| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mike Helland" |
| Date: |
22 Apr 2004 11:48:12 AM |
| Object: |
Dark Matter Hypothesis |
Observation:
There is more matter in the galaxy than meets the eye. The blackhole
at the center of the galaxy cannot account for this missing matter.
Hypothesis:
There is more matter in the largest stars than meets the eye because
these stars are collapsing into blackholes but have not completed the
collapse. Quite literally, the center of these bodies *is* a blackhole
but since the collapse is still occuring we still see the outside of
the star. Our measurements of the matter in the star are low because
the largest part of the star exists in a blackhole and cannot be
measured.
More Evidence:
In the latest Scientific American I read about the discovery of a star
that is so large that it defies our current theories as this star
should have collapsed on itself. If the star is in the process of
collapsing on itself it would imply that what my guess is entirely
possible, and that there may be a black hole in the middle of this
visisble star, and that this may account for the observation of the
missing matter in the galaxy.
Implications:
Confirmation of this hypothesis suggests that while matter may have a
gravitational precense in the galaxy it does not contribute to the
electromagnetic activity in the galaxy and would support the Multiple
Natures Conjecture:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
Thoughts?
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
22 Apr 2004 03:44:23 PM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0404220848.688615ca@posting.google.com...
Observation:
There is more matter in the galaxy than meets the eye. The blackhole
at the center of the galaxy cannot account for this missing matter.
Hypothesis:
There is more matter in the largest stars than meets the eye because
these stars are collapsing into blackholes but have not completed
the
collapse.
No
Quite literally, the center of these bodies *is* a blackhole
No
but since the collapse is still occuring we still see the outside of
the star.
No
Our measurements of the matter in the star are low because
the largest part of the star exists in a blackhole and cannot be
measured.
No
More Evidence:
In the latest Scientific American I read about the discovery of a
star
that is so large that it defies our current theories as this star
should have collapsed on itself. If the star is in the process of
collapsing on itself it would imply that what my guess is entirely
possible,
No
and that there may be a black hole in the middle of this
visisble star,
No
and that this may account for the observation of the
missing matter in the galaxy.
No
Implications:
Confirmation of this hypothesis
Will not occur.
suggests that while matter may have a
gravitational precense in the galaxy it does not contribute to the
electromagnetic activity in the galaxy and would support the
Multiple
Natures Conjecture:
And a final no.
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
Thoughts?
Instead of waffling, you might familiarise yourself with the methods
used by astrophysicists to determine the matter distributions in
stars.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ed Keane III" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
22 Apr 2004 11:53:01 AM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0404220848.688615ca@posting.google.com...
Observation:
There is more matter in the galaxy than meets the eye. The blackhole
at the center of the galaxy cannot account for this missing matter.
Hypothesis:
There is more matter in the largest stars than meets the eye because
these stars are collapsing into blackholes but have not completed the
collapse. Quite literally, the center of these bodies *is* a blackhole
but since the collapse is still occuring we still see the outside of
the star. Our measurements of the matter in the star are low because
the largest part of the star exists in a blackhole and cannot be
measured.
Certain types of large stars are believed to collapse in
this way. It happens very quickly.
More Evidence:
In the latest Scientific American I read about the discovery of a star
that is so large that it defies our current theories as this star
should have collapsed on itself. If the star is in the process of
collapsing on itself it would imply that what my guess is entirely
possible, and that there may be a black hole in the middle of this
visisble star, and that this may account for the observation of the
missing matter in the galaxy.
The star you mention is supposed to blow up due to
radiation pressure, not collapse.
Implications:
You have got to be kidding
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
22 Apr 2004 08:21:23 PM |
|
|
"Ed Keane III" <keane@westelcom.com> wrote in message news:<4087fd48$0$7560$38cefb40@news.westelcom.com>...
Observation:
There is more matter in the galaxy than meets the eye. The blackhole
at the center of the galaxy cannot account for this missing matter.
Hypothesis:
There is more matter in the largest stars than meets the eye because
these stars are collapsing into blackholes but have not completed the
collapse. Quite literally, the center of these bodies *is* a blackhole
but since the collapse is still occuring we still see the outside of
the star. Our measurements of the matter in the star are low because
the largest part of the star exists in a blackhole and cannot be
measured.
Certain types of large stars are believed to collapse in
this way. It happens very quickly.
It happens very quickly in theory or in observation?
I'm offering a hypothesis that would predict the observational
evidence for what we call Dark Matter. The fact that this is
contradicted by theory and not observation only supports the strength
of the hypothesis, not a weakness.
More Evidence:
In the latest Scientific American I read about the discovery of a star
that is so large that it defies our current theories as this star
should have collapsed on itself. If the star is in the process of
collapsing on itself it would imply that what my guess is entirely
possible, and that there may be a black hole in the middle of this
visisble star, and that this may account for the observation of the
missing matter in the galaxy.
The star you mention is supposed to blow up due to
radiation pressure, not collapse.
It is also *supposed* to have done one of those things already, but it
hasn't. Something seem amiss.
The prediction would then be that we shall start to observe less light
coming from it, but its gravitational effects should not wither.
Again, this can only be refuted by observation.
Implications:
You have got to be kidding
:-)
Thanks for the balanced response.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ed Keane III" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
23 Apr 2004 09:34:44 AM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0404221721.33a2e580@posting.google.com...
"Ed Keane III" <keane@westelcom.com> wrote in message
news:<4087fd48$0$7560$38cefb40@news.westelcom.com>...
Observation:
There is more matter in the galaxy than meets the eye. The blackhole
at the center of the galaxy cannot account for this missing matter.
Hypothesis:
There is more matter in the largest stars than meets the eye because
these stars are collapsing into blackholes but have not completed the
collapse. Quite literally, the center of these bodies *is* a blackhole
but since the collapse is still occuring we still see the outside of
the star. Our measurements of the matter in the star are low because
the largest part of the star exists in a blackhole and cannot be
measured.
