Dark matter on the move

Dark matter on the move
Star formation in tiny dwarf galaxies can slowly "heat up" the dark matter, pushing it outwards. The left image shows the hydrogen gas density of a simulated dwarf galaxy, viewed from above. The right image shows the same for a real dwarf galaxy, IC 1613. In the simulation, repeated gas inflow and outflow causes the gravitational field strength at the centre of the dwarf to fluctuate. The dark matter responds to this by migrating out from the centre of the galaxy, an effect known as 'dark matter heating'. Credit: J. Read et al.

Scientists have found evidence that dark matter can be heated up and moved around, as a result of star formation in galaxies. The findings provide the first observational evidence for the effect known as 'dark matter heating', and give new clues as to what makes up dark matter. The research is published today in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

In the new work, scientists from the University of Surrey, Carnegie Mellon University and ETH Zürich set out to hunt for evidence for at the centres of nearby dwarf . Dwarf galaxies are small, faint galaxies that are typically found orbiting larger galaxies like our own Milky Way. They may hold clues that could help us to better understand the nature of dark .

Dark matter is thought to make up most of the mass of the universe. However since it doesn't interact with light in the same way as normal matter, it can only be observed through its gravitational effects. The key to studying it may however lie in how stars are formed in these galaxies.

When stars form, can push gas and dust away from the heart of the galaxy. As a result, the galaxy's centre has less mass, which affects how much gravity is felt by the remaining dark matter. With less , the dark matter gains energy and migrates away from the centre, an effect called 'dark matter heating'.

The team of astrophysicists measured the amount of dark matter at the centres of 16 dwarf galaxies with very different star formation histories. They found that galaxies that stopped forming stars long ago had higher dark matter densities at their centres than those that are still forming today. This supports the theory that the older galaxies had less dark matter heating.

Professor Justin Read, lead author of the study and Head of the Department of Physics at the University of Surrey, said: "We found a truly remarkable relationship between the amount of dark matter at the centres of these tiny dwarfs, and the amount of star formation they have experienced over their lives. The dark matter at the centres of the star-forming dwarfs appears to have been 'heated up' and pushed out."

The findings provide a new constraint on dark matter models: dark matter must be able to form that exhibit a range of central densities, and those densities must relate to the amount of star formation.

Professor Matthew Walker, a co-author from Carnegie Mellon University, added: "This study may be the "smoking gun" evidence that takes us a step closer to understanding what dark matter is. Our finding that it can be heated up and moved around helps to motivate searches for a dark matter particle."

The team hope to expand on this work by measuring the central dark matter density in a larger sample of dwarfs, pushing to even fainter galaxies, and testing a wider range of dark matter models.


Explore further

Astronomers find that dark matter dominates across cosmic time

More information: J I Read et al, Dark matter heats up in dwarf galaxies, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2018). DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sty3404
Citation: Dark matter on the move (2019, January 3) retrieved 23 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-01-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.
1568 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jan 03, 2019
"Scientists have found evidence that dark matter can be heated up and moved around, as a result of star formation in galaxies. "

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

The bullshit equivalent of Krakatoa just erupted. The imaginary stuff that doesn't interact electromagnetically or kinetically can now be heated up and moved around by "pressure"....

"However since it doesn't interact with light in the same way as normal matter, it can only be observed through its gravitational effects. "

Oh wait, so it is heated by something other than photons...I should have known.

"With less gravitational attraction, the dark matter gains energy and migrates away from the centre, "
So only gravity can move it (imparting a force, and thus velocity) ...how does it gain "energy"
and what form does the energy take if not photons?

"The team of astrophysicists measured the amount of dark matter "

This is the funniest article I have read that claimed it was "science"...

Queue the idiot brigade.


Jan 03, 2019
"Scientists have found evidence that dark matter can be heated"

Renaming and copying are mother of knowledge.

"3.2. Light
Light appears on the place of collision between radiation waves and particles. If there is no radiation, or if it is minimal, matter is very cold. If there is no visible matter, space warms up (80 to 180°K), just as visible matter. An important difference is that space does not produce light in collisions with radiation, no matter the intensity or sort of radiation."
http://www.scienc...perinfo?
journalid=301&doi=10.11648/j.ajaa.20180603.13 "The processes which cause the appearance of objects and systems"

Jan 03, 2019
Here is the full article:
https://arxiv.org...08.06634

It seems to me rather like wishful thinking toward confirming dark matter than real confirmation.

Jan 03, 2019

Oh wait, so it is heated by something other than photons...I should have known.


Queue the idiot brigade.

If ignorance is bliss, you've got to be one of the happiest people around.

Jan 03, 2019
"If ignorance is bliss, you've got to be one of the happiest people around."

Awww kittykat, can't discuss the physics on this one because the bullshit stinks too much, even for you? Why deviate from the norm I guess.....but you took your queue...where are the rest of your "friends"?


Jan 03, 2019
I cannot see the woocultists. Except in police lineups. But I can see the social damage from the echoes of their bunkum across the Internet.

Thereforthwith, by their own fakir-logic. Their own anti-science methodology. (perhaps demonology would be a more accurate assessment?)
None of these looneytunes actually exist.

Which confirms & bolsters my suspicion that these are fake commentators. Bots, poorly coded by malicious programmers to infect society with their poisonous propaganda.

Perhaps Mr.B stinks of "Bullshit"?
The nest that flattired can do is steershit wetfarts.

Jan 03, 2019
can't discuss the physics


At least you're starting to admit it.

Jan 03, 2019
"At least you're starting to admit it."

but kittykat, I specifically addressed the physics in question above...you just keep on being you. C'mon, tell me about dark matter heating and motion through pressure, don't just be a sour puss....at least be a funny one and try to justify anything proposed above...

Thought about taking wills off ignore....but the bathroom stall offered far more insightful information than he ever posted before I put him on ignore...so I decided to take a dump instead.

Jan 03, 2019
I specifically addressed the physics in question above...


I'm sorry, which part of the physics did you "address" in the paper?

https://academic..../5265085

It's available to read for free. Let me know which part you take exception to in particular, and I'll do my best to boil it down for you.

Jan 03, 2019
"Let me know which part you take exception to in particular, and I'll do my best to boil it down for you."

My first post...duh. have you been clueless your whole life or do you save it all up for your time here?

Had to edit this one because I realized the whole post may be too complicated for you tp process: I'll start with heating matter that cannot absorb photons...K...GO!!!


Jan 03, 2019
my first post...duh


Specifically what do you take exception to? The paper explains it, are you having trouble understanding it?

Here is some additional reading that might help clear up dark matter "heating"

https://arxiv.org...9762.pdf
http://iopscience...L17/meta
https://arxiv.org...405.2577
https://journals....0.131802

Jan 03, 2019
Nope, pull the text out of any of those links which describes how it happens according to whomever wrote it, then provide the link and if it warrants an honest look I will...otherwise I will just stay here and keep demonstrating your (and the mainstream devout followers) stupidity....

Jan 03, 2019
I don't understand these articles, can you simplify it for me so that I can attempt to continue making an ass of myself?


Um, no thank you.

Jan 03, 2019
OK...just started to read it...arrived at the self heating of a particle that has no EM signature in any frequency and no heat output, is transparent to all EM radiation (of which temperature change cannot occur without input from) realized how much of a retard you would have to be to even consider this possible and came back to tell you that you are an idiot if you think this is close to viable.


Jan 03, 2019
hello?

you still there kittykat?

Photons got your tongue? Oh, I see...you don't understand the articles and wish to NOT continue making an ass of yourself. A non typical display of intelligence from you...well done.

Jan 03, 2019
Frankly, I'm impressed that you actually put forth the effort to read at least the first couple sentences.

I am, however, not surprised that when you didn't understand what you read, you immediately revert to calling everyone but yourself and fellow EU cultists retards. This is well thought out research that people far more qualified than either of us put together. If you're going to refute it, the burden is on you to do so. You don't get to say "It's wrong, you're all dumb, and I want you to show me how it's correct." Well, you can, but you come across as a giant ass.

Jan 03, 2019
These dark matter cultists are really going out on a limb with this garbage. Are there any results of any experiments that have an input or output confirming dark matter? Not even close. Physics is just self confirming models without experimentation these days.

Jan 03, 2019
One of the first "traits" about theoretical DM that we observed was its transparency to ALL EM radiation. We saw an effect attributed to gravity but nothing was there to cause it. This has been re-confirmed ad-nauseam by subsequent observations.

To anyone even remotely versed in physics this means it cannot be heated. To propose "self-heating" of a particle with these properties means you also have propose a means outside of any known physics because as far as everything we have EVER learned goes...you need photons to heat matter. Hell, gravity is the only thing purported to cause this stuff to move and this paper claims DM has increased energy in the absence of it...ironic considering the only energy it could possibly possess would be kinetic, imparted on it by the gravity which caused it to move.

Lastly, I am a giant ass here now...so are a lot of you, because I have to explain these concepts which should not be required to people who want to discuss this stuff.

Jan 03, 2019
Are there any results of any experiments that have an input or output confirming dark matter? Not even close.

I think very close is a better statement. While dark matter hasn't been confirmed yet, there is an abundance of evidence pointing to the existence of dark matter (https://en.wikipe...evidence ). There are other possible explanations for some of the evidence, but most have been ruled out by the other evidence. Additionally, there are well known particles that act like dark matter (neutrinos), so it wouldn't be surprising that something like dark matter existed. In fact, at this point it would seem difficult to justify any substantial doubt in the existence of dark matter. You'd almost have to be part of a cult to do so.

Jan 03, 2019
transparency to ALL EM radiation.... means it cannot be heated.


Electromagnetism is not required for heating. Gravity can also heat things. Heat involves the random motion of particles, and gravity can induce motion.

Jan 03, 2019
Are there any results of any experiments that have an input or output confirming dark matter? Not even close.

I think very close is a better statement. While dark matter hasn't been confirmed yet, there is an abundance of evidence pointing to the existence of dark matter (https://en.wikipe...evidence ). There are other possible explanations for some of the evidence, but most have been ruled out by the other evidence. Additionally, there are well known particles that act like dark matter (neutrinos), so it wouldn't be surprising that something like dark matter existed. In fact, at this point it would seem difficult to justify any substantial doubt in the existence of dark matter. You'd almost have to be part of a cult to do so.

Do you understand what a cult is? You accept premises without experimental input or output and then point me to Wikipedia? Your mention of neutrinos is a way better guess.

Jan 03, 2019
If you come up with a theory that backstops and patches the big bang theory, you too can get funding, and a pat on the back by the media, and trolls to keep your blinders on. This is how the colluding classes create economic realities. In the instance of the big bang theory, it provides a "let there be light" creation event for all the Abrahamic religions as well as the secret society Luciferian dualists. Although not necessary for the belief in a supreme being (or a Luciferian "light bringer"), the big bang theory is the last redoubt for the center of the universe being here (and everywhere) after Copernicus and Galileo.

Since this colluding class still runs the show, they figure what the hell.

The real crime in this (and other economic-realities turned pseudo-science like global warming) is that it impedes real scientific progress and causes real living graduate students and scientists to waste precious parts of their productive lives.

Jan 03, 2019
transparency to ALL EM radiation.... means it cannot be heated.

Oh wait, so it is heated by something other than photons...I should have known.

to anyone even remotely versed in physics this means it cannot be heated.

you need photons to heat matter.


lol, this must be from the Thunderbolts Physics 101 class you enrolled in. Glad you're here to educate the rest of us.

Jan 03, 2019
"The real crime in this (and other economic-realities turned pseudo-science like global warming) is that it impedes real scientific progress and causes real living graduate students and scientists to waste precious parts of their productive lives."

Yep. Do these "scientists" even know who Charles Proteus Steinmetz was or can they even define a field in and of itself? They are a cult of atomists and creationists.

Jan 03, 2019
"Electromagnetism is not required for heating."

Try reading a bit, EM--- R-A-D-I-A-T-I-O-N is definitely required in this universe...where are you from?
" Gravity can also heat things."
Not unless it causes EM radiation to be produced.
" Heat involves the random motion of particles,"
No...it doesn't actually. Particles do move when heated though.
" and gravity can induce motion. "
1 out of four ain't bad.

@kittykat, I am happy to have brightened your day and made you "LOL" with 3 statements of fact and a sarcastic remark for number 2 above. Care to come back to heating imaginary particles without any kind of EM radiation? Ya see...no matter how it is mathematically proposed to happen...the funny thing is that in this universe...it still can't. But if you need a likeminded sort, worm guy seems to have a handle on your level of understanding.


Jan 03, 2019
"The real crime in this (and other economic-realities turned pseudo-science like global warming) is that it impedes real scientific progress and causes real living graduate students and scientists to waste precious parts of their productive lives."

Yep. Do these "scientists" even know who Charles Proteus Steinmetz was or can they even define a field in and of itself? They are a cult of atomists and creationists.


I'm sorry, but which opposing theories have you espoused? Can you please elaborate on them and show which experiments, with inputs and outputs, accurately predict what we observe? It's a pretty big claim to come here and call everyone a cultist without actually providing anything of substance to further the conversation.

Jan 03, 2019
Care to come back to heating... without any kind of EM radiation?.


You've never heard of convection or conduction? These are different from *radiative* heating.
No photons required.

Where did you get your education? They teach this in High School.
I hope you at least have the good sense to backtrack and admit that EMR is not required for heating.

Jan 03, 2019
"I'm sorry, but which opposing theories have you espoused? Can you please elaborate on them and show which experiments, with inputs and outputs, accurately predict what we observe? It's a pretty big claim to come here and call everyone a cultist without actually providing anything of substance to further the conversation."

Read your posts...you clearly don't understand the process of "heating" in this universe, but you demand the above from someone else. You defend the physics of a paper without understanding physics against people who clearly do understand and comment as to the lack of validity of the paper explain why using established physics . That's about as "cult" as it gets.

Gorgar, great PB machine back in the day. This site has more mainstream trolls who blindly support crap like the article above than you want to waste your time with...unless it is spare time and you find it amusing..then welcome!!

