Physics Help Forum Dark Matter a Myth ?

 General Physics General Physics Help Forum

Dec 18th 2015, 05:45 PM   #2

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,621
There are so many comments to make here I don't know where to begin...

Let's try this first:
 Originally Posted by kengreen If that be true then the quantity c has a maximum value and, in practical terms, c2 is not admissible.
What is wrong with c^2? What do you mean by "admissible?"

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

 Dec 18th 2015, 06:57 PM #3 Banned   Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Tintagel,.Cornwall, UK Posts: 48 Dark Matter a Myth Thank folr yor reply Dan. There is nothing wrong with c^2 simply as a number. BUT declare that there is not a value greater than c then c x c is meaingless. Ken Green
 Dec 19th 2015, 04:09 AM #4 Senior Member     Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Bedford, England Posts: 668 There are a number of theories for the observed rotational behavior of galaxies, Dark matter is perhaps the front runner at the moment, the main problem is that no one has been able to find any evidence of it except in the rotational behavior of galaxies. There is also "MOND" Modified Newtonian Dynamics and I am sure there are others less well publicised. The speed of light is not the largest number allowable, but it does appear to be the highest speed allowable. There have been thousands of experiments performed with ever increasing ingenuity and accuracy which all seem to confirm this. For a really big number see Googol (ten to the power of 100) During one slow day at work a colleague and I tried to work out what might be measured by such a huge number, we worked out that the volume of the observable universe is roughly a googol cubic angstrom units. So perhaps not a particularly useful number, but it is a genuine and usable number. __________________ You have GOT to Laugh ! Last edited by MBW; Dec 19th 2015 at 04:11 AM.
 Dec 19th 2015, 08:00 AM #5 Banned   Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Tintagel,.Cornwall, UK Posts: 48 Dark Matter MBW, Many thanks for your reply. I have not any quarrel with your opinion except that I object to your use of the kind of sloppy English which today bedevils the world of Physics. Surely D.M. was dreamed up to explain the apparent misbeviour of spinning galaxies? You may not use the supposed/hypothesised (and probably non-existent) stuff in any kind of get out. There is more than enough embarrasmment hidden under carpets ! In my late teens when i first entered the labour force I found many self-contradictions in the Physics with which I was to earn a living. I was astounded to realise that the obvious solution to the M-M disaster was that the earnest gentlemen were NOT measuring the speed of Light - their underlying theory had misled them. Light could not possibly be tracvelling in a straight line from A to B but , if travel it must, then it moved orthoganaly to AB. It has taken me 60+ years of spare time to make sense of that and it is scandalous the boo-boos that I have turned up en passant. I fear that my ultimate conclusions are pure heresy. Ken
Dec 19th 2015, 11:36 AM   #6

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,621
 Originally Posted by kengreen MBW, Many thanks for your reply. I have not any quarrel with your opinion except that I object to your use of the kind of sloppy English which today bedevils the world of Physics. Surely D.M. was dreamed up to explain the apparent misbeviour of spinning galaxies? You may not use the supposed/hypothesised (and probably non-existent) stuff in any kind of get out. There is more than enough embarrasmment hidden under carpets ! In my late teens when i first entered the labour force I found many self-contradictions in the Physics with which I was to earn a living. I was astounded to realise that the obvious solution to the M-M disaster was that the earnest gentlemen were NOT measuring the speed of Light - their underlying theory had misled them. Light could not possibly be tracvelling in a straight line from A to B but , if travel it must, then it moved orthoganaly to AB. It has taken me 60+ years of spare time to make sense of that and it is scandalous the boo-boos that I have turned up en passant. I fear that my ultimate conclusions are pure heresy. Ken
It's not the conclusions that interest me at this point: it's the method. If you truly have an alternative candidate solution then I don't know why you aren't trying to get it published? And please don't tell me that no one will publish because of your conclusions...I've seen too many conspiracy complaints recently.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

 Dec 21st 2015, 07:08 PM #7 Banned   Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Tintagel,.Cornwall, UK Posts: 48 Dark Matter a Myth Dan, Since I replied to the above post from you there has been a deafening silence. It would seem possible therefor that, with my normal success rate, I despatched it en route to some other entity ? I cannot believe that I sank you? If it did not arrive I will try again. On the other hand ... ? Ken Green
Dec 22nd 2015, 08:28 AM   #8

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,621
 Originally Posted by kengreen Dan, Since I replied to the above post from you there has been a deafening silence. It would seem possible therefor that, with my normal success rate, I despatched it en route to some other entity ? I cannot believe that I sank you? If it did not arrive I will try again. On the other hand ... ? Ken Green
I don't see any post after mine except this one. Are you saying you have replied to this thread before now?

