Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction

NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction - Physics Forum

NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-11-2003, 12:15 AM
SDR
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction



NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction

Robert Irion, SCIENCE Vol.300 April 11,03 pg.233

Do Some Galaxies Lack Shrouds of Dark Matter?

Slow-moving planetary nebulae on the outskirts of M105
suggest the galaxy has no dark matter. [illustration]

In a challenge to the idea that all galaxies contain
far more mass than meets the eye, a novel survey has
turned up three galaxies that seem barren of cocoons of
dark matter.

[What will obviously have to be explained is the existence
of these galaxies WITHOUT "dark matter" given the assertion
by dark-matterers that the visible galaxies are like the
foam on a glass of beer (first the beer and then the foam).
Well, here's three foams without no beer, dear intoxicant
dark-matter barflies. SDR]

"This is surprising, and we're a little puzzled about
it," says astronomer Aaron Romanowsky of the University
of Nottingham, U.K. But other researchers say it will
take stronger evidence to change their minds about how
massive galaxies form.

[You think! The entire damaged structure of a branch of
science is poised upon a rotten trunk and is about to fall
.... very likely hitting a number of squirrels squarely
"where they live." And good riddance: It's only by burning
away the old growth that new growth may live--and more often
than not this is accomplished by a bolt of lightning. SDR]

For decades, astronomers have gauged the heft of
galaxies by examining how fast they spin. In spiral
galaxies like our Milky Way, gas clouds far from the
galactic center orbit at the same rapid pace as those
in the inner sections. That points to a strong
gravitational pull in the outskirts--far stronger than
stars and gas alone can produce. Astronomers explained
the motions by invoking massive shrouds of dark matter,
containing perhaps 10 times more mass than we can see.

[In an expanding universe "model" all these notions/nonsense
of ghostly "dark matter" and later "dark energy" may be
needed to make the observed facts fit in with the mistaken
theory that it's all happening in an expanding/exploding
universe (along with twisted/demented explanations for
EVERYTHING from the constancy of c in identical mediums to
the nakedly creationist/magic Big Bang theories)... when the
truth is that ALL WE SEE is all happening inside an
imploding universe--employing which model makes the observed
facts self-evident & perfectly natural/inevitable. visit:
[Only registered users see links. ] SDR]

That technique fails for the giant, featureless blobs
of stars called elliptical galaxies. Ellipticals have
little gas, so astronomers must try to track the
motions of their stars. That's hard to do when
starlight grows faint in a galaxy's outskirts. An
alternate method, as Romanowsky reported this week at
the U.K./lreland National Astronomy Meeting in Dublin,
Ireland, relies on locating planetary nebulae. These
puffs of gas, which middleweight stars like our sun
eject at the ends of their lives, are full of excited
oxygen atoms that make them shine like beacons at a
single green wave-length. By measuring the motions of
the nebulae, astronomers can trace the overall
distributions of mass far from the galaxies' centers.

Using a specialized spectrograph at the 4.2-meter
William Herschel Telescope in La Palma, Canary Islands,
Romanowsky colleagues have discovered three galaxies
that contain scores of surprisingly slow-moving nebulae
in their remote outer regions. That dawdling pace
suggests that no hidden mass tugs the nebulae along.
"There's nowhere near as much dark matter as one would
expect, and the motions are consistent with no dark
matter at all," says team member Michael Merrifield,
also at the University of Nottingham.

Other scientists are intrigued but skeptical. Only
ironclad data will make astrophysicists believe that
ellipticals are naked, says Joshua Bames of the
University of Hawaii, Manoa. Many planetary nebulae, he
notes, may swoop through space on highly elongated
orbits that only make it appear as if their galaxies
lack dark-matter shrouds.

Still, astronomers are taking note--especially those
who control access to the Canary Islands telescopes.
"They were sufficiently shocked and horrified by what
we were finding," says Merrifield, that they gave his
group's proposal the highest ranking for more observing
time. The team expects to study 22 more ellipticals
within 2 years.