Jan 03, 2019
Yeah, sorry. I can't come up with opposing theories about something like DM that I don't think exists. I feel a little trolly. Here's what I think. The ether exists and is the underlying "substance" from which all phenomena arises and is manifest as magnetism. Sorry again for angst or "woo".

Jan 03, 2019
MrBojangles: I think that heat conduction does actually involve photons; as atoms collide they bounce off each other due to electromagnetic repulsion, and without collisions, conduction could not happen.

theredpill: If heat "does not involve motion" then what is heat?

Jan 03, 2019
"You've never heard of convection or conduction? "

LMAO...molecular or atomic convection heats DM particles...awesome. Conduction is the transfer of energy via photons you twit. (unless it's electrical of course)

OK, one more time for the mentally challenged....You cannot heat anything without imparting energy to it in the form of photons. Any "process" be it friction, compression or collision, produces heat in the form of photons. So back to your 100% EM transparent matter and heating it...GO!

"theredpill: If heat "does not involve motion" then what is heat? "

Heat IS infrared radiation, that is all it is.


Jan 03, 2019

Gorgar, great PB machine back in the day. This site has more mainstream trolls who blindly support crap like the article above than you want to waste your time with...unless it is spare time and you find it amusing..then welcome!!

It was a great game. The first game to insult you verbally when you lost. Edit: And it was hard as hell to beat.

Jan 03, 2019
Read your posts...you clearly don't understand the process of "heating" in this universe


Are you still under the impression that photons are the only way to "heat" something? You never addressed that, you just jump to your delusional thoughts of nobody understands the universe except you.

https://www.physi...-is-Heat

Here ya go, that should break it down nice and simple for you.

Jan 03, 2019
Heat is not IR. Heat is the transfer of energy.

Also,
In gases and liquids, conduction is due to the collisions and diffusion of molecules during their random motion. Photons in this context do not collide with one another, and so heat transport by electromagnetic radiation is conceptually distinct from heat conduction by microscopic diffusion and collisions of material particles and phonons.

Jan 03, 2019
*sigh*

GRAVITY can ONLY RE-ORIENT paths of particles through space; with SPEED UNCHANGED; ie: a hypothetical DM particle 'accelerated' going INTO a gravitational feature will THEREAFTER be equally DECELERATED going away from same IF said DM 'particle' is allegedly ELECTROMAGNETICALLY UN-IMPEDED going through that gravitational body of normal matter. .

And DM 'SELF HEATING' is based on a purely speculative/unexplained 'self-interacting/annihilating' property of DM.

It's getting even worse than the EPICYCLES FIXES 'cult'. Seems like 'publish-or-perish' cosmology HACKS are multiplying like rabbits; with every BB-cult 'graduate' let lose with 'carte blanch' blessing for concocting any/all sorts of moronic nonsense with no basis whatsoever except circuitously-reinforcing 'set' of unreal/self-contradictory speculations, inferences and 'mathematical cover' GIGO 'results' depending solely on assumptions/entities/properties having no connection to REALITY physics.

*sigh*

Jan 03, 2019
You cannot heat anything without imparting energy to it in the form of photons. Any "process" be it friction, compression or collision, produces heat in the form of photons.

Heat IS infrared radiation, that is all it is.


1. If you fire a bunch of neutrinos at a target, you can heat it up. The neutrinos do NOT carry an EM charge (hence the name), and do NOT feel electromagnetism. They collide with things by means of the weak force. Badda-bing, heating without electromagnetic radiation.

2. If heat is simply infrared radiation, then what about REALLY HOT stuff that radiates most of it's energy in the UV or X-Ray wavelengths and very little in the IR? Infrared radiation is a common form of heat transfer, but heat itself is the internal kinetic energy of a body or substance.

Jan 03, 2019
a hypothetical DM particle 'accelerated' going INTO a gravitational feature will THEREAFTER be equally DECELERATED going away from same


That's true (except see below), and is surely the reason why it's hard to understand this dark matter heating thing.

However, may NOT true IF the gravitational feature is in motion as the dark matter does it's yo-yo act.

For example, the slingshot maneuver 1) uses only gravity, and 2) accelerates a spacecraft.

Slingshotting requires the planet be moving, and the spacecraft approach from the correct angle. In the right configuration, the spacecraft ends up moving faster, not at the same speed, solely due to the changing arrangement of the gravity field.

Jan 03, 2019
Dark matter heating is consistent with the hypothesis that dark matter is a variant of hydrogen, that does not interact with photons but can engage in particle collisions. A cloud of dark matter would not be pure, it would include some normal matter such as hydrogen and helium and dust. The normal matter would warm up from incoming photons, then that normal matter would collide with the interspersed dark matter to warm that up too. Dark matter heating is a very interesting potential tool for solving the mystery of dark matter!

Jan 03, 2019
@JaxPavan.
(and other economic-realities turned pseudo-science like global warming)
While I too am very skeptical of and exasperated by the woeful state/quality of 'professional' COSMOLOGY theory/theorists, I am ALSO very well aware that the GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE is very much ON TRACK with the reality even now unfolding under our very eyes globally; and especially here in Australia, where we are becoming the 'canary in the coalmine' early warning case that proves the extremes trending due to AGW causes which are now even being acknowledged by heretofore very skeptical farmers and other former political/business skeptics here. You have to live it to realize just how PRESENTLY are evolving dangers on many fronts which AGW is now bringing incessantly, unrelentingly and 'at speed' globally.

I humbly suggest you stick to COSMOLOGY, and leave AGW issues alone until you get more au fait with the actual principles and facts of that science. Good luck and good thinking, JP. :)

Jan 03, 2019
@MrBojangles/everyone.

A timely reminder: IN SCIENTIFIC METHOD, the principle/act of FALSIFICATION does not depend on or demand an alternative explanation to the one being challenged. In short: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence not based on mere speculative assumptions, inferences, interpretations and simulations based on such.

See, MrBojangles? It is up to the claimant (in this case you and those upon whose 'papers' you depend/allude for YOUR arguments/claims) to provide EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE which is NOT just a collection of mere assumption/interpretation/simulation etc etc.

To stress: There is absolutely NO REQUIREMENT for anyone challenging claims/explanations to provide alternative explanations in order to challenge YOUR/YOUR REFERENCES' claims/explanations.

Thanks. Good luck and good thinking for the New Year, MrBojangles/everyone. :)


Jan 03, 2019
Heat IS infrared radiation, that is all it is.
(theredpill)

Ha! You dont even know elementary physics and you want to comment on dark matter? No self-awareness among the crackpots polluting this poor forum. Now where is Benni and cantthink when you need them? I have a feeling that if they join you we may yet create a black hole due to sheer concentration of ignorance.

Jan 03, 2019
Heat IS infrared radiation, that is all it is.


There's other forms of heat besides radiative heating. Conduction and convection come to mind. No IR required.

Jan 03, 2019
@NeMaTo.

It may help you to read up and understand the effective distinction between the terms "heat" and "temperature". In short: heat is the energy form ITSELF (usually infra-red wavelengths of the EM spectrum); while temperature is the 'statistical average measure' of said energy as related to the average particle motions/speeds in any ensemble of particles under study. Cheers.

Jan 03, 2019
@NeMaTo.
That's true (except see below), and is surely the reason why it's hard to understand this dark matter heating thing.

However, may NOT true IF the gravitational feature is in motion as the dark matter does it's yo-yo act.

For example, the slingshot maneuver 1) uses only gravity, and 2) accelerates a spacecraft.

Slingshotting requires the planet be moving, and the spacecraft approach from the correct angle. In the right configuration, the spacecraft ends up moving faster, not at the same speed, solely due to the changing arrangement of the gravity field.
But note that "gravitationally interacting only" DM particles were hypothesized to initially move UNHINDERED at RELATIVISTIC velocities; so a planet/star would be essentially 'static' for the bypass of an as-hypothesized DM particles. So, no 'slingshot gain' in speed; only slight change in motion path through space.

ps: IF hypothesized DM could 'heat' ordinary matter, we'd have detected it already. :)

Jan 03, 2019
@Phyllis Harmonic.
There's other forms of heat besides radiative heating. Conduction and convection come to mind. No IR required.
Careful. What you are alluding to is the ENERGY per se; whereas that energy may be in forms of Kinetic, visible light, X-ray/gamm-ray and so on......while HEAT form of energy is usually specifically understood to be in the Infra-red range forms of Electro-magnetic energy spectrum. Cheers.

Jan 03, 2019
A timely reminder: IN SCIENTIFIC METHOD, the principle/act of FALSIFICATION does not depend on or demand an alternative explanation to the one being challenged.


Agreed, you can falsify something without providing an alternative. That has not been done here, nor on any article regarding dark matter that I've seen. Again, the above statement is correct, but simply saying "dark matter is BS" or "show me a picture or it's not real" does not falsify the papers that have been published and reviewed. It does not mean that those theories are correct, and nobody here in their right mind is claiming they are scripture. What's absolutely obnoxious is that these forums are tainted by psychopaths that spout out a bunch of crap about how they have it all figured out and everyone else is wrong, without disproving the standing theories or offering anything of value as an alternative.

Jan 03, 2019
This is a nice advance on modern cosmology! Their classification can distinguish between DM cusp and core profiles, and find that the former are galaxies were star formation cuts off early. They confirm LCDM and specifically general relativity, rejecting proposed alternatives.

To comment on the thread trolls, first we can note that many simply have not read the paper and misunderstand heating or that its observations allow for anything else than DM, others promote conspiracy theories and crackpot bold.

Gravitational heating is not too hard to understand. If the galaxy do not cut off star formation and eject gas from its core the gravity potential is lowered and the DM is liberated from an analog of a cold trap.

DM confirmation is also not too hard to understand. If we have several independent DM observations and no viable alternatives the observation is confirmed. It does not matter that we do not see individual particles yet, c.f. history of atoms and neutrinos.

Jan 03, 2019
Slingshotting requires the planet be moving, and the spacecraft approach from the correct angle. In the right configuration, the spacecraft ends up moving faster, not at the same speed, solely due to the changing arrangement of the gravity field.
An important point here to consider is that an extremely small amount of momentum is removed from the large object the "slingshot" approaches and transferred to the slingshotting object. When the prime focus of the "slingshot" is a planet, and the object doing the maneuver is a grain of sand (which from the point of view of a planet is little different from a spacecraft), the momentum change of the planet is well beyond the reach of our most sensitive instruments. But if you think relativity is right, it's there. Meanwhile, the object undergoing the "slingshot" gains a lot of momentum, if you do it right. And by "a little" and "a lot" I mean relative to their respective masses.

Jan 03, 2019
hello?

you still there kittykat?

Photons got your tongue?


:)

Jan 03, 2019
Do you understand what a cult is? You accept premises without experimental input or output and then point me to Wikipedia?

Do you understand what "observational evidence" is? To dismiss observational evidence (ie, experiments) merely because you don't like the results is more in line with a cult.
Your mention of neutrinos is a way better guess.

Wait, so you're ok with one of the suggestions for dark matter (ie, neutrinos), but are opposed to dark matter because why? Because neutrinos aren't called dark matter? You do know that it's only called dark matter because we don't know what the particles are, don't you? If it turns out that dark matter is actually sterile neutrinos, will you admit that you were wrong all along? Or will you claim that, somehow, you were right even though we find dark matter?

Or are you a Poe, just making fun of those that oppose the evidence for dark matter?

Jan 03, 2019
The dark matter is 'pushed out' because it is a supersolid that fills 'empty' space and is displaced by ordinary matter.

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.

dmm
Jan 03, 2019
@theredpillock: You're an idiot. Please look up "tidal heating" on Google or WikiP or wherever you get your learning from. Gravity alone is sufficient to heat up matter, such as planets, by virtue of the fact that it deforms a body, or group of bodies, tidally, which then, when in orbit, convert the tidal forces (through friction or collisions) to brownian motion (i.e., heat). Both the earth and the moon experience these tidal forces, and heating, in their orbits. Finally, I don't claim to know the truth, but as a former skeptic I can say that these days, if you're arguing that there is no dark matter, that it is Modified Newtonian mechanics etc., you have a very hard road to hoe. At this point in history, there is SO much independent evidence, including anomalous gravitational lensing, that it's VERY difficult to come up with any other explanation. Signed, an actual physicist.

dmm
Jan 03, 2019
From theredpillock:
OK, one more time for the mentally challenged....You cannot heat anything without imparting energy to it in the form of photons...
Heat IS infrared radiation, that is all it is.

Two statements that are completely and utterly incorrect. Photons have absolutely *nothing* to do with heat. Heat, fundamentally, is thermal motion, i.e., kinetic energy, and *THAT'S* ALL IT IS. Please find a high school or college physics teacher, someone you'll respect, to explain this to you. Or just go on to Wikipedia or something and look up "Heat"... not that difficult. Signed, An Actual Physicist. (Not that rare.)

Jan 03, 2019
@dmm.
Gravity....convert the tidal forces (through friction or collisions) to brownian motion (i.e., heat).
Careful. Gravity may be the motive force, sure, but Friction between the particles/bodies' associated/attached Electro-magnetic features/fields is the effective factor for 'heating' matter that rubs/collides. Motion per se is not enough to heat/cool a particle; eg, a free-moving proton in space cannot 'shed' kinetic energy by RADIATING away 'heat' until it interacts with another particle to cause it to lose kinetic energy as em-radiation.
At this point in history, there is SO much independent evidence, including anomalous gravitational lensing,...
Again, careful. We are now finding vast expanses/amounts of ORDINARY matter (gas, plasma, dust, pebbles, low-brightness planets, failed stars, even up to low-surface brightness galaxies/clusters). So now, GR applied properly in non-Keplerian situations/distributions, may explain it without any 'exotic' DM needed.

Jan 03, 2019
I don't understand these articles, can you simplify it for me so that I can attempt to continue making an ass of myself?


Um, no thank you.
says MrBojingles

Changing the words of theredpill was SOOOO dishonest of you. Do you do that often, or do you change the wording of commenters only when they are making you look bad? I would choose the latter. Shame Shame on you.

Jan 03, 2019
Well, its an effect called quote unquote dark matter heating... It's just an term for a theoretical effect. What a poorly worded article for a potentially groundbreaking discovery.

