David Levy

Sorry

Thanks again I really admire your knowledge and your dedication. If one day those simple correspondences will lead to a breakthrough – we are partner. However, I didn't give up yet. More to come

Thanks

Please, don't misunderstand me. Simulation is important tool. In electronics for example, it is vital tool. Actually, it's almost impossible mission to accomplish the design flow without using this key tool. However, any slight disruption (even few micro seconds in the setup process) could lead to fatal error in the whole design. Therefore, if you want to achieve full function ASIC, it is requested to use high quality design tools (at over than 1M$) and use it correctly. Therefore, I don't claim that it is a mistake to use a simulation. I just claim that simulation is a very sensitive tool. If the simulation isn't 100% verified and if there is a minor disruption in the setup, it could lead to fatal error result. In any case, I would expect that the science should highlight that they have used simulation to extract the values for DM. I had no idea about it. Therefore, it is expected that the science should give us this information with some sort of confidence level. (I have already discussed about the importance of using some kind of titles that should emphasis the science confidence level in their theories/hypothesis/idea/speculation). This has a direct effect on our understanding about the DM. Currently, based on this simulation it is expected that the dispersion of the DM must be very unique in order to meet the rotation curve requirement. For example, they have used "dark disc": "Regarding baryonic modi_cations of the local DM velocity structure, the e_ect that has received the most attention is the possibility of the creation of a so-called \dark disk" Even so, it is stated, that they didn't achieve yet the high level rotation velocities: "Nevertheless, the peak of the speed distribution in Eris occurs at only vpeak = 195kms1, considerably below that of the SHM (vpeak = 220kms1). However, it isn't yet a fully verified simulation tool and we must take those results at the correct level of confidence. Please be aware that in electronics, even 95% confidence level in simulation result could lead to fatal error in the functionality of the design.

O.K. sorry for using the "ALL" However, the "ALL" was integrated in the following statement: "While we don't know what the dark matter (DM) is, we have a fairly reasonable idea as to how much of it there is in the Galaxy, how it is distributed, and how fast it is moving. This information comes from the rotation curve of the Milky Way, and is crucial to "ALL" the direct searches for dark matter." Hence, even if isn't "ALL", it is clear that the distribution of the dark matter and how fast it is moving "comes from the rotation curve of the Milky Way". In order to extract those figures from the rotation, the science had used simulation. It is stated: "In order to elucidate the effects that the dissipational baryonic physics has had, we compare to results from ErisDark, the DM-only counterpart to Eris. We _rst briey review the properties of the two simulations, then describe the local DM density and velocity structure." Hence, let me ask as follow: Is it correct that the science had used simulations to estimate the local DM density and velocity structure of the dark matter in the Galaxy? Yes or no?

Why? It is clearly stated that a simulation had been used: "Numerical galaxy formation simulations can provide guidance for the expected local DM density and velocity distribution, and their spatial and halo-to-halo variance." So why do you try to contradict this statement? Prove it please. Thanks Why do you claim so? I have invested significant time to read those articles. Please don't underestimate me.

Why is it so difficult to agree or disagree? Yes or no? You claim: So, is it correct that the science had used a simulation to estimate all the ideas about the dark matter in the Galaxy? Yes or no? With regards to the dark matter between the galaxies – As I have stated, I couldn't find it in the articles which you have pointed. Would you kindly direct me to the specific article?

So, what should we understand from the following statement: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf "The largest entries, for dark matter and the cosmological constant, or dark energy, are well constrained within a cosmological theory that is reasonably well tested, but the physical natures of these entries remain quite hypothetical. We understand the physical natures of magnetic fields and cosmic rays, but the theories of the evolution of these components, and the estimates of their contributions to the present energy inventory, are quite uncertain. The situation for most of the other entries tends to be between these extremes: the physical natures of the entries are adequately characterized, for the most part, and our estimates of their energy densities, while generally not very precise, seem to be meaningfully constrained by the observations." Actually, why don't you reply to the extreme conclusions which I have presented? Do you agree or disagree? Is it correct that the science had used a simulation to estimate all the ideas about the dark matter? Why it is not clearly informed that all the "fairly reasonable idea" about the dark matter is based on simulation? What is the chance that the simulation isn't fully correlated to the real universe (or galaxy)?. What is the chance that there are Inaccuracies in some assumptions of this simulation?

