Dark Matter

[glenc (Glen)]

Todays amazing APOD image seems to show dark matter.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...drahst_big.jpg
Explanation: What happens when two of the largest objects in the universe collide? No one was quite sure, but the answer is giving clues to the nature of mysterious dark matter. In the case of MACSJ0025.4-1222, two huge clusters of galaxies have been found slowly colliding over hundreds of millions of years, and the result has been imaged by both the Hubble Space Telescope in visible light and the Chandra Space Telescope in X-ray light. Once the above visible image was recorded, the location and gravitational lens distortions of more distant galaxies by the newly combined galaxy cluster allowed astronomers to computationally determine what happened to the clusters' dark matter. The result indicates that this huge collision has caused the dark matter in the clusters to become partly separated from the normal matter, confirming earlier speculation. In the above combined image, dark matter is shown as the diffuse purple hue, while a smoothed depiction of the X-ray hot normal matter is shown in pink. MACSJ0025 contains hundreds of galaxies, spans about three million light years, and lies nearly six billion light years away (redshift 0.59) toward the constellation of Monster Whale (Cetus).

[CoombellKid]

That's an awesome picture Glen, looks like one extremely big nebulae

regards,CS

[glenc (Glen)]

Yes 3Mly across, equal to the distance from here to M31. Here is some more info:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7587090.stm
"The latest astronomical observations suggest that dark matter makes up some 23% of the Universe. Ordinary matter - such as the galaxies, gas, stars and planets - makes up just 4%. The remaining 73% is made up of another mysterious quantity; dark energy, which is responsible for speeding up the expansion of the cosmos."

[dannat (Daniel)]

AMAZING picture, not sure about the dark matter, could ot it be a few things

[ngcles]

Hi All,

Hmmm ...

The blurb that accompanied the picture had me with furrowed brows when I read it. Particularly:

"MACSJ0025 contains hundreds of galaxies, spans about three million light years, and lies ... "

How do hundreds of galaxies (even baby ones) fit within a space only 3Mly across (ie a little bigger than the distance from here to the nearest major external galaxy -- M31)? I suspect there is a zero or possibly even two zeros missing from the diameter figure here or have I got it wrong ... ?

Best,

Les D

[xelasnave]

Is it not the case that the dark matter is "drawn" in??? in other words the region it is supposed to represent in the photo has been added by reasoning that it must be where it is and so they colour it in that way...it is something we can not see or detect so how else does it appear such we can now see it..not from direct photography I suggest....rather I believe... anyways I think if they draw it in by inference that is a long stretch really...its presence is determined by gravitational influences indicating it is there...but we still do not see it.... if gravity works by push maybe there is no dark matter at all....oif course I was always going to say that....
Magic photo... how small are we...beyond our comprehension
alex

[bojan]

Alex, you are getting yourself in new trouble, and you are not out of woods from the old one (and I am not mentioning lady troubles here)

Dark matter on this "drawing" WAS detected by its gravitational influence on light (bending space-time continuum or gravity pull, whatever you like more) coming from background objects. The fact that it was not "seen" or detected by some other, more "conventional" method (and what is wrong with this one?), means nothing. IT IS THERE.
Period.

[Chippy (Nick)]

That is one amazing image. The dark matter aspect is interesting too. Don't think I've ever seen that many galaxies all in the one field. It's hard to get a feeling of the scale. But WOW!!!

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Is it not the case that the dark matter is "drawn" in??? in other words the region it is supposed to represent in the photo has been added by reasoning that it must be where it is and so they colour it in that way...it is something we can not see or detect so how else does it appear such we can now see it..not from direct photography I suggest....rather I believe... anyways I think if they draw it in by inference that is a long stretch really...its presence is determined by gravitational influences indicating it is there...but we still do not see it.... if gravity works by push maybe there is no dark matter at all....oif course I was always going to say that....
Magic photo... how small are we...beyond our comprehension
alex

You are clutching at straws Alex.

