Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Mysterious Dark Matter

  1. #1 Mysterious Dark Matter 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Basim, take note.

    MYSTERIOUS DARK MATTER

    Most everyone should know that Fritz Zwicky discovered the mysterious dark matter (MDM). This was the result of unexplained galaxy velocities that exceeded the estimated masses of these galaxies. So, what is the answer?
    The establishment astronomers have not provided one. I will offer an explanation for the reason why but first I will go to the spiral galaxy problem that is similar in nature.

    Vera Rubin and her partners researched spiral galaxies and found that the spiral structures in the spiral galaxies did not conform to the virial theorem where the velocities should fall off as the distances of the spiral structures increased from the central nucleus. This obviously is similar to the problem within the galaxy clusters. The conclusion, of course is that there is some mysterious dark matter that exists at the outer perimeter of these spirals.

    I believe that I have the solution to this problem and the solution is that the MDM does not exist! That is why it is unobservable. This is how I would explain this puzzle:

    Solar and star flares are common in all stars throughout the Universe. This flaring activity results when impacting bodies such as meteoroids, comets and on rare occasions, asteroids (I know this may start another debate on the cause of flares but I am sure I am right) create explosions. The oxides in these bodies break down and release their oxygen and in this hydrogen environment and high temperature, this results in an obvious explosion.
    These flares strip the electrons off of the elements involved (refer to the S&T article in the 1989 June issue on page 591) such as iron, sulfur and oxygen and leave only the two inner electrons. Some of these free electrons and positive ions are then blasted out into space where the slower positive ions are captured in the inner portions of the spirals while the much higher velocity electrons are captured in the outer hydrogen gas perimeter that surrounds the galaxies to create negative hydrogen ions (two electrons). There may not be many captured but enough to create an attraction between the negative ions and the inner positive ions to give a boost to the gravitational force and create the illusion that more mass is present. Therefore, the MDM does not exist. That is why there is no observation or detection of more mass.

    In the clusters, this ionic hydrogen gas collects in the central region of the clusters and acts as a glue (being attracted back from the surrounding galaxies) to attract the galaxies by this weak electric force that enhances the gravitational force and creates the same illusion of greater mass. Obviously then, this mass does not exist. There has been x-ray activity observed in the central regions of these clusters that is probably the result of the ionic electron activity of these charged ions.
    You may wonder how this electron cloud can exist because of their mutual repulsion but this central region is continually being fed these free electrons from all the surrounding galaxies and their star flaring activity. Electrons approaching each other from all sides will stop centrally because of their mutual repulsion. Electrons will be escaping this region but are being replenished continually.
    So this electron cloud is the MDM in the clusters while in the spirals, the added attraction is between negative HA’s and inner positive elemental nuclei.

    Mike NS


    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Megabrain

    This post belongs in the Astronomy/Cosmology thread.

    It cites references and observations. S & T mag. gets its information from the Professional Journals. So it is just as credible as the PJs.

    NS


    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    nope mike it belong here just like you
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    6
    Mike NS

    Solar flares are considered as essentially a magnetic phenomenon and not as a result of meteor impact, just thought I would let you know.

    Cheers

    Tony
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Good point Uclock.

    Mike, what evidence do you have that flares are caused by impacts?

    cheers
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    I think this forum could do with a "Speculations" category. If people want to raise an idea and talk about it, kicking it into "Psuedoscience" is a bit harsh.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Guest
    Is all your input speculative? - if so please be careful when answering the questions of others who are seeking what is scientifically thought at the moment.

    Hawking radiation is speculative, I'l agree to that, as is the big bang and many other current theories, the dividing line is where reputable, educated, honoured scientists, versus us plebs! :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    the recent break up of a large comet and plunged into Jupiter, certainly created some flair like activity. it would be hard to say why some flairs, not all are from debris falling into the one unit of our solar system which makes up 98.6% of the total mass. the internal solar activity, however would have to release energy and logical as well.

    solar flairs from space however, as i understand it are the final results of a stars burn out, effecting or sterilizing things for up to light years in distance. flair activity as related to the our sun would be hard to detect at this time...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Is all your input speculative? If so please be careful when answering the questions of others who are seeking what is scientifically thought at the moment.

