Jump to content
stevecastleberry

Dark Energy Explained

Recommended Posts

We live on the skin of a planet whose gravity influences our rate of time. Researchers have demonstrated one of Einstein's theories of relativity - that the further away from the Earths center of gravity you are, the faster time passes. Einstein was proven correct when two synchronized atomic clocks were placed on different floors of a tall building. After a year, the clock further from the Earth`s center of gravity gained time quicker. By moving about 10 feet to the top of the stairs, you would age sooner by just under a millionth of a second!
...Also, we live here on Earth in a "changing" rate of time, due to moving bodies of mass around us. Along with lifting the oceans twice a day, our Sun & Moon, as they change distance from the observer, influence the rate of time (however small) for the reader sitting in his chair at his altitude on Earth. Now, let`s step-up this scenario to a scale of about 4.3 million to 1 ...

e51ae34b6147cc824385268c927a54501067e925
There is a newly discovered super massive black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy called Sagittarius A*. All elliptical galaxies are considered to have one. It`s said to contain 4.3 million solar masses & influences all the stars orbiting it in our galaxy. A study in 2008 which linked radio telescopes in Hawaii, Arizona and California (Very Long Baseline Interferometry) measured the diameter of Sagittarius A* to be 27 million miles. For comparison, the radius of Earth's orbit around the Sun is about 93 million miles.
Our star, the Sun, is on the inner edge of one of the spiral-shaped concentrations of gas and dust called the Orion Arm of the Milky Way. Since there are no known perfectly round orbits in the universe, we are either falling into or receding away from the singularity at the center.
I maintain that we, along with our sun are being flung out from the singularity along on the Orion Arm . Looking at the picture of a barred spiral galaxy, it`s spiral -shaped for a reason. It`s barred center is spinning & throwing out two jets of stars & dust. Our distance to Sagittarious A* is CONSTANTLY lengthening, which in turn CONSTANTLY changes our rate of time and (from our perspective) everything outside our galaxy LOOKS to speed away from us faster & faster seeming to break Newtons First Law of Motion. I can believe all visible galaxies are essentially expanding away from each other, but accelerating faster? ... & faster? ... No way.
I admit, my tiny primate brain may not be able to fathom the total mass of the visible universe & beyond, I mean, -that`s a hell of a lot of mass in motion- but to accept it as mysteriously accelerating faster & faster makes no sense. I would much rather expound a theory that we are not so much traveling IN a bubble of space/time, but rather wherever our location is in distance to bubbles of space/time around these five bodies gives us our rate of time:
dM(Earth) + dM(Moon) + dM(Sun) + dM(SagittariusA*) + dM(Big Bang) = Rate Of Time for observer
d = distance from mass to observer
M = mass
I added "The Big Bang" ( whatever that was... ) because space is getting less dense (another variable).
The relationship of distance from the observer to these five space/time bubbles, sets the rate of time for the observer, which varies. But an observer would never know it...
I believe Saul Perlmutter reported what his instruments sensed but failed to account for the observer`s constant change in distance to a super massive object. This gave him the readings he had of such impossible & illogical accelerations of distant galaxies. Of course our massive singularity was unknown at the time. It goes to show that we`ve got a lot to learn about black holes, about time, and about space. So I don`t expect anyone to find out what Dark Energy is now, because I think it was just convenient at the time to have a label for an unknown "Power", which it wasn`t ... just a slight miscalculation due to the changing distance of an unknown super massive body.
-Steve Castleberry
Santa Cruz, CA
castleberrysteve9@gmail.com

Edited by stevecastleberry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually dark matter explains why we are NOT being flung outwards from the galactic center.

It has nothing to do with expansion, accelerated or otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just cut & pasted this but it explains I think:

 

Nobody's really sure exactly what our galaxy looks like, given that we're trying to observe it from inside, but given that there are relatively few O/B/A type stars near us, our best guess is that we're currently located between two major arms in the galaxy, in a region known as the "Orion Spur".

Soon we'll enter the Perseus arm, one of the two major arms of the Milky Way extending from the central bar. Despite being more crowded, there's still an enormous amount of space between solar systems, even inside of the galactic arms, so most scientists don't think we have much to worry about.

If anyone's wondering how we got the above referenced image, it has to do with a theory of stellar formation. Basically, it would take a ridiculous sum of time for molecular clouds to coalesce enough to form into a star if they did so based on gravity alone (like, longer than the current age of the universe). As such, we think there have to be catalysts which form the stars.

