Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Finding Dark Matter

  1. Feb 22, 2006 #1
    This should help clear up the mystery. What do you think?


    DARK MATTER EXPLAINED

    [Nereid's note: please check your mailbox, soliasenberg, for why your post was deleted.]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 24, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 22, 2006 #2

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I think this belongs on IR. Anyone?
     
  4. Feb 22, 2006 #3

    Labguy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    For sure, and it would be nice if anyone with a profound theory knew the difference between "rotating" and "revolving"...:zzz:
     
  5. Feb 23, 2006 #4
    proof reading error

    Sorry about the error in proof reading and the confusion between rotating and revolving. Apparently I may be spending too much time in comunicating new information that can prevent smart people from going in the wrong scientific directions.

    Actually the errors in the standard model of the univese are much more serious and costly.

    Try to focus on what is important.

    Are there any serious comments and questions - or is this the wrong place for communicating?
     
  6. Feb 24, 2006 #5

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hi! Welcome to these Forums solaisenberg.

    First if this is your own theory, or somebody else's, that has not been published in a peer reviewed journal then it must be posted on the Independent Research Forum fulfilling all the requirements about experimental results etc. You will find the details here.

    Secondly DM is required to fit observations in four places:

    To explain spiral galaxy 'flat' rotation curves - see the present discussion on Over estimate of dark matter .

    However it is also required to explain galaxy cluster dynamics and the Intra Galactic Medium DM is independently confirmed by gravitational lensing of more distant quasars.

    It is required to dominate large structure formation, especially in the early universe.

    It is also required cosmologically to make up a material density of around 27% critical density whereas the standard BBN can only produce about 4% baryonic matter.

    So does your theory fit the bill? I look forward to reading about it on IR.

    Garth
     
  7. Apr 22, 2007 #6
    NOTE: I really do know the difference.

    The term "flat rotation curves" has been used by others in connection with galaxies.

    Do a Google search on "flat rotation curves" to see examples. One is at www.astro.cornell.edu

    Actually the concept of extended gravity increasing with a term linear in distance is my own, starting in about 1998, and with other surprising implications - all based upon published observations of others. The extension is only apparent at cosmic distances and does not invalidate Newton's law - which is only based upon nearby observations in our solar system.

    It is different from the interesting MOND theory of M. Milgrom - which depends upon acceleration and not distance.

    Details should be available in my submitted papers and in a book -if I can find the time.

    solaisenberg
     
  8. Apr 22, 2007 #7

    Wallace

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Remember that as Garth explained, there are many reasons for suggesting the existence of DM, not just galaxy rotation. You should ensure your ideas are consistent with the big picture, not just one issue. I also look forward to reading more about your ideas in the IR forum.
     
  9. Apr 25, 2007 #8

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Just to add to the second of Garth's four points ("required to explain galaxy cluster dynamics and the Intra Galactic Medium DM"): in addition to gravitational lensing observations, the DM estimates for rich clusters must also satisfy the independent observations of cluster member velocity dispersions (via the virial theorem*), the several kinds of x-ray observations, and the SZE observations.

    In principle, it's relatively straight-forward to imagine an alternative being able to account for one, or even two, of these; to account for all of them - consistently - is a very different kettle of fish.

    *This is how "DM" was first 'found', by Zwicky, in the 1930s!
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Finding Dark Matter
  1. Dark Matter (Replies: 2)

  2. On Dark Matter (Replies: 5)

  3. Dark matter (Replies: 2)

  4. Dark matter (Replies: 28)

Loading...