Thanks Unfortunately, I couldn't find any information about the density of the dark matter between the galaxies. It is stated that the science doesn't know what the dark matter is and whole idea of its existence is only based on the rotation curve of spiral galaxies: http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/specr/012/node7.html "While we don't know what the dark matter (DM) is, we have a fairly reasonable idea as to how much of it there is in the Galaxy, how it is distributed, and how fast it is moving. This information comes from the rotation curve of the Milky Way, and is crucial to all the direct searches for dark matter." However, the "fairly reasonable idea" is a direct product of simulation. So, there is no real evidence how much DM there is in the galaxy, how it is distributed and how fast it is moving. The science is doing whatever it takes to discover some proofs for the dark matter: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.1703v2.pdf "The direct detection of dark matter (DM) is one of the most exciting and frontier pursuits of contemporary physics." Therefore, they are improving the sensitivity of the detectors and lowering the thresholds: "After many years of steady progress in enlarging target masses, improving detector sensitivities, and lowering energy thresholds, but concomitant lack of detections and only ever more stringent exclusion limits, the field may now at last be at the cusp of success." Based on my long experience in engineering its quite clear that this action might lead to discovery of what we call: "white noise". However, in the last years they start to get some signals: "a number of additional experiments have in recent years reported signals that may be interpreted as DM scattering events." "Finally, a recent analysis from the CDMS II collaboration of data obtained with their silicon detectors found three DM candidate events with a total expected background of 0.7 events (CDMS Collaboration et al. 2013). Taking into account the energies of the three events, the CDMS II Si data prefer a DM scattering interpretation over a known-background-only scenario at 99.81% probability, so slightly more than 3_." However, the science do not except this discovery based on the following reasons: "Despite these exciting developments, the case for a discovery of a DM particle is not yet closed, for two principal reasons. For one, the regions of parameter space (mass of DM particle m_ and (spin-independent) scattering cross section _SI) preferred by the tentative detections don't all agree with each other. They do generally favor a light DM particle (m_ . 10 GeV) with _SI around 1041{1040 cm2, but the published 2_ con- _dence intervals don't all overlap (for a recent summary, see e.g. Fig.4 of CDMS Collaboration et al. 2013). Secondly, the preferred parameters are nominally ruled out by the non-detections in XENON100 (Aprile et al. 2012) and the CDMS II Germanium detectors (CDMS II Collaboration et al. 2010; Ahmed et al. 2011)." Therefore, so far there is no real proof for the DM. Actually, all the assumption of the DM is only based on simulation: "Numerical galaxy formation simulations can provide guidance for the expected local DM density and velocity distribution, and their spatial and halo-to-halo variance." Therefore, when the science claims: "we have a fairly reasonable idea as to how much of it there is in the Galaxy, how it is distributed, and how fast it is moving." They mean that it is based on simulation. Hence, it might be a misleading statement. The science must highlight that this information is purly based on simulation. This isn't evidence. Therefore, the whole idea of dark mass density and velocity distribution is not confirmed yet by any real evidence. Hence, the science can't claim that the dark matter isn't evenly distributed in the universe. They could claim that based on their simulation they believe that… However, simulation and believe aren't evidences. Therefore, there is good chance that if there is a dark matter, it's distribution might be evenly in the Universe. Hence, it might meet Isaac Newton shell theorem. If this is correct, then outcome is quite clear.

Thanks I would like to get an overview how different densities had been set and what kind of evidences had been used. Please direct me to the article which specify this subject.

