Dark Matter Scram Jet...

yevaud · Mar 4, 2005

"Little Tadpoles?" "Crusty Stuff?" <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

jatslo · Mar 4, 2005

Note the italic text, which says they couldn't confirm such properties and the researchers basically don't expect such results considering how everything worked out for them. Afterall, they created the metallic hydrogen, and relieved the pressure, and it reverted almost immediately. That's because the mantle was too weak to contain the remaining liquid that is under pressure. They made metal, they just can't find it with light, because it is invisible. Not really, it absorbs light is all, and this is why they can't find the microscopic pieces. A Sun Spot is metal hydrogen. ---Jatslo

yurkin · Mar 4, 2005

The little tadpoles squiggle down prior to the explosion, and the little crusty stuff gets ejected into space as metal Hydrogen. The centers of stars are very cold, and metal hydrogen separates cold and hot areas. When the two opposites converge, Bang! This has quite possible got t be the biggest load of nonsense outside of Seti. Not only our your theories unsupported by observations they don’t even make sense. I like to classify energy into two main categories though. Dark energy and light energy. It doesn’t matter what you like and what you don’t like. All that matters is what can be observed and what is not. There are a lot of people that don’t like evolution but that does not invalidate the theory. In fact there is a real danger when scientists start to like a given theory because it can interfere with their objectiveness. There is no such ANIMAL, so get over it, and retract those ridiculous dark matter theories, so that we can move on to real science. You are not doing real science or anything close to it. You are doing the opposite, preaching some sort of religion. If all things have opposites then your method is the opposite of science.

jatslo · Mar 4, 2005

Cooler regions? Implosion vortexes?

yurkin · Mar 4, 2005

Not really, it absorbs light is all, and this is why they can't find the microscopic pieces. So if you can’t see it then how do you know its there? What are you basing this on? Dark matter is not invisible so to speak. You can’t see through it, you just can’t detect it. Why would metallic hydrogen be invisible as you say? Just because you increase the pressure and temperature of it makes it invisible. Your argument seems to be that metallic hydrogen is imbued with some sort of mystical powers. A Sun Spot is metal hydrogen. A sun spot cannot be dark matter since the temperature and other properties of sunspots can be detected. If they were dark matter then the instruments wouldn’t read anything when they were pointed at sun spots.

Saiph · Mar 4, 2005

1) They didn't use a planet to create it. They simulated it in a lab, and proved that it could exist at all. They also noted that the conditions of jupiter's core are adequate to place hydrogen in such a state. This has been suspected for years, we just didn't know if hydrogen could be placed in such a state at all. I.e. they confirmed the hypothesis of metallic hydrogen. 2) A sunspot is NOT metal hydrogen. It is a cooler section of the sun's photosphere caused by magnetic fields disrupting the convection in the area (which cuts off the locations source of additional heat). Did you even look up sunspots on google? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Mar 4, 2005

also, a sunspot does radiate light, just less light than the surrounding area. The sun is mostly ionized atoms (completely, or partially). It even has large numbers of neutral atoms (most hydrogen at our suns surface is neutral IIRC) It is not "metallic hydrogen", sorry yurkin. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

yurkin · Mar 4, 2005

Saigh Of course you’re right the hydrogen in the sun in a plasma state. Jatslo Metallic hydrogen results when hydrogen is sufficiently compressed and undergoes a phase change, and it is an example of degenerate matter. Metallic hydrogen consists of a lattice of atomic nuclei (namely protons) with a spacing that is significantly smaller than a Bohr radius; indeed, the spacing is more comparable with an electron wavelength (see De Broglie wavelength). The electrons are unbound and behave like the conduction electrons in a metal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen Notice the absence of any mention of dark matter or dark energy.

jatslo · Mar 4, 2005

So if you can’t see it then how do you know its there? What are you basing this on? Dark matter is not invisible so to speak. You can’t see through it, you just can’t detect it. Vacuum it up, and place the contents into a red-hot glowing molten metal and the metal hydrogen will float to the surface as a microscopic sunspot. There might be other ways of detecting it with electricity. Why would metallic hydrogen be invisible as you say? Just because you increase the pressure and temperature of it makes it invisible. It is Dark Matter, Duh. Utilize electricity to find the dark energy. Your argument seems to be that metallic hydrogen is imbued with some sort of mystical powers. Nope, Light weight and indestructible is all. Pretty basic! Hey! Lets make some more, shall we? ---Jatslo

jatslo · Mar 5, 2005

Saiph, how do we see neutron stars? Is it the X-Rays, or reflection? This is a very important question. ---Jatslo

