Cosmic Giants Shed New Light on Dark Matter

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Cosmic Giants Shed New Light on Dark Matter

An international team of astronomers (Note) from Taiwan, England, and Japan has used the Subaru Telescope to measure the distribution of dark matter in fifty galaxy clusters and found that its density gradually decreases from the center of these cosmic giants to their diffuse outskirts. This new evidence about the mysterious dark matter that pervades our Universe conforms to the predictions of cold dark matter theory, known as "CDM".

Few scientists seriously doubt the existence of dark matter, which researchers discovered almost eighty years ago. Nevertheless, astronomers cannot directly see dark matter in the night sky, and particle physicists have not yet identified a dark matter particle in their experiments. "What is dark matter?" is a big unanswered question facing astronomers and particle physicists, especially because invisible dark matter probably makes up 85% of the mass of the Universe.

Read more...

[NatureBoff]

Is it possible that dark matter could exist towards the centre of the Earth Waspie?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Is it possible that dark matter could exist towards the centre of the Earth Waspie?

As far as I know, there is no evidence for it (or at least substantial amounts). If there was then gravitational acceleration would be higher than can be accounted for by the observable mass of the Earth, but I'm no physicist so I could be wrong.

[NatureBoff]

As far as I know, there is no evidence for it (or at least substantial amounts). If there was then gravitational acceleration would be higher than can be accounted for by the observable mass of the Earth, but I'm no physicist so I could be wrong.

It doesn't have to be gravitational acceleration as we know it but another force altogether imv. Isn't the Flyby Anomaly evidence for such a new mystery force?

The flyby anomaly is an unexpected energy increase during Earth-flybys of spacecraft. This anomaly has been observed as shifts in the S-Band and X-Band Doppler and ranging telemetry. Taken together it causes a significant unaccounted velocity increase of over 13 mm/s during flybys

[sepulchrave]

As far as I know, there is no evidence for it (or at least substantial amounts). If there was then gravitational acceleration would be higher than can be accounted for by the observable mass of the Earth, but I'm no physicist so I could be wrong.

I don't think that would be the case.

We know the gravitational acceleration of the Earth, and we know the diameter of the Earth; from these we infer the necessary density of the mantle and core, we also infer the composition of the core.

We can't really claim that the inner Earth isn't (say) 90% iron (or whatever) and 10% dark matter; for one thing we can't achieve the appropriate temperatures and pressures in a laboratory setting so we don't really know for sure whether iron (or whatever conventional mix of elements) would reach the appropriate densities under that amount of heat and pressure.

I think it is sort of expected that if cold dark matter exists, then most large astronomical bodies would have an above average quantity near their cores. I mean, the Earth (and Solar System in general) is presumably drifting through the Milky Way's cloud of dark matter, and since dark matter is gravitationally attractive but unaffected by electromagnetic fields there is nothing to stop it flowing through the Earth towards the centre of gravity.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I think it is sort of expected that if cold dark matter exists, then most large astronomical bodies would have an above average quantity near their cores. I mean, the Earth (and Solar System in general) is presumably drifting through the Milky Way's cloud of dark matter, and since dark matter is gravitationally attractive but unaffected by electromagnetic fields there is nothing to stop it flowing through the Earth towards the centre of gravity.

Thank you, that makes sense.

[glayvin34]

I'm not an astrophysicist, I'm a different kind of scientist (statistician) but I simply don't believe that Dark Matter is valid theoretically.

When I first read about the idea that astrophysicists were predicting that the vast majority of the universe is supposed to be composed of a substance that is unobservable and not predicted by the standard model of particle physics I knew there might be a problem.

Then I read about Plasma Cosmology on the Thunderbolts.info site, which suggests that galaxies move the way they do, like a spinning disk instead of the predicted swirling drain, due to Electromagnetism, which has been shown in lab experiments to generate forces that make charged clouds spin like galaxies.

It looks more like these scientists are carefully measuring stellar movement, then assuming an invisible and unknown force must be generating gravity to move the stars because gravity is the only force that is taken under consideration by astrophysics for some reason. EM is 10^36 times stronger than gravity and also operates over infinite distance. Just looking at the 4 fundamental forces alone EM looks like the prime candidate for the organization of matter on a universal scale, yet it is gravity alone that is looked at in the literature.

Sorry for the rant, but I just don't understand why Plasma Cosmology isn't taken more seriously by the mainstream when it answers some incredible questions. For me, the question "are stars moved by the well-known and lab-testable properties of an electromagnetic system, or by invisible donuts of totally mysterious matter somehow arranged in each galaxy in such a way as to cause the galaxy to move as predicted by men who died long ago?" is a simple one.

