Re: "The Matter of "Dark Matter"
- From: glird <glird@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:39:43 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 16, 3:59 pm, "Rit" <r...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"The Matter of "Dark Matter"<> There have been many postings about the mysterious "Dark Matter"
which is alleged to constitute 90 to 95% of the mass(energy) content
of the Universe. The presence of this "Dark Matter" is indicated by
the observed gravitational behavior of galaxies and clusters of
galaxies. A large effort is apparently underway to detect this "Dark
Matter" and to determine its nature. >
"Dark matter" is the same material out of which particles (atoms,
molecules, etc) are made. The reason it is 'dark" is that it is
continuous and - although it fills space - it has no surface, thus
doesn't reflect light.
<In all of the discussions there seems to be little attention to the
3 - 3.5 degree K background radiation known for decades to be present.
If one examined the energy represented by this radiation, he finds
that it is
10 to 20 times the energy represented by the mass of conventional
matter. >
That radiation is emitted by local hydrogen atoms, in response to
tiny increments they absorb from transient em waves of light. It has
nothing to do with the total amount of energy or the mass of the
particulate matter in the entire universe!
< ... It has long been known that electromagnetic radiation transports
momentum as witnessed by the pressure of Solar radiation which causes
comets to have "tails". >
When an atom absorbs energy from transient em waves, there comes a
time when it has absorbed as much as it can hold. The next bit of
energy it absorbs then causes it to undergo a quantum reaction, in
which it emits a quantum of energy and the thickness of its electron-
shell layers instantaneously changes. It is that quantum burst of
emitted energy that causes rotor blades to rotate away from sides
painted white and toward the opposite sides painted black.
(For some reason or other, nobody seems to have harnessed this
mechanism as a source of electrical energy. I therefore hereby declare
it is MY IDEA and that i own the patent rights to and for it. :)
<In addition, mainstream physicists have discussed the feasibility of
using "light sails" for the propulsion of long distance space ships.
Mainstream physics tells us that the momentum transported by a photon
is identical to the momentum which would be transported by a material
particle of the same total energy (rest mass plus kinetic energy). - I
know that the rest mass of a material particle traveling at the
velocity of light must be zero.>
"In the limit", but the limit is NEVER reached.
< But lets not quibble, divide that zero by the zero represented by
the Lorentz Transformation for
mass and the inertial mass of the material particle can have any value
between the limits of +/- zero.
??? {0/0 = 0 and so does +0/-0 and -0/+0.}
<Since momentum is equal to the product of inertial mass and velocity,
and the momentum of a photon is given by its energy divided by the
velocity of light, then dividing the equation which provides the
momentum of a photon by C shows that the photon behaves as if its
inertial mass were equal to its energy divided by the square of the
velocity of light.>
Yes, momentum = mv; and the energy of a quantum of energy (called a
"photon") is equal to the frequency times h. But if we take c as
equal to 1 light-unit/second, then why is the energy of a photon equal
to
(2pirmc/137.03607)/c^2 = 2pirm/137.03607,
(in which r is the radius of the orbit of an electron in an H atom and
m is its mass)?
< Maybe photons do not possess inertial mass in spite of observation,
but as far as the writer is concerned, if it looks like a duck, walks
like a duck, and quacks like a duck, he is willing to accept that it
is a duck. The inertial mass of photons meet this test and if the
current state of physical knowledge teaches otherwise it is time for
physicists to rethink the subject.>
Everything we ever knew or our experiments revealed can be explained
in terms of a compressible movable material that fills all space,
including that within and between the nuclei of all atoms. If we call
the continuity aspect of the matter "the ether", then are you willing
to admit that the aether is the ether is the matter that fills space
whether or not particles made of it are present? (If not, go waddle
around in a void and empty space in which neither light nor photons
nor anything at all can exist.)
