samsara15 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) If 83% of all matter is Dark Matter, then why aren't our bodies,and everything on earth, and in our Solar System, 83% Dark matter? IOW, why does current mainline theory posit that Dark Matter is only observable at galactic distances? If Dark Matter responds to gravity, then why is itdistributed so unevenly? My conception is that it is because most of space is empty,and the matter density of our Solar System, and Earth, is much higher than thatof galactic space, and Dark Matter is actually distributed somewhat uniformly. Edited July 24, 2012 by samsara15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha2cen Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) If 83% of all matter is Dark Matter, then why aren't our bodies,and everything on earth, and in our Solar System, 83% Dark matter? IOW, why does current mainline theory posit that Dark Matter is only observable at galactic distances? If Dark Matter responds to gravity, then why is itdistributed so unevenly? My conception is that it is because most of space is empty,and the matter density of our Solar System, and Earth, is much higher than thatof galactic space, and Dark Matter is actually distributed somewhat uniformly. In the past, how difficult to find a nucleus in the atom, even existed in the solid gold! ** Rutherford's experiment ** Does DM have so condensed state??? Theoretically using a fast moving satellite is a good way to find it. But protection against other high energy particles or high energy ray from the space is a problem. Edited July 25, 2012 by alpha2cen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samsara15 Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 In the past, how difficult to find a nucleus in the atom, even existed in the solid gold! ** Rutherford's experiment ** Does DM have so condensed state??? Theoretically using a fast moving satellite is a good way to find it. But protection against other high energy particles or high energy ray from the space is a problem. Are you suggesting that Dark Matter particles might be huge, even Non-miscroscopic in size, even as large as meters in diameter?? I suppose there is no reason why that should not be feasible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha2cen Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) Are you suggesting that Dark Matter particles might be huge, even Non-miscroscopic in size, even as large as meters in diameter?? I suppose there is no reason why that should not be feasible. It was difficult to find a nucleus, even the object is very condensed state, i.e., solid. ***Rutherford's experiment*** Thinking about a satellite, it is a way to increase the collision frequency to Dark Matter particles. Another method is to make a DM particles at the particle collider. But we do not know such particles really exist in the nature. Under ground method is more easy than satellite method. But our finding will be only rely on Dark Matter particles movement. Edited July 25, 2012 by alpha2cen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 If 83% of all matter is Dark Matter, then why aren't our bodies,and everything on earth, and in our Solar System, 83% Dark matter? IOW, why does current mainline theory posit that Dark Matter is only observable at galactic distances? If Dark Matter responds to gravity, then why is it distributed so unevenly? First some words of advice. 1. Don't take anything posted by alpha2cen seriously. He or she spouts nonsense. 2. Stop with all the font silliness. It makes it very hard to quote what you wrote. Now to answer your questions. If 83% of all matter is Dark Matter, then why aren't our bodies,and everything on earth, and in our Solar System, 83% Dark matter? There's a misconception here. Just because dark matter is hypothesized to comprise 83% of all of the mass of the universe does not mean that dark matter comprises 83% of every bit of mass in the universe. Think of it this way: Just because 71% of the Earth's surface is water does not mean that the rock you just picked up is 71% water. If Dark Matter responds to gravity, then why is it distributed so unevenly? This is exactly backwards. It is ordinary matter rather than dark matter that is distributed so unevenly. The reason is that ordinary matter interacts with photons while dark matter does not do so. These electromagnetic interactions are what enables ordinary matter to clump up to form interstellar gas clouds, stars, and planets. Dark matter is distributed much more uniformly than is ordinary matter because dark matter only interacts gravitationally. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha2cen Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Thinking about a satellite, it is a way to increase the collision frequency to Dark Matter particles. In fact, the eruption of water vapor on the Saturn' icy moon, Enceladus is curious. Electromagnetic effect is everything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Thinking about a satellite, it is a way to increase the collision frequency to Dark Matter particles. In fact, the eruption of water vapor on the Saturn' icy moon, Enceladus is curious. Electromagnetic effect is everything? In fact, you write nonsense. I never said the electromagnetic effect is everything. That is the silly electric universe nonsense. What I did say is that ordinary matter is subject to gravitation and electromagnetism (and also the strong and weak interactions). It is those extra interactions beyond gravitation that enable ordinary matter to form interstellar gas clouds, stars, and planets. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha2cen Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 In fact, you write nonsense. I never said the electromagnetic effect is everything. That is the silly electric universe nonsense. What I did say is that ordinary matter is subject to gravitation and electromagnetism (and also the strong and weak interactions). It is those extra interactions beyond gravitation that enable ordinary matter to form interstellar gas clouds, stars, and planets. Many Dark Matter detectors are in the water, i.e., light water or heavy water. Water has many nucleus in the unit volume. And, polar liquid material. We can not deny electromagnetic effect about the Enseladus. But, like most other Dark Matter detectors, the interaction between Enseladus and Dark Matter particle might not be ignored, also. Someone can say "The interaction is very very small. " Experiment and exact observation could give answers about it's everything. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 In fact, you write nonsense. Totally agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha2cen Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) When we are in the rain, which case can we get more rained on ? Staying on some place or running by car? To buy a car is not easy one, it is very very expensive in this case. Edited July 26, 2012 by alpha2cen -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 alpha2cen is once again hijacking a thread with nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha2cen Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) alpha2cen is once again hijacking a thread with nonsense. Why DM detector (for example super K) is filled with heavy water? Why DM detector size is so big? Is it the way to increase collision frequency with DM particles per time? The one I worried about the satellite DM experiment apparatus is the radiation protection from the cosmic sources. Edited July 26, 2012 by alpha2cen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 ! Moderator Note alpha2cen, this has gone far enough now. I have suspended you for 3 days for writing continuous thread hijacking with off-topic nonsense.For the record, this was not just my decision. Multiple staff members agreed.[edit] And also, it was not just for this thread. This has been going on for much longer, and you had been warned several times before.Everyone else, please carry on, there's nothing to see here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now