Saiph · Mar 5, 2005

do a quick google on it and you'd have an answer. The first entry under "pulsars". http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/pulsars.html Its due to the emitted light from the pulsar (a radio pulsar was the first, we have found x-ray ones as well). The light is emitted in a very focused beam which sweeps across our field of view, causing the source to "pulsate" as we alternately get hit by, and missed by, the beam. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

jatslo · Mar 5, 2005

Gamma, and X. Plus we can see them when they are feeding from nearby stars. However, it says that it is a collapsed core? This does not make since, I think it might be a core that failed to collapse, and I think it might be made of metal hydrogen, with possibly a very cold liquid hydrogen core. It just ran out of material to burn, and failed to completely eat away at the metal hydrogen containment sphere. --- Jatslo

Saiph · Mar 5, 2005

1) They don't have to feed off of nearby stars. They do just fine on their own. 2) It is the collapsed core. Prior to collapse the core was undergoing heavy element fusion in the center of a massive star. To much iron built up (which cannot be fused in a chain reaction) and created a dense, inert core. Once too much mass accumulated, gravity overcame the atoms pressure against eachother and caused the core to collapse. The result is a more dense state (like when you crumple a can, it's more dense) that alters the matter it's made off. The electrons and protons combine to form neutrons, the material of the now shrunken core. That's why it's called a neutron star, it's made of neutrons. BTW, they aren't cold. They're really, really, hot. And solid. and far more dense than you'd think. But then again, basic searches on pulsars and neutron stars will reveal all of this information. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

jatslo · Mar 5, 2005

A sunspot is NOT metal hydrogen. It is a cooler section of the sun's photosphere caused by magnetic fields disrupting the convection in the area (which cuts off the locations source of additional heat). Yes, but there is something else going on too. I'm going to talk with my University on Thursday, to see if they have a lab setup somewhere. I think I am on to something BIG, and I feel very confident, as if I know how to prove it. IT is Madness, I say Madness... --- Jatslo

jatslo · Mar 5, 2005

What is theory? I am asking you, because you already know. I guess if the lighter elements burned away it could leave the heavier elements behind, and these elements could be hot because of the mass, but I still think the core is metal/liquid hydrogen and cold. --- Jatslo

najab · Mar 5, 2005

>I guess if the lighter elements burned away it could leave the heavier elements behind. . . I still think the core is metal/liquid hydrogen and cold.What's the lightest element of all?

jatslo · Mar 5, 2005

What's the lightest element of all? Your question is provoking two answers, because your question is too general. I want to say dark helium and light helium, but I cannot prove this, so I better just stick to dark hydrogen, and light hydrogen, whereas the light hydrogen burned away, and the dark hydrogen remained because there was insufficient vacuum and heat to convert the dark hydrogen into light hydrogen. There could be fragments of dark hydrogen floating on surface of the iron rich surfaces of pulsars, if the iron is indeed liquid. I guess that depends on the temperature, and a lot of other variables. Far more dark hydrogen fragments, would have been ejected in to space. I can prove it in a lab, and this is the most important piece of evidence, right? And the star models are false logic because they fail to fully explain -g and +g. Not completely false though. ---Jatslo

jatslo · Apr 1, 2005

but I still think the core is metal/liquid hydrogen and cold. Okay, the core of the Star must be hot, because the pressure or the Star's core heats the particles in a vacuum; however, I still think that there are layers; only now I think that the metal hydrogen mantel is further away from the core. Maybe it is a medium between dark matter and light matter?

a_lost_packet_ · Apr 2, 2005

I've really tried to give Jatslo iformation which is factual, easily understood. However, this info contradicts his various musings on Dark Matter, Dark Energy, X-Rays, "Photons" etc.. (ref: Jatslo's QT thread in SB&T, which I stopped posting on..) Considering his continuing posts stating the impossible, with speculation which is widely impracticle and conclusions that border on the insanely improbable, I can only conclude that he refuses to seek out true knowledge. One can not redefine the known Universe, discount experimentally validated theory and topple the world of physics by saying such things as Jatslo - 3. Dark Matter is simply a region of gas, mostly hydrogen that gets cold causing its volume to shrink into a metal. The ratio of reflective, and non-reflective light defines whether or not it can be observed. I choose the 3rd choice, because I like to classify matter as opposites, i.e. Dark Matter and Light Matter. .... <sigh /> So, my response to Jatslo's post is in the interest of attempting to steer readers clear of his hijinks. Simple version response on Dark Matter: 1) Dark Matter is a "kludge" factor. If the spacetime fabric of our Universe is "flat" then there must be "x" amount of mass bearing matter within the Universe to affect the gravity needed for critical density. Currently, we know the fabric is "flat" and there is not enough "visible" mass do account for this. 2) Observations of the outer rotational speeds of galaxies suggest that there may be unobserved mass because the visible mass in the galaxy being observed would dictate a different rotation curve. 3) By measuring gravitational lensing effects from galaxies, Dark Matter can be inferred because the luminous mass does not account for the full lensing effects. 4) etc etc These mesh neatly with the "observed" lack of observable mass i <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