SDR: Under "dark matter" theory it would not be all that
surprising to find collections of "dark matter" without any
visible galaxy; but visible galaxies without any dark matter
at all are almost as unacceptable to dark matter theory as
gravity-less stars/planets. Yet, still deluded/misled by
erroneous inflationary models, theorists continue to think
up warped/twisted explanations to fit mistaken models of the
universe. [THEIR unreachable hurdle has been with us since
the time of the Greeks: the eternally stubborn conviction
that there are forms of matter that can never be "split"
inspite of ALL we have learned in the past century!] It
never ceases to amaze me how otherwise intelligent persons
can seriously propose such a contradictory model as the dark
matter/dark energy one: 73% dark energy and 23% dark matter
still leaves us with a 50% dark energy universe after they
(ought to but don't) cancel themselves out. And such a
universe would still blow up exactly as the earliest quantum
equations would have it do (with even less "dark energy"
pumped into the equations... while yet leaving the spin of
galaxies as baffling as ever.

AGAIN: The explanation for the observable galactic spin IN
our imploding universe is the dynamics of such galactic spin
INSIDE an imploding universe (given, yes, the huge distances
taken up by these galaxies AND the balance in our imploding
universe between its "absolute implosion" and the Hubble
Constant--the creation of space/distance, which see below)
AND NOT any proposed "dark matters." Otherwise spiral
galaxies would NOT exist at all, and instead we would have
supermassive black holes with clearly-defined "rings" of
stars--exactly like the rings of Saturn... for the same
reasons those (so very stable) rings came about and live.

And the explanation for the observed Hubble Constant (the
apparent "motion" of galaxies away from each other faster
with distance) is because in our imploding universe ALL
visible matter is imploding AT EVERY LEVEL of its
organization (BECAUSE E=MC^2 does not cease to be true at
some imagined fundamental level)... thereby relativistically
"creating" space/distance between themselves even as the
entire universe itself implodes in a profoundly absolute way
we may never fully understand... here, inside the univierse.

Recent COBE and WMAP data only "proves" this even more
strongly and thoroughly than ever: To put it so simply that
even ants will be able to understand this: "The smaller an
explosion the more structural;y homogeneous the organization
of its results will be."

As all astronomers know... our cosmos is about as lumpy as a
structure can get. This is absolutely inconsistent with a
"singular" Big Bang episode (and demands impossible warped
and twisted explanations placing galaxies within 1/2 billion
years from the Big Bang, among other things). HOwever, our
cosmos is completely consistent with a universe that
"begins" with/from an "infinite" (for our purposes here)
spatial expanse and over unimagiably immense distances of
time (not just 13 lousy billion years) contracts (or,
implodes) into what we "see" today.

Sure enough: The COBE and WMAP "picture" of the cosmic
microwave background radiation show a universe nowhere as
uniform as Big Bang theorists would have you believe IN
SPITE OF THE COBE/WMAP RESULTS [Now, from the Roentgen
Satellite, or ROSAT (an X-ray astronomy instrument has been
mapping the sky with a sensitivity/resolution far superior
to previous X-ray instruments)... START QUOTE: ROSAT has
detected extended blobs of X-ray emission that lie between
the discrete X-ray sources. Hasinger* and Truemper* propose
that these blobs are actually clusters of quasars so distant
that ROSAT cannot separate the emissions of individual ones.
Assuming the universe is about 13 billion years old, these
clusters appear to be some eight to 10 billion light-years
distant and 15 to 30 million light-years across. This is
troubling news for cosmologists. They already have their
hands full explaining how clumpy structures of galaxies
could have evolved from a presumably smooth big bang. The
existence of large, organized clusters of quasars "would
pose an even bigger problem for big bang cosmology,"
Hasinger notes. END QUOTE]

No kidding.

But let's not doubt for an moment that there are already
many superbly mediocre theorists working overtime to spew
out of their "dark" little minds explanations and other
rationalizations as magnificently twisted and warped as the
"dark energy" and "dark matter" ones. It's almost as if
their greatest fear is that were the universe to be
explained in all its elegance once and for all... they might
lose their jobs. And, unfortunately, their jobs happen to
converge with their authority. [Might be why the greatest
changes seem to happen with the changing of the guard.]