Like Tesla said "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

Rant over, thanks for listening. I'm not an astrophysicist so I guess this is all pseudoscience to everyone else.

[sepulchrave]

Sorry for the rant, but I just don't understand why Plasma Cosmology isn't taken more seriously by the mainstream when it answers some incredible questions.

My understanding is that plasma physics are taken seriously as being able to act on a cosmological scale, but the net concept of plasma cosmology isn't taken seriously because of what you said:

EM is 10^36 times stronger than gravity and also operates over infinite distance.

... and because electromagnetism is an ``opposites attract'' type of interaction: The closer two oppositely charged objects get to each other, the weaker the net electric field is. However the closer two massive objects get to each other, the stronger the gravitational field is.

You can't cancel out gravity (as far as we know, anyway), you can cancel out electromagnetism.

Every once and a while the role played by electrodynamics on the large scale is reexamined (see here, for example), and the conclusion almost invariably is that it just isn't possible to maintain sufficient charge separation to make the forces large enough.

I'm not an astrophysicist either, though.

[NatureBoff]

It doesn't have to be gravitational acceleration as we know it but another force altogether imv. Isn't the Flyby Anomaly evidence for such a new mystery force?

I'm interested to hear both sepulchrave's and glayvin34's thoughts on the Flyby Anomaly as evidence for a new mystery force emanating from the Earth. If you would be so kind. Edited June 20, 2013 by RingFenceTheCity

[sepulchrave]

I'm interested to hear both sepulchrave's and glayvin34's thoughts on the Flyby Anomaly as evidence for a new mystery force emanating from the Earth. If you would be so kind.

You've already pretty much heard my thoughts on that subject in this thread.

Previously we were discussing the possibility of an anomalous source of gravity inside the Earth. Hopefully you have dropped that notion?

Some ``mystery force'' is slightly more defensible, but not by much: you need to explain why this force affected some - but not all - of the space probes that attempted flybys, and why this force doesn't affect the hundreds (thousands?) of man-made satellites that orbit the Earth every few hours.

And secondly, what does this ``mystery force'' couple to? Mass? Charge? Spin? Or something new?

[NatureBoff]

Some ``mystery force'' is slightly more defensible, but not by much: you need to explain why this force affected some - but not all - of the space probes that attempted flybys, and why this force doesn't affect the hundreds (thousands?) of man-made satellites that orbit the Earth every few hours.

And secondly, what does this ``mystery force'' couple to? Mass? Charge? Spin? Or something new?

Both questions combined, I think that the mystery force is acting on charged fluids or fluids with dipoles which is why there is a variation in the force experienced by flybys. I'm assuming that it's the fluid in the batteries which is the key feature.

P.S. I would be most grateful if you would put your scientific expertise to the test and try and debunk this thread 1,800yr Lunar Tidal Cycle Fits Glacial Data

[glayvin34]

... and because electromagnetism is an ``opposites attract'' type of interaction: The closer two oppositely charged objects get to each other, the weaker the net electric field is. However the closer two massive objects get to each other, the stronger the gravitational field is.

You can't cancel out gravity (as far as we know, anyway), you can cancel out electromagnetism.

Every once and a while the role played by electrodynamics on the large scale is reexamined (see here, for example), and the conclusion almost invariably is that it just isn't possible to maintain sufficient charge separation to make the forces large enough.

Wait... so you're saying that EM force doesn't decrease as the inverse square of distance? I'm not talking about electronic charge separation, I mean magnetic interaction between two polar but electrically neutral bodies, like two lodestones. I was to understand that the Electric Universe/ Plasma Cosmology interpretation does not rely (solely) on the separation of charges, but rather on magnetic attraction. It's not my field, I could be wrong.

That paper you provided is interesting, but I am very skeptical about the whole "there's no current out there" hypothesis, given how the more we physically sample the magnetosphere the more we find out it is quite electrically active. Astrophysics almost never predicts charges like that in space, and like the paper you cite above, seem to ignore a lot of what plasma physics predicts about in the large scale behavior of a plasma in a vacuum that is subject to an eletromagnetic field (like the plasma between the earth and the sun) and how plasma experiments seem to be fundamentally scalable. I suppose that is understandable since the Magnetosphere has been studied seriously for only about 50 years, and the movement of galaxies has always been studied.