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

Dec 22nd 2015, 12:56 PM   #9
Physics Team

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,576
If I understand what you wrote then it's all wrong. The orbital velocity of stars is larger than it should be if we only take into account the mass from stars that we can see. Simply put, the rotation curve is not correct if we assume that all the matter that exists in the galaxy is the matter that we see. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Galaxy_rotation_curves

It's always a good idea to do a search on a subject before you ask a question. For example: I just did a search using Google using the phrase Dark Matter and it came up with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
 Astrophysicists hypothesized the existence of dark matter to account for discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects, and their mass as calculated from the observable matter (stars, gas, and dust) that they can be seen to contain. Their gravitational effects suggest that their masses are much greater than the observable matter survey suggests.

 Dec 23rd 2015, 09:57 AM #10 Banned   Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Tintagel,.Cornwall, UK Posts: 48 DFark Matter Topsquark Thank you again and, yes, I dd prepare an anser to your challenge. But regrettably I have problems and cannot guarantee its proposed destination. My reply to ( ... here is one of my problems ... I can't recall yor name ...) is that you are trying to correct me using accepted theory which is the subject of my doubting ? If I may use this missive w.r.t. the first para. above ...? You asked for explanation of my method. Dating back to my teens I have found that which appeared (to me) to be self-contradiction in the accepted teaching.. My first step therefore was to disstil the language seeking to use each word in a strictly unambiguous style. I feel sure you will not be surprised when I say it proved to be extremely difficult? Re-writing each step along thr argument, in the style that I learned with my introduction to Euclid, I derived a totally new candidate for the "single indivisible particle". Perhaps the most surprising aspect was that this particle was truly indivisible. On this forum I must move in large steps. Briefly the I.P. is a closed loop of force. As such it is completely without intereset and the next hurdle was to accept that its two manifestations (c.w.-acting and a.c.w.-acting) are one and the same ... turn either of them over ? A Universe of one particle is an absurdity and so the exercise moved on to consider them in collection. First place two side by side and the choices are (a) in the same plane (b) their axes co-linear . Then firt of these produces a force of mutual attraction and the second a force of mutual repulsion. The significant diffference however is that the forcem of attraction causes the force to increase as they close while the repulsion uncouples them. Next, by tilting them w.r.t each other, it is possible to resolve eack loop into components in orthogonal planes and so set up the possibility of creating a system in equilibrium. I could not possibly recreate this here and at this time but it is set out in detail in the book (mispelled "KHGISICS")) which I had published in Austria Feb.2014. My next step wss tocall onmy electronics experience in servo theory to which Iwas able to harness some Euclid's work to produce explanations of such things as superconductiviy. Because of the manner in which 60+ years of notes were transcribed by my elder Daughter Sue (now Kelly) it has many errors of both commission and omission which it has been my endeavour over the passed year to correct. In the orocess the argument has been considerably advanced to the point where i can remove the GUT problem. The overal result is a multitude of "Universe2, each one originating in a Supernova B.B. and whch is followed by a mighty and rapid expansion with cooling (under positive-feedbac control) which contains an automatic switch that, at a boundary condition, reverses the feeback and sets in motion a slow contraction with slowly rising temperature (compare with a stik of dynamite). ... and sso on ad infinitum ! No. I have no idea of the true nature of my loops! Apologies but I simply mst awhile. Making too many mistaakes. Ken Green

 Tags dark, matter, myth

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post strangestofquarks Nuclear and Particle Physics 4 Jul 20th 2017 06:30 PM ndung Theoretical Physics 6 Oct 20th 2016 06:42 AM timemachine2 Light and Optics 0 Mar 4th 2016 04:27 PM kelsiu Light and Optics 1 Aug 28th 2015 12:59 PM kevinmorais General Physics 41 Sep 11th 2009 11:36 AM