SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Gaaark (41)
Gaaark
(email not shown publicly)
Linux user. Tries to keep feeding the brain with stuff. Husband and father of a young lady and a younger son who has autism/is autistic... that nut didn't fall far from this nut-tree, I'll tell ya: he gets it honestly. Now if only he'd sleep..............
I believe that God gave us the science, curiousity and intelligence to one day conclusively prove that God does not exist.
(email not shown publicly)
Linux user. Tries to keep feeding the brain with stuff. Husband and father of a young lady and a younger son who has autism/is autistic... that nut didn't fall far from this nut-tree, I'll tell ya: he gets it honestly. Now if only he'd sleep..............
I believe that God gave us the science, curiousity and intelligence to one day conclusively prove that God does not exist.
The Fine Print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Wednesday March 28, 18
09:26 PM
So a galaxy has been found that contains NO dark matter (all the matter seen is all the matter it needs).
"The astronomers realised something about DF2 was amiss when telescope observations revealed that 10 clusters of stars within it were moving far slower than would normally be expected."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/distant-galaxy-dark-matter-universe-understanding-theories-wrong-space-yale-a8277951.html
Could it not need 'dark matter' because the stars aren't rotating fast enough for inertial effects to kick in?
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.ca/2014/01/mihsc-101.html
Dark matter is dead. Please leave the corpse alone.
Close snark.
Galaxy found containing no dark matter: the snark side
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 9 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
innovate, v.:
To annoy people.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday March 29 2018, @06:21AM (7 children)
Probably lost its dark matter through a galactic collision or such.
I don't understand the hate that dark matter gets from some people. It's not like other weird types of matter haven't been invented to make equations work and then those particles have been found later. Most famous is the neutrino (originally called the neutron until another particle was theorized), needed to make some equations on fusion work, eventually found and actually more similar to dark matter then most types of matter.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday March 29 2018, @10:10AM (6 children)
Or, Occam's razor, there is no dark matter to unscientifically add in ad-hoc ways because it's something else! See link.
I like science, not hand waving: that's why the hate.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 29 2018, @03:21PM (5 children)
One needs acceleration in order to have inertia under this model. But you can't have acceleration before inertia since your acceleration is relative to a zero state. Traditional model doesn't try to explain phenomena with circular attribution. Further, stars at the edge of galaxies can have very different accelerations due to the mass of the galaxy and their distance from that galaxy.
To the contrary, the inertial effects are supposed to kick in the strongest at slow rotation. Remember it's low acceleration (which corresponds to slow rotation) where we're supposed to see this effect!
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday March 29 2018, @03:39PM (4 children)
I see it as inertia and acceleration work together: inertia arises from acceleration. Without acceleration there is no inertia (positive or negative acceleration).
The higher the speed the greater the inertial effects.
But I am not a physicist: this theory, though, makes more sense, scientifically, to me than hand waving in an ad-hoc amount of dark matter to make it work.
I like science, which is why I don't believe in God, god's or magicky hand waving.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 29 2018, @05:07PM (3 children)
That's my point. Assuming acceleration automatically establishes inertia and vice versa. It's a circular argument to claim that an argument is better because it first supposes the less traditional one of the pair.
Event horizons are powerful stuff because they can be used to construct [soylentnews.org] arrows of time. So maybe they're even more powerful than that. If a very minimal description of an event horizon (time would be present, but not space-time) and Unruh radiation can generate space-time with its known properties (which would include inertia), then you have something extremely useful.
But merely reversing the order of construction for objects that are mutually dependent is not adding anything new.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday March 29 2018, @06:23PM (2 children)
I guess I'm not seeing your point.
Mine is, as the galaxy rotates faster, THEY say "it doesn't fly apart because 'dark matter' is added in indiscriminate amounts not based on any formula, whereas
I'm saying it doesn't fly apart because Unruh radition pushes back against it to keep it from flying apart (my understanding)
"In this way, MiHsC solves a problem astronomers have had with galaxies. They are spinning so fast that they should centrifugally explode. Oddly, they don’t explode, so astronomers have had to invent invisible ‘dark’ matter and add it to the galaxies to hold them together with extra gravitational pull. This is a ‘patch’ since it is not predictive: you have to add dark matter 'by hand' to get agreement between standard gravity and the observed spin of the galaxy. Interestingly, the stars at the galaxy’s edge (the ones misbehaving) have low accelerations, so see very long Unruh waves, and MiHsC predicts a loss of inertial mass for them, that reduces the centrifugal outward force on them by just the right amount to make everything fit, see here and here. MiHsC then is an alternative explanation of why galaxies do not break up with the centrifugal forces, and is better than the dark matter hypothesis and MoND because there is only one way to apply MiHsC, and that way works (McCulloch, 2012)."
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 29 2018, @06:59PM (1 child)
It's just very similar with Unruh radiation taking place of dark matter. The thing is, we already know there's dark matter of some sort. Maybe not enough to explain things, but it's there. And it doesn't stretch things to add it, particularly if it really is there. Second, the story is about a galaxy that doesn't exhibit these dynamics. That's not predicted by your Unruh radiation theory. All galaxies should exhibit this effect.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday March 29 2018, @07:39PM
I guess yes, if you are saying dark matter is this stuff we don't know anything, really, about and could be due to anything.
I just don't like the non predictive, no formula hand waving that is 'unseen matter' that gets added in an ad-hoc way. I like that there is a predictive formula such as here
https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.ca/2016/09/the-fractal-theory.html [blogspot.ca]
that you can point to and do the math, rather than what they have for 'dark matter'.
Again, not a physicist, just someone who doesn't like the new physics of 28 imaginary dimensions of string theory and this non predictive dark matter.
The new physics seems to be "you don't have to use the scientific method if hand waving will do".
It seems we have taken a wrong route somewhere and need a new Einstein to give us that "Aha!" moment again and straighten us out again.
We need the scientific method.
Damn, wish I was younger and a physicist, lol.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by black6host on Thursday April 12 2018, @11:28PM
Are we talking about the Galaxy S9 or S8 :)