Dark matter and Dark energy

[Tumbleweed]

No.



Motors also have loads and friction. The earth has almost no friction, and so if there were a driving force for it, it should speed up over time, not maintain a constant rotation rate. And in fact, the earth's rotation is slowing down (because the drag isn't zero - it comes from tidal friction with the moon), though at a very slow rate.

Furthermore, the combination of magnetic fields and currents don't always act like a motor. Often times, they act like a brake. So naive comparisons like this aren't a good way of predicting what the actual behavior will be.

Could not the outer crust of the earth be considered the core's (motors) load and friction. Seems a base would be established with a constant load and a constant magnetic field (EMF), leading to a constant day (excepting tides et al)
As for the forces possibly acting as a brake, does that not presume that they possibly are not as well?

 

[Ziggurat]

Could not the outer crust of the earth be considered the core's (motors) load and friction.

No.

As for the forces possibly acting as a brake, does that not presume that they possibly are not as well?

No.

There is no mystery for why the earth spins, and it's got nothing to do with electromagnetism and everything to do with conservation of angular momentum. Any explanation you come up with to explain a mystery which doesn't exist is going to be nonsensical.

 

[BeAChooser]

I thought the 90% dark matter mass number was an estimate of the size of the black hole in the center of the galaxy?

No. Extra mass in the center of the galaxy does not solve the rotation curve problem. Mainstream theorists assume need vast amounts of extra mass in the outer regions and beyond of galaxies to make the rotation curves look right. And almost all of it is not ordinary matter but something quite bizarre which they haven't yet (after 30 years and spending billions of YOUR dollars) been able to identify.

 

[robinson]

Yes, but finding out about that dark matter is worth trillions! No matter how much money is sucked out of the national budget, it will be worth it. Because we have to know.

 

[sol invictus]

It's ironic that the woos here are complaining about the cost of dark matter searches. DM detection experiments (at least the ones I know of) are extremely cheap - they make up a tiny drop in the bucket of federal funding for physics research.

Basically they consist of a chunk of some material or fluid with a sensitive detector hooked up to it that looks for energy being deposited. They're often located at the bottom of (pre-existing) mine shafts where the backgrounds are smallest.

 

[Tumbleweed]

There is no mystery for why the earth spins, and it's got nothing to do with electromagnetism and everything to do with conservation of angular momentum. Any explanation you come up with to explain a mystery which doesn't exist is going to be nonsensical.

This was the best explanation I could find to explain why the Earth spins:
"The Earth spins on its axis because of conservation of angular momentum. The classic example of this is a figure skater. When a figure skater pulls in her arms, she spins faster. The Earth formed when gas left over from making the Sun condensed into the planets. As this gas cooled and condensed, it started to spin faster. Now that it is spinning (and not condensing any more), it will keep spinning at a steady rate unless something stops it."

From what I remember reading somewhere, the arguement with this theory is:
1. If the Earth was formed by a gaseous cloud, what caused that cloud to spin to begin with and
2. Isn't there an alternate theory that states the Earth formed from the collision of numerous asteroids and not from a gaseous cloud? Hence no spinning like a skater from condensing?
If #2 is correct, would not a different theory be needed?

 

[robinson]

DM detection experiments (at least the ones I know of) are extremely cheap - they make up a tiny drop in the bucket of federal funding for physics research.

Basically they consist of a chunk of some material or fluid with a sensitive detector hooked up to it that looks for energy being deposited. They're often located at the bottom of (pre-existing) mine shafts where the backgrounds are smallest.

Dark matter research gets major funding boost
Wednesday February 06, 2008

A project aimed at discovering the nature of the universe has received $18 million in Ontario government funding.

The funding will go to astrophysics professor and lead researcher Anthony Noble, Canada Research Chair in Particle Astrophysics, to fund ongoing research in SNOLAB, the world’s deepest underground laboratory near Sudbury

“I am extremely delighted by the success of this terrific projectn, says Vice Principal (Research) Kerry Rowe. “We sincerely thank the Ontario government for the financial support from the Ontario Research Fund that recognizes research excellence.

This funding will allow Queen’s to move to a new level of cutting-edge research in astroparticle physics by supporting direct and indirect operational costs.”

The funding will go to astrophysics professor and lead researcher Anthony Noble, Canada Research Chair in Particle Astrophysics, to fund ongoing research in SNOLAB, the world’s deepest underground laboratory near Sudbury.

http://qnc.queensu.ca/story_loader.php?id=47aa0d1b808a5

 

[Dancing David]

The thing is, nothing close to us, in any way, shows evidence for dark matter/dark energy. Which also brings up the obvious question. If 90% of the mass is invisible mythical dark "stuff", why doesn't it effect anything nearby? That much mass would be in our solar system, between us and the nearest stars, everywhere. Why no gravitational problems with those systems?