One proposed catalyst is the galactic arms themselves. As a gas cloud enters the arm, it hits a "shock front", essentially a region in which the fabric of space itself is actually more compact. This basically forces the molecules together as the space between them shrinks dramatically and quickly, resulting in stellar formation. Once one star forms and fusion begins, it's able to blow material away from itself, compacting dust around it with its stellar wind, thus catalyzing more stars to form.

Now, most of these stars, especially from larger clouds will form as larger O/B/A type stars. These stars are so large that they burn through their material quicker than smaller stars due to their additional gravity, and are much shorter lived. Most of these massive stars are so short lived that they're not able to make it through the arm before they burn themselves out and go supernova or collapse; as such you'll typically ONLY see O/B/A type stars within the arms themselves.

Thus we can look for O/B/A type stars, determine their distance, and map them two dimensionally to map out where the arms of our galaxy are, since they'll only exist within the arms themselves.

This is also why the arms appear more "blue" than the inter-arm regions, because all the large, hot, blue stars exist within them; and only smaller, cooler, yellow, white and red stars live long enough to make it into the inter-arm regions.

===========================

So I don`t know why you`re assuming we`re not leaving the orbit of Sagittarius A*. All I`m saying is we may be, and if we are, Einstein says says there`s a change in the rate of time for differential locations to a black hole. I say it is a variable rate because of our orbits involved. Can you say it`s not big enough to make a difference in Perlmutter`s equations? `Cause if you think it`s not, then you must go with the status quo. Good luck with that, brother.

https://i.imgur.com/dtb8WrD.mp4

Edited by stevecastleberry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me see if I can explain...

Based on the visible mass composing the galaxy, centrally located to a large extent, and standard gravitational theory ( Newtonian will do ), the farthest stars should be rotating much slower than close-to-center stars. Just as Neptune rotates much slower around the Sun than Earth does. The spiral arms would rotate slower at their 'tips' compared to the central section, and get 'wound up'.

 

This is not what is observed.

The spiral arms don't rotate as 'strings' tied to a central hub, rather the whole galaxy rotates as a 'pinwheel', with the edges rotating at the same angular speed as the center. This would be the same as if Neptune was rotating around the Sun with the same period as the Earth. Clearly Neptune would then be moving faster than its escape velocity and be flung out of he solar system.

But this does not happen with the stars on the edge of the galaxy.

If we elect to keep standard gravitational theory, the only other explanation is that, as you move out from the center of the galaxy each successive shell has to have the same mass density as inner shells.

This is, again, not what we see.

This indicates that a lot of this mass density is 'hidden', in effect, it doesn't interact electromagnetically, just gravitationally.

That is why it is called 'dark' matter.

 

The other unknown cause for an anomalous effect, the accelerating expansion of the universe, is totally unrelated, and has been termed 'dark' energy, as its ( possibly ) related to vacuum energy, the resulting pressure nad expansion ( see Einstein's Cosmological Constant ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a newly discovered super massive black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy called Sagittarius A*.

 

 

Well, I suppose 1974 is fairly recent on cosmic timescales.... :)

 

 

It`s said to contain 4.3 million solar masses & influences all the stars orbiting it in our galaxy.

 

It is a tiny percentage of the mass of the galaxy (about 1012 solar masses) so it only has a significant effect on the stars nearby that are orbiting it. It will have no measurable effect on the solar system, for example.

 

 

Since there are no known perfectly round orbits in the universe, we are either falling into or receding away from the singularity at the center.

 

The alternative to a perfectly round orbit is an elliptical orbit. This can be stable and does not imply falling into or receding away from the central body.

 

 

I maintain that we, along with our sun are being flung out from the singularity along on the Orion Arm .

 

Do you have any evidence of that?

 

 

Looking at the picture of a barred spiral galaxy, it`s spiral -shaped for a reason. It`s barred center is spinning & throwing out two jets of stars & dust.

 

That is not how the arms of galaxies form. They are density waves in the material of the galaxy.

 

 

Our distance to Sagittarious A* is CONSTANTLY lengthening, which in turn CONSTANTLY changes our rate of time

 

Please calculate how great this effect is. I am sceptical that a small change in distance from a mass that is one millionth of the mass of the rest of the galaxy will be significant. Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

 

and (from our perspective) everything outside our galaxy LOOKS to speed away from us faster & faster

 

Why would it make things appear to be moving away from us?

And why would it make their recessional speed proportional to distance.

 

Please show your calculations that led you to that conclusion.

 

 

I can believe all visible galaxies are essentially expanding away from each other, but accelerating faster?

 

The accelerating expansion was a surprise to everybody, which is why the discoverers got the Nobel Prize in 2011.

 

But being surprising, unexplained or unbelievable does not alter the evidence.

