Jump to content
Lan Todak

Dark matter speculation [Hi...]

Recommended Posts

It is hard to convince anyone when everyone uses common sense in argument. It's ok. I came here not to argue. I just want to give a suggestion.

We learnt from school that centrifugal(or centripetal) works the same with orbital force

but actually not because

Gravity always work at specific degree(angle) at instant moment.

It does not make sense right?

let me explain. When someone standing on slippery floor wants to move a slippery box, the only way to move the box is by hinting it fast. As u can see, to apply force u need contact, less contact means more force.

centrifugal/petal force requires connection between center and moving part. That implies Centrifugal/petal to have contact all the times.

Yes u might think gravity also have contact all the time. No, when we move away gravity deceases and grows when we get closer. Centrifugal/petal force is always the same even if we use elastic material because when we move away we gain force and lose when get closer.

I undestand if u dont get it. Take times to read.

The key is gravity axerts force at exact location and time not total locations at period of time.

So, if something is moving, an exact amount of gravitational force applies at exact instantly location and time.

Take magnet as example. Run this experiment, shoot a bullet over a magnet and calculate magnetic force required to Swing the bullet to circular path. Trust me that will require ridiculously large amount of force. Why? Because magnetic pull works the same.

Do you get it? Why I wrote dis? This implies gravity is actually stronger than what we feel.

Another evidence is the existence of gravitational lensing effect around giant planets especially uranus. We can see Uranus with naked eyes. If we put earth to scale, as small as a ball on the football field, Uranus would be at around 7 to 8 km and earth totally not visiable at all. that's obviously gravitational lensing effect. That also explains Why the planets look closer too...

So I gave two evidence for now first and more If all of u interested in me. There are a lot proofs for strong gravity.

 

Side note:

I dont believe dark matter exists

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

Another evidence is the existence of gravitational lensing effect around giant planets especially uranus. We can see Uranus with naked eyes. If we put earth to scale, as small as a ball on the football field, Uranus would be at around 7 to 8 km and earth totally not visiable at all. that's obviously gravitational lensing effect. That also explains Why the planets look closer too...

Have you compared that explanation to some calculations or can you provide some source? Have you compared the above with what gravitational lensing actually is according to science?

It might be helpful to open a thread the mainstream sections asking some questions instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ghideon said:

 

Have you compared that explanation to some calculations or can you provide some source? Have you compared the above with what gravitational lensing actually is according to science?

It might be helpful to open a thread the mainstream sections asking some questions instead. 

"Gravitational lensing. As the light emitted by distant galaxies passes by massive objects in the universe, the gravitational pull from these objects can distort or bend the light. This is called gravitational lensing. ... Weak gravitational lensing results in galaxies appearing distorted, stretched or magnified" -google.

I know GLE is caused by distribution of dark matter. But only if dark matter is real. Otherwise its just gravity.

I left a note at the bottom saying that I don't believe in dark matter.

U are asking me for some sources. Why don't u? Could you give something telling us what causes magnifying effects on the planets?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lan Todak said:

Could you give something telling us what causes magnifying effects on the planets?

What magnifying effect on the planets? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

What magnifying effect on the planets? 

bigger and closer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

It is hard to convince anyone when everyone uses common sense in argument. 

Yep. This is a science forum. You need to use science. (That almost certainly means math.)

9 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

It does not make sense right?

As you say, trying to argue using "common sense" is a waste of time. So why are you doing it?

9 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

When someone standing on slippery floor wants to move a slippery box, the only way to move the box is by hinting it fast.

No. It makes no difference other you push to slowly or hit it fast. (In the real world, there may be subtle effects due to the differences in static friction between your shows and the box, for example. But I don't think that is what you are talking about.)

9 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

centrifugal/petal force requires connection between center and moving part.

Obviously not. Why do you think the Moon says in orbit around the Earth? There isn't a rope connecting them.

9 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

I undestand if u dont get it. Take times to read.

It is nothing to do with the time it takes to read it. It is just wrong.

9 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

The key is gravity axerts force at exact location and time not total locations at period of time.

You mean that if gravity is holding you down then I will start to float because it can't work in two places at the same time?

This is the problem with your use of arguments from common sense and describing things in words: it makes no sense.

Please show, in mathematical detail, exactly what you mean.

9 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

Take magnet as example. Run this experiment, shoot a bullet over a magnet and calculate magnetic force required to Swing the bullet to circular path. Trust me that will require ridiculously large amount of force. Why? Because magnetic pull works the same.

Why would I trust you? Show us the calculations.

And how is this relevant?

9 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

This implies gravity is actually stronger than what we feel.

What implies that?

And how can it be stronger than we feel, when what we feel and measure is gravity?

Please show the mathematics of how much stronger it is than we feel.

