Mordred

As the distance between two quarks expand, more gluons form and the strength of the strong nuclear field increases. This is called asymptotic freedom.

The proof is every particle has an influence regardless of how small. The ideal gas laws is an average of those influences. This is true regardless of scale. It's too bad to refuse to accept this. You would be amazed at the complexity and correlations to the fluidic dynamics if you did. Let me ask you one question. "What is the difference between a gas and a solid ?" The proof is in the distribution of hydrogen,helium etc Duh look at it. You need the plasma to form stars Do you honestly believe your smarter than every scientist that fought dark matter over close to 50 years of research?. Come on give me a break learn why the current models exist. I've been on forums since the late 80's prior to WMAP. I can attest to how hard DM was fought. No this isn't my only forum. I've seen far more stronger arguments on galaxy rotation curves than you have presented. As to your question as to how can we assume their is some kind of matter between the arms? The answer is every point in space has a thermodynamic relation. There is always an energy/mass relationship. Posters of alternative models never look at the history of the current model development. They refuse to accept contractions to their ideas. They refuse to learn, the history and struggles to accept a models. Too many times I have seen " I have all the answers" with no proof....... PS you've had counter points presented in this thread by a variety of accredited physics degrees. You chose to argue with them. I won't say who right of privacy and all that PS I fully expect them and accept any corrections they have to offer. Even after 30 years of self study, and over 40+ textbooks I still learn.

Another key aspect is "every measurement we make is according to a standard point." GR likes rest mass, CMB likes the CMB, they are the more consistent points of reference. Orbitals tend towards largest mass, the Sun or star. Welcome to physics, the trick is to set your baseline, then describe the change. This is the basis of differential geometry. Oft times what is more accurate depends on the reference frame, or system described. Scalar quantities are easy, vectors get complex. Tensor is a combination of the two. When you get down into the nitty gritty details, relations of a causes b etc , favors the mathematics that show those relations in the easier to model metrics. Occams razor. A good example, take a container of a known gas. Can we truly describe every interaction of every particle,? Of course not. We can at best model an average, and use statistics, to average the frequency.

What your doing is quite complex, I must admit your going at it with diligents. An aid to help with the visualization grab some graph paper as well as a compass from your geometry set. Set units of force according to length on the graph, use the compass for the directional force component of the force sums. It's more a help keep track aid. Than accuracy, similar to a flow chart. Thus far your doing good keep it up The graphing will help sort out the vectoral components of the force of gravity. Ideally you will want to apply sine and cos relations to the vector component of force. For example you have three different mass objects. The Sun, Jupiter and let's say Venus. Each planet influences the CoM in the multibody problem. Force being vectoral will also influence the barycenter with both a scalar as well as a directional influence. To start pick simpler direction relations, all in a straight line. Larger mass planet (Jupiter) one side, Venus opposite, Lol keep in mind more than two body calculations is extremely tricky. Google three or more body problem. P.S. we measure the mass of planets and stars according to their influences upon other bodies. If you think about that statement. You will realize the complexity and error margins in assigning a mass value

No it isn't any new model must be compared to current models. If you like look at any peer reviewed paper. Let's use say MOND as an example. You will see comparisions on what MOND would predict then what LCDM would predict. This is part of the process of proving a model. What were doing is poking holes in your model as well as supplying the materials to correct and refine the model. This is also part of model development.

Here is the thing, we have experimental proof quarks and gluons exist. We have even determined the mass of each quark (they don't have the same mass) we also have a solid means of using the current standard model to predict particles we discover AFTER they were predicted. So obviously our current standard model works extremely well. Your however fails to recognize years of study, measurements and experimental evidence. You won't recognize that the atom can be split into smaller constituents. You don't acknowledge the basic relations shown in Sensei's post. Based on your personal lack of knowledge. As well as feelings toward QM. Well if you wish to prove QM and the standard model wrong, then you must compare your model to the existing models. You have to show how your model improves upon our understanding. You can't do this by ignoring the existing. You can only do this by mathematics and experimental comparisions.