Jan 04, 2019
@dmm
@theredpillock: You're an idiot. Please look up "tidal heating" on Google or WikiP or wherever you get your learning from. Gravity alone is sufficient to heat up matter, such as planets, by virtue of the fact that it deforms a body, or group of bodies, tidally, which then, when in orbit, convert the tidal forces (through friction or collisions) to brownian motion (i.e., heat). ...

I wonder, what if the celestial bodies were made entirely of a super fluid. Would the gravity induced tidal waves produce any heating?

Jan 04, 2019
Changing the words of theredpill was SOOOO dishonest of you. Do you do that often, or do you change the wording of commenters only when they are making you look bad? I would choose the latter. Shame Shame on you.


It's called satire, I'm not surprised you've trouble grasping that.

Jan 04, 2019
"
"I wonder, what if the celestial bodies were made entirely of a super fluid. Would the gravity induced tidal waves produce any heating?"

Please, don't make a member of the idiot brigade think too much about this. If tidal heating occurs (which I doubt due to the lack of a powerful enough differential force acting upon any body in space) the mechanism is friction, friction generates heat by breaking molecular bonds, the heat is still photons. To the idiots, matter is heated by energy absorption. The energy is in the from of EM radiation, EM radiation IS photons.

" Photons have absolutely *nothing* to do with heat. Signed, An Actual Physicist."

LMAO...an actual physicist just said this. Tell me "actual physicist"...what is the mechanism to transfer heat from one atom or molecule to another other than EM radiation? I mean since photons have nothing to do with heat, and heat is only emitted by matter in the form of photons...this oughta be fantastic.


Jan 04, 2019
"Please look up "tidal heating" on Google or WikiP or wherever you get your learning from. Gravity alone is sufficient to heat up matter, such as planets, "

You should understand something about physics...more would be a good start. This whole thread and article are only here because of the completely flawed premise that gravity does the things the math you were taught says it does. Adding 80% more matter to the universe that nobody can find, observe ( inferred effects don't count as one can infer that it is invisible pizza out there causing the motion as that is not falsifiable and mathematically viable) or study HAD to be done to keep gravity calcs in line with observation. Now, the sane people have to deal with the delusional every time there is an article about what the imaginary part of the universe is doing. For the record, telling me you are a physicist that believes in DM, tells me you were taught to be stupid and are a good learner...better than a wannabe..but..

Jan 04, 2019
From theredpillock:

OK, one more time for the mentally challenged....You cannot heat anything without imparting energy to it in the form of photons...
Heat IS infrared radiation, that is all it is.


Two statements that are completely and utterly incorrect. Photons have absolutely *nothing* to do with heat. Heat, fundamentally, is thermal motion, i.e., kinetic energy, and *THAT'S* ALL IT IS. Please find a high school or college physics teacher, someone you'll respect, to explain this to you. Or just go on to Wikipedia or something and look up "Heat"... not that difficult. Signed, An Actual Physicist. (Not that rare.)


How pathetically stupid does stupid get mister "actual physicist"?

Heat is THERMAL ENERGY.

In outer space, where conduction of thermal energy between particles is not possible, ELECTRO-MAGNETIC INFRARED RADIATION is the carrier that moves HEAT between bodies of mass.

Jan 04, 2019
"Heat is THERMAL ENERGY. "

Yeah...most "actual physicists" confuse heat and temperature....I nearly pissed myself laughing at that sign off...and he's wrong about actual physicists being "not that rare" being as in todays world, a physics degree makes a person a physicist about as much as a drivers license makes a person a pilot. Who'd ever have thought learning the most complicated math formulas on the planet was a way to dumb down understanding of actual physical processes eh? I wonder if any prof actually tells them: "as long as you understand the math, you understand physics". I'd bet kittykats 4$ on it....

Jan 04, 2019
@theredpill You are an ignoramus

Jan 04, 2019
"@theredpill You are an ignoramus"

Thank you. I equate that to being told I am unattractive by 600 pound 4'5" transgender mutant with full body psoriasis...IOW...as long as I am the opposite of whatever you think you are, it's all good.

Jan 04, 2019
@theredpill You are an ignoramus


He's willfully ignorant. Several people tried to help him learn, but he insists radiation is the only form of heat transfer.

Him and 4 or 5 others on here like to make digital love and stroke each other's egos. They've been rejected by society for obvious reasons, so they cling to each other on a website call Thunderbolts, where they've convinced themselves they are smarter than the rest of the world as some sort of defense mechanism (his moniker is an allusion to The Matrix i.e. he's been "awoken" to the truth and everyone else is a programmed sheep. That alone is a huge red flag.) This is despite the fact that they've contributed nothing of value to society, other than a free lesson in why selective reproduction is worth investigating. Thank God for the ignore function.

Jan 04, 2019
He's willfully ignorant. Several people tried to help him learn, but he insists radiation is the only form of heat transfer.


In my case, learning that INFRARED ELECTRO-MAGNETIC WAVES is the carrier of Thermal Energy isn't being "willfully ignorant". This I learned during my two semesters of Thermodynamics while attending six years of Engineering school for Nuclear & Electrical Engineering in which I have degrees.

Jan 04, 2019
Aww kittykat....even further off the mark with your evaluation of my social nature than you are with physics. But it's ok...approval from wannabe math meatheads on physorg isn't necessary for me to continue along my path in life. Interesting that somehow Benni's education affords him understanding beyond the math...oh wait, that is a measure of innate intelligence.

Sorry, you're screwed there son.

"but he insists radiation is the only form of heat transfer. "

Actually, that is the way that universe set it up...I just choose not ignore it ( unlike you and any other chucklehead claiming something like convective heating doesn't involve photon transmission/absorption). Even in a connected medium such as water (or a planet) heat travels from molecule to molecule, atom to atom, via the discreet units we use to measure thermal energy called photons. I will however thank you as well for the NEO comparison, when I am at this site that is exactly what it feels like.

Jan 04, 2019

"Wait, so you're ok with one of the suggestions for dark matter (ie, neutrinos), but are opposed to dark matter because why? Because neutrinos aren't called dark matter? You do know that it's only called dark matter because we don't know what the particles are, don't you? If it turns out that dark matter is actually sterile neutrinos, will you admit that you were wrong all along? Or will you claim that, somehow, you were right even though we find dark matter?

Or are you a Poe, just making fun of those that oppose the evidence for dark matter?"

Dark matter, 0-point energy, the ether, whatever you want to call it, exists. It is not particles. It underlies all phenomena and is manifest as magnetism. Understanding magnetism and the magnetic field is fundamental to all learning. If you don't understand this then you are lost in the dark.

Jan 04, 2019
"It is not particles. It underlies all phenomena and is manifest as magnetism. Understanding magnetism and the magnetic field is fundamental to all learning. If you don't understand this then you are lost in the dark. "

I have tried to explain this here to all of these same people. All I have received back is proof that the last part of your 100% accurate statement concerning the reality of physics is actually the case. ( lost in the "dark"...good one).

Jan 04, 2019
Understanding magnetism and the magnetic field is fundamental to all learning. If you don't understand this then you are lost in the dark.


Magnetism is simply low frequency EM Waves, photons.

Jan 04, 2019
"Magnetism is simply low frequency EM Waves, photons. "

Interesting proposal, but I would ask about the lack of any visible energy present in magnetic flux... regardless of the flux density...and also how photon physics can apply to the attraction phenomenon. If an object is emitting a magnetic field that induces a field in say, iron, which then causes the iron to attract to the magnet.


Jan 04, 2019
"Magnetism is simply low frequency EM Waves, photons. "


Interesting proposal, but I would ask about the lack of any visible energy present in magnetic flux... regardless of the flux density...and also how photon physics can apply to the attraction phenomenon. If an object is emitting a magnetic field that induces a field in say, iron, which then causes the iron to attract to the magnet.
...........it is simply what long wavelength EM waves do, create magnetic attraction. It's no different than the peculiar affinity Infrared wavelength has for carrying Thermal Energy while other wavelengths do not, or that visible light wavelengths with visibility qualities appear at their specified position within the EM Energy Spectrum & not at the gamma ray position which is invisible to the seeing eye.

I could go on & on about the attributes, peculiarities, etc about how one specified range of EM Waves have over another, but you get the point I think.


Jan 04, 2019
@Benni, those are legit questions I am asking. I have pondered about the nature of magnetism and discussed it at great length with various people and groups. It isn't hostile when you have differing opinions in those groups the way it is here. In those groups I have heard everything about the magnetic moment from God did it, to Gorgar's mention of the ether, but the photon suggestion was intriguing for a few reasons. Hence my questions. I was actually picturing magnetic moments as ULF photons acting as carrier waves for the higher frequency ones. So it was the attraction of matter phenomenon that was a mental stop sign...just to clarify my other post. Considering how an audio speaker functions ( insert joke about causing the air to heat up using sound vibrations) using magnets to generate sound, I'd be interested in your thoughts.

LOL..I guess so in response to your "get the point"...was typing while you were I guess.

Jan 04, 2019
"etc about how one specified range of EM Waves have over another, but you get the point I think."

You have to understand that to understand most physics. I can't fathom how these guys, claiming to "understand" physics can be so ignorant about something as simple as heat transport and the "units" it's transported in. How different types of matter react to various EM frequencies and using said information to achieve a specific reaction ( everything from visual effects to protection of matter from certain frequencies) was my active field for several years. You get very familiar with electricity and magnetism that way, how things move and structure/breakdown, and why they do. Realworld experience. I only bash math when I am obviously dealing with someone who can only understand physics if it is in an equation they learned, that's when you get a guy claiming to be a physicist talking about tidal heating not involving photons.

Jan 04, 2019
Understanding magnetism and the magnetic field is fundamental to all learning. If you don't understand this then you are lost in the dark.


Magnetism is simply low frequency EM Waves, photons.

That's actually kind of an interesting conjecture.
Do you have a frequency in mind?

Jan 04, 2019
@MrBojangles.
A timely reminder: IN SCIENTIFIC METHOD, the principle/act of FALSIFICATION does not depend on or demand an alternative explanation to the one being challenged.
Agreed, you can falsify something without providing an alternative.
Thanks for acknowledging that, mate.
....but simply saying "dark matter is BS"...does not falsify the papers that have been published and reviewed.
True. Which is why I, at least, do not do that. I have offered/posted known science, alternative-perspectives-based interpretations, of observations/data when questioning 'exotic' DM and BB claims.
...without disproving the standing theories...
In mainstream COSMOLOGY there's NO *the* THEORY as such; rather, a STANDARD MODEL; ie, COLLECTION of SPECULATIVE CONJECTURES/HYPOTHESES, many of which NOT yet proven/confirmed, and most of which depend on now-increasingly falsified Big-Bang/Inflation hypotheses/interpretations of observations/data such as CMB, REDSHIFT. :)


Jan 04, 2019
Dark Matter Warming

These galaxies
where galactic stars are born
in their winds they do blow their outer shells of mass
their central mass diminishes
with this mass follows DM
in this DM is darkmatter warming
DM warming increased gravitational energy
as these galactic stars in their nurseries blow their outer shells
gravity inertial-mass darkmatter-mass gravitational heating
as this darkmatter warming is taking place
as galactic mass is migrating
their exist a humongous star
a star so humongous
it is holding this galactic galaxy
from falling apart
in its billions of stars
is so massive no stars can eject their shells
without this blackhole dragging that mass to is light radius
as this battle playing out in this vacuum
for 15billions of years
this DMW has not won this battle yet
because
our 13billion year galaxy
shows no sign of losing its centric mass
its centric stellar stars are increasing in number
because
it is
Our Milkyway

Jan 04, 2019
How different types of matter react to various EM frequencies and using said information to achieve a specific reaction ( everything from visual effects to protection of matter from certain frequencies) was my active field for several years.
......no wonder you caught on to what I was driving at so quickly, I thought I could see you were close but I wasn't sure, which is why I added, "but you get the point I think.".

For the life of me, I have never understood why so many think of the "magnetic field" as some kind of ghosty effect that somehow stands apart from the EM Energy Spectrum. Magnetic fields move things, that's ENERGY in action with respondent events created by the long wave photons.

Magnetic field photons on the EM Energy Spectrum are wavelengths that would appear left of wavelength depictions of the AM Radio region of wavelength. What the exact range that wavelength would be I'm not certain of, far longer than AM Radio of course.

Jan 04, 2019
Understanding magnetism and the magnetic field is fundamental to all learning. If you don't understand this then you are lost in the dark.


Magnetism is simply low frequency EM Waves, photons.


That's actually kind of an interesting conjecture.
Do you have a frequency in mind?
.......no it isn't conjecture, Electrical engineers study this in Electricity & Magnetism class. Read what I wrote just above about the EM Spectrum.

Jan 04, 2019
Magnetic field photons on the EM Energy Spectrum are wavelengths that would appear left of wavelength depictions of the AM Radio region of wavelength. What the exact range that wavelength would be I'm not certain of, far longer than AM Radio of course.

LOL. I knew what you meant, of course, (longer WL) but Iooked a many spectrum images on google and you wouldn't believe how many have the higher wavelengths on the left...

Jan 04, 2019

our 13billion year galaxy
shows no sign of losing its centric mass
its centric stellar stars are increasing in number
because
it is
Our Milkyway

Is it star formation? or simple gravitation?

Jan 04, 2019
A research topic in magnetism

Is Magnetism simply low frequency EM Waves, photons?
we will soon find out
as nobody has even hinted at to what magnetism and magnetic fields are
what they consist of in this physical world
and how they transmit their force

Jan 04, 2019
A research topic in magnetism

Is Magnetism simply low frequency EM Waves, photons?
we will soon find out
as nobody has even hinted at to what magnetism and magnetic fields are
what they consist of in this physical world
and how they transmit their force

Is a "carrier" wave for higher EM frequencies?

Jan 04, 2019
our 13billion year galaxy
shows no sign of losing its centric mass
its centric stellar stars are increasing in number
because
it is
Our Milkyway

Whydening Gyre> Is it star formation? or simple gravitation?

