global warming and (2) big bang theory, the trolls because they have sold their souls, and the public out of revulsion.

Dec 27, 2018
@Robin

The big bang theory is just the last hold-out for creationism after the Age of Reason, Copernicus, and Galileo. A Jesuit Priest invented the big bang theory and the Catholic Church endorses it, because it holds a creation story consistent with theology. The colluding classes all agree in the supreme being, be he god or the "light-bringer", and so they all support creating this economic reality for academics in cosmology. Essentially, they trade integrity and articles for grant funding and promotions. . . .

Dec 27, 2018
As far as I know elliptical galaxies were spiral galaxies which were large, dense and old enough for most or all of their stars to break out of their relatively orderly circular orbits and perturb each other into an apparently chaotic series of orbits, some of which are much wider, at least at their apogees.


You need an observation to test your hypothesis...
........so why don't you also apply those brilliant words of wisdom to Black Hole or Dark Matter hypotheses, none of those have ever been observed.


Dec 27, 2018
The most logical explanation for why galaxies behave the way they do is because space is contracting.

Dec 27, 2018
You just wrote a story, anyone can write a story.

Rather write a simulation that operates on the known and tested laws of physics and see if your story is anything but words. If you cannot prove it works, it doesn't mean anything.


......but as far as you're concerned, black hole & dark matter simulations are not a "story"? No one has EVER snapped a picture of a black hole, but man o man, are you big on believing "simulation"s for such things is a settled science.

OK, you're so big on "the known and tested laws of physics and see if your story is anything but words", how about if you explain to the chatroom how infinite gravity can exist at the surface of a finite stellar mass called a black hole? What immutable law of physics would you employ to prove such a condition can exist? Don't have such a tested law of physics for this do you, but you think it's settled science don't you?


Dec 27, 2018
@Benni

How do you account for the lack of time dilation for the higher z-values?

Dec 27, 2018
@Benni

You may have touched upon the essence of metaphysics. Bravo!

Dec 27, 2018
The most logical explanation for why galaxies behave the way they do is because space is contracting.


No, the only logical explanation for why galaxies are in motion in the manner we observe them is the fact their motion follows the behavior of bodies of mass of a barycenter. You can get the basics of barycenter motion from the following:

https://en.wikipe...bit5.gif

The silly notion that the Universe ever underwent a big bang is false is evidenced by the fact that everywhere astronomers point a telescope they find galaxies in collision all over the universe, near & far.

If the Universe started expanding at the instant of an explosion, then EVERYTHING at that instant in time is becoming increasingly distant from everything else & NOTHING can collide, but that isn't what we see in our telescopes. What then is the explanation Pop-Cosmology gives for such collisions? They say it's LOCAL... LOCAL alright, all over the Universe.


Dec 27, 2018
@Benni

How do you account for the lack of time dilation for the higher z-values?


Digress a bit, I'm not sure how you are applying time dilation to redshift z-values?

Redshift is derived from the solution of a complex calculus Integral based on a 14 billion year age of the Universe. If the 14 billion within the limits of the Integral were changed, z-values would automatically be changed with it.

The problem is, there are no redshift calculators on the internet that make an adjustment for the 14 billion year age because all are based on a 14 billion year limit within the Integral, thus can't provide results for what happens to redshift based on anything other than 14 billion years.

Dec 27, 2018
Me - "Pauli first postulated the existence of the neutrino in 1930, and it wasn't detected until 1955."

SEU several comments later - "The query asked was regarding the "detectors" and why they are always EMPTY."

The epitome of ignorance. Speaking of which, have you ever NOTICED how the cranks can't seem to convey a point WITHOUT randomly capitalizing WORDS? It conveniently HIGHLIGHTS how inarticulate they are.

Followed by the genius redpill - "The interaction is non existent, like the one between your brain cell and incoming information relating to physics"

Good job typing out a sentence while sucking Cheetos dust off your fingers. I'd be offended by your comment, but it's like going home for Christmas and listening to the Flat Earth relative call you ignorant. You just roll your eyes and move on.

Dec 27, 2018
That troublesome priest
Benni> If the Universe started expanding at the instant of an explosion, then EVERYTHING at that instant in time is becoming increasingly distant from everything else & NOTHING can collide, but that isn't what we see in our telescopes. What then is the explanation Pop-Cosmology gives for such collisions? They say it's LOCAL... LOCAL alright, all over the Universe.

Georges Lemaitre
Born: 17 July 1894
wrote into scriptures
the beginning, his cosmic egg
with no evidence except his religious conviction
a committed ordained priest
his message from his Lord
he wrote into tablets of stone
before Concord
before computers
before space travel
before mobile phones
in short
Georges Lemaitre
Foretold his prophesy before he had sufficient astronomical observation to back up his theory
as
now
His theory is not matching observation

Dec 27, 2018
@Benni

Time dilation is simple, if something is receding quickly from your frame of reference, whether due to space expanding or rockets or whatever, then things appear to slow down, by many multiples once you get to z-values greater than 8 and corresponding relative speeds in excess of 98% of the speed of light. We simply don't see that with the SN 1a time to peak luminosities. Something is wrong.

