Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So not because of gravity? Finally, we get that cleared up.
I'm not too sure about "finally", because this was stated much earlier up in the thread.
Well if this has been cleared up, why is the mainstream still trying to form planets without considering electromagnetic forces? Here's the first half dozen relevant hits in a browser search with the keywords "'planet formation' gravity", plus a few other references I've mentioned previously. All are from 2000 on. And NOT ONE of them mentions electromagnetic forces. Every single explanation talks only about gravity and "gas" dynamics and "dust". And there's hardly a mention of plasma.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060328_gas_giant.html "Death Spiral: Why Theorists Can't Make Solar Systems"
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_050307.html "Planet Puzzle: Theorists Wrestle with How They're Built"
http://www.mpia.de/PSF/PSFpages/Theory/PSF_new/picture_month.html "Planet and Star Formation Theory Group"
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/newworlds/0112_missing_link.html "Hubble Survey Finds Missing Link in Planet Formation"
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...t+formation"+gravity&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us "Planet Formation on the Fast Track"
http://www.physorg.com/news89031463.html "Terrestrial Planet Formation in Binary Star Systems"
http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~tremaine/lecture2.ppt "Planet formation mini-course. 2 Leiden University June 2007"
http://uanews.org/node/15901 "UA Astronomers Will Trace Planet Formation With Neon"
Why is it that more than 30 years after Hannes Alfven and Gustaf Arrhenius showed how electromagnetic forces in plasma filaments could transfer the angular momentum from the sun to the plasma from which the planets formed (and because the filaments pinch the plasmas together in the process, speed up planet condensation as well), are mainstream astrophysicists still saying stuff like the above where plasma and electromagnetic forces aren't even mentioned ... just "gravity" "gravity" "gravity"? In that last citation, they even acknowledge that the neon is ionized and glowing but never once do they consider the possibility that its ionized because of electric current running through it as part of the star formation process. And never once do they use the world "plasma". It's all "gas" "gas" "gas".
Is it stupidity or just being stubborn? Or did the mainstream astrophysics programs, because of their focus on gravity and gnomes, fail to tell these astrophysicists anything about Alfven and Arrhenius?
It is the electromagnetic force which keeps comets together
That is NOT what mainstream astrophysicists say. In fact, some are now saying that electromagnetic forces are what break them up.
http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/faq.htmlx "The small comets are giant, loosely packed "snowballs" with some kind of thin shell, made perhaps of carbon, that holds them together as they travel through interstellar space. But as they approach the electrically charged Earth, the electrostatic stress on these objects causes them to break up at an altitude of about 800 miles above Earth."
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=217 "The comet is made of lacy pieces of ice of various sizes, held together only by the gravity of its own tiny mass."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050906_tempel1_update.html "The outer tens of meters (yards) of the comet is less strong than a snow bank, said Deep Impact's Principal Investigator Michael A'Hearn, an astronomer at the University of Maryland. Still, the object's gravity holds it all together."
Or alternately,
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2672 "Ice is widely thought to be the 'glue' that holds comets together"
The problem with any hypothetical dark matter acting only through gravity is that two particles will accelerate towards each other as they approach, and there will be nothing to stop them from passing through each other.
Ah ... so dark matter is so *ghostly* that even it hits another bit of dark matter head on it will not interact in any way but gravity? Is that the *current* theory?
It is possible that such particles would simply continue orbiting each other. Many such particles would form a "cloud" which could in theory possess a significant gravitational pull.
And attract other dark matter particles ... until the cloud has so many that they begin to collapse ... eventually into a black hole?
I found these sources. None rule out the possibility and some seem to think it quite likely?
http://spaceurope.blogspot.com/2007/01/dr-lars-lindberg-christensen-sheds-some.html "Dr. Lars Lindberg Christensen sheds some light on dark matter ... snip ... How dense are those clumps? Can they reach collapse and form a dark matter black hole? I am not sure of the density.It seems that dark matter is the "scaffolding" inside of which stars and galaxies have been assembled over billions of years. The evolution of large-scale-structure in our Universe is driven by the gravitational attraction of dark matter, but dark matter itself has not been proven to collapse on itself and form a black hole."
http://space.newscientist.com/artic...tter-solves-mystery-of-giant-black-holes.html "Warm dark matter solves mystery of giant black holes, 13 September 2007 ... snip ... Dark matter may be made of fast, lightweight particles – contrary to the most widely accepted theory, according to a new computer simulation. That could explain the peculiarly pure chemical makeup of some stars in the Milky Way, and the enormous mass of black holes that live at the hearts of large galaxies. ... snip ... Liang Gao and Tom Theuns of Durham University in the UK have built a computer simulation to compare the behaviour of cold and warm dark matter in the early universe. At first the two varieties behave alike, collapsing under gravity into a network of filaments that crisscross the universe. ... snip ... These filaments may also be good at making big black holes. Although many of the isolated stars created by cold dark matter would give birth to black holes, they would only be a few times the mass of the Sun, which seems too small to seed the billion-solar-mass black holes that are known to lurk in many galaxies. But each warm-dark-matter filament should eventually collapse along its length, say Gao and Theuns, forcing stars, gas clouds and small black holes close together in the perfect environment for growing much bigger black holes."
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/darkmatter-05i.html "First Dark Matter Galaxy Comes Into View ... 2005 ... Cardiff-led team of astronomers has discovered an object that appears to be an invisible galaxy made almost entirely of dark matter — the first ever detected. A dark galaxy is an area in the universe containing a large amount of mass that rotates like a galaxy, but contains no stars. Without any stars to give light, it could only be found using radio telescopes."
I ask you ... if dark matter can form dark galaxies ... why not dark matter black holes? Hey ... perhaps this is one?
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/07_releases/press_081607.html "A popular theory of dark matter predicts that dark matter and galaxies should stay together, even during a violent collision, as observed in the case of the so-called Bullet Cluster. However, when the Chandra data of the galaxy cluster system known as Abell 520 was mapped along with the optical data from the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope and Subaru Telescope atop Mauna Kea, HI, a puzzling picture emerged. A dark matter core was found, which also contained hot gas but no bright galaxies. "It blew us away that it looks like the galaxies are removed from the densest core of dark matter," said Dr. Hendrik Hoekstra, also of University of Victoria. "This would be the first time we've seen such a thing and could be a huge test of our knowledge of how dark matter behaves." ... snip ... In addition to the dark matter core, a corresponding "light region" containing a group of galaxies with little or no dark matter was also detected. The dark matter appears to have separated from the galaxies. "The observation of this group of galaxies that is almost devoid of dark matter flies in the face of our current understanding of the cosmos," said Dr. Arif Babul, University of Victoria. "Our standard model is that a bound group of galaxies like this should have a lot of dark matter. What does it mean that this one doesn't?" ... snip ... In Abell 520, it appears that the galaxies were unimpeded by the collision, as expected, while a significant amount of dark matter has remained in the middle of the cluster along with the hot gas."
So why are you so sure dark matter black holes aren't possible? For the same reason you were sure that comets are held together by electromagnetic forces and electromagnetic forces are taken into account in modern theories of planet formation?
They will be pulled in many directions by the gravitational field, and will never come to rest, since there will be no electromagnetic interactions which might stop the dance.
Isn't it interesting how the dark matter proponents so selectively acknowledge electromagnetic interactions, folks? Only when they think their use will keep their gnomes alive?