@RingFenceTheCity

I am wholly unqualified to comment on the flyby anomaly, but I'll do it anyway (that's what the internet is for!). My guess would be that these spacecraft are interacting with charged particles in space and gaining a net negative charge. They then interact with the magnetic field around the earth, which imparts some extra joules. I basically am parroting this article from the Thunderbolts site.

[NatureBoff]

@RingFenceTheCity

I am wholly unqualified to comment on the flyby anomaly, but I'll do it anyway (that's what the internet is for!). My guess would be that these spacecraft are interacting with charged particles in space and gaining a net negative charge. They then interact with the magnetic field around the earth, which imparts some extra joules. I basically am parroting this article from the Thunderbolts site.

Thanks for the link! As I said to sepulchrave, I would be most grateful if you would put your scientific expertise to the test and try and debunk this thread 1,800yr Lunar Tidal Cycle Fits Glacial Data

[sepulchrave]

Both questions combined, I think that the mystery force is acting on charged fluids or fluids with dipoles which is why there is a variation in the force experienced by flybys. I'm assuming that it's the fluid in the batteries which is the key feature.

I am not sure that the spaceprobes have wet-cell batteries. For example, the NEAR spaceprobe (which experienced the largest flyby anomaly) had Ni-Cd batteries, which I assume had a typical potassium hydroxide electrolyte.

The only significant amount of liquid on NEAR would be the propellant for the stabilizing rockets, and these liquids are not polar.

Of course, why does this mystery force act on liquids and not solids? If it is electromagnetic in nature, shouldn't it have a more significant effect on metals?

P.S. I would be most grateful if you would put your scientific expertise to the test and try and debunk this thread 1,800yr Lunar Tidal Cycle Fits Glacial Data

I don't see what I can say that Doug1o29, Br Cornelius, and Frank Merton haven't already said.

You seem to have found a correlation (a known correlation too, judging by Doug1o29's comments), and as usual are attributing it to some bizarre non-baryonic matter and mysterious forces which conveniently do what ever you want them to do (cause long term climate shifts, mess with the trajectories of some but not all spaceprobes, and cause a select few aircraft to crash), and you continually refuse to provide any sort of mathematical details on the interaction of this force, and of course this force and these particles are crafty enough to evade detection by anyone looking for them.

Wait... so you're saying that EM force doesn't decrease as the inverse square of distance? I'm not talking about electronic charge separation, I mean magnetic interaction between two polar but electrically neutral bodies, like two lodestones. I was to understand that the Electric Universe/ Plasma Cosmology interpretation does not rely (solely) on the separation of charges, but rather on magnetic attraction. It's not my field, I could be wrong.

Electric force decreases as the inverse square of distance. Magnetic dipoles decrease as the inverse cube of distance.

But regardless, electrical and magnetic forces are easy enough to measure, and the ones we measure don't seem to be large enough.

That paper you provided is interesting, but I am very skeptical about the whole "there's no current out there" hypothesis, given how the more we physically sample the magnetosphere the more we find out it is quite electrically active.

That is definitely true. But one of the reasons why the magnetosphere is so electrically active is because of simple friction; we have planets moving through it. These planets are a source of neutral matter, which can experience charge separation due to the dynamics of the Solar wind and Solar magnetic field.

Astrophysics almost never predicts charges like that in space, and like the paper you cite above, seem to ignore a lot of what plasma physics predicts about in the large scale behavior of a plasma in a vacuum that is subject to an eletromagnetic field (like the plasma between the earth and the sun) and how plasma experiments seem to be fundamentally scalable.

Fair enough, but there is a difference between charge and current. The Solar wind creates an interstellar plasma, but there is no current flow because equal quantities of positive and negative charges are emitted, and in basically the same directions.

Again, I think the consensus is that these electrons and charged ions eventually recombine to form hydrogen or helium, rather than become further separated. Voyager has reported that the solar wind does slow down in the extreme outer Solar system, so this recombination is possible. And I don't think interstellar magnetic fields are large enough to override the much more local attraction between the electrons and the charged ions.

[NatureBoff]

I am not sure that the spaceprobes have wet-cell batteries. For example, the NEAR spaceprobe (which experienced the largest flyby anomaly) had Ni-Cd batteries, which I assume had a typical potassium hydroxide electrolyte.

The only significant amount of liquid on NEAR would be the propellant for the stabilizing rockets, and these liquids are not polar.

Of course, why does this mystery force act on liquids and not solids? If it is electromagnetic in nature, shouldn't it have a more significant effect on metals?

When you think about it, why should ferrous metals only be acted on by the magnetic force? Is it so bizarre to think that fluid dark matter acts only on liquids and not solids? I'm also assuming that fluid dark matter acts on other fluid dark matter with a much greater force of attraction.

As to the 1800 yr lunar tidal cycle in the glacial data, I think you've missed an opportunity to make a name for yourself. It's going to be assesed by a climate professor in the next week or so. Here's Prof. Dr. Heinz Wanner's response email:

Dear Alan,

I am actually travelling (workshops, exams) and will think about your ideas next week.

Very best regards,

Heinz

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Heinz Wanner

Prof. em., Senior Scientist, Founding President

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research

Zähringerstr. 25, CH-3012 Bern (Switzerland)

Phone: +41 (0)31 631 31 60 / Secr.: 31 45

Mail: wanner@oeschger.unibe.ch

wanner@giub.unibe.ch

Web: www.geography.unibe.ch

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Von: Alan Lowey [amlowey@hotmail.co.uk]

Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Juni 2013 11:38

An: Wanner, Heinz (OESCHGER)

Betreff: 1,800 Yr Lunar Tide Cycle Fits Glacial Data

Dear Prof. Dr. Heinz Wanner,

I believe I've made a discovery with regard to the Bond cycle which I know you are more than familiar with. My recent enthusiasm started with this BBC documentary where I commented on the producer's Blog page about 'Ice Age Beasts', see the dialogue by googling "Mags Lightbody" to find the web address.

(quote)

"I've just made a discovery when using the 1,800 lunar tidal model of arctic environment of Northern Russia during the last 20,000yrs and the assumption of a millennial peak triggering H1 at 17,000 B.P. See Fig 1. of paper 'Radiocarbon Variability in the Western North Atlantic During the Last Deglaciation' (2005) by Laura F. Robinson et al. which can be matched at 10,000 B.P. with the Fig 3. in paper 'Holocene Treeline History and Climate Change Across Northern Eurasia' (2000) by Glen M. MacDonald et al. I've put the two together by expanding the tree data graph by 152% on the photocopier machine and then scanning.

The Maximum Forest Extension is 2 cycles of 1,800 yrs, showing peaks at 4,400 and 8000 yr B.P. (uncalib) which fits with the lunar tide into the arctic basin cycle and extrapolates to the date of 17,000 yr B.P., the onset of Heinrich 1. The tree data shows dips due to the lunar tidal minimums."(end quote)

Please can you inform the world for me, as I don't have the inclination to write a professional paper myself. Thank you for all the work from the teams and others worldwide,

Yours sincerely,

Alan Lowey

[sepulchrave]

When you think about it, why should ferrous metals only be acted on by the magnetic force? Is it so bizarre to think that fluid dark matter acts only on liquids and not solids? I'm also assuming that fluid dark matter acts on other fluid dark matter with a much greater force of attraction.

I have no idea what you are saying here, and that is telling, because research in solid state and condensed matter physics is the job I get paid to do.

Ferrous metals are (somewhat) unique because they can spontaneously polarize and display a permanent magnetic moment.

But of course all materials interact with magnetic fields.

It is bizarre to think that ``fluid dark matter'' acts only on liquids, because:

• Dark matter interacts via gravity, that is the entire point of dark matter. In regular matter, the gravitational interaction is dictated only by that matter's density.
  
• The phase (gas, liquid, solid) of regular matter is dictated only by the electromagnetic interactions between the atoms that constitute that matter. Dark matter can't interact electromagnetically, otherwise it wouldn't be dark.
  

This doesn't mean that dark matter itself can form its own different phases via some as-yet-unknown force (although I highly doubt it); but it does mean that the only way dark matter can couple to regular matter is through their respective densities.

As to the 1800 yr lunar tidal cycle in the glacial data, I think you've missed an opportunity to make a name for yourself. It's going to be assesed by a climate professor in the next week or so. Here's Prof. Dr. Heinz Wanner's response email:

I'm not holding my breath.

[NatureBoff]

It is bizarre to think that ``fluid dark matter'' acts only on liquids, because:

• Dark matter interacts via gravity, that is the entire point of dark matter.
  

This point troubled me the most. During my Astronomy (with Computing) degree my lecturer would always state that it was the "missing energy" problem and not the "missing mass" problem. I think your mistake is to assume that "dark matter" is something we can only understand by use of Newton's concept of 'mass', defined by his assumed equation of universal gravitation. We will be at logger-heads from this point forward, but thank you for the dialogue and the time you've spent in answering my questions.