It is the dust that gravity is accumulating in the central bulge
that is increasing the stellar nurseries leading to star formation
so its dust, gravity, star formation
and let's not forget our great attractor, Sagittarius*A
Unless of course you believe in anthropological darkmatter warming

Jan 04, 2019
It is the dust that gravity is accumulating in the central bulge
that is increasing the stellar nurseries leading to star formation
so its dust, gravity, star formation
and let's not forget our great attractor, Sagittarius*A
Unless of course you believe in anthropological darkmatter warming
That's just wrong - but, funny... :-)

Jan 04, 2019
A research topic in magnetism

Is Magnetism simply low frequency EM Waves, photons?
we will soon find out
as nobody has even hinted at to what magnetism and magnetic fields are
what they consist of in this physical world
and how they transmit their force


Is a "carrier" wave for higher EM frequencies?


Why would higher frequency EM Waves need to ride on lower frequency waves? Each frequency stands alone with regard to the attributes of of their place in the EM Energy Spectrum.

you wouldn't believe how many have the higher wavelengths on the left
...so I took a stroll & Wiki has the reverse of NASA. All my college textbooks have longer wavelengths at the left, without exception. So I went & spot checked a couple more on the internet, same thing. one left & one right, stupid internet junkies piddling around with data for which they have no comprehension. You think this is bad, you should see them trying to explain half life during Beta Particle Decay.

Jan 04, 2019
Understanding magnetism and the magnetic field is fundamental to all learning. If you don't understand this then you are lost in the dark.


Magnetism is simply low frequency EM Waves, photons.


That's actually kind of an interesting conjecture.
Do you have a frequency in mind?
.......no it isn't conjecture, Electrical engineers study this in Electricity & Magnetism class. Read what I wrote just above about the EM Spectrum.

Sorry, that is a bunch of bunk. Magnetism is not LF. LF contains an oscillating magnetic field, but its not "Magnetism". EE's do not study such things. There is no observation, or experiment you can point to that shows that magnetism is LF.

You can run a current (AC or DC) through a wire, and you can produce a magnetic field and an electric field, but the magnetic field is not the current.

Jan 04, 2019
Sorry, that is a bunch of bunk. Magnetism is not LF.
....what is LF?

EE's do not study such things.
......for a whole semester I was sitting in the wrong classroom when I took Electricity & Magnetism?

but the magnetic field is not the current.
.....makes no sense. What's that got to do with the EM Spectrum?

I get the impression you may not think the magnetic field that exists between dipoles of a magnet is not composed of electro-magnetic wave energy?

Jan 05, 2019
Sorry, that is a bunch of bunk. Magnetism is not LF.
....what is LF?


From your own quote, in case you missed it: LF is "low frequency EM Waves"
EE's do not study such things.
.....for a whole semester I was sitting in the wrong classroom when I took Electricity & Magnetism?
Apparently so.
but the magnetic field is not the current.
....makes no sense. What's that got to do with the EM Spectrum?

Look up EM spectrum. "Spectrum" is a long list of frequencies. EM fields can oscillate in any of those listed frequencies. Comparing magnetic field to spectrum is like comparing the tail of a coin to the coin itself. E and M fields are two properties of a single entity.
I get the impression you may not think the magnetic field that exists between dipoles of a magnet is not composed of electro-magnetic wave energy?

The M field between dipoles is composed of EMF. Nothing I've said contradicts this.

Jan 05, 2019
Magnetism is the ether manifesting as a polarized spatial field. The ether(dialectric) does not exist in space but in counter-space. Magnetism and the dialectric are conjugates. Over-saturation of the dialectric and a loss of inertia occurs and a magnetic field is the result. Electricity is the product of magnetism and dialectricity.

Jan 05, 2019
Understanding magnetism and the magnetic field is fundamental to all learning. If you don't understand this then you are lost in the dark.


Magnetism is simply low frequency EM Waves, photons.

I think I might understand your confusion.

One is an effect the other is its cause, they are not both the same thing. At the simplest example: a moving electric field is the cause for a magnetic field. The magnetic field is the effect of a moving electric field (or, relative to motion ... but that is the next thing to understand).

That is, the magnetic field is not a slow oscillating "em" wave, but rather it is the effect of a moving electric field. ... Also, the magnetic field is one property of the EM wave, the electric field is another property that is orthogonal to the magnetic field.

Jan 05, 2019
what is LF?

From your own quote, in case you missed it: LF is "low frequency EM Waves"


Wrrong, nowhere did I use "LF", I was just trying to get YOU to clarify what YOUR "LF" quote was, there's no way for me to know what your undefined abbreviations are referring to.

I get the impression you may not think the magnetic field that exists between dipoles of a magnet is not composed of electro-magnetic wave energy?
The M field between dipoles is composed of EMF. Nothing I've said contradicts this.
.......so we're in agreement that the magnetic field that exists between magnetic dipoles is electro-magnetic energy? Yes or No? My first instincts tells me YOU want to say No.

That is, the magnetic field is not a slow oscillating "em" wave
......then you are saying "No", that the field between dipoles is not EM Energy?

Jan 05, 2019
".......so we're in agreement that the magnetic field that exists between magnetic dipoles is electro-magnetic energy? Yes or No? My first instincts tells me YOU want to say No.

That is, the magnetic field is not a slow oscillating "em" wave

......then you are saying "No", that the field between dipoles is not EM Energy?"

Field between dipoles? Not sure that makes sense. Can you define a field in and of itself? A magnetic field is a pressure mediation , a loss of inertia. It is the polarized, spatial manifestation of the dialecric field. Transverse electromagnetism is a product of the dialectric and magnetic. The magnetic field is absolutely not EM energy.


Jan 05, 2019
The magnetic field is absolutely not EM energy.


If I drop iron filings on a sheet of paper under which there is a horseshoe magnet, and then watch as WORK is done by the magnetic field emanating from the magnet aligning those filings into a perfect pattern, where then is the energy to do the WORK coming from?

Without ENERGY applied to mass, movement cannot happen. Energy starts with transformation of mass to energy. The range of the frequency of that energy is what we see on the EM Energy Spectrum.

How about if you make a suggestion as to what range of frequency on the EM Energy Spectrum is doing the WORK between the dipoles of the magnet moving the iron filings on the sheet of paper? Would you suggest x-ray? Ultra-violet? Radio? Visible light? Other. if so what?


Jan 05, 2019
what is LF?

From your own quote, in case you missed it: LF is "low frequency EM Waves"


Wrrong, nowhere did I use "LF", I was just trying to get YOU to clarify what YOUR "LF" quote was, there's no way for me to know what your undefined abbreviations are referring to.


Your just playing with semantics here. LF is simply a an abbreviation for low frequency. Its not that complicated.

Jan 05, 2019

I get the impression you may not think the magnetic field that exists between dipoles of a magnet is not composed of electro-magnetic wave energy?
The M field between dipoles is composed of EMF. Nothing I've said contradicts this.
.......so we're in agreement that the magnetic field that exists between magnetic dipoles is electro-magnetic energy? Yes or No? My first instincts tells me YOU want to say No.

That is not the confusion you are having.

From your above confused quote:

Magnetism is simply low frequency EM Waves, photons.


This simply is not the way it is. You can say it all you want, but nature is not configured this way.


Jan 05, 2019


That is, the magnetic field is not a slow oscillating "em" wave
......then you are saying "No", that the field between dipoles is not EM Energy?

Now you are confusing 4 different things:

"Magnetic field"
"slow oscillating em wave" (LF)
"field between dipoles" (permanent magnetism)
"EM energy"

They are related, but maybe not how you describe.

Maybe at this point a basic intro to EM theory is in order. There are plenty of books on the subject.

Jan 05, 2019
@Benni.
No worries mate, you probably do know what you are saying, and maybe I didn't "read between the lines". Its just that sometimes language allows us to say things that don't mean anything in physics.

For example, I can say "Mars is red". Which sounds right, but what I mean is that "Mars is colored red", and not that Mars is the same as the color red.

So when you say:

Magnetism is simply low frequency EM Waves, photons.


It is incorrect. Instead a better way to put it would be:

Magnetism is simply produced by low frequency E Waves.


This would be correct. (but it still not quite complete since you can also produce magnetism by high frequency E waves as well)

... and its not produced by EM waves.


Jan 05, 2019
So when you say:

Magnetism is simply low frequency EM Waves, photons.


It is incorrect.
......No, it is correct.

Instead a better way to put it would be:

Magnetism is simply produced by low frequency E Waves.
.......No, that's making a suggestion that low frequency EM waves are a sort of CATALYST which can lead to production of magnetism if other unspecified conditions are satisfied. What I'm telling you is that extremely low frequency EM Energy IS magnetism.

This would be correct. (but it still not quite complete since you can also produce magnetism by high frequency E waves as well)... and its not produced by EM waves.
........then tell us about it, I'd be curious how high frequency (?) EM Waves "produce" magnetism. I'll bet your gonna tell us this occurs after this high frequency EM Energy first interacts with something else on the way to create magnetism & it's not the wave itself that is magnetic, right?

dmm
Jan 05, 2019
@theredpill:

"
Tell me "actual physicist"...what is the mechanism...?


You said: "...matter is heated by energy absorption. The energy is in the from [sic] of EM radiation". Yes, matter IS heated by energy absorption. NO, that energy doesn't HAVE to be radiation! It can be kinetic energy (KE), i.e., a collision with another particle. When a fast moving particle hits a slower one, KE is transferred. If that KE were to be correlated among a large ensemble (on the order of Avogadro's #), we'd call it "mechanical energy". But when it's in a gas, with no correlation among the particle movements (i.e., random "Brownian motion"), we refer to that KE as "thermal energy"; i.e., HEAT. This can happen even between neutrons interacting via the strong nuclear force, with no E or M component at all. But even if we limit our discussion to simple gas molecules, a collision mediated through electronic repulsion is STILL not the "EM radiation" you insist on.

dmm
Jan 05, 2019
@RealityCheck
Careful. Gravity may be the motive force, sure, but Friction between the particles/bodies' associated/attached Electro-magnetic features/fields is the effective factor for 'heating' matter that rubs/collides. Motion per se is not enough to heat/cool a particle; eg, a free-moving proton in space cannot 'shed' kinetic energy by RADIATING away 'heat' until it interacts with another particle to cause it to lose kinetic energy as em-radiation.


I'm sorry, but 2 particles transferring kinetic energy between them via collision, i.e., an interaction between their electric fields, is NOT "EM Radiation" as our Mr. Pill keeps insisting. And in the case of neutrons, neither E nor M is needed; it can be the strong nuclear force. Finally, even if we DO limit our discussion to EM radiation, the poor Mr. Pill keeps insisting it has to be infrared radiation of all things, just because he's learned that IR is associated with heating many earthly substances. Utterly clueless.

dmm
Jan 05, 2019
@RealityCheck
Again, careful. We are now finding vast expanses/amounts of ORDINARY matter (gas, plasma, dust, pebbles, low-brightness planets, failed stars, even up to low-surface brightness galaxies/clusters). So now, GR applied properly in non-Keplerian situations/distributions, may explain it without any 'exotic' DM needed.


Fair enough, I'm not in that field (I was in condensed matter experimental), and I don't follow the literature religiously; but I AM quoting a *current* article (within the last couple of months) when I say several groups have pointed out that anomalous lensing seems to support the dark matter model. It's not like I'm a DM proponent or anything, but there's a lot of water under the bridge already. Disproving that theory would be a very long, involved process if it happens... from what I've read, I'm extremely doubtful it will. My money's on DM.

dmm
Jan 05, 2019
@Benni
How pathetically stupid does stupid get mister "actual physicist"?

Heat is THERMAL ENERGY.


I think you're confused, Benni... that's precisely what I said. Couldn't agree with you more! But your next statement:

In outer space, where conduction of thermal energy between particles is not possible, ELECTRO-MAGNETIC INFRARED RADIATION is the carrier that moves HEAT between bodies of mass.


No. First of all, you and The Pill keep harping on "infrared". Just "EM radiation" is sufficient. IR is a particular range of EM that we associate with the absorption/emission frequencies of many earthly substances, but virtually ALL EM will cause heating. Optical frequency light, for example, heats any colored object.

But thermal energy is ALSO transferred by collisions, and those happen everywhere... even in outer space, Benni! A mass of fast particles can transfer its energy even gravitationally to a mass of slow particles, which can then experience tidal heating.

Jan 05, 2019
It's not like I'm a DM proponent or anything, but there's a lot of water under the bridge
......I think you meant to say "DM under the bridge" I keep looking upriver from the bridge & am still waiting for the flood you say has already gone under the bridge, I'm looking for just the first particle to pass under the bridge, much less the flood.

So where do you see the floods of this stuff that has passed under the bridge? Wait, it just dawned on me you think the water that has passed under the bridge is the quantity of broohaha rhetoric championing the cause?

dmm
Jan 05, 2019
@theredpill:

Yeah...most "actual physicists" confuse heat and temperature....I nearly pissed myself laughing at that sign off...and he's wrong about actual physicists being "not that rare" being as in todays world, a physics degree makes a person a physicist about as much as a drivers license makes a person a pilot.....


I wish you better luck with your bladder. But I don't just have "a physics degree". A PhD from an elite UK uni, assistantship at another, postdoc at a US uni & I worked as a physicist for the MOD. Now on Wall St. But frankly, none of this is esoteric, Junior, & you got it wrong. I suggest you stop browbeating & insulting everyone & spend a little time on Wikipedia reading about "Heat" & "Tidal heating". Your ideas concerning the definition & origin of heat are incorrect. While radiation is certainly a source of heat, not only doesn't it have to be IR, it doesn't have to be EM; it can be a weak or strong nuclear field. OR, simply particle collisions!

Jan 05, 2019
But thermal energy is ALSO transferred by collisions,


I have not even brought up how Kinetic Energy collisions "transfer" heat, because I haven't been discussing that in ANY of my Comments. I'll say it again & let's just see if you can read it straight: Infrared EM is the CARRIER, just whack INFRARED out of the EM Energy Spectrum & the UNIVERSE will be absolute zero.

dmm
Jan 05, 2019
@Benni
Magnetism is simply low frequency EM Waves, photons.


