New idea may decrease the requirements for Dark Matter

[kmarinas86]

We take the sky for granted, thinking that what we see in the sky is not a mirage. But could the unexplored vacuums of interstellar space be altering our perception?

 

[kmarinas86]

According to this, if we were to see the stars without light being refracted by the vacuum, the sky would be filled with big shining dots in the sky.

 

[kmarinas86]

Galactic Rotation Curves

 

[kmarinas86]

New Theories about Galactic Rotation Curves and similar problems:

 

[kmarinas86]

A diagram showing how stellar parallax is affected by this new theory.

 

[igorsboss]

Quintessence refraction affects parallax, OK. But how does it affect the red shift?<br /><br />If things are closer (by parallax) than they appear, but the red shift is unaffected, then the universe is expanding even faster than we previously thought. Is this correct?

 

[kmarinas86]

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Adark+energy<br /><font color="orange">is a truly bizarre form of matter, or perhaps a property of the vacuum itself, that is characterized by a large, negative pressure. This is the only form of matter that can cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate, or speed up. The existence of dark energy has been hypotesized to account for the recently observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. See NASA's description.<br />bell.mma.edu/~mdickins/Cosmos/GlossaryCosmos.html</font><br /><br />The alternate "term" to replace the idea of "quintessence" would be "negative space curvature", which isn't really "dark energy".<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Quintessence refraction affects parallax, OK. But how does it affect the red shift?</font><br /><br />hmmmm......<br />never thought about that.<br /><br />It probably does not affect it. The only things that I know which affect redshift are Gravitational Redshift and Doppler Redshift.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">If things are closer (by parallax) than they appear, but the red shift is unaffected, then the universe is expanding even faster than we previously thought. Is this correct?</font><br /><br />Well, according to this new theory, the closer proximity of the stars and the negative gravitational force cancel out each other, though not completely. In the Cyclical Multiverse Theory, the only expansion occurs from regions of weak negative pressure (see blue galaxies in the picture below) to regions of strong negative pressure (see the Milky way in the picture below).

 

[alkalin]

Kmarinas,<br /><br />I find your efforts at trying to explain a very complex soup of knowns and unknowns very refreshing, compared to the very tired institutionally correct academic answers. <br /> <br />My contention, if it is that, is that galaxies such as andromeda are closer than they appear, because of intergalactic matter. It is the lack to account for the absorption of light which gives us the scale that is off, so andromeda is closer to us than we think.<br /><br />As far as thin matter giving us index, N, that we should account for, the effect is very slight. Even in our atmosphere, much much denser than ‘empty’ space, N is a very small number. Light absorption effects build over distance, whereas refractive properties may or may not.<br /><br />If you are going to account for the effects of a very small value of index , you should try to use the methods of a specialized math that can include many digits for computation.<br /><br />Another way to look at it all is the idea that it has been around far longer than we currently give credit for it, therefore many stars have used up their fuel and have cooled to the level we do not see them except through the infra-red ability we are now beginning to employ.<br /><br />Hope this helps.<br /><br />Alkalin<br />

 

[rickstine]

I do belive also that we have over estmited the distances between stars,because how light is able so is how we see those images is distorted.Most of these observations about stars have been done on Earth.Even though we are able to see past Jupiter and on ward we are confronted with a promblem time and to again image distrration.This can explain the images on Earth.Also we are far away from the nearest star in terms of Earth and the star wobbles when a heavy mass is in its gravation and is distorted,also with the distance.Distration can't explain 100% because their are other froces that must be looked upon as well.

 

[rickstine]

Remember dark matter is a theroy and can't be certain for sure what it is yet or even if it has an effect at all.

 

[xmo1]

Does this mean that Gravity is stronger as well? Previous post (no replies to date) asked if dark matter will appear in a spectrometer, or if will be used to modulate electricity, accelerate or decellerate mass by modulating magnetic flux, or alter electromagnetic frequencies.<br /><br />I guess my point is that if dark matter (or dark energy) existed, especially in large quantities, then it sensing it, even here on Earth, should not be a problem. There are so many applications that use or detect charged particles that you would think fluctuations in measurements would have already been detected. Where is it? Theories must have some concrete (more than factual) basis in elemental science, and if those elements are not detected then for me they don't exist. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="red">Quintessence refraction affects parallax, OK. But how does it affect the red shift?</font><br /><font color="yellow">It probably does not affect it. The only things that I know which affect redshift are Gravitational Redshift and Doppler Redshift. </font><br /><br />Since the answer "no effect" doesn't make sense, I'll invite you to try again.<br /><br />The specific emperical observation I would like you to explain is as follows:<br /><br />When astronomers look at the spectral lines of very distant objects, the spectral lines resemble the spectral lines of ordinary elements and molecules we find on Earth. However, the more distant the object, the lower the wavelength that the spectral lines appear. (aka. Redshift) Further, there appears to be a roughly linear relationship between distance and redshift. This was discovered by Dr. Hubble. This observation leads most astronomers to believe that our Universe is expanding.<br /><br />Now, if quintessesnce is correct, so that distant things are closer than they appear, the relationship between redshift and distance MUST be modified. Due to quintessence, is the Hubble constant <br />a) Larger (more redshift per light year) than previously thought<br />b) Smaller (less redshift per light year) than previously thought<br />c) No longer applicable, as the relationship is no longer linear<br />d) The same as previously thought, and here is precicely why<br />

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Does this mean that Gravity is stronger as well?</font><br /><br />No, the theory does not imply this, but it is not ruled out either.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Previous post (no replies to date) asked if dark matter will appear in a spectrometer, or if will be used to modulate electricity, accelerate or decellerate mass by modulating magnetic flux, or alter electromagnetic frequencies.</font>Only a minority of dark matter appears in current spectrometers, although hot gas can be seen in the x-ray spectrum, that's not quite "dark" matter. A brown dwarf has already been imaged directly though.<br /><br />Previous post: "<font color="yellow">Remember dark matter is a theroy and can't be certain for sure what it is yet or even if it has an effect at all.</font> True.<br /><br /><font color="orange">"Quintessence refraction affects parallax, OK. But how does it affect the red shift?"<br /><br />It probably does not affect it. The only things that I know which affect redshift are Gravitational Redshift and Doppler Redshift.</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">Since the answer "no effect" doesn't make sense, I'll invite you to try again.</font>ok.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The specific emperical observation I would like you to explain is as follows: <br /><br />When astronomers look at the spectral lines of very distant objects, the spectral lines resemble the spectral lines of ordinary elements and molecules we find on Earth. However, the more distant the object, the lower the wavelength that the spectral lines appear. (aka. Redshift) Further, there appears to be a roughly linear relationship between distance and redshift. This was discovered by Dr. Hubble. This observation leads most astronomers to believe that our Universe is expanding.<br /><br />Now, if quintessesnce is correct, so that distant things are closer t</font>