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 2 of 3 [37 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
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
Randy Poe
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:42 am    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
Randy Poe wrote:
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.

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.

The point is that when I attribute an idea to a physicist, it is
because I heard it from a physicist.

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?

Oh, are you now saying that what PD and Sam Wormley write
is what "real physicists" say? Funny, I thought you were lecturing
all of us, including them, that none of us knew what real physicists
say.

For instance, your claim that all real physicists say "motion relative
to each other" means "zero velocity relative to each other". Yet
neither PD nor Sam said such a thing.

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.

Yes it was. The point was these not-at-all-exotic things with
mass potentially met all the requirements of dark matter.

Yet you claim dark matter can't be anything with mass.

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

Yes. As in, contribute a nonzero force F = GMm/r^2 when
interacting with the visible mass. That is why dark matter was
hypothesized in the first place: Something appears to be
contributing Newtonian gravitational force, and we can't see it.

Much the same idea as why astronomers looked for Pluto.

Quote:
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

Exactly.

Quote:
and that force is evident only in massive
objects we can observe.

No, no such requirement.

Quote:
Chew on this: How can additional gravitational attraction cause
the observed effects?

Because the observed effects are additional gravitational attraction
beyond what is explained by the shiny things.

- Randy
Back to top
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:19 am    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

Dear The Real Chris:

"The Real Chris" <me@myself.com> wrote in message
news:5rUug.9376$5B3.2508@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Quote:
"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153171175.102035.115090@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
....
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.

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

The problem is, normal matter has to *not* be located where it
can scatter light passing through it. This places it in very
special places, impossible places and/or very temporary
locations. We are getting the "normal and expected" amount of
light from the sources that are held in place by Dark Matter.
And closer in, we are getting normal and expected light from
those sources too.

Dust and hydrogen clouds don't work.

Quote:
Junk science.

I'd like to think so too. The facts are otherwise.

David A. Smith
Back to top
socratus
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 100
Location: Israel

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:45 am    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

The Quantum physics approves that the " virtual particles "
are connected with Vacuum.
To which reference frame does the "'dark matter'" concern?
If the "'dark matter'" also belongs to Vacuum, so what is the
difference between " virtual particles " and
"'particles of dark matter'" ?
=========================
If you see a Lion in a cage
with an inscription " Cat ",
do not believe your eyes.
Back to top
socratus
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 100
Location: Israel

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:51 am    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

The Quantum physics approves, that the " virtual particles "
are connected with Vacuum.
To which reference frame does the "'dark matter'" concern?
If the "'dark matter'" also belongs to Vacuum, so what is the
difference between " virtual particles " and
"'particles of dark matter'" ?
=========================
If you see a Lion in a cage
with an inscription " Cat ",
do not believe your eyes.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:27 pm    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
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?


To answer your 2nd question, it's actually pretty simple. According to
Newtonian gravity, the relationship between the speed of an orbiting
body and the mass that is attracting it (and thereby coercing it to
stay in orbit) is
GM/r = v^2.
(This comes from F=ma, and the left hand side is GMm/r^2 and the right
hand side is mv^2/r.)
Thus, if you can count the stars that make up M then you should be able
to calculate what the velocity v of the orbiting body is and compare
that to measurements. Or conversely, you can measure the velocity of
the orbiting body and use that to calculate the mass M and compare that
to the sum of the masses of the visible stars. There is an
observational mismatch. This leads you to one of three conclusions:
a) Newtonian gravity is grossly wrong. (GR says it is a little wrong
but not as much as the mismatch.)
b) There is mass other than the visible mass M obtained by counting
stars and adding them up. This has to *increase* the value of M to
account for the larger v. In other words, it is positive mass. Because
it is not observable by counting stars and dust, it is called "dark"
matter.
c) There is some other force present that acts out the outer bodies
preferentially for some reason, and due to some other, yet undiscovered
agent.

All three have been tried, making theoretical models, developing them
enough to do some detailed calculations, and comparing the results of
those calculations with measurements. The best fit so far to all data
seems to be (b). Option (c) seems to match too poorly to data to be
viable. There are some hold-outs that are still pursuing (a).
Then, of course, there's you.