S D Rodrian
[Only registered users see links. ]

* One of the goals of the mapping has been to resolve the
X-ray background into discrete components and determine
their nature. On January 15 at the annual meeting of the
American Astronomical Society in Philadelphia, Joachim
Truemper and Guenther Hasinger of the Max Planck Institute
for Extraterrestrial Physics told scientists that ROSAT had
revealed far more quasars than could be detected before
--about 100 quasars per square degree. This implies the
presence of about four million quasars over the whole sky,
enough to account for 40 percent of the X-ray background,
Hasinger estimates.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-11-2003, 01:04 AM
Patrick Hamlyn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction

[Only registered users see links. ] (SDR) wrote:

[trim garbage]

If anyone wants to actually reply to this pointless tirade, reply here and it'll
go to just the relevant ng. If you think it's relevant to anything at all that
is...
--
Patrick Hamlyn posting from Perth, Western Australia
Windsurfing capital of the Southern Hemisphere
Moderator: polyforms group ([Only registered users see links. ])
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-11-2003, 01:06 AM
dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction

Dear SDR:

"SDR" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:e4651058.0307101615.21ab6209@posting.google.c om...
....

Such deposits of DM-only have been mapped.

David A. Smith


Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-11-2003, 03:50 AM
tadchem
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction


"SDR" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:e4651058.0307101615.21ab6209@posting.google.c om...

It is a long, illogical leap to conclude from a small set of observations in
which something fails to appear that the phenomenon does not exist.

Sort of like examining a small herd of black sheep and claiming that there
are no white sheep because you have a few black ones.


Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO


Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-11-2003, 02:28 PM
Gordon D. Pusch
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction

(gnus-kill "Subject" "NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction")

<*!PLONK!*>
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-11-2003, 09:27 PM
Starblade Darksquall
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction

Well DUH they don't have dark matter! Dark matter is only needed to
explain spiral galaxies. Elliptical galaxies would have little to no
dark matter, but they're not all supercondensed the same way spiral
galaxies are.

And irregular galaxies either have NO dark matter at ALL, or have dark
matter irreguarly placed.

Also, the reason why a halo of dark matter makes sense is because
inside of a shell of dark matter in fact, ANY matter, gravity is
counterbalanced. At the center of the Earth, for example, there is no
gravity, and the only forces acting on the object are the pressure.

(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-12-2003, 04:04 AM
Drieux
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction

[Only registered users see links. ] (SDR) wrote in message news:<e4651058.0307101615.21ab6209@posting.google. com>...

{snip} of article better lablled 'Psuedoscience marches on!'

Erm....you and Mr Harris were mates at uni, then?

Cheers,

Drieux

....please ignore the spamtrap used as an email addy...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-12-2003, 10:30 PM
SDR
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction

"[Only registered users see links. ] \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message news:<e4oPa.905$u51.654@fed1read05>...

There are many forms of "dark matter" out there. Just none
which supports the assumption that ours is an inflationary Big
Bang universe: It's one thing to find the only solution possible
and quite another to propose a guess--all the time hedging
your bet that your guess will turn out to be proven correct:

The mass of a neutrino is around 4 billion neutrinos per a single
proton mass. And even though they may be very numerous they
can only contribute a finite percentage (50%) of the proposed
dark matter [... and this is in a Big Bang model of the universe
assumed to be 13 billion years old/and therefore of a theoretical
size dictated by that assumption--But just yesterday you can read
about the discovery of a planet 12.7 billion years old! So what?
Well, the stuff of planets (iron and other elements heavier than
helium) are "created" in the nuclear furnaces of stars & therefore
should not be available for planet formation until at least the first
generation of stars has lived/died. So there must have either been
stars before the Big Bang or instantly after BB there must have
lived some spectacularly short-lived stars. But you see the problem
with a lie: In order to uphold it you need to continue propping it up
with more and more lies. Answers should lead to simplification. If
your answer leads to even more questions ... you are moving in the
wrong direction. And every answer to every question arising from
the inflationary universe model gives rise to dozens of even more
perplexing questions demanding ever more twisted/warped answers
(like those "dark" matters/energies... string & other quintessential
ghosts/ghouls theories)].

WIMP (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle) are proposed
by the theory of particle physics, yes. However, they are as yet
undiscovered in lab experiments. Again: WIMPs are assumed
to contribute about (50%) of the dark matter (from a BB
universe assumed to be 13 billion years in size, obviously). It is
jumping the gun to propose this, but theorists are already ready
for any eventuality: "If the non-MACHO half of the dark
matter doesn't consist of WIMPs, then it must be made of
something even stranger" [superWIMPs, or "superweakly
interacting massive particles" ... about which you can read
in the July 3rd online version of Physical Review Letters at
[Only registered users see links. ] ]. Just remember that an assumption is only
as good as all the other assumptions it is based on... and ALL
these assumptions are based upon the shaky assumption that
ours is an inflationary 13 billion year old universe which quite
magically (going against all the conservation of energy laws)
everywhere continuously produces matter and energy out of
nothingness like an never-ending stream of rabbits from some
"dark" top hat.