Sorry, what do you mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter It is stated: "Much of the evidence for dark matter comes from the study of the motions of galaxies.[25] Many of these appear to be fairly uniform, so by the virial theorem, the total kinetic energy should be half the total gravitational binding energy of the galaxies. Observationally, however, the total kinetic energy is found to be much greater: in particular, assuming the gravitational mass is due to only the visible matter of the galaxy, stars far from the center of galaxies have much higher velocities than predicted by the virial theorem. Galactic rotation curves, which illustrate the velocity of rotation versus the distance from the galactic center, show the well known phenomenology that cannot be explained by only the visible matter." Therefore, the density of the dark matter in the galaxy had been set to meet the galactic rotation curve. However, if the dark matter is moving with the galaxy, then it is accumulated in the galaxy. Hence, the density outside the galaxy could be significantly lower than the density in the galaxy. Therefore, the total dark matter in the universe might be lower than our expectation.

Your simple explanation might lead to significant result. If the dark matter is like all other matter, and if it moves with the galaxy, than it must have similar activity as all other matter. As the matter is concentrated in galaxies, then the dark matter should also be concentrated in the galaxies. Therefore, in each galaxy there might be different concentration of dark matter. However, outside the galaxy (and even outside in the halo) the concentration of dark matter should decrease dramatically. This might be a breakthrough understanding for dark matter. As there is different density at different locations (in the galaxy and outside the galaxy) than the total quantity of the dark matter could be significantly lower than our expectation. Do you agree?

Thanks So dark matter moves, but in which direction and velocity? Does it move in the direction of the Milky Way galaxy or Andromeda galaxy (which move in the opposite direction to each other). Does it move in relativity slow velocity as the nearby galaxies or at ultra fast velocity as the far end galaxies? This should be an important section of the dark matter theory. We must give answer to this issue.

I have no idea. Somehow we need to take a decision if the dark matter is fixed or not.

How could it be that the dark matter moves with the galaxies, although each galaxy is moving at different direction and at different velocity?

Thanks. For a 3D, we could consider a submarine instead of ship… However, the key issue - Is it a constant matter in the universe? or is it moving with the galaxies?

Thanks you all. I do appreciate your valuable answers. With regards to this photo; It looks to me like a ripple effect on sea water. Please see the following: http://www.fotothing.com/photos/43c/43c7519c765015dc9e4a4c1b7ea8b8c3_d34.jpg If that is correct, than we could consider the following analogy: The dark matter could be considered as water and the galaxy is similar to the ship which crosses the ocean. Therefore, if it is a correct analogy, than it is expected that the dark matter is not moving with the galaxies, but the galaxies are crossing the dark matter. From another aspect – We are using the the dark matter as a cosmology constant. Therefore, we can assume that it is a constant matter in the Universe. Do you agree?

Sorry, if the dark mass is spherical mass, than it is expected by definition that it will fully obey to Isaac Newton shell theorem. Sorry, this is incorrect - based on Newton. The net force is zero regardless of the object's location. Please see again the following description from Newton: "If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell." However, Why it isn't 100 of 500? Somehow, the science is making his selection based on his needs. Now, let's agree that the dark mass is not symmetric distribution. However, it is still need to be everywhere at different density. Therefore, why it is claimed that it is concentrated in some sections of the galaxy? How do we know that? What kind of proves do we have? With regards to the following: http://cdms.berkeley.edu/Education/DMpages/FAQ/question36.html "The average density of dark matter near the solar system is approximately 1 proton-mass for every 3 cubic centimeters, which is roughly 6x10-28 kg/cm3" "The radius of the sun's orbit is about 2.5x1017 km, so the total mass of dark matter within that orbit is 6x1040 kg. This is the mass of 3x1010 (30 billion) stars like the sun! The entire galaxy only contains ~100 billion stars, so the dark matter does have a significant effect on the sun's orbit through the galaxy. For objects farther out near the edge of the galaxy, the dark matter is actually the main thing keeping them in their orbits. This is more or less how dark matter was discovered by astronomer Vera Rubin and others: the orbital speeds of galactic stars and gas clouds don't match our expectations from the visible matter." Why all the dark mass outside the Sun's orbit has been neglected? It must have significant impact on the total Sun' gravity? Actually if the distribution was uniform, then we all agree that the total gravity net force on the sun should be zero (regardless of the Sun location). Therefore, we shouldn't neglect all the dark mass outside the orbit ring. This dark mass, must have negative gravity force on the Sun. So it must decrease dramatically the net gravity force on the sun. We shouldn't ignore this mass. It is a severe mistake!