That is rather a gross mis-statement. Gravity is a very large scale force. There appears to be more gravitational attraction than current theory allows for.

Go out and look at the Andromeda galaxy, if you could see it turn then the rate of revolution of the stars around the center is at a speed that would say there is more gravity than the visible material.

Could be anything we cant see that warps space time.

Like black holes.

It does effect us, very much all the time, but like neutrinos it is a matter of scale.

 

[BeAChooser]

This is a remarkably short-sighted view of science. Relativity seemed crazy at the time.

But Einstein didn't ignore electromagnetism as mainstream astrophysicists seem intent on doing (in the case of rotation curves, for instance). In fact, he paid a great deal of attention to electromagnetism. In fact, his theory of Relatively stemmed from observations involving electromagnetic phenomena. And he made sure he showed his theory was compatible with electromagnetic theory. Mainstream astrophysicists are not doing that.

And before you go and grab a rope, let me just say that superstring theory is still the leading candidate for a quantum theory of gravity.

Lee Smolin in his recent book "The Trouble With Physics" made a good case, without realizing it, that string theorists have gone off the mathematical deep end, just like mainstream astrophysicists.

Okay, I've brought up superstring theory. I'll go get my flameproof underwear now.

 

[BeAChooser]

As they collapse, matter is ejected due to interactions.

What kind of "interactions"?

Dark matter on the other hand interacts only very weakly

"interacts" how?

 

[Ziggurat]

From what I remember reading somewhere, the arguement with this theory is:
1. If the Earth was formed by a gaseous cloud, what caused that cloud to spin to begin with

Electric theories don't help there. On earth, motors spin because they have something to spin against. But in space, you can only start something spinning in one direction by spinning something else in the other direction. But everything within the solar system is spinning the same direction. And it's doing that because the material it all condensed from had angular momentum in one direction.

But it started out with angular momentum because fluctuations early in the universe created local imbalances in angular momentum.

2. Isn't there an alternate theory that states the Earth formed from the collision of numerous asteroids and not from a gaseous cloud? Hence no spinning like a skater from condensing?

Doesn't make any difference. Whether you're concentrating that mass from a gas, dust, or lots of rocks, the basic effect is identical.

 

[BeAChooser]

I don't know any peer-reviewed papers in astrophysics challenging the conclusion that Leos with Virgo ascendant are perfectionists, either.

So you place people like Anthony Peratt on the same level as astrologists?

http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/newsletters/npss/0306/peratt.html

That actually says more about you than him, sol.

 

[Corsair 115]

Dark matter research gets major funding boost...
http://qnc.queensu.ca/story_loader.php?id=47aa0d1b808a5

Your link does not say whether that $18 million is an up-front sum or if it is spread out over a number of years. That makes a difference.

 

[sol invictus]

Dark matter research gets major funding boost
Wednesday February 06, 2008

http://qnc.queensu.ca/story_loader.php?id=47aa0d1b808a5

First of all, $18m Canadian is a small amount of money on the scale of these things, especially spread over many years (which is almost certainly the case here).

Secondly, the primary experiment there is a neutrino detector (which has already produced very interesting results, by the way). Noble's research is focused on neutrinos.

There are also two (cheap) dark matter experiments in the same shaft, and a seismic detection station.

Go away, troll.

 

[sol invictus]

What kind of "interactions"?

Your favorite - electromagnetic.

"interacts" how?

We don't know - that's why it's called "dark matter", see. All we know is it must not interact strongly (other than gravitationally, of course).

 

[BeAChooser]

In the post I replied to, you linked to two PDF's. Only the first was a published article. And neither source lists the magnetic fields used for or derived from their simulations.

Did you bother to read the 1998 article I linked from Astrophysics and Space Science, "Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas, Part II. Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale"? Apparently not. It states very clearly that papers by him published in 1996 and 1997 contain a complete description of the algorithms and computational parameters. Just a little digging on your part (i.e., looking at the reference list at the end of the article) would have handed you the specifics for these two references:

Peratt, A.L.: 1996, Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas, Advanced Topics on Astrophysical and Space Plasmas, Vol 242, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. (see http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Ap&SS.242...93P ).

Peratt, A.L.: 1997, Advances in Numerical Modeling of astrophysical and space plasmas", Astrophys. Space Sci., 252, 93-163.