Certain types of large stars are believed to collapse in
this way. It happens very quickly.
It happens very quickly in theory or in observation?
I'm offering a hypothesis that would predict the observational
evidence for what we call Dark Matter. The fact that this is
contradicted by theory and not observation only supports the strength
of the hypothesis, not a weakness.
What are you talking about? What observation would contradict
your theory hypothesis?
When I said that you have to be kidding I meant trolling. To say
that incompatibility with theory is the measure of the strength
of your hypothesis must be jigging the lure.
More Evidence:
In the latest Scientific American I read about the discovery of a star
that is so large that it defies our current theories as this star
should have collapsed on itself. If the star is in the process of
collapsing on itself it would imply that what my guess is entirely
possible, and that there may be a black hole in the middle of this
visisble star, and that this may account for the observation of the
missing matter in the galaxy.
The star you mention is supposed to blow up due to
radiation pressure, not collapse.
It is also *supposed* to have done one of those things already, but it
hasn't. Something seem amiss.
The prediction would then be that we shall start to observe less light
coming from it, but its gravitational effects should not wither.
Not only does dark matter need to be someplace other than the
interior of stars to work it works by increasing the effect of gravity.
Again, this can only be refuted by observation.
Observation of what?
The metaphor that came to mind was, "that is like predicting that
the sun will not rise tomorrow and saying that only observation,
not theory, can refute my theory", when suddenly I felt a painful
tug at my mouth and an unexplainable force began to drag me
to the surface....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
23 Apr 2004 01:45:49 PM |
|
|
"Ed Keane III" <keane@westelcom.com> wrote in message news:<40892ebd$0$7551$38cefb40@news.westelcom.com>...
Certain types of large stars are believed to collapse in
this way. It happens very quickly.
It happens very quickly in theory or in observation?
I'm offering a hypothesis that would predict the observational
evidence for what we call Dark Matter. The fact that this is
contradicted by theory and not observation only supports the strength
of the hypothesis, not a weakness.
What are you talking about? What observation would contradict
your theory hypothesis?
You said "it happens very quickly" in response to my suggestion that
the star is slowing being eat up by a black hole from the inside out.
I'm asking if your claim regarding an observable phenomenon is
supported by observation. Is there observational evidence that this
happens quickly?
When I said that you have to be kidding I meant trolling. To say
that incompatibility with theory is the measure of the strength
of your hypothesis must be jigging the lure.
If the hypothesis offered nothing to contrast current theory then the
hypothesis would be irrelevant. Its departure from current theory
makes it useful, and is why we should find observations to confirm or
deny the hypothesis.
Not only does dark matter need to be someplace other than the
interior of stars to work it works by increasing the effect of gravity.
My suggestion does work by increasing the effect of gravity.
Say the biggest stars look something like this:
/-----\
/ \
/ \
| . |
\ /
\ /
\-----/
Where what we see is a star of a radius r, with the black hole being
in the center.
Recall that "what we see" is based on the light we get from the star.
We only get the light not in the black hole (obviouslly) so the star
appears to be this size. But "what we see" is not all that exists. All
that exists would be something like this:
/-----------\
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
| /--\ |
| / \ |
| | BH | |
| \ / |
\ \__/ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\-----------/
The star with a blackhole in the center of it slowing eating away the
star bends the the light and warps the spacetime around it so heavily
that while we only see a star of radius r, the "true" size (and by
that I mean the size in absolute space, the space that does exist in
our observations) of the star is greater than r.
Therefore, a star with a radius r that has a blackhole in the center
will have have a greater gravitational precense than what we would
suppose based on our observations of the visible matter (the matter
not in the blackhole).
This might sound quite contrary to what we know about a blackhole,
that its event horizon has a surface area and a Scharwzchild radius.
However, neither of these things have been confirmed by observation.
The Multiple Natures Hypothesis makes the quanitifable prediction that
the Schwarzschild radius when measured directly with electromagnetic
waves will always result in a zero (or simply inconclusive)
measurement.
This prediction seems to be confirmed by the observational evidence of
Dark Matter. Given the observational support for this bold prediction
I think that the hypothesis should be analyzed for critical errors. It
is located here:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ed Keane III" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
28 Apr 2004 11:54:47 AM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0404231045.cd6104a@posting.google.com...
"Ed Keane III" <keane@westelcom.com> wrote in message
news:<40892ebd$0$7551$38cefb40@news.westelcom.com>...
Certain types of large stars are believed to collapse in
this way. It happens very quickly.
It happens very quickly in theory or in observation?
I'm offering a hypothesis that would predict the observational
evidence for what we call Dark Matter. The fact that this is
contradicted by theory and not observation only supports the strength
of the hypothesis, not a weakness.
What are you talking about? What observation would contradict
your theory hypothesis?
You said "it happens very quickly" in response to my suggestion that
the star is slowing being eat up by a black hole from the inside out.
I'm asking if your claim regarding an observable phenomenon is
supported by observation. Is there observational evidence that this
happens quickly?
Do you know that there is no observational evidence of what is in the
center of the Earth? And that theories differ on this question?
Do you think:
1. The inward force of gravity makes a star round.
2. The inside half of the star holds the outside half up.
4. The center of a star collapses to form a black hole.
5. If the outside of a star is no longer held up by the inside it will fall
down.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
27 Apr 2004 09:20:12 AM |
|
|
"Ed Keane III" <keane@westelcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
Not only does dark matter need to be someplace other than the
interior of stars to work it works by increasing the effect of gravity.
Ha. Ha. Ha, and where/how much dark matter is required for GR to work? Ha. Ha. Ha.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
28 Apr 2004 07:59:57 PM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0404220848.688615ca@posting.google.com...
Observation:
You are an idiot and a crank.
Hypothesis:
No... fact.
More Evidence:
No thanks, your posting history is quite enough.
Implications:
You will die a crank.
Thoughts?
You have none.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
29 Apr 2004 09:15:11 AM |
|
|
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:
Thoughts?
You have none.
I have one - you're a stooopid Carney.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
22 Apr 2004 11:55:30 AM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message news:ad157aec.0404220848.688615ca@posting.google.com...
Observation:
Helland collects and produces crackpot theories.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
23 Apr 2004 02:19:55 AM |
|
|
(Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0404220848.688615ca@posting.google.com>...
Observation:
There is more matter in the galaxy than meets the eye. The blackhole
at the center of the galaxy cannot account for this missing matter.
Hypothesis:
There is more matter in the largest stars than meets the eye because
these stars are collapsing into blackholes but have not completed the
collapse. Quite literally, the center of these bodies *is* a blackhole
but since the collapse is still occuring we still see the outside of
the star. Our measurements of the matter in the star are low because
the largest part of the star exists in a blackhole and cannot be
measured.
More Evidence:
In the latest Scientific American I read about the discovery of a star
that is so large that it defies our current theories as this star
should have collapsed on itself. If the star is in the process of
collapsing on itself it would imply that what my guess is entirely
possible, and that there may be a black hole in the middle of this
visisble star, and that this may account for the observation of the
missing matter in the galaxy.
....and what is the literature citation for the star? Nothing written
in that article is worth considering if the specific journal and
article are mentioned.
If true, it is intriguing. But I doubt it really matters, unless there
is a reason all these stars would have migrated to the halo of the
galaxy. Since there are old stars everywhere, there is no reason to
believe they would all be in the halo with no young stars around.
Implications:
Confirmation of this hypothesis suggests that while matter may have a
gravitational precense in the galaxy it does not contribute to the
electromagnetic activity in the galaxy and would support the Multiple
Natures Conjecture:
What the *****?
Not only has your hypothesis not been confirmed, NONE of what you said
has any relation to what you just mentioned.
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
Thoughts?
A few. Most of them are unrelated though.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
23 Apr 2004 10:17:26 AM |
|
|
(Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.0404222319.5e6beb31@posting.google.com>...
More Evidence:
In the latest Scientific American I read about the discovery of a star
that is so large that it defies our current theories as this star
should have collapsed on itself. If the star is in the process of
collapsing on itself it would imply that what my guess is entirely
possible, and that there may be a black hole in the middle of this
visisble star, and that this may account for the observation of the
missing matter in the galaxy.
...and what is the literature citation for the star? Nothing written
in that article is worth considering if the specific journal and
article are mentioned.
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v35n5/aas203/191.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/brightest_star_040106-1.html
If true, it is intriguing. But I doubt it really matters, unless there
is a reason all these stars would have migrated to the halo of the
galaxy. Since there are old stars everywhere, there is no reason to
believe they would all be in the halo with no young stars around.
How does it follow that there would be no young stars around from
there being old stars around? I think you might be jumping to
conclusions here, or presenting sometype of strawman agrument.
Implications:
Confirmation of this hypothesis suggests that while matter may have a
gravitational precense in the galaxy it does not contribute to the
electromagnetic activity in the galaxy and would support the Multiple
Natures Conjecture:
What the *****?
Not only has your hypothesis not been confirmed, NONE of what you said
has any relation to what you just mentioned.
If there is a black hole in the center of a star, it means that while
the entire star will be contributing to the gravitational interactions
we observe, only a fraction of the star will be contributing to the
electromagnetic interactions we observe. This is the so-called Dark
Matter.
My Multiple Natures Conjecture also describes this effect, so I think
confirming my dark matter hypothesis would support, though maybe not
in any Earth shattering way, my larger conjecture. My Mutiple Natures
Conjecture has proven difficult to understand, so I will only suggest
that before you dismiss its relation to dark matter you take some time
to familiarize yourself with my ideas.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
23 Apr 2004 07:44:30 PM |
|
|
(Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0404230717.39b418a7@posting.google.com>...
fsegg@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.0404222319.5e6beb31@posting.google.com>...
More Evidence:
In the latest Scientific American I read about the discovery of a star
that is so large that it defies our current theories as this star
should have collapsed on itself. If the star is in the process of
collapsing on itself it would imply that what my guess is entirely
possible, and that there may be a black hole in the middle of this
visisble star, and that this may account for the observation of the
missing matter in the galaxy.
...and what is the literature citation for the star? Nothing written
in that article is worth considering if the specific journal and
article are mentioned.
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v35n5/aas203/191.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/brightest_star_040106-1.html
Ooh. Interesting.
A [triple/double/single] star system , with a collective mass of
~200Mo.
Kewl, though nothing groundbreaking here. I imagine the uncertainties
mentioned at the aas site are along the lines of +/- 40Mo. I don't see
how this supports your theory, because there is no reason to think
these stars are in the process of collapsing in upon themselves.
Read arXiv:astro-ph/0305333, it will apply in this case depending on
the uncertainties.
Odd though it says it is a 'nearby' cluster but does not say the
distance. Nearby does not mean as much as you would think - are these
high-z objects or what?
If true, it is intriguing. But I doubt it really matters, unless there
is a reason all these stars would have migrated to the halo of the
galaxy. Since there are old stars everywhere, there is no reason to
believe they would all be in the halo with no young stars around.
How does it follow that there would be no young stars around from
there being old stars around? I think you might be jumping to
conclusions here, or presenting sometype of strawman agrument.
Yes, its a strawman argument backed up with observational evidence.
*rolls eyes*
According to observation, galaxies are rotating with a velocity that
is entirely too large unless there is a large bit of missing mass. [or
GR/newton on large scales is wrong]
The missing mass has been deduced to be in the halo of galaxies. We
know that by observing the orbital velocities of stars in their
orbits.