Dark matter (and ordinary matter) can be detected by gravitational lensing.

The ordinary matter at the centre is simply gravitational attraction at work. The distribution of dark matter on either side indicates the direction of movement is largely perpendicular to our line of sight.

The fact that the dark matter component of each cluster has passed through each other is a strong indication that dark matter is largely composed of WIMPS.

A picture tells a thousand words.

Regards

Steven

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by sjastro

You are clutching at straws Alex.

Dark matter (and ordinary matter) can be detected by gravitational lensing.

The ordinary matter at the centre is simply gravitational attraction at work. The distribution of dark matter on either side indicates the direction of movement is largely perpendicular to our line of sight.

The fact that the dark matter component of each cluster has passed through each other is a strong indication that dark matter is largely composed of WIMPS.

A picture tells a thousand words.

Regards

Steven

I bet that the photo shows no dark matter but only what an artist has drawn in to represent where they believe it to be... we can not see it so I doubt if the photo is fairdinkum if it claims to have actually photograped dark matter...

Well when it started there were machos and wimps..machos have been written off as a none event so if thgere is to be dark matter the straw that they must grasp is the wimp prospect...Wimp..weakly interacting massive particles..I think it stands for...nutrinos are a candidate... but I want them for my gravity push particles

The models I have tried to work out...with my humble math and hill billy calculus says to me that there is no way you can add material to the outside of a galaxy such as proposed by dark matter and get the unit balanced..it is a case of the more you add the more you need to add...still I could be wrong but if attraction is at play why do they see dark energy as a pushing force??? and attraction can not hold a galaxy together... one needs an external force... again opinions only but in my opinion dark matter is bulldust and any model that needs to have a hiugh percentage of stuff to be beyond our ability to observe it ...well it needs something better... I know they infer where the dark matter is..but that relies on attraction and there is no such thing as attraction...in my view...but push fixes the dark matter problem...we dont need it at all and can have a universe where what we see is what we get...

The Razor says go simple and you have to admit my ideas are simple...

have agood one
alex

[xelasnave]

I can recall seeing Vera Rubin with photographic plates in a photo some 15 years ago holding them up with a caption that they have found dark matter..there was no dark matter then and there is no dark matter on the plates now....well nothing has changed there is still no dark matter recorded on any photographic plate as far as I know...and that is reasonable..because it does not exist other than in the minds of those who wish it to be there.... Given the difficulty of the GR sums I dont know how they could be worked out for the photo under discussion given the many many galaxies... how was the gravitational influence worked out for all those galaxies... I dont buy any part of if... we are expected to nod as if it is fair cop..well think about what I say..the sums..the sums...how could you draw any conclusion given the complexity...

Now I am sure someone may not agree with my view here...maybe

alex

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I bet that the photo shows no dark matter but only what an artist has drawn in to represent where they believe it to be... we can not see it so I doubt if the photo is fairdinkum if it claims to have actually photograped dark matter...

Yes you can't image dark matter. The blue area has been mapped to define the region of gravitational lensing. The pink area is the X-ray image showing the collision of matter (gas) from each cluster.

If dark matter doesn't exist then the blue and pink areas should be superimposed.

Well when it started there were machos and wimps..machos have been written off as a none event so if thgere is to be dark matter the straw that they must grasp is the wimp prospect...Wimp..weakly interacting massive particles..I think it stands for...nutrinos are a candidate... but I want them for my gravity push particles

You couldn't pick a worse candidate for a push particle.

Neutrinos are the byproducts for the fusion of hydrogen nuclei. Instead of acting as a neutrino shield, the Sun becomes a source of neutrinos.Why is it then Mercury is not pushed out of it's orbit? The answer is that neutrinos do not readily interact with matter. That is a scientific fact.