And if you'd spent 1 minute using your browser you'd have encountered those papers on the web. They, and other peer reviewed papers by Peratt, can be downloaded here:

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/papers.html

I suggest you download the following 3 articles from that site:

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, A. L. Peratt, APSS 242, 1997 (3.3MB)

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A. L. Peratt, APSS 256, 1998 (2.1MB)

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A .L. Peratt, APSS 256, 1998 [Adobe annotated edition] (8.3MB)

They should answer any questions you have. If you aren't too lazy to read them. And again, folks, note that NOT ONE peer reviewed article by mainstream astrophysicists was published challenging the specifics of this model or it's results. They simply ignored it.

By the way, Ziggorat, note this statement in the conclusion section of the first paper: "Today it is recognized that 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state." I mention it so you don't try to again argue it's mostly neutral gas.

And you might also want to download these from the above link:

Guest Editorial Sixth Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, A. L. Peratt and C.-G. Fälthammer, December 2003 (1.4MB)

Guest Editorial Seventh Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, A. L. Peratt and T. E. Eastman, August 2007 (3 MB)

They show that Peratt and other experts in plasma and electromagnetism haven't just gone away since 1998. They are still out there, publishing in peer reviewed journals of the IEEE, and still being ignored by mainstream astrophysicists. You see, folks, there are other known electromagnetic phenomena in plasmas that mainstream astrophysicists are simply ignoring. The plasma focus (z-pinch) they mention is one.

And you want some other peer reviewed articles by Peratt that were just ignored by Big Bang supporting mainstream astronomers and astrophysicists? Here:

Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 3-11, A. L. Peratt, 1995.

Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Issue 1-2, pp. 89-103, A. L. Peratt, 1996.

Plasma and the Universe: Large Scale Dynamics, Filamentation, and Radiation - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 97-107, A. L. Peratt, 1995.

Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 167-173, A. L. Peratt, 1995.

Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 229-253, A. L. Peratt, 1995.

And by the way, Ziggurat ... you and the other naysayers might find this a very disconcerting development:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0503657 "Astronomy & Astrophysics, September 12, 2006, Are rotation curves in NGC 6946 and the Milky Way magnetically supported?, E. Battaner and E. Florido, Abstract: Following the model of magnetically supported rotation of spiral galaxies, the inner disk rotation is dominated by gravity but magnetism is not negligible at radii where the rotation curve becomes flat, and indeed becomes dominant at very large radii. ... snip ... This magnetic alternative requires neither galactic dark matter (DM) nor modification of fundamental laws of physics ... snip ... Recent data about regular magnetic fields in spiral galaxies have been presented by Beck (2004b) in a recent review that clearly confirms what is to be expected in the magnetic scenario for rotation curves ... snip ... The magnetic alternative remains a serious, competitive theory. It requires neither the existence of DM nor the modification of classical laws (including General Relativity). It is based on MHD, a relatively recent chapter of Astrophysics, but one that has roots in classical electro-magnetism. ... snip ... the inclusion of magnetic effects, which is in any case necessary, could help to theoretically reproduce some unexplained, well known facts, for example, the rotation curve. Gravity alone does not explain the rotation curve very well, simply because magnetic fields cannot be ignored. ... snip ... The dynamic role of galactic magnetic fields is a matter that can no longer be ignored, neither at the small nor at the large scale."

Because where there are magnetic fields, there are electric currents. And the above is NOT inconsistent with Alfven and Peratt's model or numbers.

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC doesn't believe in the Big Bang, and thinks that an "electric universe" model can produce an infinitely old universe. He also thinks that the sun is powered by electricity and not by fusion.

Don't misquote me Ziggurat.

I have not stated I believe in an infinitely old universe ... just that the observations appear to suggest it must be much older than what the mainstream, Big Bang supporting community claims. And I've cited source after source and observation after observation to prove it. I've even cited mainstream astrophysicists admitting that there just isn't enough time for some of the observed structures to have been formed and it's "back to the drawing board." And your side's response has been been to ignore the problem. Par for the course with you Big Bang advocates.

I also have not stated with 100% certainty that I believe the sun is powered by electricity. What I've offered are a number of sourced observations that strongly suggest the gravity only, fusion model doesn't work ... not without introducing various gnomes to explain phenomena and even then many unanswered questions remain (such as why the Voyager spacecraft are behaving the way they are). An electric model would readily explain these phenomena and even offer a reasonable explanation for phenomena that even the mainstream's gnomes don't explain.

An electric model might not only explain observations on the sun but produce a consistent explanation for various observed stellar phenomena that the mainstream astrophysicists continue to struggle with ... even after introducing additional unproven gnomes. Even the HR diagram and the observation that stars have been observed to rapidly change locations on it (a serious problem for mainstream theorists) can be easily explained with an electric model. And if the rotation curves of galaxies can be explained with a model like Peratt's, then that suggests there are large currents flowing through interstellar space which might drive an electric star model. Ergo, the possibility shouldn't just be dismissed out of hand.