Thanks Sorry that I have to ask you again almost the same question. However, I still do not understand this critical issue. The shell theorem can be applied to any spherical mass. So, if the central bulge is accepted as spherical mass, why the dark matter in the universe can't be also accepted as spherical mass?

So, there is a mathematical proof that the central bulge of spiral galaxy meets the shell theorem, (although, the matter in the bulge isn't uniformly distributed). Can you also please direct me to that article? However, don't you think that the dark matter should be more uniformly distributed then the matter in the bulge. In any case, if the science accepts the idea that the bulge could be uniform, why the same idea isn't applicable for the dark mass?

Thanks Is it correct that the Science accept the idea of shell theorem in the central bulge of spiral galaxy? If so, why the matter distributed in the bulge is more uniform then the dark matter?

O.K. But I have asked about hypothetical uniformed distribiution. So, do you agree that if (just if) the dark matter is uniformed distributed throughout the universe, then no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside the Universe. Yes or no?

Brief info on Shell theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem In classical mechanics, the shell theorem gives gravitational simplifications that can be applied to objects inside or outside a spherically symmetrical body. This theorem has particular application to astronomy Isaac Newton proved the shell theorem[1] and said that: A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell. Brief info on Dark matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe. It has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics. based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[2][3] Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total mass–energy content of the universe.[ Let's suppose that the density of the dark matter is the same everywhere in the Universe. In this case, we should look at the Universe as a Hollow ball full with Dark matter. Based on Isaac Newton shell theorem [2]: "If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell." It is clear that that no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside this shell. Therefore, Based on this explanation the net effect of the dark matter in the universe is Zero! This is also fully correlated also with the following example: Let's set the Sun outside the galaxy at a place without any stars or galaxies nearby, but we will keep the same density of the Dark matter. In this case, the Sun will get the same dark matter' gravity force from all directions. Therefore, the net gravity force vector of the dark matter on the sun should be zero. Do you agree?

Let's verify how different forces affect different parts of the spiral galaxy. So in spiral galaxy there are three main parts (or sections): Bulge, spiral arms, Halo. Rotation curve is an indication for the available force at each section. In each section there is different rotation velocity curve as follow: Bulge –The rotation curve meets the science expatiation – Therefore, no need for dark mass. Spiral arms - The rotation curve is high above the science expatiation – Therefore, dark mass is needed. Halo - The rotation curve meets the science expatiation – Therefore, no need for dark mass. Let's verify the stellar orbits at each section. Please see pg 16: http://www.ifa.hawai...10/MilkyWay.pdf . Disk stars (yellow) – all move in the same direction on roughly circular orbits. Stars in the bulge (red) - and Halo (green) move in fairly random orbits. Hence, in the Bulge and Halo, all stars move in fairly random orbits, and the rotation curve meets science expectation. However, in spiral arms, all stars move in the same direction on roughly circular orbits, and the rotation curve is high above science expectation. Therefore, we see 100% correlation between the rotation curve and the steller orbits at each section. Don't you think that it could be an indication that the same force which is responsible for the high curve velocity at the spiral arm section has also a direct effect on the shape of the arm? Now, let's look again on the dark mass. It is only needed for the spiral arm section. However, if we add it, it might have negative effect on the Bulge and halo. I don't think that there is a way to tell the dark matter to set an influence only in one section of the galaxy. So we need to figure out what kind of force could have significant effect on spiral arm section without causing any problems at bulge and halo. Remember the doctor – If there is a correlation between those phenomenons, than we should consider one explanation for all we see.