9 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

Another evidence is the existence of gravitational lensing effect around giant planets especially uranus. We can see Uranus with naked eyes. If we put earth to scale, as small as a ball on the football field, Uranus would be at around 7 to 8 km and earth totally not visiable at all. that's obviously gravitational lensing effect. That also explains Why the planets look closer too...

That has nothing at all to do with gravitational lensing.

23 minutes ago, Lan Todak said:

I know GLE is caused by distribution of dark matter. But only if dark matter is real. Otherwise its just gravity.

Gravitational lensing is caused by mass. That mass is made up of normal matter and dark matter. They both contribute to gravity and hence gravitational lensing.

24 minutes ago, Lan Todak said:

I left a note at the bottom saying that I don't believe in dark matter.

No one really cares what you believe. You haven't provide any evidence that dark matter does not exist. You have not provided an alternative mathematical model that matches what we observe.

So what is the point of this thread?

14 minutes ago, Lan Todak said:

bigger and closer

Bigger and closer than what?

They are exactly as big and close as they are.

 

!

Moderator Note

p.s. changed thread title to something more accurate. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Lan Todak said:

bigger and closer

That is not very clear or helpful. I'll try again: can you post a reference to a credible source that supports your claim that such a phenomenon exists and how that phenomenon is defined? From there we could discuss the possible causes.

39 minutes ago, Lan Todak said:

Could you give something telling us what causes magnifying effects on the planets?

A telescope?

 

40 minutes ago, Lan Todak said:

"Gravitational lensing. As the light emitted by distant galaxies passes by massive objects in the universe, the gravitational pull from these objects can distort or bend the light. This is called gravitational lensing. ... Weak gravitational lensing results in galaxies appearing distorted, stretched or magnified" -google.

Do you believe there are massive objects between us and the planets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

I dont believe dark matter exists

In science, it doesn't (darkly, even) matter at all what anyone believes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Strange said:

You mean that if gravity is holding you down then I will start to float because it can't work in two places at the same time?

This is the problem with your use of arguments from common sense and describing things in words: it makes no sense.

Please show, in mathematical detail, exactly what you mean.

I can... But what will I get. Will my calculations get published? 

3 hours ago, Strange said:

No. It makes no difference other you push to slowly or hit it fast

Are u sure about that? It certainly not. U will slip. 

3 hours ago, Ghideon said:

That is not very clear or helpful. I'll try again: can you post a reference to a credible source that supports your claim that such a phenomenon exists and how that phenomenon is defined? From there we could discuss the possible causes.

I have but i can post it now.

3 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Do you believe there are massive objects between us and the planets?

Yes... Neutron star for example.

3 hours ago, joigus said:

In science, it doesn't (darkly, even) matter at all what anyone believes

I know... We call it dark because we don't know what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

Another evidence is the existence of gravitational lensing effect around giant planets especially uranus.

 

30 minutes ago, Lan Todak said:

 

3 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Do you believe there are massive objects between us and the planets?

Yes... Neutron star for example.

Ok, so there's at least one neutron star between us on earth and the planet Uranus. Can you provide a map of how you believe the solar system looks like?

Have you considered my hint about asking questions instead of posting claims?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Lan Todak said:

I can... But what will I get. Will my calculations get published?

Well, you might convince people that you have a valid argument.

Getting it published is up to you.

32 minutes ago, Lan Todak said:

Are u sure about that? It certainly not. U will slip. 

Oh dear. You say one thing. I say another. What we need is a way to decide between them.

So, how science solves this problem is to come up with a mathematical model that predicts what will happen and then comparing the model to what actually happens.

Off you go. Do some science.

34 minutes ago, Lan Todak said:

Yes... Neutron star for example.

You think neutron stars exist between us and the other planets? Wow. What do you base this on?

Why do you think no one has noticed? 

And they probably would cause noticeable gravitational lensing, which would change as they passed between us and other planets. But, more importantly, we would see them.

They would also cause the orbits of the planets to be different. You know that Neptune was discovered because the orbits of other planets did not seem quite right unless there was another (hypothetical) planet. That is why Neptune is sometimes called "the original dark matter".

37 minutes ago, Lan Todak said:

We call it dark because we don't know what it is.

No. It is called dark because it doesn't interact with light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Ok, so there's at least one neutron star between us on earth and the planet Uranus. Can you provide a map of how you believe the solar system looks like?

Sorry... I read it wrong.

26 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Have you considered my hint about asking questions instead of posting claims?

I donno what to say. But I prefer this way...

29 minutes ago, Strange said:

Well, you might convince people that you have a valid argument.

Getting it published is up to you.

So... Asking people to provide mathematical evidence isn't right because some of it worth million dollars... At least people get paid or their papers get published.

38 minutes ago, Strange said:

You think neutron stars exist between us and the other planets? Wow. What do you base this on?

Why do you think no one has noticed? 