The models I have tried to work out...with my humble math and hill billy calculus says to me that there is no way you can add material to the outside of a galaxy such as proposed by dark matter and get the unit balanced..it is a case of the more you add the more you need to add...still I could be wrong but if attraction is at play why do they see dark energy as a pushing force??? and attraction can not hold a galaxy together... one needs an external force... again opinions only but in my opinion dark matter is bulldust and any model that needs to have a hiugh percentage of stuff to be beyond our ability to observe it ...well it needs something better... I know they infer where the dark matter is..but that relies on attraction and there is no such thing as attraction...in my view...but push fixes the dark matter problem...we dont need it at all and can have a universe where what we see is what we get...

The Razor says go simple and you have to admit my ideas are simple...

So you keep on telling us. Why don't provide us with a model that shows how push gravity preserves the shape of a spiral galaxy?

I have even a better idea. I challenge you explain how push gravity can cause Type II supernovae. The current mechanism is very easily explained as an elegant combination of nucleur physics and gravity as an attractive force.

Regards

Steven

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Yes you can't image dark matter. The blue area has been mapped to define the region of gravitational lensing. The pink area is the X-ray image showing the collision of matter (gas) from each cluster.

If dark matter doesn't exist then the blue and pink areas should be superimposed.



You couldn't pick a worse candidate for a push particle.

Neutrinos are the byproducts for the fusion of hydrogen nuclei. Instead of acting as a neutrino shield, the Sun becomes a source of neutrinos.Why is it then Mercury is not pushed out of it's orbit? The answer is that neutrinos do not readily interact with matter. That is a scientific fact.



So you keep on telling us. Why don't provide us with a model that shows how push gravity preserves the shape of a spiral galaxy?

I have even a better idea. I challenge you explain how push gravity can cause Type II supernovae. The current mechanism is very easily explained as an elegant combination of nucleur physics and gravity as an attractive force.

Regards

Steven

Hi Steven
I have only hit town and have not thought about such an event in fact I will have to read again the types of super nova and how current science explains them but off the top of my head in the push Universe shielding comes about by various things but a Sun spinning more rapidly will present a greater shield and therefore expose itself to higher gravity, in effect, so irrespective of the observations which I have not read really or rather have read and left anything out that may contridicte my current presentation..being realistic and recognising the extreme case of morosophery I carry...I may have read but would rather read again this is my short answer.. . So a Sun spins up presents a greater and greater shield to the flow until finally it implodes I guess in effect...just keep all of the current stuff that agrees with this approach

alex

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

....the extreme case of morosophery I carry...
alex

Alex,

"Morosophery" is a word I am unfamiliar with, perhaps it has something to do with an expulsion product from a certain type of grazing animal.

Regards

Steven

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Alex,

"Morosophery" is a word I am unfamiliar with, perhaps it has something to do with an expulsion product from a certain type of grazing animal.

Regards

Steven

Your guess is close Steven however the condition refers to a situation where one has a theory and everything one encounters serves to validate the theory in the mind of the person a victim of the condition.

and so for me everything I find supports push you see and that it the condition in opperation..I see the Corona of the Sun and explain it as evidence of push..and if one accept the accoustic model indeed push rules..accoustic certainly works by push it seems to me...

But push is my belief and just as a big bangger will grasp in their observations in support of the big bang so will I try to see everything in support of a push system.

Anyways looking at remnants like the Ant nebula makes me think Stars expolde in the fashion I suggested.

alex

[xelasnave]

Steven observed...........Neutrinos are the byproducts for the fusion of hydrogen nuclei. Instead of acting as a neutrino shield, the Sun becomes a source of neutrinos.Why is it then Mercury is not pushed out of it's orbit? The answer is that neutrinos do not readily interact with matter. That is a scientific fact.
'
Without commenting on Mercury or the perceived problem with a shield via the manner considered I think that nuetrinos will react with matter..they do with dry cleaning fluid I believe

alex

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Your guess is close Steven however the condition refers to a situation where one has a theory and everything one encounters serves to validate the theory in the mind of the person a victim of the condition.