Egad. Benni, not only is this incorrect, it's utter nonsense. Or as Pauli was wont to say, "it's not even wrong". (Although it is.)

Magnetism has no frequency per se, it is not a wave (though you can have a magnetic component of a wave), and it is absolutely not "photons". (An EM wave is the combination of an electric and a magnetic wave, which actually generate each other, and in that way propagate the wave.)

Magnetism is in fact a manifestation, an artifact, of an electric field viewed relativistically from a moving frame of reference.

Again, I can only implore you and your pal Mr. Pill to start reading some articles, if only to skim them, on Wikipedia. (And I have some doubt that you have the nuclear engineering background that you say you do, but whatever, I guess anything's possible.)

dmm
Jan 05, 2019
But thermal energy is ALSO transferred by collisions,


I have not even brought up how Kinetic Energy collisions "transfer" heat, because I haven't been discussing that in ANY of my Comments. I'll say it again & let's just see if you can read it straight: Infrared EM is the CARRIER, just whack INFRARED out of the EM Energy Spectrum & the UNIVERSE will be absolute zero.


You and Mr. Pill are stuck on infrared. That is incorrect. Infrared is a very narrow portion of the EM spectrum, and is NOT the only mediator of heat. We tend to associate IR with heat in our discussions because the great majority of earthly substances absorb in the IR... and therefore grow hot. But ALL radiation transfers energy that may be absorbed and become heat. PLEASE do some reading!

Jan 05, 2019

Instead a better way to put it would be:

Magnetism is simply produced by low frequency E Waves.
.......No, that's making a suggestion that low frequency EM waves are a sort of CATALYST which can lead to production of magnetism if other unspecified conditions are satisfied. What I'm telling you is that extremely low frequency EM Energy IS magnetism.


What you mention is very confused, and a quite a bit backwards. and you're still mixing things ...

Anyways, take a closer look at Maxwell's equations. They encompass the basic mechanisms of EM theory, which were derived after many experiments by Faraday and others. That is, it lists what is observed for E fields and B fields. Start with the simplest version, where there is no current. Even with those they will tell you that the B field is produced by a time varying E field, and an E field is produced by a time varying B field. An "EM" wave is a different beast, a bit more complicated for this example.

Jan 05, 2019
@dmm.
...interaction between their electric fields, is NOT "EM...
I get what you're saying, dmm; but consider:

- VISIBLE light is transmitted through transparent substances by repeated absorption-re-emission by/from atoms until 'last re-emissions' at/from 'surface layers' are measured to ascertain average ENERGY being 'shuffled' between particles and finally to ambient space;

- KINETIC form of energy possessed by any particle/body may eventually be emitted/lost as E-M-radiation wavelengths (photons);

- CERTAIN wavelengths of EM-radiation may induce CHEMICAL Reactions and/or IONIZATION in irradiated materials RATHER THAN 'heat them up';

- HENCE why IR (and some) Microwave EM) frequencies are treated as THE indicative/transmissive FORM/VECTOR of 'heat' QUANTA, irrespective of what KINETIC ENERGY remains to emitter/receiver particle/body.

It's a matter of distinguishing between KInetic Energy and
Heat Energy forms: former is Mechanical, latter is Electro-Magnetic. :)

Jan 05, 2019
@dmm
@Benni
Magnetism is simply low frequency EM Waves, photons.


Egad. Benni, not only is this incorrect, it's utter nonsense. Or as Pauli was wont to say, "it's not even wrong". (Although it is.)

Magnetism has no frequency per se, it is not a wave (though you can have a magnetic component of a wave), and it is absolutely not "photons". (An EM wave is the combination of an electric and a magnetic wave, which actually generate each other, and in that way propagate the wave.)

Oh, dmm, how, oh how, can we explain to them that these basic concepts have been relatively well hashed out for more than a century? (pun intended :P )

I can understand how there may be disputes with what is the nature of dark matter, or dark energy, the A potential, or energy matter interactions, and so on.... But the basics of EM theory are well known.

Jan 05, 2019
So when you say:
Magnetism is simply low frequency EM Waves, photons.

It is incorrect.
......No, it is correct.
Instead a better way to put it would be:
Magnetism is simply produced by low frequency E Waves.
.......No, that's making a suggestion that low frequency EM waves are a sort of CATALYST which can lead to production of magnetism if other unspecified conditions are satisfied. What I'm telling you is that extremely low frequency EM Energy IS magnetism.

You're starting to get it here, with the "catalyst" comment, except its not the "EM" wave that produces magnetic fields, its an E wave that produces the magnetic fields.

An EM wave already contains an oscillating magnetic field (and an oscillating electric field), it is light, it can also be, at different frequencies: radio waves, microwaves, infrared light, UV light, x-rays, etc. ... Your statements says: "low freq light is magnetic fields" ... Which is nonsensical.


Jan 05, 2019
@dmm.
Fair enough, I'm not in that field ... Disproving that theory would be a very long,..... from what I've read, I'm extremely doubtful it will. My money's on DM.
I have been researching ALL scientific/logics/maths fields, including cosmology generally and BB/Inflation/'exotic'DM etc hypotheses/claims especially; insofar as they have been 'interpreting' observed lensing, CMB, Redshift etc data, but have no (actual tenable) 'supporting evidence' basis for said interpretations/claims other than their own self-selected inferences and BB-biased interpretations/claims. Interpretations/Claims which I have been pointing out can be explained by properly applying GR to all the PREVIOUSLY KNOWN ORDINARY matter PLUS the NEWLY DETECTED (and much more to come with even better scopes/instruments) ORDINARY matter WAS PREVIOUSLY 'dark' but now being FOUND in PROFUSION all over the place...and it's ORDINARY matter.

My point: DM IS being found; BUT NOT 'exotic' as claimed. :)

Jan 06, 2019
TrollianRealityCheck on darkmatter

In
trying
to decipher your textural scribings
I have taken gods given gift
of ridding this punctuating
to see clearly through this fog
this textural fog of war
so now
as
RealityCheck

< Quote:- Dmm, I'm not in that field disproving that theory would be a very long winded my money's on DM
I have been researching all scientific fields including cosmology generally BB DM insofar as they have been observed lensing CMB redshift but have no actual tenable supporting for the claims other than their own self selected inferences biased interpretations have been pointing out can be explained by properly applying GR to all the previously known ordinary matter
Ordinary matter was previously DM now being found in profusion all over the place as its ordinary matter.
My point is DM is being found not exotic as claimed >

RealityCheck, all that I have ascertained
Is that which was always known
Darkmatter does not exist

Jan 06, 2019
TrollianRealityCheck on darkmatter

RealityCheck
when your textural scribing
are transcribed
as the fog of confusion
is lifted
as the fog disperses
as we see the textural words clearly
your textural arrangement
in truth
becomes clear
and in that truth
your fog of punctuation becomes clear
as by your punctuation of confusion
to hide further confusion
because
RealityCheck
when the punctuation fog is lifted
your actual textural scribing
are texturally scribed in confusing form
of
disjointed words
disjointed sentences
so
although
grammatically and politely scribed
their real purpose
is
deliberately to texturally confuse
so that you can sit
on both sides of the fence
as you support darkmatter
while denouncing it
as
The bunkum it is

Jan 06, 2019
Again, I can only implore you and your pal Mr. Pill to start reading some articles


"Read some articles"? Hell's bells man, I took the course as part of my major during the six years I spent in Engineering School getting my degrees in Nuclear & Electrical Engineering. What did you major in? Biology or some such mathless curriculum that you think qualifies you as being some kind of a Scientist to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about?

I'm sorry, but 2 particles transferring kinetic energy between them via collision, i.e., an interaction between their electric fields, is NOT "EM Radiation"
.....then what do you imagine will happen if INFRARED wavelength is suddenly eliminated from the EM Energy Spectrum? I guess you think forces of friction via KINETIC ENERGY will allow the Universe to just continue on it's merry way despite the fact the temperature of the Universe has fallen to ABSOLUTE ZERO?

> dmm moniker.......stands for what?


Jan 06, 2019
>dmm
NO, that energy doesn't HAVE to be radiation! It can be kinetic energy (KE),


Your biggest problem is differentiating the difference between E=mc² and KE=1/2mv²

E=mc² is the basis of the derivation of the EM Energy Spectrum. You have zero comprehension of the fact that if there were no INFRARED wavelength of the EM Energy Spectrum that WORK (kinetic energy) is NEVER accomplished.

Your abysmal characterization of trying to tell this Engineer that kinetic energy exists apart from the infrared portion of the EM Energy Spectrum is just as downright laughable as others who come here trying to tell Benni that infinite gravity can exist at the surface of a finite body of mass.

You come here imploring myself & others to go read some articles in Wiki, which in turn makes me suggest YOU should take a couple of Thermodynamics courses & learn what ENERGY is all about, and please, don't let the math be an impediment, anybody can learn Differential Equations, right?

Jan 06, 2019
Virtual particles in magnetic fields

A virtual particle
a transient fluctuation
that exhibits
some of
the characteristics
of
ordinary particles
while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle
A research topic in magnetism
Is Magnetism simply low frequency EM Waves, photons

Virtual particles
do not necessarily
carry the same mass
as their corresponding real particle
although they always conserve energy and momentum
the longer the virtual particle exists
the closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles
in short
a virtual particle
materialises
out of the fluctuations
virtually
that if it exist substantially
in this femto world
as in femto seconds
in this uncertainty and quantum theory
that as these femto seconds elapse
like
Tommy Steele
in
Finian's Rainbow
lose their virtual magic
lose their powers
becoming
real, live human photons
just as Tommy Steele became human
Losing his Leprechaun powers

Jan 06, 2019
Even with those they will tell you that the B field is produced by a time varying E field


No kidding, exactly what I been telling you, & the time varying oscillations occur at the extremely low frequency end of the EM Energy Spectrum associated with magnetic fields.

and an E field is produced by a time varying B field. An "EM" wave is a different beast, a bit more complicated for this example.


No, an EM wave is NOT a different beast, it's just that you're the one going off on a tangent with animalistic instinct. All you are doing is trying to redifine ENERGY. It is beyond your comprehension that the qualities of the frequency of the EM Spectrum that generates a green color to you eyeballs cannot be duplicated ANYWHERE else in the EM Energy Spectrum, just like the qualities of infrared also cannot be duplicated anywhere else on the EM Spectrum.

You have the same problem dmm has, you don't understand that that every EM wavelength is a unique carrier.


Jan 06, 2019
But the basics of EM theory are well known.
.....so what then has been your problem with comprehending E=mc² versus KE=1/2mv²?

its not the "EM" wave that produces magnetic fields, its an E wave that produces the magnetic fields.


Then explain how stripping the MAGNETIC portion to create half an EM Wave can produce work between the dipoles of a magnet that causes iron filings to align themselves in perfect order within a dipole field causing WORK to be accomplished?

By what stretch of your diminutive imagination can you explain WORK being accomplished via half an EM Energy Wave? You don't know how to do it, so you instead come on with a constant stream of psycho-babble & start talking about things that don't exist on the EM Energy Spectrum & VOILA, you have for yourself a completely reconfigured world of energy in which Perpetual Motion rules the cosmos.

Jan 06, 2019
An EM wave already contains an oscillating magnetic field (and an oscillating electric field)
....so far you're doing OK.

it is light, it can also be, at different frequencies: radio waves, microwaves, infrared light, UV light, x-rays, etc
......still OK

Your statements says: "low freq light is magnetic fields" ... Which is nonsensical.
.....then you screw it all up because you have never studied ANYTHING about EM Energy below the wavelengths of Radio Waves.

I'd just be willing to bet you think the lowest energy end of the EM Energy Spectrum begins at Radio Wavelengths don't you? It has never crossed you mind for an instant what unique features EM Energy has at wavelengths longer the Radio ?

The wavelength that produces green light is a carrier for ONLY that feature & never anything else, it possesses no other innate qualities other than to produce green light, same with infrared, or ANY wavelength.


Jan 06, 2019
.
I'd just be willing to bet you think the lowest energy end of the EM Energy Spectrum begins at Radio Wavelengths don't you? It has never crossed you mind for an instant what unique features EM Energy has at wavelengths longer the Radio ?

...


"EM energy". So "green light" that contains an oscillating magnetic field is producing a magnetic field.

So, what you mean is a magnetic field is what produces a magnetic field.

Ok, that's great.

Jan 06, 2019
@granville583762.
...as you support darkmatter
while denouncing it ...
Mate, you missed the important distinction I explicitly pointed out in my posts: ie, ORDINARY DM and EXOTIC DM are NOT the same things! :)

Perhaps it'll help if I explain...

When Zwicky first proposed 'dark' matter, it was ORDINARY matter that was not visible to inadequate scopes/instruments of the time.

Later on, cosmology-mathematical-theorists CHANGED that 'ordinary' DM hypothesis....to EXOTIC DM hypothesis. That is, since they still could not explain the motions/lensings observed (because additional 'normal' matter remained undectected), they INVENTED 'EXOTIC" DM that wasn't supposed to be Electro-Magnetically interactive, and hence NOT emit/reflect EM radiation (hence 'exotic' DM).

That was OBVIOUSLY a BLUNDER; as NOW they ARE finding MUCH MORE 'ordinary' visible matter all over!...and it WASN'T 'exotic' DM at all.

Hence:
My point: DM IS being found; BUT NOT 'exotic' as claimed. :)

Jan 06, 2019


"EM energy". So "green light" that contains an oscillating magnetic field is producing a magnetic field.

So, what you mean is a magnetic field is what produces a magnetic field.

Ok, that's great.
.....all you're doing is becoming shrill.....knock it off.

Jan 06, 2019

.....all you're doing is becoming shrill.....knock it off.

.....then you screw it all up because you have never studied ANYTHING about EM Energy below the wavelengths of Radio Waves.

Who is becoming shrill?

ok, maybe we are just talking past each other. I can try and put as simply as I can:

We have a single charge, say an electron, all by itself in a vacuum with us. Around it is an electric field we can detect and map out with a tinier test charge that we place around it. As long as we don't move, and the charge doesn't move there is no detectable magnetic field.