And whether the sun is electric or not, there still are electromagnetic phenomena that mainstream astrophysicists are just ignoring when it comes to the sun. Birkeland currents. Double layers. Explosive double layers. z-pinches. I think your side is afraid that if you open the door even a crack to electromagnetic explanations, your precious Big Bang theory will be at risk. And there are now too many jobs, reputations, and Big Science projects relying on that gnome to risk that.

The planets' orbits are very well explained by gravity alone.

Except that gravity-only mainstream astronomers have to invoke gnomes to get the angular momentum of the solar system to look like it does. While Alfven and Arrehnius supplied an electromagnetic solution to this more than 30 years ago. And Ziggurat also fails to mention that mainstream astrophysicists have many ongoing problems with their gravity only model. For example:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060328_gas_giant.html "Death Spiral: Why Theorists Can't Make Solar Systems, Ker Than, 8 March 2006 ... snip ... According to the standard model of planet formation, called "core accretion," planets form over millions of years as enormous blocks of rock and ice smash together to form planetary embryos, called "protoplanets," and eventually full-fledged planets. Most scientists agree that core accretion is how terrestrial planets such as Earth and Mars were created, but the model can't convincingly explain how gas giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn came to be. One major problem is that developing gas giants through core accretion takes too long. According to the best current models, the process requires several million years-longer than the typical observed lifetime of the stellar gas disks from which planets are born. The other main difficulty is the so-called "migration" problem. Protoplanets are not sitting stationary in the gas disks as they bulk up. Due to gravitational interactions with the disks, the protoplanets swirl rapidly inwards toward their central stars in what scientists call "Type 1" migration. Models predict that this death spiral can take as little as 100,000 years. This so-called "migration" problem is the toughest challenge facing theorists trying to explain gas giant formation through core accretion, said Alan Boss, a planet formation expert at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. "The migration problem is scary," Boss told SPACE.com. "[The models] are off by a factor of 10 or 100, so you really have to wonder if there's going to be a solution here."

 

[arthwollipot]

BeAChooser, why do you think these theories don't have more mainstream support?

 

[Ziggurat]

Don't misquote me Ziggurat.

I have not stated I believe in an infinitely old universe ... just that the observations appear to suggest it must be much older than what the mainstream, Big Bang supporting community claims.

I've asked you before how old you think the universe is, and you didn't answer. Considering that so many of the EU folks you refered us to before rambled on about perpetual universe, I consider my assumption about your position to be fair. If you want to correct the record, you are free to do so.

I've even cited mainstream astrophysicists admitting that there just isn't enough time for some of the observed structures to have been formed and it's "back to the drawing board." And your side's response has been been to ignore the problem.

You're contradicting yourself. Again. If they're saying "back to the drawing board" then they aren't ignoring the problems.

I also have not stated with 100% certainty that I believe the sun is powered by electricity.

But you think it could be. Which means you're clueless. I've already demonstrated why it's impossible. You have yet to show how the requisite charge could possibly be confined. In fact, your previous attempts to do so only revealed that you were pathetically ingorant of basic electrodynamics, the field you say is being ignored. Oh, the irony. You have since abandoned even trying to justify this absurdity, but yet you will not conceed how completely and obviously impossible that scenario is.

What I've offered are a number of sourced observations that strongly suggest the gravity only, fusion model doesn't work

Strawman. MHD models aren't gravity-only.

An electric model would readily explain these phenomena

No, it can't. We've been through this before. The limit on the charge of the sun to keep it from exploding is so many orders of magnitude smaller than what would be required to power it that it's not even funny. An electric-powered sun is impossible. Nothing can contain the requisite charge. You have yet to provide any calculations to counter what I have already demonstrated. Because you can't. Because you don't know what you're talking about.

And if the rotation curves of galaxies can be explained with a model like Peratt's, then that suggests there are large currents flowing through interstellar space which might drive an electric star model.

No, actually, it doesn't suggest that at all. As has already been pointed out, the fact that the rotation rates are the same for all manner of objects suggests that gravity is indeed the driving force.

Ergo, the possibility shouldn't just be dismissed out of hand.

I didn't dismiss it out of hand. I took the numbers from your source and demonstrated that they don't work, by about 20 orders of magnitude. Come up with better numbers if you want to be taken seriously. But physics is a quantitative science, and you seem to be allergic to actual numbers.

 

[Ziggurat]

Just a little digging on your part (i.e., looking at the reference list at the end of the article) would have handed you the specifics for these two references:

It's funny, but despite the obvious time you put into quote-mining, you still can't actually pull up any numbers for the strength of the magnetic field that they're proposing. Those are your sources. I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase trying to find buried information which might not even be there.