Go Back   Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > General Physics

General Physics General Physics Help Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Dec 18th 2015, 03:18 PM   #1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Tintagel,.Cornwall, UK
Posts: 48
Post Dark Matter a Myth ?

Dark Matter.


As I understand it Dark Matter arose from studies in cosmology in which it was observed that the many Galaxies which are revealed by our large telescopes are spinning. These seem to have a common shape in which innumerable bodies form a disc which is thickened around the spin axis.


As seen at immense distances a Galaxy would seem to be not spinning at all but, with modern technology, the rate of spin can be measured. Even so because of the immense radius of Galaxies those bodies at the periphery of any Galaxy are moving in circular motion at very high speeds such that centrifugal force should, by our calculation, be sufficient to fling the stars from the Galaxy.


To account for this stability it was hypothesised that there must be some additional unseen Mass within and this has been christened "Dark Matter". The problem has been that the most diligent of searches so far has failed to reveal any trace of dark matter.


I claim to have resolved this problem by my introduction in “Khgsics” of an alternative basic indivisible particle which can be used with others of its like to build stable structures; such structures can occur with multiple sizes and multiple shapes and make it possible to form larger structures in the fashion of 3-D jigsaw puzzles. Such shaped Atoms can account for the different chemical forms which are familiar to us.


A side issue in this study is that the Gravitation force must be inversely proportional to any Radiation force. As part of the analysis of such structures it becomes clear that the radiation force varies with temperature as a sine function while the gravitation force is a cosine function. This accounts for the readily observable changes of radiation (heat) in associatian with barely perceptible changes in the gravitation force at the relatively minute changes in rotational position which are perceptible to us and our instrumentation.


To write the ratio of
radiation force: gravitation force

as an equality requires the addition of a constant of proportionality. The above ratio is concerned only with forces and so a likely candidate is to be found in the associated Mass (m). Thus Einstein's equation is replaced by:
(radiation) r = gm.
It might seem therefore that, when calculating the dynamics of a Galaxy, the total effective mass involved should not be modified by adding a hypothetical “Dark Mass”. Instead the expression requires the addition of a function of temperature bearing in mind that the termperature range , as experienced here on Earth , is approximately 0 – 10|3 while, I understand, that in the Cosmos it hass been measured as 10|27 .

NOTE
Einsstein's equation
e = mc|2
renders to
[CENTER] m = e/c|2/CENTER]

which leaves me with a feeling of puzzlement. Especially is this so, as I have pointed out elsewhere, in the context of Einsten's reasoning where “c” not only represents the measured speed at which Light propagates but it is declared to be a maximum speed at which anything can be moved ?

If that be true then the quantity c has a maximum value and, in practical terms, c2 is not admissible.

Last edited by kengreen; Dec 18th 2015 at 03:27 PM.
kengreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18th 2015, 05:45 PM   #2
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,402
There are so many comments to make here I don't know where to begin...

Let's try this first:
Originally Posted by kengreen View Post
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.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 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
kengreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19th 2015, 04:09 AM   #4
MBW
Senior Member
 
MBW's Avatar
 
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.
MBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 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
kengreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19th 2015, 11:36 AM   #6
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,402
Originally Posted by kengreen View Post
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.

So. Go ahead and show us your theoretical definitions and methodology.

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

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 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
kengreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22nd 2015, 08:28 AM   #8
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,402
Originally Posted by kengreen View Post
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.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22nd 2015, 12:56 PM   #9
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,549
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.
Pmb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 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
kengreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > General Physics

Tags
dark, matter, myth



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Media's influence on Dark Matter and Dark Energy candidates strangestofquarks Nuclear and Particle Physics 4 Jul 20th 2017 06:30 PM
What is Dark Matter? ndung Theoretical Physics 6 Oct 20th 2016 06:42 AM
How does light interact, and travel through Solid matter as matter gets thicker, in w timemachine2 Light and Optics 0 Mar 4th 2016 04:27 PM
Question about dark fringe in diffraction kelsiu Light and Optics 1 Aug 28th 2015 12:59 PM
Dark Matter Theory (personal theory) kevinmorais General Physics 41 Sep 11th 2009 11:36 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed