Re: [math-fun] Cheshire Cat Dark Matter
Gravitation not tied to any material source is indeed a conundrum, because any such material sources of gravitation are pulled together & condense into big stuff like black holes that can be more readily detected. This eliminates the possibility of large numbers of ronin osmium asteroids/planets wandering about, because they would eventually coalesce into something visible. (Are there theories of solar system evolution that would result in 80% of the material being ejected?? The one paper about panspermia indicated that upwards of 20% of ronin asteroids could be ejected from the solar system. But I guess all of these theories are based on the total amount of material being infinitesimal compared with the mass of Jupiter & the Sun.) Perhaps it is time to dust off theories that allow for negative gravitational bodies, so that polarization, shielding, and other phenomena can be possible ??? At 11:11 AM 4/18/2012, Warren Smith wrote:
The universe is supposedly 4.6% ordinary matter, 22.7% unknown "dark matter" (not made of known particles), and the rest is Einstein's cosmical constant.
However, this study of stellar motions in our galaxy claims the dark matter is not present in our region of the galaxy. How can this incredible discrepancy be explained?
I have no idea... (Not as easy to see how they could have made such a huge mistake, unlike the "faster than light neutrinos" case...):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120418111923.htm
-- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org
Gravitational "lensing" distorts light travelling around massive objects like black holes. Could gravitational "lensing" also affect the transmission of the gravitation force itself? Or is this effect already taken care of in the calculation of the evolution of space-time ? Could any such gravitational lensing explain the rotational velocity of galaxies -- perhaps by focussing the effect from the opposite side of the galaxy using the black hole at the center as a lens ? There have been proposals for "time machines" using extremely large portions of space-time; perhaps something weird like this is happening at the center of every sufficiently large galaxy? At 12:44 PM 4/19/2012, Henry Baker wrote:
Gravitation not tied to any material source is indeed a conundrum, because any such material sources of gravitation are pulled together & condense into big stuff like black holes that can be more readily detected.
This eliminates the possibility of large numbers of ronin osmium asteroids/planets wandering about, because they would eventually coalesce into something visible. (Are there theories of solar system evolution that would result in 80% of the material being ejected?? The one paper about panspermia indicated that upwards of 20% of ronin asteroids could be ejected from the solar system. But I guess all of these theories are based on the total amount of material being infinitesimal compared with the mass of Jupiter & the Sun.)
Perhaps it is time to dust off theories that allow for negative gravitational bodies, so that polarization, shielding, and other phenomena can be possible ???
At 11:11 AM 4/18/2012, Warren Smith wrote:
The universe is supposedly 4.6% ordinary matter, 22.7% unknown "dark matter" (not made of known particles), and the rest is Einstein's cosmical constant.
However, this study of stellar motions in our galaxy claims the dark matter is not present in our region of the galaxy. How can this incredible discrepancy be explained?
I have no idea... (Not as easy to see how they could have made such a huge mistake, unlike the "faster than light neutrinos" case...):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120418111923.htm
-- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org
="Henry Baker" <hbaker1@pipeline.com> ... Could any such gravitational lensing explain the rotational velocity of galaxies -- perhaps by focussing the effect from the opposite side of the galaxy using the black hole at the center as a lens?
I've heard that the main reason for ascribing "stuffiness" to explain the observations, rather than buggy equations, is that they are irregular spatially (eg distorted motions within globular clusters) rather than more homogeneous effects liked you'd see from, say, neglecting terms that only become significant at galactic scales. I imagine a similar argument applies to large scale structures such as central black holes as being sufficient to fully explain all the detailed discombobulations.
participants (2)
-
Henry Baker -
Marc LeBrun