Now, someone else with their charge, maybe a positron, is moving past us. Their positron also generates an electric field, but with opposite sign. They will sense a magnetic field from our charge's electric field. And we will sense a magnetic field by their moving electric field moving past us.

Where is the "EM wave" generating the magnetic field in my little example?

Jan 06, 2019
Mate, you missed the important distinction I explicitly pointed out in my posts: ie, ORDINARY DM and EXOTIC DM are NOT the same things! :)

Perhaps it'll help if I explain...

When Zwicky first proposed 'dark' matter, it was ORDINARY matter that was not visible to inadequate scopes/instruments of the time.
says RealityCheck to granville

How was it possible that ORDINARY MATTER was not visible (with or without scopes/instruments) of the time? Ordinary Matter is readily apparent everywhere that Mass exists. Organic and inorganic life forms, as well as rocks, planets, Stars, particles are all ordinary Matter, which is highly visible.
RC, are you sure that you meant to say "ordinary Matter" rather than ordinary Dark Matter?
There is no such thing as Dark Matter. Ordinary Matter has the ability to spread out so thinly that it may not be detected by telescopes and other instruments. In that form, it could be in Space, floating about and unseen and undetectable.


Jan 06, 2019
And the titch of brolls takes over another thread.

Jan 06, 2019
-contd-
@RC
That was OBVIOUSLY a BLUNDER; as NOW they ARE finding MUCH MORE 'ordinary' visible matter all over!...and it WASN'T 'exotic' DM at all.

Hence:
My point: DM IS being found; BUT NOT 'exotic' as claimed. :)
says RealityCheck

If Dark Matter is being found, as you say, what does it physically consist of to give it a "Dark" quality, and how was it created/made and from what was it created/made? Is there an alternate Quantum Universe from which alternate quantum particles are busily creating/making Dark Matter?
I would go with my original perception that ordinary Matter is easily stretched/spread out in the absence of Gravity - so thinly as not to be visible/detectable even with instruments - but there is still weight to it, and it reacts in the presence of Gravity and Energy Fields.
Such a concept of alleged "Dark Matter" that cannot be seen is equivalent to "ghosties and things that go bump in the night". Pure unadulterated stoopidstitious WOO.


Jan 06, 2019
And the titch of brolls takes over another thread.
says Da Pussyman

Come to toot your horn, Tardo? Well, go right ahead and take over this whole thread. Nobody here is gonna stop you.
LMAO

Jan 06, 2019

Who is becoming shrill?

ok, maybe we are just talking past each other. I can try and put as simply as I can:

We have a single charge, say an electron, all by itself in a vacuum with us. Around it is an electric field we can detect and map out with a tinier test charge that we place around it. As long as we don't move, and the charge doesn't move there is no detectable magnetic field.

Now, someone else with their charge, maybe a positron, is moving past us. Their positron also generates an electric field, but with opposite sign. They will sense a magnetic field from our charge's electric field. And we will sense a magnetic field by their moving electric field moving past us.

Where is the "EM wave" generating the magnetic field in my little example?
.......around the moving charge.

Jan 06, 2019
If Dark Matter is being found, as you say, what does it physically consist of to give it a "Dark" quality, and how was it created/made and from what was it created/made?


He should be suggesting that the term "dark" be replaced by "missing", or better yet "previously unseen", and maybe that's what he really means.

Jan 06, 2019
Why would anyone pay attention to a titch of brolls who deny dark matter because of their religious beliefs on a thread about dark matter on a science site?

Jan 06, 2019

Where is the "EM wave" generating the magnetic field in my little example?
.......around the moving charge.

I've been trying to comment on your comment:
Magnetism is simply low frequency EM Waves, photons.

Take for example the properties of a coin, that has a head and a tail.

Your comment suggests that the "tail of a coin" is the coin.

Rather, I suggest that the "tail of a coin" is a property of the coin, and not the coin itself.

More specifically, the magnetic field is a property, one aspect, of the electromagnetic wave, and it is not the electromagnetic wave itself.


Jan 06, 2019
Magnetism is in fact a manifestation, an artifact, of an electric field viewed relativistically from a moving frame of reference.
This is correct. That's why it's called the EM field and not the E field.

Jan 07, 2019
TrollianRealityCheck
@granville583762 as you support darkmatter while denouncing it

RealityCheck> you missed the important distinction I explicitly pointed out in my posts ordinary DM and exotic DM are not the same things
Perhaps it'll help if I explain when Zwicky first proposed DM it was ordinary matter that was not visible to inadequate instruments of the time
Later on, cosmology theorists changed that ordinary DM to exotic DM hypothesis that since they still could not explain the motions of lensing observed because additional normal matter remained undetected they invented exotic DM that wasn't supposed to be EM interactive and hence not emit or reflect EM radiation hence exotic DM
That was obviously a blunder as now they are finding more ordinary visible matter all over and it wasn't exotic DM at all
Hence my point DM is being found but not exotic as claimed

Having cleared the fog of war
I am still interpreting

Jan 07, 2019
Interpreting RealityCheck

You missed the important distinction
I explicitly pointed out in my posts
ordinary DM and exotic DM are not the same things
Perhaps it'll help if I explain when Zwicky first proposed DM
it was ordinary matter
that was not visible
to inadequate instruments of the time
later on
cosmology theorists
changed
ordinary DM
to exotic DM hypothesis
that since
they still could not explain
the motions of lensing observed
because
additional normal matter
remained undetected
they invented
exotic DM
that wasn't supposed to be EM interactive
and hence
not emit or reflect EM radiation
hence exotic DM
that was obviously a blunder
as
now
they are finding
more ordinary visible matter
all over
and it wasn't exotic DM at all
hence my point
DM is being found but not exotic as claimed

Jan 07, 2019
TrollianRealityCheck

RealityCheck, without changing any of your text
in
Interpreting RealityCheck
by
removing all punctuation and capitals
and
by
the equivalent
of solving
both sides of an equation
your
meaning is becoming clearer
so
even though no textural change has taken place
by simple rearrangement
It is though it was not written by RealityCheck's hand
but
as sure as eggs are eggs
this is purely
RealityCheck's Hand

Jan 07, 2019
This is correct. That's why it's called the EM field and not the E field.


Wrong. Also, heat is infrared waves only, and only IR waves can do work.... As said by Benni, who, after having overheard portions of lectures whilst doing janitorial work, knows more than everyone else.

Also, you'll note that in one of his comments on Jan 6th, he refers to himself in the third person. This is either some weird ego thing, or more likely, he forgot he was logged onto his Benni account and thought he was posting from one of his other accounts. I did speculate, quite jokingly, that some of the other weirdos on this website might just be other accounts Benni uses, and now I'm starting to think I was correct.

Jan 07, 2019
He does this when he mixes in too many socks, ala..
@Benni.

It would be more correct to say that once 'cumulative' gravitational-mass effects are sufficient to 'contain' the energetic/hot plasma then the fusion can occur AS IF it was 'contained' by a 'spherical cylinder' gravitational-feature of stellar-mass proportions/strength.

Note well: the containment in our fusion experiments is by MAGNETIC FIELD PATTERN containment; but only briefly!....until the plasma spontaneously 'destabilizes' and mag-containment is breached.

Also note well: the PLASMOID phenomenon is also a temporary electro-magnetic 'containment process' which can occur in any turbulent/flowing plasma system, be it in/on the sun or in/around energetic 'disc-and-polar-jet' systems.

Cheers. :)

OK....... Benni

https://phys.org/...ics.html

Jan 07, 2019
More specifically, the magnetic field is a property, one aspect, of the electromagnetic wave, and it is not the electromagnetic wave itself.


WORK is done when iron filings align themselves along the lines of a magnetic field when you place a magnet beneath a sheet of paper, right? That takes ENERGY & without the ENTIRETY of the Electro-Magnetic Energy Wave there is no energy available to move ANYTHING.

Your problem REMAINS in that you fail to comprehend the Electro-Magnetic Energy Spectrum is just THAT. You somehow imagine it can be changed to the Electro Energy Spectrum or to the Magnetic Energy Spectrum. You imagine you can do this and accomplish WORK.

I will explain to you as succinctly as it is possible to explain why WORK cannot be done outside the presence of an Electro-Magnetic Energy field, it is an IMMUTABLE LAW of PHYSICS that can't be FALSIFIED.



Jan 07, 2019
@MrBojangles

that some of the other weirdos on this website might just be other accounts Benni uses, and now I'm starting to think I was correct

You are correct sir.

Jan 07, 2019
More specifically, the magnetic field is a property, one aspect, of the electromagnetic wave, and it is not the electromagnetic wave itself.


WORK is done when iron filings align themselves along the lines of a magnetic field when you place a magnet beneath a sheet of paper, right? That takes ENERGY & without the ENTIRETY of the Electro-Magnetic Energy Wave there is no energy available to move ANYTHING.


So, we are back to an EM field is generated by an EM field.

Jan 07, 2019
Also, you'll note that in one of his comments on Jan 6th, he refers to himself in the third person. This is either some weird ego thing, or more likely, he forgot he was logged onto his Benni account and thought he was posting from one of his other accounts. I did speculate, quite jokingly, that some of the other weirdos on this website might just be other accounts Benni uses, and now I'm starting to think I was correct.


@MrBojangles that some of the other weirdos on this website might just be other accounts Benni uses, and now I'm starting to think I was correct


He does this when he mixes in too many socks, ala..


Why would anyone pay attention to a titch of brolls who deny dark matter because of their religious beliefs on a thread about dark matter on a science site


...........if you guys are such geniuses, then rather than spend time attacking me on a personal level, how about if YOU get about & FALSIFY what I write?

Jan 07, 2019
This is correct. That's why it's called the EM field and not the E field.


Wrong.
I am assuming you are being sarcastic; if not, you should seriously study the relativistic correction to the E field of Maxwell's equations and what effect it has. What you'll find is the magnetic field.

Jan 07, 2019
WORK is done when iron filings align themselves along the lines of a magnetic field when you place a magnet beneath a sheet of paper, right? That takes ENERGY & without the ENTIRETY of the Electro-Magnetic Energy Wave there is no energy available to move ANYTHING.


So, we are back to an EM field is generated by an EM field.
........other than Electro-Magnetic Energy, there is no alternative for making things move. Just imagine what could happen if all infrared in the universe were suddenly stripped the way you suggest......yep, absolute zero in a hell of a big hurry.

Jan 07, 2019
WORK is done when iron filings align themselves along the lines of a magnetic field when you place a magnet beneath a sheet of paper, right? That takes ENERGY & without the ENTIRETY of the Electro-Magnetic Energy Wave there is no energy available to move ANYTHING.


So, we are back to an EM field is generated by an EM field.
........other than Electro-Magnetic Energy, there is no alternative for making things move. Just imagine what could happen if all infrared in the universe were suddenly stripped the way you suggest......yep, absolute zero in a hell of a big hurry.

I'm interested the theory your are describing. So, is there a book or article that describes how an EM field generates an EM field? Please post a link.

Jan 07, 2019
.other than Electro-Magnetic Energy, there is no alternative for making things move.


I'm interested the theory your are describing. So, is there a book or article that describes how an EM field generates an EM field? Please post a link.
.......OK:

"The electromagnetic interaction is mediated by the constant exchange of photons from one charged object to another. The magnetic field is really just a classical approximation to the photon-exchange picture. In a moving reference frame, a magnetic field appears instead as a combination of a magnetic field and an electric field, so electric and magnetic fields are made of the same "stuff" (photons)."

https://van.physi...p?id=414

I simply typed into Google: "what are magnetic lines of force made of"

Jan 08, 2019
WORK is done when iron filings align themselves along the lines of a magnetic field when you place a magnet beneath a sheet of paper, right? That takes ENERGY & without the ENTIRETY of the Electro-Magnetic Energy Wave there is no energy available to move ANYTHING.


So, we are back to an EM field is generated by an EM field.
........other than Electro-Magnetic Energy, there is no alternative for making things move. Just imagine what could happen if all infrared in the universe were suddenly stripped the way you suggest......yep, absolute zero in a hell of a big hurry.

So... without infra red there is no photon exchange in the EM Spectrum?

Jan 08, 2019
So... without infra red there is no photon exchange in the EM Spectrum?


I ONLY brought up IR as an example of what happens if one or the other fields of the EM wave were stripped from the wave. Do the same to the green frequency & the color green will cease to exist everywhere in the universe simply because the ELECTRO component of the wave cannot stand alone without the MAGNETIC component and vice versa.

As I stated earlier, I learned this stuff in Electricity & Magnetism class my sophomore year in Engineering school. I guess it must be a bigger open secret than I ever imagined, but then why am I not surprised when it appears that there are also so many who believe infinite gravity can exist at the surface of a finite body of stellar mass.

Jan 08, 2019
Where do you see the photons in space? If the photons are light, why is the universe dark?
Why is it out of the atmosphere of the Earth, the Sun ... the complete darkness?

"The sun light must have obviously been changing its nature on its way from the Sun to our planet. It is visible on Sun and on Earth, but not between these two objects. There is no visible light immediately outside the atmosphere."

Jan 08, 2019
Where do you see the photons in space? If the photons are light, why is the universe dark?
Why is it out of the atmosphere of the Earth, the Sun ... the complete darkness?


If you were to float at some distance between the Earth and the Sun, and you were to look at the Sun, you would definitely see light. Why isn't the space around illuminated? Because there are no air or other particles to absorb and re-emit the photons (at least not in sufficient quantity to be detected by our eyes.) Light travels in a more or less straight line from point to point in space, this is the particle nature of the photon. Light on Earth is able to illuminate a surface not directly in line of sight with the Sun because air and other particles absorb and re-emit, and even scatter or reflect/deflect photons.

Jan 08, 2019
Where do you see the photons in space? If the photons are light, why is the universe dark?
Why is it out of the atmosphere of the Earth, the Sun ... the complete darkness?

"The sun light must have obviously been changing its nature on its way from the Sun to our planet. It is visible on Sun and on Earth, but not between these two objects. There is no visible light immediately outside the atmosphere."