Experimental proof show that classical mechanics is insufficient to fully explain the quantum dynamics. What you are being asked to do is supply testable predictions that shows your model to be better than the existing models. The existing model is extremely robust and predictive. Thousands of physicists developed our current models, not through philosophy, but due to experimental proof and observations. We always favor Occams razor when possible. Provided the simplest model has the same degree of accuracy.

I just supplied you that article, try googling the term Density wave theory... you will see all the links describing how young stars form in which locations due to the different metallicity in each region. Before drifting out. The reason why the spiral arms are more luminous is due to the types of stars that form in the spiral arms. You have to examine the plasma density within and outside the spiral arms. The arms simply have a higher density than the regions between the arms. Look at not just the different densities, but what elements occupy those regions. The spiral arms is a plasma cloud.... That plasma cloud behaves as a fluid. For that matter so does galaxy rotation curves. Your calculations are only considering the mass of stars. What about all the other mass density contributors? Where is your analysis of the plasma? What about dark matter? All these contribute to mass. This is why rotation curves use the virial power laws and Not strictly Newtonian force. You need to apply the hydrodynamics of a gas to galaxy rotation curves. Funny story about rotation curves and dark matter. For years MOND tried to use Newtonian laws to rotation curves, they had to modify Newtonian for different mass distributions. They were sort of successful in better predicting rotation curves of certain types of galaxies. When LCDM had a tough time. However in order to explain spiral galaxies MOND had to use..... you guessed it dark matter. Kind of defeated the purpose of MOND. MOND= modified Newtonian dynamics. Here is a few links on virial theorem http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/vt.htm http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.2980 here is a simple breakdown of rotation curve see formulas page ,30 http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astro.caltech.edu%2F~george%2Fay20%2FAy20-Lec16x.pdf&rct=j&q=galaxy%20rotation%20curve%20of%20the%20milky%20way%20pdf&ei=ZJXhVLO7B8yoogSsq4GgDw&usg=AFQjCNF7bjGbX9QdzY-6n9_GMQwN-cVAag&sig2=Cc5IFvhx1kiBXKhIoD1ZwQ

All formulas are to good approximation, there are so many factors such as rounding errors, degree of accuracy on measurement etc etc. I wouldn't worry about 3 minutes, you don't have the same precise dataset the wiki source does for that value.

What Janus is referring to is called Density wave theory, coincidentally this also works for Saturn's rings. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory here is a detailed paper on it. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApJ...155..721Lthe pdf is on this page.

Entire galaxies can pass through each other or merge without a star collision. There is a huge amount of volume between stars for other stars to pass through.

The easiest way to think of it is mass/energy simultaneously forming as the two are directly related. You cannot have one without the other.

Another suggestion is adding the caveat energy in the form of a gauge boson virtual particle cloud. For example, the instanton is commonly used for vaccum states. Inflation makes use of the inflaton as the mediator between two vacuum states. For electromagnetic the quage boson (force/energy carrier particle) Is the photon For the strong force it is gluons For the weak force it is the W and Z bosons. gravity is complicated the mediator should be the graviton, however we haven't found the graviton. So gravity is commonly represented by the properties of space time (GR) The boson that first gives mass to quarks, leptons neutrinos is the Higgs boson.

Energy is a property of particles, it doesn't exist on its own. So trying to seperate energy from mass isn't going to work. I suspect the problem is lacking the proper descriptives. So we will merely mention the above for now. e=mc^2 shows that energy and mass are equivalent. All forms of energy can have mass and generate gravity

Your not getting it. If I have 19 pounds and remove 5 pounds I can say I have negated some mass. However you cannot have -19 pounds by itself outside a mathematic relationship. ALL energy is a positive value. All matter is also a positive value. Changing the signs on charge DOES NOT change this. Antimatter has the opposite charge to its matter component. It has positive energy and positive matter. When they annihilate the charges are mediated by gauge bosons to maintain Conservation of charge. A key detail to remember force is a vector. Opposite charge attracts, like charges repel. However the amount of force is the same, just opposite directions. This does not mean one is a negative force.