Dec 27, 2018
@Benni

Time dilation is simple, if something is receding quickly from your frame of reference, whether due to space expanding or rockets or whatever, then things appear to slow down, by many multiples once you get to z-values greater than 8 and corresponding relative speeds in excess of 98% of the speed of light. We simply don't see that with the SN 1a time to peak luminosities. Something is wrong.


Of course something is wrong, it's as I pointed out above that the problem redshift calculators on the internet cannot make an adjustment for anything but a 14 billion year age of the Universe, again, this because they are all based on a 14 billion year limit within the Integral, thus can't provide results for what happens to redshift based on anything other than 14 billion years.

What happens if the Universe is really only 10 billion years old or 20 ? Throw away everything you read about the meaning of z values for redshift,


Dec 27, 2018
@Benni

the red shift stands for speed.

1+ z = lambda observed/lambda at rest = 1 / [(1 - v^2/C^2)^(1/2)]

Take a z, get a v, then do the time dilation. . .

Here's a calculator that requires even less math:

http://www.emc2-e...DDPZFz4g

Funny how people are willing to believe the massive increase in wavelength from the speed of the supposedly receding space, but no one is looking at time dilation increasing the relative perception of the duration of the event itself.


Dec 27, 2018
Here is the thought experiment:

You are traveling on a spaceship going so close to the speed of light that a journey of 100 light years seems to take only 10 minutes from your frame of reference. You perceive 10 minutes passing while an observer sees you travel for 100 years.

As soon as you start your journey you flip a timer for a 3 minute egg. It takes exactly 3 minutes from your perspective. However, the observer from the other frame of reference sees you take 30 years to boil the egg.

Hence, we should observe SN 1a time to peak luminosity increasing as z values increase. GRBs should lengthen by many multiples on average for the higher z values, and we can see some really distant and highly redshifted GRBs. We don't see that. If anything, the GRBs get shorter.

Dec 27, 2018
Hence, we should observe SN 1a time to peak luminosity increasing as z values increase. GRBs should lengthen by many multiples on average for the higher z values, and we can see some really distant and highly redshifted GRBs.


I do see the points you are making, but always keep in mind that all redshift calculators are based on the limits of the Integral from which the calculator does the calculation. I have never bothered to surmise how this would affect a Time Dilation calculation.

If you want to find a different redshift based on something other than 14 billion years, then YOU must recalculate the Integral yourself because there are no internet calculators that do it for anything other than 14 billion years.

Dec 27, 2018
the theory of special relativity and the calculations I make are entirely separate from the age of the universe. The redshift data that makes up the z values is entirely empirical, as observed from the differences in wavelength.

I do not rely on the 14 billion year figure. In fact, I dispute it.

Dec 27, 2018
the theory of special relativity and the calculations I make are entirely separate from the age of the universe. The redshift data that makes up the z values is entirely empirical, as observed from the differences in wavelength.

I do not rely on the 14 billion year figure. In fact, I dispute it.


On the day the James Webb Telescope starts sending back data verifying how monolithic the Universe is as compared to our local Virgo Cluster is the day every Redshift Calculator on the internet will be scrapped, hopefully by about a year from now. That 14 billion number will become a mere drop of time into a huge bucket. When the JWT maxes out it's distance viewing capability redshift will become incalculable.

Dec 28, 2018
Cool advance!

Nits on conceptual terminology: The intracluster light is rather a proxy than a tracer. And it is arguable that dark matter is "unobservable" (since we can see its distribution through the use of these proxies, say).

Dec 28, 2018
@Benni

There is no internet redshift calculator that I am aware of. Provide a link?

The single pillar of the Big Bang Theory (and the putative 14 billion year timeline) is the redshift DATA. The redshift data drives the theory, not the other way around. It is empirical data collected most reliably by using a type of supernova with known luminosity and spectra (SN Ia). The differences in luminosity provide distances, while astronomers also observe differences in spectra that involve wavelengths increasing with those distances. This much is fact.

Cosmologists then infer that this indicates velocity and/or expansion, using Einstein's theory of relativity, not an internet calculator.

The problem is that the time to peak luminosity remains relatively constant, even as the observed wavelengths range by a factor of 10. Because, using Einstein's equations, a SN Ia supernova with a wavelength 10 times greater should have a time to peak luminosity that is 10 times longer.

Dec 28, 2018
Check the SN Ia data yourself.

3 < z < 4 should have a time to peak luminosity at least twice as long and as much as five times as long as one with 0 < z < 1.

Dec 28, 2018
So, to inject some sanity into the troll thread:

If the Big Bang Theory is wrong


After a century of continuous successes, including surviving embedding into modern inflationary cosmology? Zip to none 'if'.

IF it isn't normal matter - then it is not Matter


So neutrinos, who aren't fully explained by standard particle theory, is not matter? Wrong - if it is particulate as here, it is matter by definition.

If this stuff is so pervasive, why aren't they looking for some on Earth?


They are, since decades. It is weakly interacting at best, but pethaps not, and there is a dilute asteroid worth of mass *in the entire system*. Hard to nigh impossible.
@SEU thinks alien lizards control the world with telepathy and radio waves


Oy, if fact. Is he that (racist, IIRC) conspiracy nut Nick Stein, or whatsits name? Or at least reading that garbage? Then we should not entertain his delusions.

