DimaMazin Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 T=T0 R1/2c/(R1/2c - [2GM]1/2) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Seriously? We're supposed to discuss based on a single equation? Without the terms used in it defined? Why don't you show us... plot the predictions made by the current best dark matter theories, the predictions made by your equation there, and the current best experimental values. That would go quite a way towards helping to figure what is 'righter' [sic].... 'more correct'. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Notwithstanding the paucity of information given in the OP Here's a link to a map of the presumed distribution of dark matter http://sci.esa.int/planck/51604-all-sky-map-of-dark-matter-distribution-in-the-universe/ and it's far more complicated than anything which could be explained by that simple equation. So the data from which the map was compiled agrees with something complicated, but it won't agree with anything with as few terms as that equation. To me that says that the equation is less right than the dark matter explanation. Either that, or the terms in that eqn are horribly complicated 4 dimensional tensors or some such. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted November 25, 2013 Author Share Posted November 25, 2013 Seriously? We're supposed to discuss based on a single equation? Without the terms used in it defined? Why don't you show us... plot the predictions made by the current best dark matter theories, the predictions made by your equation there, and the current best experimental values. That would go quite a way towards helping to figure what is 'righter' [sic].... 'more correct'. Yes,my question is some wrong because dark matter theories are just astronomy of refraction of light. My equation is just theoretical physics. Notwithstanding the paucity of information given in the OP Here's a link to a map of the presumed distribution of dark matter http://sci.esa.int/planck/51604-all-sky-map-of-dark-matter-distribution-in-the-universe/ Yes, there is paucity of gravitational masses in congestions of dark matter on the map for a check of my equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Yes,my question is some wrong because dark matter theories are just astronomy of refraction of light. My equation is just theoretical physics. I don't get this reply at all. Are you trying to imply that there isn't any theoretical physics in astronomy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted November 25, 2013 Author Share Posted November 25, 2013 I don't get this reply at all. Are you trying to imply that there isn't any theoretical physics in astronomy? Position of objects isn't theoretical physics,it's astronomy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Position of objects isn't theoretical physics,it's astronomy. Positions of objects in the sky is astrometry. The behavior of those objects is astronomy, and there's a bunch of physics involved. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted November 25, 2013 Author Share Posted November 25, 2013 Positions of objects in the sky is astrometry. The behavior of those objects is astronomy, and there's a bunch of physics involved. Well. But what is physics of dark matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 It's the physics of the stuff we can't see directly, but we know ids present because of the effect its gravity has on other things which we can see. From that we can deduce, for example, where it is (hence the map I cited earlier). I can't see any way that your simple formula could explain that very complicated map. So I think your formula is wrong. If I'm mistaken please provide an explanation of the motions of the stars that works as well as dark matter, but which is based on your equation. I realise that may take you some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted November 25, 2013 Author Share Posted November 25, 2013 It's the physics of the stuff we can't see directly, but we know ids present because of the effect its gravity has on other things which we can see. From that we can deduce, for example, where it is (hence the map I cited earlier). I can't see any way that your simple formula could explain that very complicated map. So I think your formula is wrong. If I'm mistaken please provide an explanation of the motions of the stars that works as well as dark matter, but which is based on your equation. I realise that may take you some time. Some time?It's much time. I think dark matter doesn't create resistance to moving object, therefore it has no momentum,therefore it can't attract,therefore it doesn't exist. Therefore we should search right formula. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 "I think dark matter doesn't create resistance to moving object" How would you know? Also, I think that one of the few things we do know about dark matter is that it attracts things, so you are wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Some time?It's much time. I think dark matter doesn't create resistance to moving object, therefore it has no momentum,therefore it can't attract,therefore it doesn't exist. Therefore we should search right formula. How about dealing with the actual data? Does your formula account for the observations that led to the idea of dark matter in the first place? Personally, I don't see the connection of a time equation to dark matter in the first place, since we have no measurements of time dilation that could be attributed to dark matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted November 25, 2013 Author Share Posted November 25, 2013 How about dealing with the actual data? Does your formula account for the observations that led to the idea of dark matter in the first place? Personally, I don't see the connection of a time equation to dark matter in the first place, since we have no measurements of time dilation that could be attributed to dark matter. Refraction of light in vacuum is indicator of gravitational slowing of time.Any gravitation creates slowing of time and refraction of motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 that might be important to gravitational lensing, but what about the other evidence for dark matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted November 25, 2013 Author Share Posted November 25, 2013 "I think dark matter doesn't create resistance to moving object" How would you know? Also, I think that one of the few things we do know about dark matter is that it attracts things, so you are wrong. Does dark matter have momentum? that might be important to gravitational lensing, but what about the other evidence for dark matter? They have similar equations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janus Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Does dark matter have momentum? Yep. As evidenced by the Bullet Cluster. Two galaxies clusters collided. In the process the dark matter and visible matter were separated due to the fact that the collision slowed the visible matter but not the dark matter. In other words, the dark matter's momemtum carried it clear of the visible matter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted November 25, 2013 Author Share Posted November 25, 2013 Yep. As evidenced by the Bullet Cluster. Two galaxies clusters collided. In the process the dark matter and visible matter were separated due to the fact that the collision slowed the visible matter but not the dark matter. In other words, the dark matter's momemtum carried it clear of the visible matter. Then I recognize that I am wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Angel Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 (edited) Yep.[dark matter has momentum] As evidenced by the Bullet Cluster. Two galaxies clusters collided. In the process the dark matter and visible matter were separated due to the fact that the collision slowed the visible matter but not the dark matter. In other words, the dark matter's momemtum carried it clear of the visible matter.The reason the dark matter does not slow down is because unlike ordinary matter it does not interact electromagnetically. Here is a quote from the WIKI article about the Bullet Cluster: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_ClusterThe hot gas of the two colliding components, seen in X-rays, represents most of the mass of the ordinary (baryonic) matter in the cluster pair. The gases interact electromagnetically, causing the gases of both clusters to slow much more than the stars.[or the dark matter] Edited November 26, 2013 by Bill Angel 1 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