Atmospheric Photon Exchange.

Jan 08, 2019
I ONLY brought up IR as an example of what happens if one or the other fields of the EM wave were stripped from the wave. Do the same to the green frequency & the color green will cease to exist everywhere in the universe simply because the ELECTRO component of the wave cannot stand alone without the MAGNETIC component and vice versa.

Infra red just generates a higher resonant matter activity due to photon exchange which results in higher temps.

I guess it must be a bigger open secret than I ever imagined, but then why am I not surprised when it appears that there are also so many who believe infinite gravity can exist at the surface of a finite body of stellar mass.

Nobody does. That's a unicorn created by science article writers who don't really understand it.

Jan 08, 2019
Light travels in a more or less straight line from point to point in space, this is the particle nature of the photon.
.........An Electro-Magnetic Wave does not have a "particle nature", ONLY MASS has a particle nature.

Think of a photon as a truncated EM Wave, or an ultra short wave but a "particle" it NEVER is. The "particle nature" of light is an 18 & 19th century concept, but it was late 18th century Maxwell who finally figured out light is a waveform and not a particleform.


Jan 08, 2019
why am I not surprised when it appears that there are also so many who believe infinite gravity can exist at the surface of a finite body of stellar mass.


Nobody does. That's a unicorn created by science article writers who don't really understand it.


What? "nobody does"? The few in this chatroom who don't are those who have been taking proper lessons in E=mc² versus KE=1/2mv².

As for YOU Whyguy, you are one who believes in the 19th Century TUGMath calculations for the creation of black holes based on the concept that light is made up of "particles" & not a true waveform, yeah, right along with schneibo & the dancer who posted right above you who also doesn't have a good grip on mass versus energy.


Jan 08, 2019
@wduckss.
Where do you see the photons in space? If the photons are light, why is the universe dark?
Why is it out of the atmosphere of the Earth, the Sun ... the complete darkness?

"The sun light must have obviously been changing its nature on its way from the Sun to our planet. It is visible on Sun and on Earth, but not between these two objects. There is no visible light immediately outside the atmosphere."
Actually, IF your eyes COULD 'see' the WHOLE E-M 'light' spectrum (ie, from Longest-Radio all the way up to shortest X-ray/Gamma-ray 'light'), then the Universe WOULD look VERY BRIGHT.

Also, 'light' from FAR AWAY sources is attenuated/absrbed/redshifted etc by much interaction with dust/plasma/gas/planets etc between 'there' and 'here', so NOT ALL energy emitted AS 'light' from 'there' will reach remote observers 'here'.

Also, only 'light reaching your eye/detector can be 'seen'; the rest goes past you to 'hit' other eyes/detectors/dust/planets etc.

Ok? :)

Jan 08, 2019
@MrBojangles, RealityCheck

Is it photon wizard? Photon shines on Sun, Earth .. but the photo does not shine between these bodies. Does the photo teleports on the Earth and other bodies?

Why do we talk about our eyes? Instruments register outside the atmosphere and surface of the body with no atmospheres complete darkness. Maybe somebody has the proof that the universe is not dark?

Jan 08, 2019
@Benni, @Whyde (and all interested).

In reality, all features propagate as 'waves' in the fundamental universal energy-space underlying everything that arises/evolves/moves/subsides from/within it.

Illustrative analogy: A 'vortex feature' in ocean water may be thought of as a coherent 'particle' for some higher-level interactive/analytical purposes, BUT, the WHOLE 'water molecules' pattern ALSO propagates along underlying PRE-EXISTING matrix of energy-space 'bits' via SERIAL (wavelike) rearrangement/re-orientation of said energy-space 'bits' (of which EVERYTHING is ultimately composed, and by which everything that moves is ultimately 'transmitted').

Think also of the 'images' (patterns) that 'move across' your computer screen; they are actually just 'serial' rearrangements/re-orientations of underlying 'pixel' screen-bits 'already there' along whatever 'path' the image 'moves' along.

So particle/wave identity/behavior depends on context/interaction being highlighted. :)

Jan 08, 2019
........An Electro-Magnetic Wave does not have a "particle nature", ONLY MASS has a particle nature.

Think of a photon as a truncated EM Wave, or an ultra short wave but a "particle" it NEVER is. The "particle nature" of light is an 18 & 19th century concept, but it was late 18th century Maxwell who finally figured out light is a waveform and not a particleform.


No, I will think of photons as having particle-wave duality. The standard model refers to it as a particle.

Einstein won the nobel prize for this
https://www.nobel...summary/
"light is not a wave propagating through space, but rather a collection of discrete wave packets"

https://cds.cern....79?ln=en
It's a zero-mass particle and you can clearly see the footprint left behind when recorded in this event at the LHC.

Jan 08, 2019
Quantum Mechanics: An Introduction
-Walter Greiner
P.29

https://books.goo...;f=false

Jan 08, 2019
Here are some photos of my University Physics book and the page that describes photons as both particles and waves:

https://ibb.co/fvvHqZz
https://ibb.co/C6WHRXd

Jan 08, 2019
@MrBojangles.
...I will think of photons as having particle-wave duality. The standard model refers to it as a particle.

Einstein won the nobel prize for this
https://www.nobel...summary/
"light is not a wave propagating through space, but rather a collection of discrete wave packets"
Careful, mate. While your Einstein quote above clearly states that a light (beam) is NOT 'one' continuous wave, it DOES ALSO state that a light (beam) IS composed OF a 'series' of smaller WAVES 'quanta' of e-m energy (or smaller 'wave packets' of energy-space, if you will).

Either way, mate, it's wave(s) at root.

ps: Please also read my post immediately before your above post for further context/perspective. Thanks.

Cheers all. :)


Jan 08, 2019
This universe brightly lit

If our eyes
could see all this EM spectrum
this universe would then look brightly lit
as
this light
coming from afar
is
attenuated
absorbed
redshifted
by
interaction
with
dust
plasma
planets
in that only
a portion of the energy
emitted as light
reaches our eyes
the rest
being
Shared amongst every else's eyes

Jan 08, 2019
@wduckss.
@MrBojangles, RealityCheck

Is it photon wizard? Photon shines on Sun, Earth .. but the photon does not shine between these bodies. Does the photo teleports on the Earth and other bodies?

Why do we talk about our eyes? Instruments register outside the atmosphere and surface of the body with no atmospheres complete darkness. Maybe somebody has the proof that the universe is not dark?
Ask yourself why astronauts need special filter visors to protect them from the sun's glare and ionizing radiation when in space above atmosphere (and even when they were on the airless Moon's surface back in the 60's).

See? Nearby sun's EM-radiation is VERY bright; and VERY 'visible' to BOTH eyes and detectors in space/on Moon....hence why astronauts needed protection from same.

As for 'light' across vast expanses of space, I already explained to you in my earlier post; it 'appears dark' in the visible spectrum, BUT it would appear VERY BRIGHT if ALL spectrum is 'seen'. :)

Jan 08, 2019
Careful, mate. While your Einstein quote above clearly states that a light (beam) is NOT 'one' continuous wave, it DOES ALSO state that a light (beam) IS composed OF a 'series' of smaller WAVES 'quanta' of e-m energy (or smaller 'wave packets' of energy-space, if you will).


Careful mate, don't confuse yourself.

On wave packets:
"The picture that was developed was of a *particulate* world, with all phenomena and matter made of and interacting with discrete *particles*; however, these *particles* were described by a probability wave. The interactions, locations, and all of physics would be reduced to the calculations of these probability amplitudes. The *particle*-like nature of the world has been confirmed by experiment over a century, while the wave-like phenomena could be characterized as consequences of the wave packet aspect of quantum particles, see wave-*particle* duality."

Read what I've previously linked for further clarification.

Jan 08, 2019
@MrBojangles
"light is not a wave propagating through space, but rather a collection of discrete wave packets"
Indeed, the photon is a wizard! On Earth and Sun .. is not discrete, but in space is very discrete! This is a new, unprecedented physics, now you see him, now you do not see it! See realistic light images I have chosen from the database https://www.svemi...ion.html .
@ RealityCheck
The first part is correct "Ask yourself why astronauts need special filter visors to protect them from the sun's glare and ionizing radiation". Do not forget: The microwave oven radiates but does not light up. Radiation kills. There is a huge difference between radiation and light. There are only radiation in the space. We have light on bodies and matter. Connect those two and you have a real universe.

Jan 08, 2019
@MrBojangles.
"The picture that was developed was of a *particulate* world, with all phenomena and matter made of and interacting with discrete *particles*; however, these *particles* were described by a probability wave. The interactions, locations, and all of physics would be reduced to the calculations of these probability amplitudes. The *particle*-like nature of the world has been confirmed by experiment over a century, while the wave-like phenomena could be characterized as consequences of the wave packet aspect of quantum particles, see wave-*particle* duality."
Careful NOT to conflate empirically (directly) observed REAL PHYSICAL WAVE entity/phenomena with any abstractly (mathematically) 'constructed picture' formulated/used by/for Quantum Mechanical theory/calculation 'treatments'...hence "Shut up and calculate!" advice given to students by quantum mechanist teachers who KNEW it was 'abstract maths picture' ONLY.

A subtle but crucial distinction to be made. :)

Jan 08, 2019
@wduckss.
...
@ RealityCheck
The first part is correct "Ask yourself why astronauts need special filter visors to protect them from the sun's glare and ionizing radiation". Do not forget: The microwave oven radiates but does not light up. Radiation kills. There is a huge difference between radiation and light. There are only radiation in the space. We have light on bodies and matter. Connect those two and you have a real universe.
It's ALL 'radiation', mate. I think you meant to say IONIZING "Radiation kills". Which is true in many cases. :)

However, the 'visible light' radiation can energize and be useful for seeing things; but TOO MUCH of it can cause BLINDNESS...hence astronauts' 'sunglass-like' VISOR for protection from sun's STRONG VISIBLE GLARE in space.

Also, sun's visible wavelengths are used in International Space Station for PLANTS/ALGAE-GROWING EXPERIMENTS; so sun's 'light' wavelengths can induce PHOTOSYNTHESIS in plants/algae in space.

OK, mate? :)

Jan 08, 2019
Be careful not to confuse yourself. Again, there is empirical evidence for the particle nature of photons. Which I've linked. Repeatedly.

Otherwise, please link directly to a source that states photons should be treated only as waves and only waves. :)

Jan 08, 2019
What Einstein wrote:

"light is not a wave propagating through space, but rather a collection of discrete wave packets"
....no "particle" mentioned.

Compared to what Benni wrote:

Think of a photon as a truncated EM Wave, or an ultra short wave
.....no "particle" mentioned.

Compared to what Bojangles wrote:

No, I will think of photons as having particle-wave duality. The standard model refers to it as a particle.
........yes "particle" is mentioned.

A "particle" is always all about MASS. I don't care a hoot in hades who wants to change the concept of particle from mass to a short or truncated segment of an EM Wave, it is hugely misleading to compare a particle to a wave, the human brain does not configure that manner of comparison.

Only Pop-Cosmology aficionados would favor particle/wave comparison simply because it is so blatantly confusing to the brain of logically thinking people.


Jan 08, 2019
@MrBojangles.
there is empirical evidence for the particle nature of photons. Which I've linked.
You are conflating 'photon interaction' BEHAVIOR (of a wave energy-space 'packet' in certain contexts/interactions) with the UNDERLYING NATURE of energy-space 'wave' packet ITSELF. :)

In your Einstein quote, @MrB, it was CLEAR that it's ALL 'wave' nature at ROOT; The EFFECT(s) of discrete WAVE 'packets' reflect the QUANTIZED QUOTIENT of the ENERGY-SPACE entrained by/inherent in any discrete PHOTONIC 'wave' PACKET of 'energy-space content' under study.
please link directly to a source that states photons should be treated only as waves and only waves.
I already posted/explained that 'treatment' DEPENDS on CONTEXT. :)

ps @all: I would also remind that PROBABILITY WAVE/CLOUD in quantum mechanics theory/picture is abstract representation of just that: PROBABILITY of finding target within that range of possible locations (ie, 'probability waves' NOT REAL 'things'). :)

Jan 08, 2019
Are you unsure of what discrete means?

Read the physics book I linked. Read the QM book I linked. Read all material that exists which describes it as both. Look at the detector images from LHC.

OR link material which supports your assertion (my eyes are rolling right now.)

I've solved the mystery - send Benni to any stellar mass, and there's your infinite density on a stellar mass.

Jan 08, 2019
You can continue to argue with yourself. This thread is dead. You've provided nothing of significance, just your own conjecture and opinion. Typical of a pop-cosmologist.

Jan 08, 2019
@MrBojangles.
Are you unsure of what discrete means?

Read the physics book I linked. Read the QM book I linked. Read all material that exists which describes it as both. Look at the detector images from LHC.

OR link material which supports your assertion (my eyes are rolling right now.)

Next.
I already long understood the meaning of 'discrete', mate. :) Apparently you have a nebulous 'understanding' of same. Just because a wave is 'separate' from another wave in space and time, it doesn't mean its a 'particle' by default. Only when that discrete/separate wave is studied/interacted in a certain context under study will the BEHAVIOR of that discrete wave have a wavelike or particulate impact in/on the system under study....depending on the treatment/information employed/required for analysis/description etc. No matter what experiment/treatment etc is involved, the discrete PHOTONIC 'wave packet' ITSELF is in NATURE just that at ROOT: a WAVE, as per Einstein quote. :)

Jan 08, 2019
You can continue to argue with yourself. This thread is dead. You've provided nothing of significance, just your own conjecture and opinion. Typical of a pop-cosmologist.


........and yer back to dancing.

Jan 08, 2019
@MrBojangles.
You can continue to argue with yourself. This thread is dead. You've provided nothing of significance, just your own conjecture and opinion. Typical of a pop-cosmologist.
Meanwhile, you seem to be arguing with your own Einstein quote, @MrB. :)

Again, your own Einstein quote made clear that the photon is a WAVE packet.

I then merely explained to you the subtleties involved in this instance.