[ Well, since the reason why the Big Bang was assumed at all
(nobody saw it--well, some people claim they saw it, but you
know some people)... the reason the Big Bang was assumed at all
was because it was the only engine they could "assume" for the
expansion of the universe... an accelerating expansion meant
that there could be SOME OTHER ENGINE for the expansion
of the universe! Doesn't this mean Big Bang's irrelevant!? But,
since a lot of careers are based on "discoveries supporting the
Big Bang" ... all sorts of fantastical alternatives have been
proposed to be behind this acceleration... including mysterious
"dark energy" ... which, for the life of me, I still can't exactly
explain why they haven't just replaced the Big Bang universe
model with the "dark energy" universe model ... but I suppose
they must, eventually--Big Bang and "dark energy" being as
equally incompatible with the laws of physics/energy conservation
yet theoretical equvalents--that is, the Big Bang magically creates
energy from a single point somewhere while "dark energy"
magically creates energy from every point everywhere. But,
really, this distinction is completely pointless, don't you think! ]

MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Object) are dim, dense
objects with masses comparable to, or somewhat smaller than,
the Sun ... such as brown dwarfs, cold white dwarfs, and even
roving black holes (but MACHOs can be detected "out there"
because they act as gravitational lenses). The estimate of the
number of MACHOs in the galactic halo is that, yes, about (50%)
of the dark matter in the halo is made of MACHOs!!!! [This is
beginning to be monotonous; I suspect the assumption will be
that superWIMPs make up 50% of the dark matter as well.
And if anybody proposes Nachos is what dark matter is
really made of... the equations will quickly "prove" 50% of
the "dark matter" in the universe is made up of Nachos. This
is classical bet-hedging.]

Just don't hold your breath: The universe is teeming with exotic
particles we have not yet "touched" upon. But NONE of them
will prove to be the stuff that dreams are made of. How to know?
Ya can't propose a Big Bang universe model and then fit all
subsequent observation to your model--You will end up with the
present state of physics/cosmology in which rather than resolve
the nature of the universe into one elegant explanation... every
discovery demands ever more complex & seemingly contradictory
solutions. This is bad science. It seems to demand that instead of
arising from simplicity and evolving into ever-more complex forms
the universe arises from a set of already complex factors. Sorry.

What has to be done is propose a theory and when its predictions
contradict the real-world observations (regardless of how many
"facts" may agree with prediction)... start looking for a new theory.

There are many observed facts which do not contradict the predictions
of a flat-earth theory---Forget about them. They contribute nothing
to the integrity of the theory. But even the slightest of disagreement
between a theory's predictions and real-world observation should
instantly and forever after cast doubt on that theory. That's the way
science should work.

Since the beginning of the 20th Century there have been nothing but
disagreement between all the different theories/fields/disciplines of
science based upon the theory that ours is an inflationary universe
composed of (at some level) fundamental forms of matter (not least
being the disagreement between relativity and quantum mechanics).

And the solution is to start FROM an alternate assumption: that ours
may indeed be an imploding universe composed of forms of matter
which at no level WHATEVER exist in any fundamental state ...
instead forever being divisible (even if our ability to "split" them will
forever remain confined to a handful of top-level subparticles). And
to then see to which predictions that theory leads us... and how many
real-world observations disagree with the theory. If any.

Wish I knew of but a single one.

S D Rodrian
[Only registered users see links. ]

re:

NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction

Robert Irion, SCIENCE Vol.300 April 11,03 pg.233

Do Some Galaxies Lack Shrouds of Dark Matter?

Slow-moving planetary nebulae on the outskirts of M105
suggest the galaxy has no dark matter. [illustration]

In a challenge to the idea that all galaxies contain
far more mass than meets the eye, a novel survey has
turned up three galaxies that seem barren of cocoons of
dark matter.

[What will obviously have to be explained is the existence
of these galaxies WITHOUT "dark matter" given the assertion
by dark-matterers that the visible galaxies are like the
foam on a glass of beer (first the beer and then the foam).
Well, here's three foams without no beer, dear intoxicant
dark-matter barflies. SDR]

"This is surprising, and we're a little puzzled about
it," says astronomer Aaron Romanowsky of the University
of Nottingham, U.K. But other researchers say it will
take stronger evidence to change their minds about how
massive galaxies form.