jatslo · Apr 2, 2005

Considering his continuing posts stating the impossible, with speculation which is widely impracticle and conclusions that border on the insanely improbable, I can only conclude that he refuses to seek out true knowledge. One can not redefine the known Universe, discount experimentally validated theory and topple the world of physics by saying such things as Why not? Einstein changed Newton's laws and Dvali is changing Einstein's laws. All you are doing is defending other people’s theories without giving theories of your own. What are you afraid of? 1) Dark Matter is a "kludge" factor. If the spacetime fabric of our Universe is "flat" then there must be "x" amount of mass bearing matter within the Universe to affect the gravity needed for critical density. Currently, we know the fabric is "flat" and there is not enough "visible" mass do account for this. Sure, some matter is traditional matter floating freely in space-time, absent of a star, but it still does not add up (jatslo). Dark Matter: Material that is believed to make up more than 90% of the mass of the universe but is not readily visible because it neither emits nor reflects electromagnetic radiation, such as light or radio signals. Its existence would explain gravitational anomalies seen in the motion and distribution of galaxies. Dark matter can be detected only indirectly, e.g., through the bending of light rays from distant stars by its gravity (yahoo). http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=12818 2) Observations of the outer rotational speeds of galaxies suggest that there may be unobserved mass because the visible mass in the galaxy being observed would dictate a different rotation curve. How d

yevaud · Apr 2, 2005

Einstein changed Newton's laws and Dvali is changing Einstein's laws. Ummm, wrong. Einstein built his theory on top of Newton's theories. Ever heard the phrase, "standing on the shoulder's of Giants?" That's exactly what that means. Otherwise, your theories make no sense. "Wild speculation," not theoretical extrapolation. Sorry, but that's just how it is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

jatslo · Apr 2, 2005

Einstein built his theory on top of Newton's theories That sounds better than my version, I stated something similar to that further down on my response. I said that I am expanding, and connecting existing models through unification.

jatslo · Apr 2, 2005

"Einstein changed Newton's laws and Dvali is changing Einstein's laws" (Jatslo). "Ummm, wrong. Einstein built his theory on top of Newton's theories. Ever heard the phrase, "standing on the shoulder's of Giants?" That's exactly what that means" (Yevaud). "Otherwise, your theories make no sense. "Wild speculation," not theoretical extrapolation" (Yevaud). Ummm, Right. The following excerpt refutes your statement: Dvali modifies Einstein's... "Dvali would modify the theory of gravity so that the universe becomes self-accelerating, eliminating the need for dark energy. He presented his work here earlier this month at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science" (Goudarzi). http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/dark_energy_050228.html "Last time I looked up modification, modification involved changes to the master document/list" (Jatslo). "Otherwise, your theories make no sense. "Wild speculation," not theoretical extrapolation" (Yevaud). Hello!!! My wild speculation is hypothetical extrapolation, not theoretical extrapolation, unless there is some other way to make discoveries that I am not aware of. Maybe since you’re such an expert on presenting facts, then maybe you might like to expand on your rhetoric some more, or set an example model for me to follow.

mcbethcg · Apr 3, 2005

Would it not be correct to say that any item away from earth that has mass that is not currently detected by our astronomical equipment, is dark matter? For example, at the extremely mundane end, a lump of coal orbiting the earth, undetected, is dark matter.

CalliArcale · Apr 3, 2005

Yes, that is correct. Regardless of how the word gets used by science fiction authors, the term "dark matter" does not neccesarily refer to exotic matter. It refers merely to matter which we know is there by its gravitational influence, but which we cannot detect. The term was coined to describe a huge amount of mass which scientists calculated had to exist, but which could not be detected. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Dark Matter Scram Jet...

yevaud

Guest

jatslo

Guest

yurkin

Guest

jatslo

Guest

yurkin

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

yurkin

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

najab

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

jatslo

Guest

yevaud

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page