Explaining why/where the 'particle' concept/treatments arises in experiments/treatments where the BEHAVIOR of said WAVE packet may be 'particulate' OR 'wavelike' in effect/consequences. That's all.

Please take your time to think it all through, MrB; then realize the subtleties and crucial distinctions involved; and the ever present potential for conflations/confusions which can, and inevitably do, arise due to simplistic reading/understanding of the subject matter without constantly checking against the physical reality.

Good luck and good thinking, mate. :)

Jan 08, 2019
Be careful not to confuse yourself. Again, there is empirical evidence for the particle nature of photons. Which I've linked. Repeatedly.

Otherwise, please link directly to a source that states photons should be treated only as waves and only waves.)


What "empirical evidence" is there that an EM Wave can become a "particle"? Ok, point to a pic of a green EM Particle. Explain all about how this discrete little round thing oscillates to give us "green"?

Jan 08, 2019
As for YOU Whyguy, you are one who believes in the 19th Century TUGMath calculations for the creation of black holes based on the concept that light is made up of "particles" & not a true waveform,

At speed, they have relativistic mass...

Jan 08, 2019
What "empirical evidence" is there that an EM Wave can become a "particle"? Ok, point to a pic of a green EM Particle. Explain all about how this discrete little round thing oscillates to give us "green"?

It doesn't "become" a particle. Each quantized wave packet is considered as one.

Jan 08, 2019
The best proof of photons is Compton Scattering. Which is not explained otherwise.

Jan 09, 2019
"When observing the arrival of a comet, initially we can see only the object and the dark around it. Light starts to appear around it when the object starts releasing the particles which create the tail of the comet. The common thing to Earth and the comets is matter (particles). 1,2
.. (only visible matter is shining)..
Nothing is needed between a star (Sun) and an object (the atmosphere of Earth), except waves or radiation. Constant waves' blows warm up the visible matter, which starts shining..
No photons are needed as there is by far no valid explanation that they really represent light or that the light from Sun is traveling to Earth and other objects." WD


Jan 09, 2019
So, @WD, nothing on Compton Scattering?

Didn't think so.

Jan 09, 2019
.other than Electro-Magnetic Energy, there is no alternative for making things move.


I'm interested the theory your are describing. So, is there a book or article that describes how an EM field generates an EM field? Please post a link.
.......OK:

"...The magnetic field is really just a classical approximation to the photon-exchange picture....

https://van.physi...p?id=414

I simply typed into Google: "what are magnetic lines of force made of"

The article is interesting, but its just people discussing the topic, its not what I expected. I had thought there'd be a research article, or book you could show that would describe this idea. Those items usually contain a description with listed references listing further articles possibly listing observations and experiments.

I did find other similar articles describing QED, describing that the EM field is made up of photons, or virtual photons.

(continued)

Jan 09, 2019
Here are some:

http://www.coolma...ield.htm
https://physics.s...-made-of
https://www.quora...posed-of

These are also just basic articles, not research articles, but the theory you describe may be best shown by QED.

Given the above, the people talking there even admit that it is still really unknown what the magnetic field is composed of. Some even say that its just an idea, or simply a vector field of a force on a test particle, and therefore its not made from anything. Plus, there are still arguments for or against the idea of "photons".

One can't ignore that if, taking a bar magnet example, remove the electron's charge, remove the proton's charge, from the bar magnet you will end up with no magnetic field.

If you wanted to know what I really think its composed of, you can get that with a PM. I won't be posting that on this thread.


Jan 09, 2019
Magnetism is an effect produced by the relativistic correction for the fact that the electric field acts at the speed of light, not at infinite speed. This is confirmed by multiple analyses. It's very simple:

As two charged particles move past one another, the electric field acts not as if it were emanating from where they *are* but where they *were*. As a result, the action of the electric field is retarded, and magnetism is invoked to explain this; it acts against the electric force, and at right angles to it, just as we have measured for the magnetic force.

A much longer explanation is possible but likely fruitless with a bunch of EU woomeisters.

Jan 09, 2019
The best proof of photons is Compton Scattering. Which is not explained otherwise.


You continue confusing "photon" with "particle".

A "photon" IS an EM wave, a "particle" IS NOT an EM wave, this is the kind of confusing semantics the Pop-Cosmology crowd likes to engage in. It's the same as when YOU try to insert half-life into neutron beta decay where no such half life decay rate exists.

I can just imagine what YOU imagine the study of PARTICLE PHYSICS must be, the study of PHOTONS? I'd make a suggestion that YOU insert the term Particle Physics into searach engine & notice how little discussion there is about an EM Wave packets being a "particle".

The problem YOU continue having o'Physorg Moderator, is that your background in Physics of any kind is so abysmally weak, that after you start shooting off your fat mouth it's already too late to walk it back, then your name calling rants start up.


Jan 09, 2019
Magnetism is an effect produced by the relativistic correction for the fact that the electric field acts at the speed of light, not at infinite speed. This is confirmed by multiple analyses. It's very simple:

As two charged particles move past one another, the electric field acts not as if it were emanating from where they *are* but where they *were*. As a result, the action of the electric field is retarded, and magnetism is invoked to explain this; it acts against the electric force, and at right angles to it, just as we have measured for the magnetic force.
.......pure unadulterated psycho-babble. The concept that an E-field or an M-field can exist apart from an Electro-Magnetic Wave has no standing except in the vacuous wastelands of those who are unable to apply logic to their personal concepts of Physics, and YOU are one of those.

When one cannot comprehend the concept that WORK requires the full EM Wave, you will be forever lost in these silly arguments.


Jan 09, 2019
Given the above, the people talking there even admit that it is still really unknown what the magnetic field is composed of.


Then let me be clear about what Electrical Engineers learn in Electricity & Magnetism class, that to do WORK it CANNOT be accomplished without ELECTRO-MAGNETIC ENERGY.

At least make an attempt to understand what is happening when iron filings fall into a distinct pattern on a sheet of paper under which the magnetic field of a magnetic has been applied. When those iron filings MOVED, that ONLY means WORK was done, electro-magnetism. Ask yourself this, can I falsify WORK can be accomplished apart from ELECTRO-MAGNETISM?

Until you get it FULLY fixed in your brain that WORK cannot be accomplished except by applied Electro-Magnetism, then you, like Physorg's embedded Moderator Da Schneibo, will never understand anything about what makes the Universe function as it does.


Jan 09, 2019
Aren't there some floors for you to mop Benni? Although, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion, however wrong it may be.

Boy takes a couple classes and thinks he's Albert Einstein reincarnated :\

Jan 09, 2019
Bonus points:

The picture from the page of my University Physics book I linked also talks about thermal radiation at wavelengths other than infrared. Which we all already knew. Sorry Benni, might want to ask for a refund on that engineering degree you earned from University of Phoenix.

Jan 09, 2019
It should distinguish between theory of reanosti (evidence). No theory has any explanation: why we have light on Sun, Earth etc, but we have no in space.
Probably is now clear to everyone, that it not able to do any particles and deep wisecracks about particles.
There are two completely opposite conditions: light on the bodies and dark in the space.

There is no old theory that can solve this. In vain quoting stupidity (old theory). Let's start from the beginning. Why immediately outside the Sun, .. there is no light? Do not look at old texts and Greek philosophers, they do not help. Think with your head.

Jan 09, 2019
The picture from the page of my University Physics book I linked also talks about thermal radiation at wavelengths other than infrared. Which we all already knew.
.........then you'd do well to get an updated physics text in which the author knows better than to ascribe Thermal Energy apart from any wavelength other than infrared.

There are wavelengths of ENERGY that initiate the break of bonding forces between atoms & molecules, the result of which arise in the SUBSEQUENT release of heat (infrared), but the initial input of energy from those wavelengths are not themselves thermal energy input, but as that of SUBSEQUENT action causing the release of infrared.

Pick up your broom & head to the dance floor & continue sweeping because you'll never find employment as an engineer with your diminutive educational skills in science, nobody hires Pop-Cosmologists for anything that I've ever heard of.


Jan 09, 2019
This Electromagnetic Field

Iron filings in magnetic fields
distort magnetic fields
although
they show magnetic fields
in doing so
change reality
to perception
as
in lenz's law
the magnetic field
resist movement
that it slows a falling magnetic field
as it passes through an aluminium tube
such that
a magnetic field can levitate
and resist lateral moment
likened
to a gyroscope
because
in truth
a magnetic field
is an oscillating frequency
and just as the dragon flies wings
beat in an oscillatory movement
in doing so
produce a gyroscopic moment
because
this
investigation
into electromagnetic fields
is
to ascertain
the
mechanisms
the origins
the composition
which electromagnetic fields
exist
how they transmit this physical force
between lines of fields of force
emanating from
This electromagnetic Electron

Jan 09, 2019
Sorry, you're still wrong :(

https://www.brita...adiation

I'd say back to mopping, but I've realized it's an incredible insult to janitors worldwide to lump you in with them.

Jan 09, 2019
Sorry, you're still wrong :(


........but it's the reason I make a 6 figure salary as an engineer while all you do is dance for pennies, or less, all the while begging for someone to watch your routine for some kind of claim to fame in life.

Jan 09, 2019
Sorry, you're still wrong :(


........but it's the reason I make a 6 figure salary as an engineer while all you do is dance for pennies, or less, all the while begging for someone to watch your routine for some kind of claim to fame in life.

A six figure salary maker wouldn't be HERE all the time....

Jan 09, 2019
You people are still at it.

"Then" means subsequently, separate from and following in time, as a consequence. If you say a body experiences a gravitational force, and "can then undergo tidal heating," (not verbatim quote), then you are saying that the gravitational force is a source of added energy, but not a form of heat or heat transfer. Same for friction and neutrino bombardment.

And you all tend to conflate heat (the energy that imparts the state of excitation that we measure on arbitrary scales of temperature) with heat transfer (the transfer of heat energy).

I'm pretty sure that heat transfer (the transfer of energy in the specific form of heat) can only be accomplished by emission and absorption of EM radiation, but heat can be produced by friction or burning or fusion, etc.

Don't split hairs with convection and conduction. Those are just configurations of objects with different energy levels. Heat transfer between the constituent particles is by EM.

Babel

Jan 09, 2019
What has happened in time and space?
Sorry, you're still wrong :(


........but it's the reason I make a 6 figure salary as an engineer while all you do is dance for pennies, or less, all the while begging for someone to watch your routine for some kind of claim to fame in life.

Whydening Gyre> A six figure salary maker wouldn't be HERE all the time....

In Days of Yore
in only
just
a couple of years
Whydening Gyre, Bennies popularity has dropped
from a popularity of vote of over 20
now
down to a miserly 1 or 2 votes each
where have all your supporters gone, Whydening Gyre
and
come to that, Whydening Gyre
where have all multiples of 10s of detractors gone
that were so willing to vote everyone up or down
where did they come from
in the short period these comments were fresh
before
everyone's attention was on the next board
and
where have they gone
Whydening Gyre, this is merely an observation
Nothing else

Jan 09, 2019
Because
Whydening Gyre
at
this precise time of noticing
Bennie has more supporters
than your good self
But not the 20 every one used to have

Jan 09, 2019
I want to know two things:

How does granville generate these poetic paraphrasings?

How do any of the rest of you understand what is being said?

Both are mysteries to me, sincerely.

Jan 09, 2019
A six figure salary maker wouldn't be HERE all the time....


Yeah, that was worth a good laugh.

Jan 09, 2019
Going with the flow, dnatwork
dnatwork> I want to know two things:

How does granville generate these poetic paraphrasings?

How do any of the rest of you understand what is being said?

Both are mysteries to me, sincerely.

Thanks, dnatwork
when you come from Yorkshire
from the Shires
you live in this magical world
of quantum fluctuations
time and space
leprechauns with their crocks of gold
this magic flows
in the idea's
that flows
Between these keys and phys.org

Jan 09, 2019
Because
dnatwork
you have hit on the relevant point
How do any of the rest of you understand what is being said
as
dnatwork
it
is a secret code
a secret club
that
once you're in the loop
even though
no one understands
every one
Always understands

Jan 09, 2019

is a secret code
a secret club
that
once you're in the loop
even though
no one understands
every one
Always understands


Oh, so they understand your writings just as well as they understand one another. Thanks!

*mumbles Churchill quote about two countries separated by a common language*

Jan 09, 2019
Sorry, you're still wrong :(


........but it's the reason I make a 6 figure salary as an engineer while all you do is dance for pennies, or less, all the while begging for someone to watch your routine for some kind of claim to fame in life.


Lol. $5000.00 as a janitor. That is six figures.

Jan 09, 2019
How do any of the rest of you understand what is being said?


I, for one, do not. That is why I have the silly bugger on ignore.

Jan 09, 2019
This Electron

Of inertial mass
has
gravitational acceleration
and
in this mass
it has rotational momentum
because
when its electric field is in momentum
it generates
an electromagnetic field of magnetism
as
all that exits
if this electron is motionless
is
its mass, its gravity, its electric field
because
a photon
is
a phenomena of electromagnetism
so
as we theorise
this magnetic field is the property of photons
this
electric field
by
virtue of oscillatory frequency of this electron
as
rotation is frequency
this electric field is oscillating
as the rotational frequency of this spinning electron
so
this magnetic field
this electromagnetic photon
are
by products
of this oscillating electric field
because
of
the rotational frequency of this electron
Is the oscillatory frequency of this electrons electric field

Jan 09, 2019
As for work, it is also a word that has a definition. Moving a thing from here to there, or stopping it from moving on its original trajectory. Causing a change in the inertial state of an object, right?

So if one extremely cold, non-EM-emitting object falls in a gravity field and collides with another extremely cold, non-EM-emitting object, the two objects will bounce off each other and both will change trajectory. Like billiard balls. Work is performed without EM as the mediator.

Heat may be generated by the collision, but it is not the cause of the work. The work is performed by the direct transfer of momentum.

Unless you're of the view that "collision" is actually impossible, and what you see is the repulsion of similar charges (proton to proton, electron to electron) of particles that never come into contact. EM interaction, that is. But that seems like more hair-splitting.

What's the correlation between being wrong and being convinced you are 100% right?