Dark Matter

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:43 am

Hello Empeda and all

Smile,,never say sorry:

What do you mean borrowed?

When you have a recycle of energy and matter its all in the accounting.
2 + 2- 4 = 0
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html

I aasume you have the further links with all the info

S. Bilderback · Post by **S. Bilderback** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:21 pm

When you have a recycle of energy and matter its all in the accounting.
2 + 2- 4 = 0

The equation in the real world would be 2+2-4- entropy = -.00000001

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:17 pm

In the real world nothing lost nothing gained

S. Bilderback · Post by **S. Bilderback** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:42 am

That is not necessaraly true, a distant galaxy is giving off electromacnetic radiation, heat, gravity and so on. Once the energy leave the system as entropy, it will never return causing a net cool down.
This means at some point far in the future, when all the possible reactions have taken place, all that will be left is heat (i.e electromagnetic radiation) and fundamental particles. No reactions will be possible, because the galaxy will have reached its maximum entropy.
Another reason the age of the univers cannot be infinite.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:14 am

What makes up all?

Electomagnetic radiation makes all particles. E = MC2

As for the universe time will tell if we have an infinite universe or a finite universe with respect to matter and electromagnetic radiation.

The problem we have is that many scientists are trapped within their own knowledge and there is no way you can change their thoughts until they see the evidence or the logic to the blackbox.

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:57 pm

Entropy.

Now that is an interesting word. And it's application is quite well used in this setting.

Norval

S. Bilderback · Post by **S. Bilderback** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:45 pm

With the universe expanding its average temperature is dropping, same total energy, larger area. For entropy to reverse either more energy needs to be added to the system or the size of the universe needs to decrease. Time/space is dependant on matter and gravity, so there may be a point where the size of the universe will start decreasing once most of the matter is transformed into energy; the result is increasing the average temperature reversing entropy.

FieryIce · Post by **FieryIce** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:16 pm

Bilderback, are you saying the universe is decaying from the inside out?

gordhaddow · Post by **gordhaddow** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 4:54 pm

Sorry, there is no inside/outside - the UNIVERSE is ALL THERE IS. We know that there are areas of star/galaxy formation; in the basic concepts of entropy, these areas are becoming MORE ORGANIZED. Correspondingly, all other areas of the universe (on average) must be LOSING ORGANIZATION. Without going into the endless possibilities created by theories of any sub-dimensional, inter-dimensional or supra-dimensional 'transfer'/'communication'/'translation' of entropy, we are rotting - period.

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:22 pm

We do have a bit of time to discuss this, that is for sure, like a few billions of years at least.

It is truly amazing what we have learned of our solar system and own galaxy. Discovering what takes place one little step at a time. The key is discovery, and sharing of these discoveries, to those that want to know. God I love the internet.

Norval

FieryIce · Post by **FieryIce** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:31 pm

we are rotting - period

There is nothing on the other side of the equal sign.

The same as some say black holes suck/draw in material, what is happening to this material? Is it being perpetuity compressed? Is it going some other place? There is nothing on the other side of the equal sign.

S. Bilderback · Post by **S. Bilderback** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:43 pm

If it is true that the rate of time runs proportional to proximity and strength of gravity fields, as the average density of the universe decreases due to expansion, the average rate of time should diminish proportionally to expansion.
Agree?

gordhaddow · Post by **gordhaddow** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:01 pm

It's a long way back to my 3rd-year Cosmology course at Mac in '73/'74, so the details aren't all that clear now, but there was some postulation that 'our' gravitational singularities (black holes) might be offset by 'white holes'. Some of the suggestions related to quasars being the other end of this 'sewer-system'. I recall someone 'proving' mathematically that this was not possible 'within our universe', and at the time I could follow the math well enough to accept that proof. If I remember correctly, however, the proof could NOT exclude the possibility of our garbage winding up in another universe's backyard.

