Re: The phrase 'dark matter'


Randy Poe wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
socratus wrote:
The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning God
created " virtual particles ".
Astrophysics approve, that in the beginning the God created
" latent mass ","invisible particles ", "'missing mass'" or
"'dark matter'".
From them the God created everything.
But nobody knows, what is " virtual particles ","'dark matter'"
what is " latent mass ", " invisible particles ".
And then the physicists are very surprised :
"Why is the nature of the microworld so paradoxical ?"
We use words not understanding their meaning

When we say "dark matter" the words are not arbitrary.

Yes, they are. DM is not dark at all,

It doesn't radiate. That makes it dark.

In fact, DM can
be more accurately described as invisible matter

Astronomers can only see that which radiates energy to be
picked up by their instruments.

because we can see right through it, obviously.

You can also see through the air, and you can't see air in
your telescope. That does not mean "air" is some exotic material.

It does to me. I still have my "childhood wonder", esp. about
the things that are so ho-hum to others.

The need for dark matter in cosmology was very simple: The
gravitation from the shiny stuff was not enough to explain the
behavior of the shiny stuff. If our gravitational models are correct,
then there's more MASS out there, but it isn't shiny.

One proposal I heard many years ago was "cold neutrinos". It was
put forward by a respectable cosmologist in a physics seminar,
something you no doubt have never been to.

Yes, we know, you are a far, far
Better man than me, Genghis Poe, for
You have been to a physics seminar.

Wherever you get
your views of what "real physicists" think and say, as far as I
can tell it isn't from hearing the words or thoughts of any
physicist.

Are you blind, then? Isn't PD one, or you? Or Worms? Or
any of the other pedantic trolls who hover over this ng? Do
you have someone reading this to you? Have you analyzed
yourself to see why you tend toward exaggeration?

Neutrinos are not exotic. They are invisible, and there are a great
many of them running free in the universe. The cold neutrino
explanation relies on the neutrino having a certain minimum mass,
and I think it would now be ruled out based on our current
estimates of the neutrino mass. But at the time it was one
plausible candidate, and one thing that made it plausible was
the MASS.

But that was based only on the notion that neutrinos had some
mass. It is only recently they have been shown to have some
mass but not until and unless they interact w/a tau neutrino.

That means they are massless until they are transformed
into particles having mass and energy, just like my model
predicted.

You are apparently trying to cook up some hypothetical substance
which doesn't gravitate like ordinary matter. But since having
gravitational mass is the single most important property
needed by the "missing mass", your "theory" is thus pretty
useless as an explanation of the form of the missing mass of
the universe.

Wait now. 1st you say, "...gravitate like ordinary matter." Next
you call it "gravitational mass", which does not equate to the
same thing. To have gravitation like we know it, it must have
the force of attraction, and that force is evident only in massive
objects we can observe. For us 2b able to see them, they must
have energy and the property of time, as we know those qualities
2b. However, we cannot see DM, so we can only guess it has
gravitational attraction like visible objects have.

Chew on this: How can additional gravitational attraction cause
the observed effects? Oh, sure, more attraction force will help
keep galaxies together better, yes. But how does that explain
the effect where the outer orbiting bodies move faster than can
be expected? And also, if DM is everywhere RM is not, how
does it know what to attract and what not to attract?

It is quite possible that instead of gravitational attractive forces,
they are gravitational repulsive forces. Since DM appears 2b
quite opposite to RM, why should we not think that its gravita-
tional force - if it has any - would be the opposite as well?

Or, why cannot it be some force other than gravitational? It
could be just "interactional", to coin a word, and not gravita-
tional at all. E.g., it could be that RM gathered into galaxies
via its own gravitational forces and also via interactions with
DM as well. DM gravitational forces could help keep RM
together by "pushing" or "herding" the matter, or by repulsing
it into galaxial forms. Or, if it is not gravitational forces in
play, it could interactions that repulse RM away from DM, and
since DM is everywhere RM is not, the effect could be to herd
RM into various galaxial shapes.

At this point, we only surmise the forces to be gravitational,
and it may indeed turn out that way. But at this point, I do not
see all the questions being answered by the same attractive
force of RM gravitation, while my model proposes that it is
not just the gravitational forces that change the universe
second-by-second, but also the various types of interactions
that go on between the stuff of the universe.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The phrase dark matter
    ... And then the physicists are very surprised: ... When we say "dark matter" the words are not arbitrary. ... then there's more MASS out there, ... To have gravitation like we know it, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: a few simple questions (from a layman)
    ... inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing. ... in a uniform gravitational field, ... for most purposes by Newton's law of gravitation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: If humans became extinct tomorrow...
    ... >> If there was only a finite Universe, ... >> then that Universe must have a finite mass. ... "stretches" the waves, the observer shall observe a red-shift, but ... This means that the gravitation of earth and / or that of the whole ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Re: If humans became extinct tomorrow...
    ... >> If there was only a finite Universe, ... >> then that Universe must have a finite mass. ... "stretches" the waves, the observer shall observe a red-shift, but ... This means that the gravitation of earth and / or that of the whole ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Rebuttal to Lesages Shadows (Part III-B)
    ... This is a continuation of the general rebuttal to "Lesage's Shadows": ... and the flow of energy from the flux into ordinary material bodies ... "In simple terms, the momentum of a particle of mass m is mv, whereas the ... Sagian gravitation at all - but is simply playing with orbital dynamics. ...
    (sci.physics)