If your theory of dark matter is collapsed stars, you would have to
explain why all those collapsed stars would be in the halo when we
observe young and old stars throughout our galaxy.
Implications:
Confirmation of this hypothesis suggests that while matter may have a
gravitational precense in the galaxy it does not contribute to the
electromagnetic activity in the galaxy and would support the Multiple
Natures Conjecture:
What the *****?
Not only has your hypothesis not been confirmed, NONE of what you said
has any relation to what you just mentioned.
If there is a black hole in the center of a star, it means that while
the entire star will be contributing to the gravitational interactions
we observe, only a fraction of the star will be contributing to the
electromagnetic interactions we observe. This is the so-called Dark
Matter.
Your theory of a black hole being in the center of the star is wrong
unless you can explain how a black hole can exist in the center of a
star without having the massive pressures of the star force the star
down the black hole.
The only black hole that could possibly resist star pressures would be
a micro blackhole with exceedingly large Hawking radiation shoving
stuff away and holding in equilibrium - but those holes are TINY.
Black holes of various sizes most likely do contribute to dark matter
- but I doubt seriously it would be on the scale you describe.
Remember the ratio of visible mass to invisible mass? Why would these
stars be the entire component of dark matter?
My Multiple Natures Conjecture also describes this effect, so I think
confirming my dark matter hypothesis would support, though maybe not
in any Earth shattering way, my larger conjecture. My Mutiple Natures
Conjecture has proven difficult to understand, so I will only suggest
that before you dismiss its relation to dark matter you take some time
to familiarize yourself with my ideas.
Given that you haven't described your conjecture, its hard to
familiarize myself with it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
24 Apr 2004 02:45:05 AM |
|
|
(Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.0404231644.16bc1dba@posting.google.com>...
Kewl, though nothing groundbreaking here. I imagine the uncertainties
mentioned at the aas site are along the lines of +/- 40Mo. I don't see
how this supports your theory, because there is no reason to think
these stars are in the process of collapsing in upon themselves.
Except for the fact that current theories state that the star should
have blown or collapsed a long time ago. There must be some other
reason its still around. It is true that this fact isn't conclusive
evidence that my hypothesis is correct, but since my Dark Matter
hypothesis (which is was thought up before I found out about this
star) may also explain this new phenomenon, its potentially broad
explanatory power does appear to be something worth looking into.
Read arXiv:astro-ph/0305333, it will apply in this case depending on
the uncertainties.
Thanks.
The missing mass has been deduced to be in the halo of galaxies. We
know that by observing the orbital velocities of stars in their
orbits.
If your theory of dark matter is collapsed stars, you would have to
explain why all those collapsed stars would be in the halo when we
observe young and old stars throughout our galaxy.
Good point, though I think we will need to find more specifics on the
distribution of dark matter through the galaxy because its not all in
the halo as far as I know.
It could be as simple as the fact that the most massive stars either
got sucked into the black hole in the center of the galaxy or "flung"
out away from there. Such a limit, sort of like a huge Schwarschild
radius for the entire galaxy, would not only explain why only the halo
has the most visible massive stars, but also why there is a halo at
all.
I'm sort of talking out my ***** here, as I'm sure you can tell, but
your questions give me some focus for what I should be researching, so
it can't be all bad.
If there is a black hole in the center of a star, it means that while
the entire star will be contributing to the gravitational interactions
we observe, only a fraction of the star will be contributing to the
electromagnetic interactions we observe. This is the so-called Dark
Matter.
Your theory of a black hole being in the center of the star is wrong
unless you can explain how a black hole can exist in the center of a
star without having the massive pressures of the star force the star
down the black hole.
My hypothesis is that the star is indeed collapsing into the black
hole, just that the black hole forms much earlier and the collapse
occurs much more slowly than we have imagined. The result would be a
star with visible matter and a core of dark matter.
A good question would whats the ratio of mass between the visible and
non-visible parts of a star?
Knowing this answer would more or less be able to answer the questions
you are about to ask:
Black holes of various sizes most likely do contribute to dark matter
- but I doubt seriously it would be on the scale you describe.
Remember the ratio of visible mass to invisible mass? Why would these
stars be the entire component of dark matter?
If the ratio in a single star is anywhere near the ratio of a galaxy I
think we have a pursueable hypothesis on our hands.
There is some math to be done on this, but thats usually the easy
part. Having the conjecture to contemplate is often the piece we
struggle to find.
My Multiple Natures Conjecture also describes this effect, so I think
confirming my dark matter hypothesis would support, though maybe not
in any Earth shattering way, my larger conjecture. My Mutiple Natures
Conjecture has proven difficult to understand, so I will only suggest
that before you dismiss its relation to dark matter you take some time
to familiarize yourself with my ideas.
Given that you haven't described your conjecture, its hard to
familiarize myself with it.
I posted a link to the conjecture, here it is again:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
It develops three postulates of increasing boldness that aim to
provide an intuitive interpretation of quantum mechanics. The
postulates are described in plenty of detail in the paper, but I will
post them simply here:
1. Nature is a set of information produced by the rules governing
interactions
2. Matter, Space, and Time emerge from this information, consequences
of an interaction
3. The agents and processes of the rules exist in a system of
information that encompasses the system of nature and includes unique
versions of matter, space, and time
I realize that the ideas might seem looney. But to date, there have
been no refutations of the conjecture. (Though it has recently been
pointed out that parts of the conjecture have already been proposed by
Leibniz, a good sign, I think.)
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me.
Mike Helland
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
24 Apr 2004 02:53:00 PM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0404232345.2965fe2e@posting.google.com...
fsegg@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote in message
news:<fd0fc2fa.0404231644.16bc1dba@posting.google.com>...
Kewl, though nothing groundbreaking here. I imagine the
uncertainties
mentioned at the aas site are along the lines of +/- 40Mo. I don't
see
how this supports your theory, because there is no reason to think
these stars are in the process of collapsing in upon themselves.