There is no such thing as negative mass. Its usage simply means a reduction in mass. Same with negative energy. Any energy density is positive, so is any mass. This includes antimatter.

Yes but your discussing mass and pressure/energy/ mass relations. That formula is good in Euclidean flat space. It's no longer accurate in curved space time example Minkowskii. You need GR for that

Doesn't matter, your relations in the formulas you provide will not give you the correct values. Study the stress energy tensor and the Einstein field equations. They do include mass density or energy density. In other words the FLRW metric and GR, Einstein field equations. Already relates pressure, energy/mass density to gravity relations. This is already researched and covered.

Energy density does not decrease the same amount as g. The rate of decrease is via the stress energy tensor. The pressure term is via the particles equation of state http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29 in GR energy density corresponds to pressure via the stress energy tensor. Which also corresponds to the energy density. It is not the simple inverse relation you show. [latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p \eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex] http://www.th.physik.uni-bonn.de/nilles/exercises/ss04/gr05.pdf http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor for the metric tensor portion above. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor_(general_relativity)

The annihilation process is a release of kinetic energy, the process does not mean the energy sum becomes zero. Both the anti particle and particle has positive energy, just opposite charge. When they annihilate the combined total energy of BOTH particles is released. In essence the energy released form new particles such as photons and gauge bosons. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation All particle interactions contribute to temperature and pressure. In the case of matter ie solids this is negligible. Photons and other bosons are determined by its relativistic or radiation equation of state. If that equation of state exerts a pressure then it also generates temperature. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) In the case of photons and other bosons the Bose-Einstien distribution correlates the energy/blackbody temp. in the case of fermions it is the Fermi Dirac statistics. though optionally you can use the FLRW EoS or Gibbs law. see chapter 3 http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis Anti particles are just as REAL as its particle. In the case of zero point energy absolute zero does not mean motion does not occur. "The uncertainty principle requires every physical system to have a zero-point energy greater than the minimum of its classical potential well. This results in motion even at absolute zero. For example, liquid helium does not freeze under atmospheric pressure at any temperature because of its zero-point energy" http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy The term void is meaningless in physics. We already count anti particle/particles interactions in our thermodynamic calculations. The key factors your missing is volume and energy density to pressure relations. Virtual particle production requires energy.

The problem with the above is when a particle anti particle annihilate energy is released as the sum of the mass of both particles. This generates heat. So if this was the case the universe would not be 2.7 Kelvin. The void has no meaning in physics. QM Heinenburgs uncertainty principle sets the zero point vacuum at E=1/2hv. As far as the Higgs field it is uniform and it is a scalar field of value v=246 GeV. Vacuum expectation value. The weak interactions with this field via the Yukawa coupling is what sets the mass of a particle. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukawa_interaction

You lost me there Blackholes have nothing to do with dark matter.

Roflmao

There is a lot of similarities between neutrinos and DM. Both are weakly interactive, Neutrinos is 1/2 spin with weak Force and gravity interactions. It's relativistic. Cold dark matter the only interactions we know of is gravity. We also believe it is a slow non relativistic particle. It may or may not be weakly interactive. It's slow movement implies it is massive. In terms of interactions it is closer to neutrinos than photons. The SO(10) papers believe it may be a sterile neutrino however it's one of many conjectures at this point. As far as when it forms we suspect it formed shortly after inflation, when exactly we don't know, however it is present at the CMB. It's presence aids the large scale structure formation. Via its anisotropy contributions to BAO. Baryon accoustic oscillations.

Now in SO(10) MSSM there may be different mass Higgs each will have its own VeV value. (54Higgs) seesaw II. Standard model is seesaw I This site has a very simplified way of explaining the Higgs field http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/how-the-higgs-field-works-with-math/ in a way it's well done in an approximation sense