Re: The phrase 'dark matter'
- From: "tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Jul 2006 08:44:15 -0700
The TimeLord wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:46:12 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> wroteThere is a lot on the 'net about DM experiments. The reports
in <1153460772.485123.73670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
The TimeLord wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:11:25 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> wroteBecause we can see through it, just like we see through light, apparently.
in <1153170685.919021.109060@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Randy Poe wrote:[...]
socratus wrote:
Yes, they are. DM is not dark at all, so that term used to describe
it or even define it is clearly a misnomer no matter how hard you wish
upon a star that it isn't. In fact, DM can be more accurately
described as invisible matter because we can see right through it,
obviously.
Through it? How do you know? Generally stars don't resolve below the
Raleigh limit anyway in a telescope. So how would you be able to tell
that dark matter is transparent?
What's the evidence that we can see through it?
We are talking about two states: visible and invisible. Those
researching DM state today state that it is invisible and can only be
detected by its observed effects.
Which is what I said.
We can see "through" light, as explained in my model, because we only see
I'm not sure that seeing through light even makes any
sense. Nevertheless, I don't know your model. Have you
submitted a paper or have a URL you can share?
[...]
It appears to us that space is empty between objects, so if DM exists,
The reason that space appears empty is because it is
there are so few small particles (1 per cubic meter approx.)
and even fewer larger objects in the space between galaxies.
However, we can tell from the behavior of light if there are
unseen objects/particles between us and stars/galaxies. An
example of this is the North American Nebula in Cygnus or
the Horsehead Nebula in Orion. The starlight behind the dust
is dimmed and reddened by the dust. In some dust clouds there
even seems to be evidence of polarization of the starlight
that comes through it.
we do not "see" it the same way we do not "see" light. They are two
different things that appear to be transparent to our eyes, but for
different reasons. Light is energy as we know it, but DM is not, since
it seems to exist even where there is no light. Recent reports show
that it is everywhere objects are not.
Which reports would that be? If there are no objects to reveal
the dark matter, then how do we know it's there? Remember that
the fundamental definition of dark matter is that it is not
directly seen, but that it exerts a force on another *object*.
I refer to are those from CFHT in Hawaii:
www.cfht.hawaii.edu/news/lensing/
The 2000 report tells you how they're trying to measure it, and
the newer reports bring you up to date on their progress.
I contend that DM appears to be everywhere RM is not, based
on the 2003 report that clearly leaves open that question. They
acknowledge that the density of DM appears to vary widely and
that the areas where galaxies are located seem to be the most
dense, such that it seems DM "filaments" connect the galaxies.
They also acknowledge that the areas that seem empty appear
that way due to the distances involved and the focal quality of
the camera. I think the calculations cannot be so fine as to
detect the lensing effects on the areas where DM is not as
dense, thus giving the impression that those areas are empty
of DM.
len
.
- References:
- Re: The phrase 'dark matter'
- From: The TimeLord
- Re: The phrase 'dark matter'
- Prev by Date: THE MODERN PHYSICIST
- Next by Date: Re: THE DEAD END
- Previous by thread: Re: The phrase 'dark matter'
- Next by thread: Re: The phrase 'dark matter'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