Except for the fact that current theories state that the star should
have blown or collapsed a long time ago. There must be some other
reason its still around. It is true that this fact isn't conclusive
evidence that my hypothesis is correct, but since my Dark Matter
hypothesis (which is was thought up before I found out about this
star) may also explain this new phenomenon, its potentially broad
explanatory power does appear to be something worth looking into.
Read arXiv:astro-ph/0305333, it will apply in this case depending
on
the uncertainties.
Thanks.
The missing mass has been deduced to be in the halo of galaxies.
We
know that by observing the orbital velocities of stars in their
orbits.
If your theory of dark matter is collapsed stars, you would have
to
explain why all those collapsed stars would be in the halo when we
observe young and old stars throughout our galaxy.
Good point, though I think we will need to find more specifics on
the
distribution of dark matter through the galaxy because its not all
in
the halo as far as I know.
It could be as simple as the fact that the most massive stars either
got sucked into the black hole in the center of the galaxy or
"flung"
out away from there. Such a limit, sort of like a huge Schwarschild
radius for the entire galaxy, would not only explain why only the
halo
has the most visible massive stars, but also why there is a halo at
all.
I'm sort of talking out my ***** here, as I'm sure you can tell, but
your questions give me some focus for what I should be researching,
so
it can't be all bad.
Yes, it is all bad. That previous paragraph is particularly risible.
Do you know what a Schwarzschild radius signifies?
Can you spell Schwarzchild?
[snip]
My hypothesis is that the star is indeed collapsing into the black
hole, just that the black hole forms much earlier and the collapse
occurs much more slowly than we have imagined. The result would be a
star with visible matter and a core of dark matter.
Has it occuurred to you to estimate what the life time against
collapse of your comedy-star might be?
Can you estimate this?
If not, why don't you go and play marbles instead?
A good question would whats the ratio of mass between the visible
and
non-visible parts of a star?
Knowing this answer would more or less be able to answer the
questions
you are about to ask:
Black holes of various sizes most likely do contribute to dark
matter
- but I doubt seriously it would be on the scale you describe.
Remember the ratio of visible mass to invisible mass? Why would
these
stars be the entire component of dark matter?
If the ratio in a single star is anywhere near the ratio of a galaxy
I
think we have a pursueable hypothesis on our hands.
There is some math to be done on this, but thats usually the easy
part. Having the conjecture to contemplate is often the piece we
struggle to find.
Well, having now accomplished what you call the difficult bit, i.e.
waving your hands about, how about doing the easy part, i.e. doing the
maths, before regaling us with further jokes?
My Multiple Natures Conjecture also describes this effect, so I
think
confirming my dark matter hypothesis would support, though maybe
not
in any Earth shattering way, my larger conjecture. My Mutiple
Natures
Conjecture has proven difficult to understand, so I will only
suggest
that before you dismiss its relation to dark matter you take
some time
to familiarize yourself with my ideas.
Given that you haven't described your conjecture, its hard to
familiarize myself with it.
I posted a link to the conjecture, here it is again:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
It develops three postulates of increasing boldness that aim to
provide an intuitive interpretation of quantum mechanics. The
postulates are described in plenty of detail in the paper, but I
will
post them simply here:
Good grief, man, you must be the scientist of the century. Not only
do you hold the key to the source of dark matter, but you also sweep
away in one fell swoop the customary attempts to interpret quantum
mechanics, replacing them with an equally feeble one.
Why not take a running jump at yourself instead?
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
24 Apr 2004 11:55:23 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<c6egir$llt$2@sparta.btinternet.com>...
It could be as simple as the fact that the most massive stars either
got sucked into the black hole in the center of the galaxy or
"flung"
out away from there. Such a limit, sort of like a huge Schwarschild
radius for the entire galaxy, would not only explain why only the
halo
has the most visible massive stars, but also why there is a halo at
all.
I'm sort of talking out my ***** here, as I'm sure you can tell, but
your questions give me some focus for what I should be researching,
so
it can't be all bad.
Yes, it is all bad. That previous paragraph is particularly risible.
Do you know what a Schwarzschild radius signifies?
Its the radius of the event horizon. If there is a black hole at the
center of the galaxy, then there is an event horizon for the center of
the galaxy, and thus there is a Schwarzschild radius for the center of
the galaxy.
If the suggestion that the most massive bodies of the galaxy have
either been trapped in the event horizon of galactic proportions or
"flung out" to cause the halo makes you laugh, I suppose that I should
be happy with that, though I'd prefer to make you think or at least
contribute to the board by offering criticisms of my conjectrures.
My hypothesis is that the star is indeed collapsing into the black
hole, just that the black hole forms much earlier and the collapse
occurs much more slowly than we have imagined. The result would be a
star with visible matter and a core of dark matter.
Has it occuurred to you to estimate what the life time against
collapse of your comedy-star might be?
Yes.
Can you estimate this?
I'll try. Note that I did post the hypothesis for discussion only a
few days ago (it usually takes a little time to take a conjecture like
this to a formalized model).
In the meantime I'm discussing these ideas because there may be a
scientist with far more talent than I who could produce better
estimations than I and I'd like to facilitate that possibility.
I posted a link to the conjecture, here it is again:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
It develops three postulates of increasing boldness that aim to
provide an intuitive interpretation of quantum mechanics. The
postulates are described in plenty of detail in the paper, but I
will
post them simply here:
Good grief, man, you must be the scientist of the century. Not only
do you hold the key to the source of dark matter, but you also sweep
away in one fell swoop the customary attempts to interpret quantum
mechanics, replacing them with an equally feeble one.
Why not take a running jump at yourself instead?
Why not read my paper and find out if what I propose really does
amount to a more intutive interpretation of QM, instead of relying on
your biases, assumptions, and beliefs?
Put another way, are you a working scientist or just a disgruntled
newsgroup poster?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
25 Apr 2004 07:52:43 AM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0404242055.79fcb11e@posting.google.com...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<c6egir$llt$2@sparta.btinternet.com>...
It could be as simple as the fact that the most massive stars
either
got sucked into the black hole in the center of the galaxy or
"flung"
out away from there. Such a limit, sort of like a huge
Schwarschild
radius for the entire galaxy, would not only explain why only
the
halo
has the most visible massive stars, but also why there is a halo
at
all.
I'm sort of talking out my ***** here, as I'm sure you can tell,
but
your questions give me some focus for what I should be
researching,
so
it can't be all bad.
Yes, it is all bad. That previous paragraph is particularly
risible.
Do you know what a Schwarzschild radius signifies?
Its the radius of the event horizon. If there is a black hole at the
center of the galaxy, then there is an event horizon for the center
of
the galaxy, and thus there is a Schwarzschild radius for the center
of
the galaxy.
If the suggestion that the most massive bodies of the galaxy have
either been trapped in the event horizon of galactic proportions or
"flung out" to cause the halo makes you laugh, I suppose that I
should
be happy with that,
I'm glad to have been of some service. It also gave me pleasure to do
the laughing.
though I'd prefer to make you think or at least
contribute to the board by offering criticisms of my conjectrures.
I did. Lower own I made some serious implicit criticisms of your
proposal, in which I requested you to flesh them out with a few
predictive numbers. I implied there that
(1) You are too ignorant to do the calculations
(2) If somebody were to spoonfeed you with some calculations, I am
prepared to bet a pound to a lump of coal that thoise calculations
would say you are talking crap.
My hypothesis is that the star is indeed collapsing into the
black
hole, just that the black hole forms much earlier and the
collapse
occurs much more slowly than we have imagined. The result would
be a
star with visible matter and a core of dark matter.
Has it occuurred to you to estimate what the life time against
collapse of your comedy-star might be?
Yes.
Can you estimate this?
I'll try. Note that I did post the hypothesis for discussion only a
few days ago
You are a fool if you post undigested rubbish for discussion. Just
lok at the trouble it is causing you now.
(it usually takes a little time to take a conjecture like
this to a formalized model).
In this case the time required would be semi-infinite, since you are
going to be the only one working on it.
In the meantime I'm discussing these ideas because there may be a
scientist with far more talent than I who could produce better
estimations than I and I'd like to facilitate that possibility.
No scientist with more talent than you is going to do anything with
your proposal except to poke fun at it.
I posted a link to the conjecture, here it is again:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
It develops three postulates of increasing boldness that aim to
provide an intuitive interpretation of quantum mechanics. The
postulates are described in plenty of detail in the paper, but I
will
post them simply here:
Good grief, man, you must be the scientist of the century. Not
only
do you hold the key to the source of dark matter, but you also
sweep
away in one fell swoop the customary attempts to interpret quantum
mechanics, replacing them with an equally feeble one.
Why not take a running jump at yourself instead?
Why not read my paper and find out if what I propose really does
amount to a more intutive interpretation of QM, instead of relying
on
your biases, assumptions, and beliefs?
No thanks. What you have said here is quite enough.
Put another way, are you a working scientist or just a disgruntled
newsgroup poster?
I am neither. You failed to discern all the possibilities
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
25 Apr 2004 03:36:10 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<c6gcaq$b$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...
though I'd prefer to make you think or at least
contribute to the board by offering criticisms of my conjectrures.
I did. Lower own I made some serious implicit criticisms of your
proposal, in which I requested you to flesh them out with a few
predictive numbers. I implied there that
(1) You are too ignorant to do the calculations
(2) If somebody were to spoonfeed you with some calculations, I am
prepared to bet a pound to a lump of coal that thoise calculations
would say you are talking crap.
Those aren't criticisms of a conjecture. Those are personal attacks.
Uncreative, unproductive, and unscientific.
You say that you are prepared to make a wager on this. That sounds
like fun.
So what do you think of this bet:
In a significantly large star the core will be so dense that light
from a large fraction of the matter in the star will never leave the
core, the effect being the existence of a blackhole in the center of
the star, a blackhole that will eventually devour the entire star.
I will bet you $250 USD that this hypothesis will be supported by
calculations within 12 months.
Deal?
I'll try. Note that I did post the hypothesis for discussion only a
few days ago
You are a fool if you post undigested rubbish for discussion. Just
lok at the trouble it is causing you now.
The only trouble it is causing me are the inconviences of dealing with
your childish outbursts.
The fact that you think presenting conjecture to this group is foolish
demonstrates how angry and irrational one must be to reject my ideas
outright.
No other person interested in finding something out about the universe
would take this approach. In fact, they would take the opposite
approach: that anyone who rejects new suggestions about the universe
without rational criticism is a fool, and a borderline religious
zealot.
Why not read my paper and find out if what I propose really does
amount to a more intutive interpretation of QM, instead of relying
on
your biases, assumptions, and beliefs?
No thanks. What you have said here is quite enough.
It is interesting to note that the ideas that underly my
interpretation of QM are about 400 years old and originally proposed
by Leibniz.
Are you aware of that? If not, then obviouslly what I have said here
is not enough, and you need to do some reading to justify your
hostility and anger:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
Put another way, are you a working scientist or just a disgruntled
newsgroup poster?
I am neither. You failed to discern all the possibilities
If you are not a scientist it is quite obvious that you are a
disgruntled newsgroup poster.
A scientist is interested in finding things out. You appear to be
interested in posting flames on usenet. It is flattering to have irked
you so, but rather dull by this point.
Again, if you're interested in science, you may want to criticize my
conjecture instead of attacking me as a human being. Though, the fact
that you can't tell the two apart doesn't give me much hope that you'd
even be able to effectively formulate a criticism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
25 Apr 2004 08:26:04 PM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0404251236.45a5d3b8@posting.google.com...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<c6gcaq$b$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...
though I'd prefer to make you think or at least
contribute to the board by offering criticisms of my conjectrures.
I did. Lower own I made some serious implicit criticisms of your
proposal, in which I requested you to flesh them out with a few
predictive numbers. I implied there that
(1) You are too ignorant to do the calculations
(2) If somebody were to spoonfeed you with some calculations, I am
prepared to bet a pound to a lump of coal that thoise calculations
would say you are talking crap.
Those aren't criticisms of a conjecture. Those are personal attacks.
Uncreative, unproductive, and unscientific. ....
Uncreative, unproductive, and unscientific? Like the
Original "conjecture" ? [Old Man]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
26 Apr 2004 03:08:04 AM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0404251236.45a5d3b8@posting.google.com...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<c6gcaq$b$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...
[snip]
I will bet you $250 USD that this hypothesis will be supported by
calculations within 12 months.
Deal?
You have spun it out too long for anyone except a sucker to fall for
it.
I suppose you did not realise that a vast majority of the light
generated in an ordinsry star does not leave it. Go and look up
something on stellar opacity.
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
26 Apr 2004 05:04:32 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<c6ig13$8gp$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
I will bet you $250 USD that this hypothesis will be supported by
calculations within 12 months.
Deal?
You have spun it out too long for anyone except a sucker to fall for
it.
Too long? Its been 4 days since I posted the hypothesis that there is
a blackhole in the center of a star.
What a lame excuse for backing out of a wager when you were "prepared
to bet a pound to a lump of coal". Is $250 too much? How about $1?
I suppose you did not realise that a vast majority of the light
generated in an ordinsry star does not leave it.
Of course I knew that. Which is why I think there is a blackhole in
the middle of the star slowly devouring it (unless it blows up before
then). If the light never leaves the center, in what way is it not a
black hole?
When I suggested that you said "no":
Mike:
There is more matter in the largest stars than meets the eye because
these stars are collapsing into blackholes but have not completed the
collapse.
Franz:
No
I will only say this one more time, your hostility is clouding your
judgement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
27 Apr 2004 03:24:37 AM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0404261404.27f36a61@posting.google.com...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<c6ig13$8gp$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
I will bet you $250 USD that this hypothesis will be supported
by
calculations within 12 months.
Deal?
You have spun it out too long for anyone except a sucker to fall
for
it.
Too long? Its been 4 days since I posted the hypothesis that there
is
a blackhole in the center of a star.
I would have bothered to show you what was spun out too lonh if you
had not removed it by constructive editing. I meant spun out in
letters, not in time.
What a lame excuse for backing out of a wager when you were
"prepared
to bet a pound to a lump of coal". Is $250 too much? How about $1?
I suppose you did not realise that a vast majority of the light
generated in an ordinsry star does not leave it.
Of course I knew that. Which is why I think there is a blackhole in
the middle of the star slowly devouring it (unless it blows up
before
then). If the light never leaves the center, in what way is it not a
black hole?
The vast amount of light generated in a star does not leave it for
very mundane reasons. Please do read up about stellar opacity as I
suggested.
When I suggested that you said "no":
The asnwer to your crap is still a resounding "no".
Mike:
There is more matter in the largest stars than meets the eye because
these stars are collapsing into blackholes but have not completed
the
collapse.
No.
Franz:
No
I will only say this one more time, your hostility is clouding your
judgement.
May I believe that this really is the last time you will post on the
topic?
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
13 May 2004 04:24:05 PM |
|
|
On 26 Apr 2004 15:04:32 -0700, (Mike Helland)
wrote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<c6ig13$8gp$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
I will bet you $250 USD that this hypothesis will be supported by
calculations within 12 months.
Deal?
You have spun it out too long for anyone except a sucker to fall for
it.
Too long? Its been 4 days since I posted the hypothesis that there is
a blackhole in the center of a star.
What a lame excuse for backing out of a wager when you were "prepared
to bet a pound to a lump of coal". Is $250 too much? How about $1?
I suppose you did not realise that a vast majority of the light
generated in an ordinsry star does not leave it.
Of course I knew that. Which is why I think there is a blackhole in
the middle of the star slowly devouring it (unless it blows up before
then). If the light never leaves the center, in what way is it not a
black hole?
When I suggested that you said "no":
Mike:
There is more matter in the largest stars than meets the eye because
these stars are collapsing into blackholes but have not completed the
collapse.
Does this mean you think *all* largest stars turn into black holes?
Franz:
No
I will only say this one more time, your hostility is clouding your
judgement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
13 May 2004 08:35:01 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<iqp7a0hmq0pl0ir6nldr6vludh1al2frgt@4ax.com>...
Thank you for you interest in my conjecture.
There is more matter in the largest stars than meets the eye because
these stars are collapsing into blackholes but have not completed the
collapse.
Does this mean you think *all* largest stars turn into black holes?
Good question. I don't know. The current state of the conjecture is
pretty underdeveloped to predict something like that, though it would
be these sort of questions that should guide our inquirey into the
conjecture were research and development to be undertaken.
Its interesting to think of what could happen to a star were a black
hole in the center of it eating it away.
Could it be possible the visible matter of the star begins to swirl
into towards the black hole, but because there is so much mass outside
the blackhole that has its own gravitational pull that it can pull the
black hole apart gravitationally causing a supernova from what looked
like a certain complete collapse of the star?
All sorts of possibilities like that. Sorry I couldn't answer your
question more specifically.
Mike Helland
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
14 May 2004 04:54:40 AM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0405131735.650d4592@posting.google.com...
marketing@mistral.net wrote in message
news:<iqp7a0hmq0pl0ir6nldr6vludh1al2frgt@4ax.com>...
Thank you for you interest in my conjecture.