    Hawking radiation is speculative, I'll agree to that, as is the big bang and many other current theories, the dividing line is where reputable, educated, honoured scientists, versus us plebs! :wink:
    Not all. But as per your second paragraph, even some of the stuff I think isn't speculative, actually is. And it will probably turn out that some of the stuff you think is... isn't!

    Seriously though, a place for ideas might be a good... idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Guest
    Farsight I think you'd find the the thread "Is science losing it" interesting, I might be about to ungergo a metamorphosis....

    I have enough trouble as it is... you could post in General science.. However I have made a note in the Mod area of the forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Uclock
    Mike NS

    Solar flares are considered as essentially a magnetic phenomenon and not as a result of meteor impact, just thought I would let you know.

    Cheers

    Tony
    I KNOW that. So what happens in these magnetic energy builups that cause the eruptions? I want to know the CAUSE.

    Come to think of it, this falsifies Einsteins M/E formula because a force causes the energy here. Ha ha.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    Good point Uclock.

    Mike, what evidence do you have that flares are caused by impacts?

    cheers
    Did you read my entire article?
    The source for this article as quoted in Sky & Tel mag was based on a real X-ray Satelite that detected the residual NUCLEI that were shorn of all
    their electrons except the 2 inner ones. The temperature of this gigantic flare was estimated to be 20 millionK.

    Another or the same xray satelite photographed 2 comets heading toward the Sun and after a couple of days passed, A gigantic flare was seen.

    I lost the original web address for this scenerio.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Another or the same xray satelite photographed 2 comets heading toward the Sun and after a couple of days passed, A gigantic flare was seen.
    Could it not be coincidence? Come come now NS....

    Someone, somewhere, is probably farting while flares erupt. Perhaps that is the cause....

    Take care Mike,
    william
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Another or the same xray satelite photographed 2 comets heading toward the Sun and after a couple of days passed, A gigantic flare was seen.
    Could it not be coincidence? Come come now NS....

    Someone, somewhere, is probably farting while flares erupt. Perhaps that is the cause....

    Take care Mike,
    william
    Well if that was true, he would blow his ass apart, so that would then prove a cinnection.. Ha ha.

    Do you think that could blow zelos away?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Another or the same xray satelite photographed 2 comets heading toward the Sun and after a couple of days passed, A gigantic flare was seen.
    Could it not be coincidence? Come come now NS....

    Someone, somewhere, is probably farting while flares erupt. Perhaps that is the cause....

    Take care Mike,
    william
    Well if that was true, he would blow his ass apart, so that would then prove a cinnection.. Ha ha.

    Do you think that could blow zelos away?
    Doubtful, the celebrations would come if you got blown away however
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Deleted.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by uclock
    Mike NS

    Solar flares are considered as essentially a magnetic phenomenon and not as a result of meteor impact, just thought I would let you know.

    Cheers

    Tony
    You know, this got me thinking...... how strong are the magnetic fields of stars?

    Isn't Hydrogen susceptible to magnetic attraction? I can't seem to remember, but I think it is.

    I wonder if maybe the stars are being attracted to one another by their magnetic fields in addition to gravity. That might explain everything if it were true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by uclock
    Mike NS

    Solar flares are considered as essentially a magnetic phenomenon and not as a result of meteor impact, just thought I would let you know.

    Cheers

    Tony
    You know, this got me thinking...... how strong are the magnetic fields of stars?

    Isn't Hydrogen susceptible to magnetic attraction? I can't seem to remember, but I think it is.

    I wonder if maybe the stars are being attracted to one another by their magnetic fields in addition to gravity. That might explain everything if it were true.
    I consider gravity to be a manifestation of bi-polar magnetic fields surrounding the protons spins that cause the protons to 'flip' to attract only.
    That is why these attractions are weak because the circling electrons also counter these attractions to a degree but their effects are pulsating while the protons are steadily attracting.

    This, of course, is a hypothesis since there is no other solution to the cause of gravity.