FieryIce · Post by **FieryIce** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:13 am

proof could NOT exclude the possibility of our garbage winding up in another universe's backyard

Wouldn't that mean perpetual give and take as in replenish, not decay/rotting?

gordhaddow · Post by **gordhaddow** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:50 am

Unfortunately, no - if there were a perpetual 'give and take', there would have to be some multiple of universes forming a 'closed system', and with such an interdependency there would have to be 'communication' between them. And since a universe is 'complete unto itself', such communication cannot exist. To the best approximation that I can remember, any singularity in this universe would spawn another, completely self-contained, universe, and that universe would form in a way that was totally dependant on the 'initial conditions' created by 'our' singularity. This would include the number of dimensions, any overall angular velocity, total mass, etc., etc. ... And we would never be able to know any of this, anyway.

harry · Post by **harry** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:34 am

What is a singularity?

In the process of any cycle you will have death and life. Same with galaxies some are ready to kick the bucket others have kicked the bucked and ingnited an active galactic centre giving birth to a new start for many stars.

If some believe that the universe is expanding well and good. I just want to know where and how its expanding. All the observations and movements of the major galactic clusters do not indicate an expansion.

The universe has always been and will remain such in the never ending story.

Oh! yes a singularity: Where all particals are the same and compacted so close that millions of the same atom fit within the same vulume.

Orca · Post by **Orca** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:13 pm

FieryIce wrote:
we are rotting - period
There is nothing on the other side of the equal sign.

The same as some say black holes suck/draw in material, what is happening to this material? Is it being perpetuity compressed? Is it going some other place? There is nothing on the other side of the equal sign.

Different black holes have different masses. The center of a black hole, the singularity, is for lack of a better way to say it, infinitely dense and takes up zero space...but again can contain different amounts of mass.

When a black hole draws in mass, the hole itself becomes more massive; the material doesn't "go" anywhere. The more massive the hole, the larger its event horizon (the event horizon is not a physical structure, just a mathematical distance at which light can no longer escape).

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:03 am

Smile a blackhole has no actual hole. It was named by scientists who thought it was actually a vortex.

The vortex in a way exists and the mass of blackholes grows with every star that is sucked in.

The Black Hole of M87 is several months across, being of high density plasma.

Empeda2 · Post by **Empeda2** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:06 pm

It is a hole in the sense of the massive gravitational well it produces... you could say that was a 'hole' in space-time.

Orca · Post by **Orca** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:32 pm

harry wrote:Smile a blackhole has no actual hole. It was named by scientists who thought it was actually a vortex.

Sorry, I thought that was just assumed. When I said "the hole" I was using "scientific slang" to refer to all elements of the object...singularity, event horizon, ect. I will be more clear next time.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:19 am

Hello orca

Smile, I understand

Infinity does not exist within a black hole.

The matter that is broken up to its basic of basic particals can only be compacted to a finite number. The calculation is " How many quaks can be compacted within the volume of lets say a hydrogen atom. Lets say 1 billion times although I think it is much more.

Its like the earth been broken down to the size of a football oval.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:39 am

oops i for got to add this link

http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/dm1.htm

Dark Matter, Cosmology, and Large-Scale Structure of the Universe
The evidence for Dark Matter

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:57 am

there is an edit link harry

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:02 am

Thank you Createrchains

Sometimes I'm half asleep

I must learn how to use all the buttons.

Aqua · Post by **Aqua** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:16 am

I like this *.gif animation of HH 47. It shows plasma being ejected from a newly evolved star.

http://www.rice.edu/media/hartigan1.gif

Q: Are the plasma jets shown CREATING matter? as it slows into local space/time? Or.. are the jets PUSHING existing matter ahead of it, and condensing it? Perhaps 'dark matter'?

The evolving star.. What does its magnetic field look like? A rotating torus? With jets emitted from the vertical axis? (Rather than the rotational plane-accretion disk)

Are the jets of opposing chirality?

What is the ratio of the mass being accreted by the star to the mass being expelled by the star?

Is HH 47 a fractal for/of larger scale events? Or of macro AND micro scales?

Starship Asterisk*

Dark Matter

Singularity