There is more matter in the largest stars than meets the eye
because
these stars are collapsing into blackholes but have not completed
the
collapse.
Does this mean you think *all* largest stars turn into black
holes?
Good question. I don't know. The current state of the conjecture is
pretty underdeveloped to predict something like that, though it
would
be these sort of questions that should guide our inquirey into the
conjecture were research and development to be undertaken.
Its interesting to think of what could happen to a star were a black
hole in the center of it eating it away.
Could it be possible the visible matter of the star begins to swirl
into towards the black hole, but because there is so much mass
outside
the blackhole that has its own gravitational pull that it can pull
the
black hole apart gravitationally causing a supernova from what
looked
like a certain complete collapse of the star?
You don't understand anything about Gauss's law.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
14 May 2004 09:49:04 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<c8250v$4rq$10@sparta.btinternet.com>...
Its interesting to think of what could happen to a star were a black
hole in the center of it eating it away.
Could it be possible the visible matter of the star begins to swirl
into towards the black hole, but because there is so much mass
outside
the blackhole that has its own gravitational pull that it can pull
the
black hole apart gravitationally causing a supernova from what
looked
like a certain complete collapse of the star?
You don't understand anything about Gauss's law.
Explain. Where is the Law applicable? Certainly not on the surface of
the event horizon of the black hole.
You should try to provide a fleshed out argument for a position when
you engage in a conversation. Just a thought.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
15 May 2004 11:28:51 AM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0405140649.26be1d3c@posting.google.com...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<c8250v$4rq$10@sparta.btinternet.com>...
Its interesting to think of what could happen to a star were a
black
hole in the center of it eating it away.
Could it be possible the visible matter of the star begins to
swirl
into towards the black hole, but because there is so much mass
outside
the blackhole that has its own gravitational pull that it can
pull
the
black hole apart gravitationally causing a supernova from what
looked
like a certain complete collapse of the star?
You don't understand anything about Gauss's law.
Explain. Where is the Law applicable? Certainly not on the surface
of
the event horizon of the black hole.
You should try to provide a fleshed out argument for a position when
you engage in a conversation. Just a thought.
You were talking about the matter outside the black hole. You were
suggesting that it can exert a radial outwards force on matter . If
that is not enough of a hint for you to say why you should apply
Gauss' theorem, you should not be posting here.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
15 May 2004 06:18:27 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<c85gg2$8j9$8@sparta.btinternet.com>...
Its interesting to think of what could happen to a star were a
black
hole in the center of it eating it away.
Could it be possible the visible matter of the star begins to
swirl
into towards the black hole, but because there is so much mass
outside
the blackhole that has its own gravitational pull that it can
pull
the
black hole apart gravitationally causing a supernova from what
looked
like a certain complete collapse of the star?
You don't understand anything about Gauss's law.
Explain. Where is the Law applicable? Certainly not on the surface
of
the event horizon of the black hole.
You should try to provide a fleshed out argument for a position when
you engage in a conversation. Just a thought.
You were talking about the matter outside the black hole. You were
suggesting that it can exert a radial outwards force on matter . If
that is not enough of a hint for you to say why you should apply
Gauss' theorem, you should not be posting here.
Doesn't Gauss' Law have to do with the outwards force of
electromagnetism? I was talking about a gravitational pull, so are you
sure Gauss is applicable?
In any case, regarding "you should not be posting here" I asked a
question that began with "could it be possible" and if this is not the
right place to ask questions about science and expect a non-hostile
and informative response then you have quite a negative view of your
own community. Or perhaps your elitism betrays you.
Mike Helland
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
15 May 2004 02:00:51 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:c85gg2$8j9$8@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0405140649.26be1d3c@posting.google.com...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<c8250v$4rq$10@sparta.btinternet.com>...
Its interesting to think of what could happen to a star were a
black
hole in the center of it eating it away.
Could it be possible the visible matter of the star begins to
swirl
into towards the black hole, but because there is so much mass
outside
the blackhole that has its own gravitational pull that it can
pull
the
black hole apart gravitationally causing a supernova from what
looked
like a certain complete collapse of the star?
You don't understand anything about Gauss's law.
Explain. Where is the Law applicable? Certainly not on the surface
of
the event horizon of the black hole.
You should try to provide a fleshed out argument for a position when
you engage in a conversation. Just a thought.
You were talking about the matter outside the black hole. You were
suggesting that it can exert a radial outwards force on matter . If
that is not enough of a hint for you to say why you should apply
Gauss' theorem, you should not be posting here.
Gauss' theorem?
De sukkel doesn't even know what limits are:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=ad157aec.0308291115.18a90365@posting.google.com
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ed Keane III" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Matter Hypothesis |
14 May 2004 09:02:51 AM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0405131735.650d4592@posting.google.com...
marketing@mistral.net wrote in message
news:<iqp7a0hmq0pl0ir6nldr6vludh1al2frgt@4ax.com>...
conjecture were research and development to be undertaken.
Its interesting to think of what could happen to a star were a black
hole in the center of it eating it away.
Could it be possible the visible matter of the star begins to swirl
into towards the black hole, but because there is so much mass outside
the blackhole that has its own gravitational pull that it can pull the
black hole apart gravitationally causing a supernova from what looked
like a certain complete collapse of the star?
A surrounding sphere does not change the gravitational
effects between objects inside the sphere. Classically the
sphere's attractive forces cancel out and GR says that the
interior is flat.
By the way, I had searched without success for more
information than the Wired article that you sited about
sunlight getting weaker. Yesterday there was a half column
article in the local newspaper! It seems that records from
around the world do show that sunlight has weakened by
ten percent or more since the 1950s. Satellite measurements
show that the sun is as bright as ever but scientists are unable
to explain the full cause of the atmospheric effect. Pollution is
the suspect but it is not known how so much dimming could be
caused by soot and associated water droplets or why dimming
is also observed in Antarctica.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