[You think! The entire damaged structure of a branch of
science is poised upon a rotten trunk and is about to fall
.... very likely hitting a number of squirrels squarely
"where they live." And good riddance: It's only by burning
away the old growth that new growth may live--and more often
than not this is accomplished by a bolt of lightning. SDR]

For decades, astronomers have gauged the heft of
galaxies by examining how fast they spin. In spiral
galaxies like our Milky Way, gas clouds far from the
galactic center orbit at the same rapid pace as those
in the inner sections. That points to a strong
gravitational pull in the outskirts--far stronger than
stars and gas alone can produce. Astronomers explained
the motions by invoking massive shrouds of dark matter,
containing perhaps 10 times more mass than we can see.

[In an expanding universe "model" all these notions/nonsense
of ghostly "dark matter" and later "dark energy" may be
needed to make the observed facts fit in with the mistaken
theory that it's all happening in an expanding/exploding
universe (along with twisted/demented explanations for
EVERYTHING from the constancy of c in identical mediums to
the nakedly creationist/magic Big Bang theories)... when the
truth is that ALL WE SEE is all happening inside an
imploding universe--employing which model makes the observed
facts self-evident & perfectly natural/inevitable. visit:
[Only registered users see links. ] SDR]

That technique fails for the giant, featureless blobs
of stars called elliptical galaxies. Ellipticals have
little gas, so astronomers must try to track the
motions of their stars. That's hard to do when
starlight grows faint in a galaxy's outskirts. An
alternate method, as Romanowsky reported this week at
the U.K./lreland National Astronomy Meeting in Dublin,
Ireland, relies on locating planetary nebulae. These
puffs of gas, which middleweight stars like our sun
eject at the ends of their lives, are full of excited
oxygen atoms that make them shine like beacons at a
single green wave-length. By measuring the motions of
the nebulae, astronomers can trace the overall
distributions of mass far from the galaxies' centers.

Using a specialized spectrograph at the 4.2-meter
William Herschel Telescope in La Palma, Canary Islands,
Romanowsky colleagues have discovered three galaxies
that contain scores of surprisingly slow-moving nebulae
in their remote outer regions. That dawdling pace
suggests that no hidden mass tugs the nebulae along.
"There's nowhere near as much dark matter as one would
expect, and the motions are consistent with no dark
matter at all," says team member Michael Merrifield,
also at the University of Nottingham.

Other scientists are intrigued but skeptical. Only
ironclad data will make astrophysicists believe that
ellipticals are naked, says Joshua Bames of the
University of Hawaii, Manoa. Many planetary nebulae, he
notes, may swoop through space on highly elongated
orbits that only make it appear as if their galaxies
lack dark-matter shrouds.

Still, astronomers are taking note--especially those
who control access to the Canary Islands telescopes.
"They were sufficiently shocked and horrified by what
we were finding," says Merrifield, that they gave his
group's proposal the highest ranking for more observing
time. The team expects to study 22 more ellipticals
within 2 years.

SDR: Under "dark matter" theory it would not be all that
surprising to find collections of "dark matter" without any
visible galaxy; but visible galaxies without any dark matter
at all are almost as unacceptable to dark matter theory as
gravity-less stars/planets. Yet, still deluded/misled by
erroneous inflationary models, theorists continue to think
up warped/twisted explanations to fit mistaken models of the
universe. [THEIR unreachable hurdle has been with us since
the time of the Greeks: the eternally stubborn conviction
that there are forms of matter that can never be "split"
in spite of ALL we have learned in the past century!] It
never ceases to amaze me how otherwise intelligent persons
can seriously propose such a contradictory model as the dark
matter/dark energy one: 73% dark energy and 23% dark matter
still leaves us with a 50% dark energy universe after they
(ought to but don't) cancel themselves out. And such a
universe would still blow up exactly as the earliest quantum
equations would have it do (with even less "dark energy"
pumped into the equations... while yet leaving the spin of
galaxies as baffling as ever.