PD
Back to top
stephen@nomail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 681

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:46 pm    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
Thus, if you can count the stars that make up M then you should be able
to calculate what the velocity v of the orbiting body is and compare
that to measurements. Or conversely, you can measure the velocity of
the orbiting body and use that to calculate the mass M and compare that
to the sum of the masses of the visible stars. There is an
observational mismatch. This leads you to one of three conclusions:
a) Newtonian gravity is grossly wrong. (GR says it is a little wrong
but not as much as the mismatch.)
b) There is mass other than the visible mass M obtained by counting
stars and adding them up. This has to *increase* the value of M to
account for the larger v. In other words, it is positive mass. Because
it is not observable by counting stars and dust, it is called "dark"
matter.
c) There is some other force present that acts out the outer bodies
preferentially for some reason, and due to some other, yet undiscovered
agent.

All three have been tried, making theoretical models, developing them
enough to do some detailed calculations, and comparing the results of
those calculations with measurements. The best fit so far to all data
seems to be (b). Option (c) seems to match too poorly to data to be
viable. There are some hold-outs that are still pursuing (a).
Then, of course, there's you.

PD

Did this idea of any merit?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9655619/
I stumbled upon it while doing web search. It is a news item,
and it is impossible to judge the scientific merits of something
based on a news item. I have not found anything more substantial
about their hypothesis. I also have not looked very hard either. :)

Stephen
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:52 pm    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
tomgee wrote:
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?


To answer your 2nd question, it's actually pretty simple. According to
Newtonian gravity, the relationship between the speed of an orbiting
body and the mass that is attracting it (and thereby coercing it to
stay in orbit) is
GM/r = v^2.
(This comes from F=ma, and the left hand side is GMm/r^2 and the right
hand side is mv^2/r.)
Thus, if you can count the stars that make up M then you should be able
to calculate what the velocity v of the orbiting body is and compare
that to measurements. Or conversely, you can measure the velocity of
the orbiting body and use that to calculate the mass M and compare that
to the sum of the masses of the visible stars. There is an
observational mismatch. This leads you to one of three conclusions:
a) Newtonian gravity is grossly wrong. (GR says it is a little wrong
but not as much as the mismatch.)
b) There is mass other than the visible mass M obtained by counting
stars and adding them up. This has to *increase* the value of M to
account for the larger v. In other words, it is positive mass. Because
it is not observable by counting stars and dust, it is called "dark"
matter.
c) There is some other force present that acts out the outer bodies
preferentially for some reason, and due to some other, yet undiscovered
agent.

All three have been tried, making theoretical models, developing them
enough to do some detailed calculations, and comparing the results of
those calculations with measurements. The best fit so far to all data
seems to be (b). Option (c) seems to match too poorly to data to be
viable. There are some hold-outs that are still pursuing (a).
Then, of course, there's you.

PD

Be sure to let us know when you start counting stars, PD - that way

we won't be wondering where you're gone off to.
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:24 pm    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

stephen@nomail.com wrote:
Quote:
PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

Thus, if you can count the stars that make up M then you should be able
to calculate what the velocity v of the orbiting body is and compare
that to measurements. Or conversely, you can measure the velocity of
the orbiting body and use that to calculate the mass M and compare that
to the sum of the masses of the visible stars. There is an
observational mismatch. This leads you to one of three conclusions:
a) Newtonian gravity is grossly wrong. (GR says it is a little wrong
but not as much as the mismatch.)
b) There is mass other than the visible mass M obtained by counting
stars and adding them up. This has to *increase* the value of M to
account for the larger v. In other words, it is positive mass. Because
it is not observable by counting stars and dust, it is called "dark"
matter.
c) There is some other force present that acts out the outer bodies
preferentially for some reason, and due to some other, yet undiscovered
agent.

All three have been tried, making theoretical models, developing them
enough to do some detailed calculations, and comparing the results of
those calculations with measurements. The best fit so far to all data
seems to be (b). Option (c) seems to match too poorly to data to be
viable. There are some hold-outs that are still pursuing (a).
Then, of course, there's you.

PD

Did this idea of any merit?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9655619/
I stumbled upon it while doing web search. It is a news item,
and it is impossible to judge the scientific merits of something
based on a news item. I have not found anything more substantial
about their hypothesis. I also have not looked very hard either. :)

Stephen

Why are you asking PD? He's a King Stooge, and that certifies

he doesn't know his ass from a black hole. Didn't you read his
crapola above? Oh, that's right, you don't read well.
Back to top
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:47 am    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

Dear stephen:

<stephen@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:e9ivp1$p58$1@news.msu.edu...
....
Quote:
Did this idea of any merit?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9655619/

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0507619
.... the paper
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-97876.html
.... a blow by blow analysis.