And they probably would cause noticeable gravitational lensing, which would change as they passed between us and other planets. But, more importantly, we would see them.

They would also cause the orbits of the planets to be different. You know that Neptune was discovered because the orbits of other planets did not seem quite right unless there was another (hypothetical) planet. That is why Neptune is sometimes called "the original dark matter".

Sorry... I read it wrong.

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

No. It is called dark because it doesn't interact with light

No... We call dark DNA not because it doesn't interact with light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Lan Todak said:

So... Asking people to provide mathematical evidence isn't right because some of it worth million dollars...

I doubt anything you have thought of is worth $1 million. Or even $1.

Your posts are getting increasingly incoherent. Unless you have something sensible (and scientific) to say about dark matter, maybe there is no point to this thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

Gravity always work at specific degree(angle) at instant moment.

I passed your sentence through a syntax parser (.)

No complete linkages found.
++++Time                                          0.00 seconds (354.34 total)
Found 2 linkages (2 with no P.P. violations) at null count 8
  Linkage 1, cost vector = (UNUSED=8 DIS=0 AND=0 LEN=12)

    +------------------------------------------Xp-----------------------
    +------------Wi-----------+                                         
    |                  +---E--+                                         
    |                  |      |                                         
LEFT-WALL [gravity] always work.v [at] [specific] [degree] [angle] [at] 


-------------------+
                   |
                   |
                   |
[instant] [moment] . 

Constituent tree:

(S Gravity
   (S (VP (ADVP always)
          work))
   at specific degree angle at instant moment .)

As a test run, I tried: "It's raining heavily tonight."

Here's the result:

++++Time                                          0.00 seconds (354.32 total)
Found 4 linkages (2 with no P.P. violations)
  Linkage 1, cost vector = (UNUSED=0 DIS=2 AND=0 LEN=6)

            +------MVpn------+
 +-Ss+--Pg--+---MVa--+       |
 |   |      |        |       |
it 's.v raining.v heavily tonight 

Constituent tree:

(S (NP It)
   (VP 's
       (VP raining
           (ADVP heavily)
           (NP tonight))))

I'm still not very familiar with it, but it may prove a valuable tool for the forum Speculations. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

So I gave two evidence for now first and more If all of u interested in me. There are a lot proofs for strong gravity.

The first evidence contains no scientific model or evidence as pointed out by other members. And the second evidence regarding gravitational lensing is plain wrong. I guess there isn't much left to discuss, this is the speculations section after all.

3 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

donno what to say. But I prefer this way...

Ok. I'm not sure your way helps drive the most fruitful discussions about science. 

 

(But I learned about the link parser from @joigus, that's positive.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

No... We call dark DNA not because it doesn't interact with light.

What is "dark DNA" ?

And how is it relevant?

Note that "dark energy" is called "dark" because we don't know what it is. But in the case of dark matter, it is more literal.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

Another evidence is the existence of gravitational lensing effect around giant planets especially uranus. We can see Uranus with naked eyes. If we put earth to scale, as small as a ball on the football field, Uranus would be at around 7 to 8 km and earth totally not visiable at all. that's obviously gravitational lensing effect. That also explains Why the planets look closer too...

 

You are confusing two different things, visual magnitude and angular resolution.  

Visual magnitude is a measure of how much light coming from an object reaches our eyes.  The naked eye can detect things as dim as a magnitude of 6.  Uranus at its brightest has a magnitude of 5.7 (the more positive the magnitude, the dimmer the object.  A full Moon has a magnitude of -12.6, and the Sun of -26.7)  This puts it just in the naked eye viewable range under good viewing conditions.

Angular resolution is a measure of how large something has to be in our field of vision before we our eyes can resolve it as anything else than a point of light.  Just because something has an angular size less than the resolution ability of our eyes doesn't mean that we can't see it it at all, just that we can only resolve it as a point. 

Uranus reflects enough sunlight back to our eyes to trigger the receptors on the retina, But we can't distinguish between light coming from different parts of its surface.  Thus we simply see it as a single point of light.  In other words, it's the amount of light we get from Uranus, and not how big it looks, that determines whether or not is is naked-eye visible.

It is very easy to work out how bright Uranus should look to the naked eye. We know how far is is from the Sun and how bright the Sun is, so we know how much sunlight hits it. We know how much of that light is reflected off of Uranus' surface. We also know how far away the Earth is from Uranus and  thus can calculate how much of that reflected light reaches the Earth and would enter the eye of an observer.  We also know how sensitive the eye is to light.

Thus using all that information we can work out whether or not we should be able to see Uranus just based on reflected Sun light. The answer you would get lines up with what we actually see.  So the reason we are able to see Uranus is already perfectly understood without have to introduce any other mechanism like gravitational lensing.  That would only be needed if Uranus was brighter than it should be, which it isn't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.