    The magnetic fields in the sunspots do not play any role to cause additional attractions between the stars or other objects.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS

    I KNOW that. So what happens in these magnetic energy builups that cause the eruptions? I want to know the CAUSE.
    I've been out of touch with a lot of fundamental astronomy for too long, but I thought it was generally believed that most solar flares and eruptions were caused by magnetic tension within the star itself. As magnetic "coils" twist, eventually they sort of snap, reverse, or replace, and the resultant force flings stuff away from the star.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS

    I KNOW that. So what happens in these magnetic energy builups that cause the eruptions? I want to know the CAUSE.
    I've been out of touch with a lot of fundamental astronomy for too long, but I thought it was generally believed that most solar flares and eruptions were caused by magnetic tension within the star itself. As magnetic "coils" twist, eventually they sort of snap, reverse, or replace, and the resultant force flings stuff away from the star.
    The cause of the eruptions is the breakdown of the oxides contained in the bodies of impacting objects like comets and etc.

    The released oxygen than causes the explosions (flares).

    The various oxides separate at different temperatures. This, then can account for a series of explosion.

    I will post a new article citing some cometary impacts that prove these objects are the causes of the eruptions soon

    NS

    .
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    I think you need to put some more research into your thought path there. There aren't enough impacts, nor enough impacts of sufficient mass, to cause the continual and periodic eruptions of the Sun.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    I think you need to put some more research into your thought path there. There aren't enough impacts, nor enough impacts of sufficient mass, to cause the continual and periodic eruptions of the Sun.
    I will post a new article on 'solar flaring' in a couple of days with the sources of evidence given.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Mike, I just did a calculation assuming a solar flare two orders of magnitude smaller than the larger flares observed (i.e. 100 times smaller), caused by comets twice as large as the largest observed (i.e. eight times more massive), composed almost entirely of oxygen (to tilt the calculation even more in your favour). That still leaves you with an energy deficit of 99%. If you insist I'll post the calculations (which I shall have to redo, as I had a connectivity glitch and lost my original post), but really, your thesis is fatally flawed. Cometary input simply cannot deliver enough energy to power these flares.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Here's a little Wiki-Fu:
    Most flares occur in active regions around sunspots, where intense magnetic fields emerge from the Sun's surface into the corona. Flares are powered by the sudden (timescales of minutes to tens of minutes) release of magnetic energy stored in the corona.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flares

    And a quick bit of Google-Fu:
    http://solar.physics.montana.edu/ypo...tic/loops.html

    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/the_key.shtml

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb_1.htm

    Not to mention that the chemical and magnetic causes of activity on the surface of the Sun is pretty much common knowledge amongst astronomers and anyone who's taken a planetary science class in the past, oh, 80+ years.

    But that's all nice and cheeky. Doing that reading isn't necissary.

    Simply look at the logistics of what you're trying to say. Given the scale and frequency of solar flares, does it seem logical that there's enough comet activity to both cause and sustain that solar activity? Not to mention that the Sun's flare activity is almost clockwork in its patterns, with a solar cycle repeating itself continually every 11 years. It is impossible for comets to provide that kind of scale, and consistency.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Mike, I just did a calculation assuming a solar flare two orders of magnitude smaller than the larger flares observed (i.e. 100 times smaller), caused by comets twice as large as the largest observed (i.e. eight times more massive), composed almost entirely of oxygen (to tilt the calculation even more in your favour). That still leaves you with an energy deficit of 99%. If you insist I'll post the calculations (which I shall have to redo, as I had a connectivity glitch and lost my original post), but really, your thesis is fatally flawed. Cometary input simply cannot deliver enough energy to power these flares.
    Ophi

    The flare at the surface of the Sun is just a small part of the energy shown.
    A greater portion of the remaining matter from these explosions are below the surface as positive ions and electrons that form the sunspots.
    These separated particles rise to the surface because of the pressure of the radiations (photons) coming from below.
    This material then spreads out on the surface like a drop of oil would spread out on water.

    See my new post on the Astronomy and cosmology sector

    NS

    .
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Wolf

    See my new post on the Astronomy and Cosmology sector.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •