FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
The phrase 'dark matter'
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3 [37 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:28 am    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

Dear stephen:

<stephen@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:e9eqqj$cdh$1@news.msu.edu...
Quote:
Does anyone know when and by whom the
phrase 'dark matter' was first coined?

I get in the 1930s by Fred Zwicky (1933 - 1937, somewhere in
there), but he may have called it "missing mass". I do not have
a direct quote.
http://astralavista.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_astralavista_archive.html

David A. Smith
Back to top
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:34 am    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
wrote in message news:6lEug.38435$AB3.25478@fed1read02...
Quote:
Dear stephen:

stephen@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:e9eqqj$cdh$1@news.msu.edu...
Does anyone know when and by whom the
phrase 'dark matter' was first coined?

I get in the 1930s by Fred Zwicky (1933 - 1937, somewhere in
there), but he may have called it "missing mass". I do not
have a direct quote.
http://astralavista.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_astralavista_archive.html

Still no quote. Actual name "Fritz" rather than Fred. Quite a
character.
http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/f/fr/fritz_zwicky.html

David A. Smith
Back to top
stephen@nomail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 681

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:03 am    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Quote:
Dear stephen:

stephen@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:e9eqqj$cdh$1@news.msu.edu...
Does anyone know when and by whom the
phrase 'dark matter' was first coined?

I get in the 1930s by Fred Zwicky (1933 - 1937, somewhere in
there), but he may have called it "missing mass". I do not have
a direct quote.
http://astralavista.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_astralavista_archive.html

David A. Smith

From what I have read, he is credited with first noticing
the missing mass, but I have seen nothing that says
he used the phrase 'missing mass' or 'dark matter'. From
what I have seen, it looks like 'dark matter' did not
appear until much later.

Stephen
Back to top
socratus
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 100
Location: Israel

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:57 am    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning God
created " virtual particles ".
Astrophysics approve, that in the beginning the God created
" latent mass ","invisible particles ", "'missing mass'" or
"'dark matter'".
Quote:
From them the God created everything.
But nobody knows, what is " virtual particles ","'dark matter'"

what is " latent mass ", " invisible particles ".
And then the physicists are very surprised :
"Why is the nature of the microworld so paradoxical ?"
We use words not understanding their meaning
Who are we?
Back to top
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:28 pm    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

Dear socratus:

"socratus" <israelsad@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:1153133851.168559.179660@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
....
Quote:
We use words not understanding their meaning
Who are we?

We are the race of Adam. Whose first job in the Garden of Eden
was naming things.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful
tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor
less.'
http://www.bloomsburymagazine.com/Ezine/Articles/Articles.asp?ezine_article_id=212

Language did not come from God. Language is an agreement between
people.

David A. Smith
Back to top
Randy Poe
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:52 pm    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

socratus wrote:
Quote:
The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning God
created " virtual particles ".
Astrophysics approve, that in the beginning the God created
" latent mass ","invisible particles ", "'missing mass'" or
"'dark matter'".
From them the God created everything.
But nobody knows, what is " virtual particles ","'dark matter'"
what is " latent mass ", " invisible particles ".
And then the physicists are very surprised :
"Why is the nature of the microworld so paradoxical ?"
We use words not understanding their meaning

When we say "dark matter" the words are not arbitrary.

This hypothesized matter is called "matter" because it
has gravitational mass. It is called "dark" because it
isn't radiating energy we can see.

- Randy
Back to top
dlzc
science forum beginner


Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:24 pm    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

Dear stephen:

stephen@nomail.com wrote:
Quote:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear stephen:

stephen@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:e9eqqj$cdh$1@news.msu.edu...
Does anyone know when and by whom the
phrase 'dark matter' was first coined?

I get in the 1930s by Fred Zwicky (1933 - 1937, somewhere in
there), but he may have called it "missing mass". I do not have
a direct quote.
http://astralavista.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_astralavista_archive.html

From what I have read, he is credited with first noticing
the missing mass, but I have seen nothing that says
he used the phrase 'missing mass' or 'dark matter'. From
what I have seen, it looks like 'dark matter' did not
appear until much later.

http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/~lrj/obscos/vandenbergh.pdf
<QUOTE>
Zwicky writes (my translation) : "If this [overdensity] is confirmed we
would arrive at the astonishing conclusion that dark matter is present
[in Coma] with a much greater density than luminous matter." He
continues: "From these considerations it follows that the large
velocity dispersion in Coma (and in other clusters of galaxies)
represents an unsolved problem."
<END QUOTE>
Zwicky, F. 1933, Helvetica Phys. Acta, 6, 110

I *think* the list of properties of DM is supposed to have was not
finalized till much later.

David A. Smith
Back to top
dlzc
science forum beginner


Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:24 pm    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

Dear stephen:

stephen@nomail.com wrote:
Quote:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear stephen:

stephen@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:e9eqqj$cdh$1@news.msu.edu...
Does anyone know when and by whom the
phrase 'dark matter' was first coined?

I get in the 1930s by Fred Zwicky (1933 - 1937, somewhere in
there), but he may have called it "missing mass". I do not have
a direct quote.
http://astralavista.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_astralavista_archive.html

From what I have read, he is credited with first noticing
the missing mass, but I have seen nothing that says
he used the phrase 'missing mass' or 'dark matter'. From
what I have seen, it looks like 'dark matter' did not
appear until much later.

http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/~lrj/obscos/vandenbergh.pdf
<QUOTE>
Zwicky writes (my translation) : "If this [overdensity] is confirmed we
would arrive at the astonishing conclusion that dark matter is present
[in Coma] with a much greater density than luminous matter." He
continues: "From these considerations it follows that the large
velocity dispersion in Coma (and in other clusters of galaxies)
represents an unsolved problem."
<END QUOTE>
Zwicky, F. 1933, Helvetica Phys. Acta, 6, 110

I *think* the list of properties of DM is supposed to have was not
finalized till much later.

David A. Smith
Back to top
stephen@nomail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 681

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:36 pm    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote:
Quote:
Dear stephen:

stephen@nomail.com wrote:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear stephen:

stephen@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:e9eqqj$cdh$1@news.msu.edu...
Does anyone know when and by whom the
phrase 'dark matter' was first coined?

I get in the 1930s by Fred Zwicky (1933 - 1937, somewhere in
there), but he may have called it "missing mass". I do not have
a direct quote.
http://astralavista.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_astralavista_archive.html

From what I have read, he is credited with first noticing
the missing mass, but I have seen nothing that says
he used the phrase 'missing mass' or 'dark matter'. From
what I have seen, it looks like 'dark matter' did not
appear until much later.

http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/~lrj/obscos/vandenbergh.pdf
QUOTE
Zwicky writes (my translation) : "If this [overdensity] is confirmed we
would arrive at the astonishing conclusion that dark matter is present
[in Coma] with a much greater density than luminous matter." He
continues: "From these considerations it follows that the large
velocity dispersion in Coma (and in other clusters of galaxies)
represents an unsolved problem."
END QUOTE
Zwicky, F. 1933, Helvetica Phys. Acta, 6, 110

I *think* the list of properties of DM is supposed to have was not
finalized till much later.

David A. Smith

Thanks! That also has this related piece of information:
Zwicky's use of the words "dunkle (kalte) Materie"
might be regarded as the Ðrst reference to cold dark matter,
even though this expression was not used exactly in its modern sense.
The term cold dark matter, with its modern meaning, was introduced
by Bond et al. (1983).

Stephen
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:11 pm    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

Randy Poe wrote:
Quote:
socratus wrote:
The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning God
created " virtual particles ".
Astrophysics approve, that in the beginning the God created
" latent mass ","invisible particles ", "'missing mass'" or
"'dark matter'".
From them the God created everything.
But nobody knows, what is " virtual particles ","'dark matter'"
what is " latent mass ", " invisible particles ".
And then the physicists are very surprised :
"Why is the nature of the microworld so paradoxical ?"
We use words not understanding their meaning

When we say "dark matter" the words are not arbitrary.

Yes, they are. DM is not dark at all, so that term used to

describe it or even define it is clearly a misnomer no matter
how hard you wish upon a star that it isn't. In fact, DM can
be more accurately described as invisible matter because
we can see right through it, obviously. Physics is not all that
precise in term-usage as you once imagined, eh?
Quote:

This hypothesized matter is called "matter" because it
has gravitational mass. It is called "dark" because it
isn't radiating energy we can see.

We assume it has gravitational mass, based on the

observed effects, but that conclusion is only one among
others that are possible; therefore, it is not a fact yet, as you
assert. Also, to say it is call "dark" because it does not
radiate is another phony explanation, since blackbodies do
not radiate either, they only absorb radiation. For such
absorption, they must have at least some gravitational
attraction, I would guess, and to have that requires real matter
having positive energy. Would it have politically improper
to call it "black matter" instead? Obviously, the most
appropriate term would have been "Invisible Matter", or, IM.

The closest thing to a blackbody I can think of is a black hole,
which is invisible to us because light cannot escape it. But we
could tell where a blackbody or a black hole may be located
because we do not see through them like we see through DM.
Since the two are not like DM, it should not be explained in
comparison to them.
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:19 pm    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

dlzc wrote:
Quote:
Dear stephen:

SNIP

http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/~lrj/obscos/vandenbergh.pdf
QUOTE
Zwicky writes (my translation) : "If this [overdensity] is confirmed we
would arrive at the astonishing conclusion that dark matter is present
[in Coma] with a much greater density than luminous matter." He
continues: "From these considerations it follows that the large
velocity dispersion in Coma (and in other clusters of galaxies)
represents an unsolved problem."
END QUOTE
Zwicky, F. 1933, Helvetica Phys. Acta, 6, 110

I *think* the list of properties of DM is supposed to have was not
finalized till much later.

Since there are still loose ends, why do you say the list has been

finalized? There is still much supposition as to the properties of
DM, and I see no theory to explain the processes involved, other
than that of my model, which currently excludes the possibility of
attractive gravitation since massless DM particles cannot contain
the +energy required to have an attractive force.
Back to top
Randy Poe
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:33 pm    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
Randy Poe wrote:
socratus wrote:
The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning God
created " virtual particles ".
Astrophysics approve, that in the beginning the God created
" latent mass ","invisible particles ", "'missing mass'" or
"'dark matter'".
From them the God created everything.
But nobody knows, what is " virtual particles ","'dark matter'"
what is " latent mass ", " invisible particles ".
And then the physicists are very surprised :
"Why is the nature of the microworld so paradoxical ?"
We use words not understanding their meaning

When we say "dark matter" the words are not arbitrary.

Yes, they are. DM is not dark at all,

It doesn't radiate. That makes it dark.

Quote:
In fact, DM can
be more accurately described as invisible matter

Astronomers can only see that which radiates energy to be
picked up by their instruments.

Quote:
because we can see right through it, obviously.

You can also see through the air, and you can't see air in
your telescope. That does not mean "air" is some exotic material.

The need for dark matter in cosmology was very simple: The
gravitation from the shiny stuff was not enough to explain the
behavior of the shiny stuff. If our gravitational models are correct,
then there's more MASS out there, but it isn't shiny.

One proposal I heard many years ago was "cold neutrinos". It was
put forward by a respectable cosmologist in a physics seminar,
something you no doubt have never been to. Wherever you get
your views of what "real physicists" think and say, as far as I
can tell it isn't from hearing the words or thoughts of any
physicist.

Neutrinos are not exotic. They are invisible, and there are a great
many of them running free in the universe. The cold neutrino
explanation relies on the neutrino having a certain minimum mass,
and I think it would now be ruled out based on our current
estimates of the neutrino mass. But at the time it was one
plausible candidate, and one thing that made it plausible was
the MASS.

You are apparently trying to cook up some hypothetical substance
which doesn't gravitate like ordinary matter. But since having
gravitational mass is the single most important property
needed by the "missing mass", your "theory" is thus pretty
useless as an explanation of the form of the missing mass of
the universe.

- Randy
Back to top
Randy Poe
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:35 pm    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
Also, to say it is call "dark" because it does not
radiate is another phony explanation, since blackbodies do
not radiate either, they only absorb radiation.

Good grief.

What is the second word in the phrase "blackbody radiation",
Tom?

For bonus points, the first great success of Planck's quantum
theory was a correct prediction of the radiation from what kind
of object?

- Randy
Back to top
The Real Chris
science forum addict


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:46 pm    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

It just means "not lit" an average cloud of dust and hydrogen is not visible
unless it is lit by a nearby star.

Junk science.

Chris.
"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153171175.102035.115090@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

dlzc wrote:
Dear stephen:

SNIP

http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/~lrj/obscos/vandenbergh.pdf
QUOTE
Zwicky writes (my translation) : "If this [overdensity] is confirmed we
would arrive at the astonishing conclusion that dark matter is present
[in Coma] with a much greater density than luminous matter." He
continues: "From these considerations it follows that the large
velocity dispersion in Coma (and in other clusters of galaxies)
represents an unsolved problem."
END QUOTE
Zwicky, F. 1933, Helvetica Phys. Acta, 6, 110

I *think* the list of properties of DM is supposed to have was not
finalized till much later.

Since there are still loose ends, why do you say the list has been
finalized? There is still much supposition as to the properties of
DM, and I see no theory to explain the processes involved, other
than that of my model, which currently excludes the possibility of
attractive gravitation since massless DM particles cannot contain
the +energy required to have an attractive force.
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:27 am    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

Randy Poe wrote:
Quote:
tomgee wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
socratus wrote:
The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning God
created " virtual particles ".
Astrophysics approve, that in the beginning the God created
" latent mass ","invisible particles ", "'missing mass'" or
"'dark matter'".
From them the God created everything.
But nobody knows, what is " virtual particles ","'dark matter'"
what is " latent mass ", " invisible particles ".
And then the physicists are very surprised :
"Why is the nature of the microworld so paradoxical ?"
We use words not understanding their meaning

When we say "dark matter" the words are not arbitrary.

Yes, they are. DM is not dark at all,

It doesn't radiate. That makes it dark.

In fact, DM can
be more accurately described as invisible matter

Astronomers can only see that which radiates energy to be
picked up by their instruments.

because we can see right through it, obviously.

You can also see through the air, and you can't see air in
your telescope. That does not mean "air" is some exotic material.

It does to me. I still have my "childhood wonder", esp. about

the things that are so ho-hum to others.
Quote:

The need for dark matter in cosmology was very simple: The
gravitation from the shiny stuff was not enough to explain the
behavior of the shiny stuff. If our gravitational models are correct,
then there's more MASS out there, but it isn't shiny.

One proposal I heard many years ago was "cold neutrinos". It was
put forward by a respectable cosmologist in a physics seminar,
something you no doubt have never been to.

Yes, we know, you are a far, far

Better man than me, Genghis Poe, for
You have been to a physics seminar.
Quote:

Wherever you get
your views of what "real physicists" think and say, as far as I
can tell it isn't from hearing the words or thoughts of any
physicist.

Are you blind, then? Isn't PD one, or you? Or Worms? Or

any of the other pedantic trolls who hover over this ng? Do
you have someone reading this to you? Have you analyzed
yourself to see why you tend toward exaggeration?
Quote:

Neutrinos are not exotic. They are invisible, and there are a great
many of them running free in the universe. The cold neutrino
explanation relies on the neutrino having a certain minimum mass,
and I think it would now be ruled out based on our current
estimates of the neutrino mass. But at the time it was one
plausible candidate, and one thing that made it plausible was
the MASS.

But that was based only on the notion that neutrinos had some

mass. It is only recently they have been shown to have some
mass but not until and unless they interact w/a tau neutrino.

That means they are massless until they are transformed
into particles having mass and energy, just like my model
predicted.
Quote:

You are apparently trying to cook up some hypothetical substance
which doesn't gravitate like ordinary matter. But since having
gravitational mass is the single most important property
needed by the "missing mass", your "theory" is thus pretty
useless as an explanation of the form of the missing mass of
the universe.

Wait now. 1st you say, "...gravitate like ordinary matter." Next

you call it "gravitational mass", which does not equate to the
same thing. To have gravitation like we know it, it must have
the force of attraction, and that force is evident only in massive
objects we can observe. For us 2b able to see them, they must
have energy and the property of time, as we know those qualities
2b. However, we cannot see DM, so we can only guess it has
gravitational attraction like visible objects have.

Chew on this: How can additional gravitational attraction cause
the observed effects? Oh, sure, more attraction force will help
keep galaxies together better, yes. But how does that explain
the effect where the outer orbiting bodies move faster than can
be expected? And also, if DM is everywhere RM is not, how
does it know what to attract and what not to attract?

It is quite possible that instead of gravitational attractive forces,
they are gravitational repulsive forces. Since DM appears 2b
quite opposite to RM, why should we not think that its gravita-
tional force - if it has any - would be the opposite as well?

Or, why cannot it be some force other than gravitational? It
could be just "interactional", to coin a word, and not gravita-
tional at all. E.g., it could be that RM gathered into galaxies
via its own gravitational forces and also via interactions with
DM as well. DM gravitational forces could help keep RM
together by "pushing" or "herding" the matter, or by repulsing
it into galaxial forms. Or, if it is not gravitational forces in
play, it could interactions that repulse RM away from DM, and
since DM is everywhere RM is not, the effect could be to herd
RM into various galaxial shapes.

At this point, we only surmise the forces to be gravitational,
and it may indeed turn out that way. But at this point, I do not
see all the questions being answered by the same attractive
force of RM gravitation, while my model proposes that it is
not just the gravitational forces that change the universe
second-by-second, but also the various types of interactions
that go on between the stuff of the universe.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3 [37 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Wed Apr 02, 2014 5:05 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Emergence of Lorentz invariance in condensed matter app02drm Relativity 0 Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:10 am
No new posts Emergence of Lorentz invariance in condensed matter app02drm Research 1 Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:52 am
No new posts I have found that a looooooooooot of astronomers figured ... gb6724 New Theories 5 Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:37 am
No new posts How the public could understand dark energy? gb6724 New Theories 10 Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:55 pm
No new posts Study of gravity, dark energy and black holes gb7648 New Theories 1 Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:48 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1010s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0561s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]