Dec 28, 2018
Benni ... "User: iamtheboss"


Admitting to sockpuppetry!?

rocky matter ... constitutes the bulk of the mass of the Matter ... Dark.


Please. This is like reading 'if Big Bang': that possibility was also eliminated decades ago, dark matter is decisively not normal matter of any kind. Go to the Planck Legacy Archives for the evidence it is not - from many independent observations such as cosmic background, BAO and gravitational lensing- and the historical paper trail.

dozens or hundreds of billions of years


Please. No; and it led you into spouting a long series of gibberish. Keep to observed facts: the observable universe is 13.80 Gy old to less than percent uncertainty.

it is for the interest of anyone


If it is not factual, there is no interest on a science site. Consider your readers, "stream of thought" gibberish is usually unwanted.

Dec 28, 2018
the two types of propaganda articles here on phys.org: (1) global warming and (2) big bang theory


Those are as most everything on a science site accepted science, of course. Some political groups claim what you claimed on climate (and generic science such as cosmology), but that is irrelevant on these sites. Go argue populist politics somewhere else.

The problem is that the time to peak luminosity


Please. No. Not only is that irrelevant for spectroscopic data, here you "conveniently" forget the other expansion messengers such as cosmic background (radiation temperature) and total luminosity (colder than a star surface) as well as that *all the data correlates* which alternatives cannot manage. This is why alternatives died a century ago.

Dec 29, 2018
@torbjorn

Yes it may be irrelevant for spectroscopic data but it is supremely relevant to the relativistic theory that expansion depends on. You can't have wavelengths increasing fivefold without fivefold time dilation.

Explain that?


Dec 29, 2018
@torbjorn

As an aside, a "century" of settled theory is pushing it, don't you think? As late as the Eighties this BBT was taught along with the bang-bang and the steady-state theories.

You can either reject special relativity or your colluding club funded religion of BBT.

Dec 29, 2018
@torbjorn

Let me make it simple: if the wavelength doubles from one frame reference, then the perceived duration also doubles from that frame of reference.

Or do you not understand Einstein?

Dec 29, 2018
@torbjorn

z=1 is double the wavelength of z=0, z=2 is triple the wavelength of z=0. . . . z=7 is eight-fold.

same for the time to peak luminosity, according to Einstein. But that's not what we see with the SN Ia supernova time to peak luminosity, is it?

Something stinks in Denmark? How can Einstein's special theory of relativity both support and disprove the expansion of the universe?

Dec 29, 2018
@torbjorn

Oy???

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy…Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore." – Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official
"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect." – Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat

Dec 29, 2018
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

The science is a bit fuzzy here too, eh?

Let's just reconcile redshift with time to peak luminosity of SN Ia, if we can?

Dec 29, 2018
@torbjorn,

In all seriousness, the problem with "all the data correlates" is that none of that which you reference is experimental. We have verifiable, repeatable, experimental evidence of special relativity as it relates to wavelength and time dilation. Thus, that evidence is superior.

Dec 30, 2018
torbjorn_b_g_larsson: By all means express your negative value judgments about my contributions, but I have no reason to believe that you or anyone else who writes here speaks for everyone who reads this thread.

Perhaps you would like to explain why everyone should trust in the veracity of the BBT, with its precise age of the Universe, its L. Ron Hubbardesque Inflation Epoch etc. when its proponents (almost every cosmologist and astrophycisist) are unable to explain the heating and acceleration of the solar corona, 8.3 light minutes from here.

The heating of the solar corona features prominently in lists of the unsolved problems in astrophysics. Most people assume that this tenuous plasma (about as dense as a human-made vacuum in a cathode ray tube) can't be heated to 1MK by the 64 megawats per square metre of sunlight which is passing through it. I think his is due to them believing the photon hypothesis of light, which like the BBT, is assumed to be a fact. . . .

Dec 30, 2018
Also the failure to find time dilation (as predicted by the BBT: we should observe distant variations taking much longer than the times they actually took) in the gravitationally lensed variations in brightness of high redshift quasars. (Time Dilation and Quasar Variability, M.R.S. Hawkins, 2001, Observational Evidence Favors a Static Universe Part I, David F. Crawford 2011).

Also, as JaxPaven mentioned, lack of light curve time dilation in high redshift SN1a, though analysing supernovae observations is very tricky due to selection bias and the redshift altering which part of of the original emissions we can observe.

Also the lack of correlation between the redshift of quasars and their observed brightness. A simple explanation for this would be that a frequently large and highly variable amount of this redshift occurs in the somewhat more dense IGM surrounding these extra-galactic black holes, which are not on average any more distant or older than galaxies. . . .

Dec 30, 2018

. . . This is unimaginable as long as you accept the photon hypothesis with the same certitude with which you accept the BBT.

In case anyone wants to read more about the brain deadening lock-in of the photon paradigm, or about how this and the BBT should not be regarded as good, final, robust, scientific explanations, see what I wrote in this discussion:

https://quillette...nt-57346

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