< Since photons act as if they possess inertial mass traveling at the
velocity of light, the background radiation of space must exert a
pressure which acting to cause the Universe to attempt to expand. >
If photons did possess inertial mass, that mass would be infinitely
large everywhere in space where they move at c. If that happened, the
universe would be expanding at c also.
Instead of the local expansive pressure ("sorce") being a
consequence of photons or background radiation, it is a basic property
of all matter, including the continuous dilute form of it that fills
every space and conducts the sorce-density gradients called "light".
< Let us examine whether those same photons possess a gravitational
mass. This is best done by considering an ideal thought experiment
along the lines of those used by Dr. Einstein. >
That's one way. A better way is to understand the mechanism of
gravity. When you do, it is obvious that waves moving through a g-
field (which is a density gradient) will be refracted toward the
denser side. Even so, since "mass" is a property of particles, those
waves would have no "mass" of their own. (They move through ever
changing portions of the material that does not move with them.)
< Consider a cold gravitational massive planet in intergalactic space
(to eliminate spurious disturbances). Attached to opposite sides of
this planet are columns each of which supports an ideal retro-
reflector having 100% efficiency. A beam of photons is sent from one
of the retro-reflectors, is bent by the planet's gravitational field
as required by General Relativity, and strikes the retro-reflector on
the other side of the planet. Because these are ideal reflectors, the
photons are constrained to continuously travel back and forth past the
planet's surface. It is a simple calculation (not involving
relativity) to show that as a result of the gravitational "refraction"
of the photon's path the process will cause a net force to be exerted
on the retro-reflectors in a direction which is "down" at the point
where the photons pass the surface. >
Objection: If the amount of refraction per wave is a function of the
wavelength, then the quantum of energy per "photon" is a function of
its frequency, which is a function of its velocity relative to a given
observer. If the "observer" is at rest on Earth, the downward force
will be a function of the wavelength of the em waves, thus would be
different for different colors. If so, then the light would become a
rainbow, and the bottom of it, moving downward at a different speed
than the rest if it, would either fly up or down with respect to the
rest of it.
< If we are to accept that the "Laws of Conservation of Energy and
Momentum" are valid, then there must be an upward pull on the planet
equal to the downward push on the retro-reflectors. >
The Big Bang theory says that those Laws are invalid. (If neither
energy nor mass can be created or destroyed, there is no way that ALL
of it could have spontaneously arisen in a point-sized nowhere about
13 billion years ago, or ever.)
<… This thought experiment shows that, if light is observed to be
"refracted" by a gravitational field, that "refraction" must result
not from the 'curvature" of space but from a gravitational force. >
Half right and half wrong thus WRONG! (Light IS refracted by a g-
field; but a g-field isn't a "curvature of space", it is a density
gradient of the material filling that field. It is NOT refracted by a
g-force, which doesn't exist in the g-field per se; it is bent by the
fact that light traverses an equal quantity of matter per second, thus
moves a smaller distance per second on the side where there is more
matter per unit length, which is the side o greater density.
< The magnitude of that force must result from the photons having a
"gravitational mass" equal to twice their inertial mass. When one
combines the effects of the gravitational and inertial "masses" the
photons which are observed to propagate through our Universe one finds
that the inertial mass tends to act as a gas to expand the Universe
while the gravitational mass acts like any other gravitational mass
and acts to contract the Universe. The size of the Universe at any one
time is determined primarily by the balance between these two effects.
Once the "big bang" state had been reached, the pressure of photons
acted to produce the observed expansion which will go on forever. >
So will bullshit like that, unless people learn that there is no
such thing as an empty space, and that the easily movable matter that
fills it is BODILY compressible.
glird
.
- References:
- "The Matter of "Dark Matter"
- From: Rit
- "The Matter of "Dark Matter"
- Prev by Date: Re: Sagnac effect: Geometrical refutation of Special Relativity
- Next by Date: Re: Sagnac effect: Visual refutation of Special Relativity
- Previous by thread: "The Matter of "Dark Matter"
- Next by thread: Overlooked Paradox of Space-Time Travel !!!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