AGAIN: The explanation for the observable galactic spin IN
our imploding universe is the dynamics of such galactic spin
INSIDE an imploding universe (given, yes, the huge distances
taken up by these galaxies AND the balance in our imploding
universe between its "absolute implosion" and the Hubble
Constant--the creation of space/distance, which see below)
AND NOT any proposed "dark matters." Otherwise spiral
galaxies would NOT exist at all, and instead we would have
supermassive black holes with clearly-defined "rings" of
stars--exactly like the rings of Saturn... for the same
reasons those (so very stable) rings came about and live.

And the explanation for the observed Hubble Constant (the
apparent "motion" of galaxies away from each other faster
with distance) is because in our imploding universe ALL
visible matter is imploding AT EVERY LEVEL of its
organization (BECAUSE E=MC^2 does not cease to be true at
some imagined fundamental level)... thereby relativistically
"creating" space/distance between themselves even as the
entire universe itself implodes in a profoundly absolute way
we may never fully understand... here, inside the universe.

Recent COBE and WMAP data only "proves" this even more
strongly and thoroughly than ever: To put it so simply that
even ants will be able to understand this: "The smaller an
explosion the more structural;y homogeneous the organization
of its results will be."

As all astronomers know... our cosmos is about as lumpy as a
structure can get. This is absolutely inconsistent with a
"singular" Big Bang episode (and demands impossible warped
and twisted explanations placing galaxies within 1/2 billion
years from the Big Bang, among other things). However, our
cosmos is completely consistent with a universe that
"begins" with/from an "infinite" (for our purposes here)
spatial expanse and over unimaginably immense distances of
time (not just 13 lousy billion years) contracts (or,
implodes) into what we "see" today.

Sure enough: The COBE and WMAP "picture" of the cosmic
microwave background radiation show a universe nowhere as
uniform as Big Bang theorists would have you believe IN
SPITE OF THE COBE/WMAP RESULTS [Now, from the Roentgen
Satellite, or ROSAT (an X-ray astronomy instrument has been
mapping the sky with a sensitivity/resolution far superior
to previous X-ray instruments)... START QUOTE: ROSAT has
detected extended blobs of X-ray emission that lie between
the discrete X-ray sources. Hasinger* and Truemper* propose
that these blobs are actually clusters of quasars so distant
that ROSAT cannot separate the emissions of individual ones.
Assuming the universe is about 13 billion years old, these
clusters appear to be some eight to 10 billion light-years
distant and 15 to 30 million light-years across. This is
troubling news for cosmologists. They already have their
hands full explaining how clumpy structures of galaxies
could have evolved from a presumably smooth big bang. The
existence of large, organized clusters of quasars "would
pose an even bigger problem for big bang cosmology,"
Hasinger notes. END QUOTE]

No kidding.

But let's not doubt for an moment that there are already
many superbly mediocre theorists working overtime to spew
out of their "dark" little minds explanations and other
rationalizations as magnificently twisted and warped as the
"dark energy" and "dark matter" ones. It's almost as if
their greatest fear is that were the universe to be
explained in all its elegance once and for all... they might
lose their jobs. And, unfortunately, their jobs happen to
converge with their authority. [Might be why the greatest
changes seem to happen with the changing of the guard.]

S D Rodrian
[Only registered users see links. ]

* One of the goals of the mapping has been to resolve the
X-ray background into discrete components and determine
their nature. On January 15 at the annual meeting of the
American Astronomical Society in Philadelphia, Joachim
Truemper and Guenther Hasinger of the Max Planck Institute
for Extraterrestrial Physics told scientists that ROSAT had
revealed far more quasars than could be detected before
--about 100 quasars per square degree. This implies the
presence of about four million quasars over the whole sky,
enough to account for 40 percent of the X-ray background,
Hasinger estimates.

S D Rodrian
[Only registered users see links. ]

"Now you tell me how you know that the cosmic background
radiation is a decreasing effect... and not a temperature rising?"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
confirmed , dark , matter , prediction , rodrian


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Black Holes--a theory jason@smkzone.com Physics Forum 9 02-09-2008 05:00 AM
What is Gravity? sdr@sdrodrian.com Physics Forum 1 01-27-2008 02:53 PM
The Achilles Heel of String Theory. S D Rodrian Physics Forum 7 07-08-2006 02:40 PM
The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian SDR Physics Forum 5 02-16-2005 07:41 AM
NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction SDR Physics Forum 0 07-16-2003 08:48 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.28705 seconds with 16 queries