You don't have to invent the word Alex. There's one already available, it's called prejudice.
It's also called anti-rationalism where one argues via opinion and not fact.

and so for me everything I find supports push you see and that it the condition in opperation..I see the Corona of the Sun and explain it as evidence of push..and if one accept the accoustic model indeed push rules..accoustic certainly works by push it seems to me...

But push is my belief and just as a big bangger will grasp in their observations in support of the big bang so will I try to see everything in support of a push system.

A perfect example. The facts don't seem to count in your line of thinking.

As I have mentioned on a couple of occasions the solar corona varies with the sunspot cycle which would not occur if push gravity is the mechanism.

Yet you continue to expound this point of view.

Anyways looking at remnants like the Ant nebula makes me think Stars expolde in the fashion I suggested.

Sorry to correct you (again) but Planetary Nebulae are not the result of a Type II supernova. And your suggestion that a star that spins up may result in an explosion coveniently contradicts the conservation of angular momentum. The only way a star can greatly increase it's spin is for it's diameter to collapse.

For a type II supernova, the core collapses, the actual diameter of the star prior to the explosion does not change substantially.

Regards

Steven





alex[/quote]

[DARKMATTER]

You Rang?

[xelasnave]

Thank you Steven for your guidance.
However there is nothing you have said so far that sways me in any regard at all... I have no care that my view may be wrong in the eyes of others that is irrelevant to me..my opinion is mine and I find no difficulty in the fact there are many who can point to it being absolutely wrong.

You said........
You don't have to invent the word Alex. There's one already available, it's called prejudice.
It's also called anti-rationalism where one argues via opinion and not fact.

I think Morosophic is the word that applies...I did not invent it but it was put to me by a young physics student who felt I had all the symptoms..I could only agree as I do see push as being the way it is and that any observations fit the notion of push..and so I ask how different am I to others wgho gring their axe..big bang relies heavily upon the background radiation and yet it is clear certain galaxies appear to be in front of this radiation..do you see the problem ..well one should but big bangers do not seem to want to consider the problem because if the observations are sound the big bang is dead... and so I say I am not the only person who suffers the affliction of morosophia...

Predjudice is not an appropriate word in my view as for me it carries a suggestion of underlying hate..I dont hate the big bangers or physisists and I cant see how I am in any way predudiced but if you like the application of the word to my manner that can be you reality however it is not mine.

Steven said
As I have mentioned on a couple of occasions the solar corona varies with the sunspot cycle which would not occur if push gravity is the mechanism.

Sun spots are parts of the suface that are a result of the flow seeking to past thru the Sun..areas of higher concentration..look at a vidio and you can see what I mean...but this is my view and as far as I know this view does not have world wide support

You said also...

Yet you continue to expound this point of view.

Of course I will..it is my view the fact that someone presents me with evidence they like does not mean I have to like it and indeed accept it....
I will expound my point of view whilst I believe in it..why wouldnt I do such?

Steven observed.........
Sorry to correct you (again) but Planetary Nebulae are not the result of a Type II supernova.
I did not mean to infer such..I had no idea what explosion created it but I selected the Ant Neb simply because if one studies it and tries to rewind the explosion it would appear that the star had been compressed at the equator and blew apart in effect in two sections...this is in my view possible evidence that as the star spins up the pressure at the equator becomes such that the star is pushed in two ....

I feel if we could talk in person my ideas would be communicated better and they may not appear as strange as they do in text.... I can expalin everything via push in my limited way and it adds up to me..morosophic or not that is the way it is for me...thanks for your interaction and i8nteresting input.

alex

[bojan]

Alex, I said it before and I am repeating it here again:
You are talking religion here, not science.
This is a science thread, as it is clearly stated in the header:

Astronomy Science (1 Viewing)
Discussions related to the Science of Astronomy, Space Exploration etc. Strictly moderated - stay on-topic, serious discussions please.

I have no more comments.