Thoughts On Dark Matter

[Strange]

Why not respond to what I actually said?

 

I did. I used the quote function to comment on what you said (where you reintroduced the topic).

[steveupson]

 

I did. I used the quote function to comment on what you said (where you reintroduced the topic).

 

I think there must be some misunderstanding about what constitutes an animation and what constitutes a computer model. Kepler's conjecture was recently proven with a computer model. Why do you think that was? Was it because the authors were afraid of math or because they had no one to "reverse engineer" the math for them?

[Strange]

 

I think there must be some misunderstanding about what constitutes an animation and what constitutes a computer model. Kepler's conjecture was recently proven with a computer model. Why do you think that was? Was it because the authors were afraid of math or because they had no one to "reverse engineer" the math for them?

 

It was because, at the time (1998), they did not have an alternative method. So they wrote a computer program based on a mathematical function to find the minimum value.

 

Since then, a formal mathematical proof has been developed (2015).

 

I'm not quite sure what the point of this is: they did not start from a cartoon, they started from a mathematical description of the problem (a function), which was used to write a program. This is the reverse of your problem (you have an animation that produces a series of numbers but no function describing them).

 

All of which is totally off topic for the thread. So we had better leave it there.

[steveupson]

 

All of which is totally off topic for the thread. So we had better leave it there.

 

Yes, let's discuss the [math]2\pi[/math] question. Do you have any suggestions as to why that is?

 

Do you think the answer could be geometry, or do you rule that out as a possibility?

[Strange]

 

Yes, let's discuss the [math]2\pi[/math] question. Do you have any suggestions as to why that is?

 

Do you think the answer could be geometry, or do you rule that out as a possibility?

 

My guess is coincidence.

 

But if you can show a geometric relationship, that would be fascinating.

[steveupson]

 

My guess is coincidence.

 

But if you can show a geometric relationship, that would be fascinating.

 

I think I can do that, and I'm fascinated by it.

[Strange]

I look forward to seeing your mathematics.

[EdEarl]

 

Phys.org

Astronomers have combined data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, the Hubble Space Telescope and the National Science Foundation's Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) to conclude that a peculiar source of radio waves thought to be a distant galaxy is actually a nearby binary star system containing a low-mass star and a black hole. This identification suggests there may be a vast number of black holes in our Galaxy that have gone unnoticed until now.

 

Because this study only covered a very small patch of sky, the implication is that there should be many of these quiet black holes around the Milky Way. The estimates are that tens of thousands to millions of these black holes could exist within our Galaxy, about three to thousands of times as many as previous studies have suggested.

 

Evidence that some dark matter is black holes, rather than being an unknown particle.

[Strange]

It can only account for a tiny proportion. Even at the upper bound of their estimate, there could be a billion such black holes, so about 1% of the (visible) mass of the galaxy. While dark matter is about 20x the visible mass.

[cosmomanic]

I am a rookie when it comes to dark matter and I might be wrong but just hep me clarify something. We know that dark matter is everywhere and accounts for almost 20x of the visible matter and we cannot see it but we can see its effects. One of its effects is bending of light, which is like watching through the bottom of a wine glass and if it is everywhere then why do we not see others the same way, like we were seeing them through the wine glass???

Edited August 17, 2016 by cosmomanic

[EdEarl]

Dark energy is everywhere. Dark matter is not everywhere; it is mainly in and around galaxies.

[Strange]

I am a rookie when it comes to dark matter and I might be wrong but just hep me clarify something. We know that dark matter is everywhere and accounts for almost 20x of the visible matter and we cannot see it but we can see its effects. One of its effects is bending of light, which is like watching through the bottom of a wine glass and if it is everywhere then why do we not see others the same way, like we were seeing them through the wine glass???

 

Because the effect is very small. Although there is a lot of dark matter around, its density is very low.

[Freshsee]

could dark matter be the spawn of elemental matter, lacking the ability to gravitate until condensed in supporting environment.

[EdEarl]

In what context do you mean the spawn of elemental matter? Do you mean free quarks and electrons, in which the quarks combine to make protons and neutrons and then collect electrons to make elements? Or, do you mean something else?

[Strange]

could dark matter be the spawn of elemental matter, lacking the ability to gravitate until condensed in supporting environment.

 

 

I'm not sure what this means, but the key point is that dark matter does gravitate. That is one of the things we know for sure.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Strange

[steveupson]

I look forward to seeing your mathematics.

 

The basic equation is here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/101726-formalizing-length-as-an-antivector-algebra-help-requested-once-again/?p=963786

 

I think that I can explain how the math works, and how our understanding of direction accounts for dark energy.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Let's stay on topic here

[steveupson]

Is it possible to be more vague with this moderation note? I assume it is in response to my post. I just used the google to search for "dark+matter -energy" and it was all simply stuff about tv and movies. My understanding is that all descriptions/theories wrt dark matter include dark energy.

 

Am I missing something? Is dark matter really something that that can be discussed separately from dark energy? Is dark energy really considered off topic?

 

This is the second time I feel that I've been accused of wandering of the reservation for no reason at all. Except perhaps to shut me up. The last time was when you tried to make the argument that time going "forwards" was devoid of direction. I'm starting to feel as if you don't like what I have to say, but is it really that important to you to keep me from expressing my understanding?

 

Direction is a base quantity whether people like the idea or not. The math is the math and the math doesn't lie.

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

The modnote was not directed at one person. Parts of the discussion went off-topic six months ago. However, when you acknowledge that you're continuing a discussion you were warned about, it's hard to take claims of persecution seriously.

Discussing your take on dark matter in someone else's thread is OT. Responses are supposed to be mainstream science. That's the bottom line.

(Responding to modnotes is usually OT as well)

Dark matter and dark energy are indeed different subjects.

[Strange]

Is it possible to be more vague with this moderation note? I assume it is in response to my post. I just used the google to search for "dark+matter -energy" and it was all simply stuff about tv and movies. My understanding is that all descriptions/theories wrt dark matter include dark energy.

 

Am I missing something? Is dark matter really something that that can be discussed separately from dark energy? Is dark energy really considered off topic?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/102009-are-dark-matter-and-dark-energy-related/