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


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 681

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:20 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:e9ivp1$p58$1@news.msu.edu...
...
Did this idea of any merit?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9655619/

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0507619
... the paper
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-97876.html
... a blow by blow analysis.

David A. Smith

Thanks again.

Stephen
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:25 am    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:

Why are you asking PD? He's a King Stooge, and that certifies
he doesn't know his ass from a black hole. Didn't you read his
crapola above? Oh, that's right, you don't read well.

TomGee's Rhetorical Strategies: Item 6:
TomGee responds to his meaker understanding of what he reads with
"That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If that were true, then
how do you explain..." [question follows]

[Answer given]

TomGee responds: "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard."

It's like a reflex. He can't help it, really.

PD
Back to top
AllYou!
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:13 pm    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153308337.797301.283260@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

tomgee wrote:

Why are you asking PD? He's a King Stooge, and that certifies
he doesn't know his ass from a black hole. Didn't you read his
crapola above? Oh, that's right, you don't read well.

TomGee's Rhetorical Strategies: Item 6:
TomGee responds to his meaker understanding of what he reads with
"That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If that were true, then
how do you explain..." [question follows]

[Answer given]

TomGee responds: "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard."

It's like a reflex. He can't help it, really.


--
"I don't claim to know what I'm talking about" - tomgee; 10 May 2006

"I don't know that much math." - tomgee; 2 April 2006
Back to top
The TimeLord
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Posts: 182

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:43 am    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 01:57:39 +0000, stephen@nomail.com wrote in
<e9eqqj$cdh$1@news.msu.edu>:

Quote:
Does anyone know when and by whom the phrase 'dark matter' was first
coined?

I came across it in the early 80s. However, I think the term
was in use way before that. In its original meaning it simply
means matter that doesn't shine, however it is evidenced by
other phenomena. An example is the fact that stars in the
outer areas of spiral galaxies tend to orbit the nucleus in
neither solid-body rotation, nor Keplerian motion. It's as
if there are non-stars with mass perturbing Newtonian gravity.

Astrophysicists are still arguing about what exactly dark
matter (unseen mass) is. Some still think that it's weakly
interacting nuclear or subnuclear particles. Others try to
argue that it might be something much bigger, like a rogue
interstellar planet, asteroid or such. So far astrophysicists
only know what it can not be and tell the public to stay
tuned.

--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!
Back to top
The TimeLord
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Posts: 182

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:59 am    Post subject: Re: The phrase 'dark matter' Reply with quote

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:11:25 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote
in <1153170685.919021.109060@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:

Quote:

Randy Poe wrote:
socratus wrote:
[...]
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.

Through it? How do you know? Generally stars don't resolve
below the Raleigh limit anyway in a telescope. So how would
you be able to tell that dark matter is transparent?

Quote:
Physics is not all that precise in term-usage as you once imagined, eh?

That statement is moot.

[...]
Quote:
We assume it has gravitational mass, based on the observed effects, but
that conclusion is only one among others that are possible; therefore,

If dark matter is not interacting with the stars gravitationally,
then what is the underlying force? It can't be electromagnetic,
because that force would be evidenced in the spectra (Zeeman
splitting and/or synchrotron radiation). It can't be weak force,
since that only involves nuclear decay. It can't be the strong
force, since that only involves the nuclei. So what's left if it's
not gravity?

Quote:
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

Blackbodies do radiate. Example = an incandescent light bulb
(3000 degK black-body radiation). Another example = the sun
(5600 degK black-body radiation).

Blackbodies do not absorb radiation.

Quote:
absorption, they must have at least some gravitational attraction, I

That is completely non-sensical. Have you even taken a physics
course?

Quote:
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.

Irrelevant.

Quote:

The closest thing to a blackbody I can think of is a black hole, which

Bull. Blackbodies and black holes are completely different.
Just look at their definitions in any basic astronomy book.

[...]

It's clear you don't know about this. You should be posting this
to alt.sci.physics.new-theories, which is an NG devoted to crank
ideas.

--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3 [37 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Nov 21, 2014 5:40 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: 0.4582s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0736s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]