 

 

dM(Earth) + dM(Moon) + dM(Sun) + dM(SagittariusA*) + dM(Big Bang) = Rate Of Time for observer

d = distance from mass to observer
M = mass

 

That is not the right equation for gravitational time dilation. Where did you get it from?

Can you say it`s not big enough to make a difference in Perlmutter`s equations?

 

 

It is up to you, as the person making the claim, to show that it is big enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

Questions about the validity of Hafele Keating and Gravity Probe A (and successive experiments) regarding time dilation under GR split off to new thread. Please do not hijack Speculations Threads with your own questions and arguments - it is hard enough for a User to defend their ideas without having to cover branches to topics

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well, I suppose 1974 is fairly recent on cosmic timescales.... :)

 

I really shouldn`t nitpick your nitpicking me but here goes anyway...

From Wikipedia:

On October 16, 2002, an international team led by Rainer Schödel of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics reported the observation of the motion of the star S2 near Sagittarius A* over a period of ten years. According to the team's analysis, the data ruled out the possibility that Sgr A* contains a cluster of dark stellar objects or a mass of degenerate fermions, strengthening the evidence for a massive black hole.

===============================

In 1974, they only found a large radio source in the direction of the center of the Milky Way. In 1982 Sagittarius A* was named, but we were still ignorant of it`s true nature.

Edited by stevecastleberry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I really shouldn`t nitpick your nitpicking me but here goes anyway...

From Wikipedia:

On October 16, 2002, an international team led by Rainer Schödel of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics reported the observation of the motion of the star S2 near Sagittarius A* over a period of ten years. According to the team's analysis, the data ruled out the possibility that Sgr A* contains a cluster of dark stellar objects or a mass of degenerate fermions, strengthening the evidence for a massive black hole.

===============================

In 1974, they only found a large radio source in the direction of the center of the Milky Way. In 1982 Sagittarius A* was named, but we were still ignorant of it`s true nature...

afk...

Valid point. How about all the other ones Strange made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another detail. Sagittarius a will make a Kepler curve worse not better.

 

If you use Newtonian dynamics for galaxy rotation curves without DM, you will get a Kepler curve. Adding mass to the disk itself only compounds the problem.

 

DM halo distribution allows mass to remain roughly uniform as a result of radius.

 

Not that Sagittarius makes any difference, the majority of research on rotation curves involved Other galaxies.

 

Not necessarily our own, as you say we can't easily measure our own galaxy, but measuring Andromeda is easy by comparison.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually dark matter explains why we are NOT being flung outwards from the galactic center.

It has nothing to do with expansion, accelerated or otherwise.

Dark matter... this is something else you will have no need to search for when there is found to be enough black holes & invisible dust towards the center of Sgr A* from here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark matter... this is something else you will have no need to search for when there is found to be enough black holes & invisible dust towards the center of Sgr A* from here.

 

 

Small black holes are one possibility that has been considered to account for dark matter. The problem is that the number of dark holes needed would have an observable effect - either because they would have an accretion disk and generate radiation and/or because of gravitational lensing.

 

And, similarly, the amount of dust that would be needed to explain dark matter is enormous. So much so that it would obscure our view. If you are suggesting that the dust is invisible because it is made of some unknown form of matter which is not visible then, well, that is pretty much the idea of dark matter.

 

So it sounds like both your dark energy and dark matter proposals have little basis in science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Small black holes are one possibility that has been considered to account for dark matter. The problem is that the number of dark holes needed would have an observable effect - either because they would have an accretion disk and generate radiation

Only if something was falling into it at the time...

 

 

 

 

If you are suggesting that the dust is invisible because it is made of some unknown form of matter which is not visible then, well, that is pretty much the idea of dark matter.

Why are you insisting on a mysterious form of matter that is invisible? The dust is there and it is as easily unseen as the black holes.

I cut & pasted from this article: http://galacticconnection.com/new-findings-show-milky-way-is-surrounded-by-halo-of-charged-particles/

 

"If the size and mass of this plasma halo is confirmed, it also could be an explanation for what is known as the “missing baryon” problem for the galaxy. Baryons are particles, such as protons and neutrons that make up more than 99.9 percent of the mass of atoms found in the cosmos.

The use of the words “missing baryons” is to distinguish the unaccounted for mass which should be in our galaxy (Milky Way) and nearby galaxies.

Are you including the halo which contains as much mass as the visible galaxy? Are you including all the satellite clusters of galaxies involved? It does matter...

 

 

... and/or because of gravitational lensing.

 

 

Yea, that can happen when the bodies involved are in the proper locations, but not always. Anyway... back to dark energy...

b8901471-76dd-4339-80a9-4cd526cf7216.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if something was falling into it at the time...

 

Which, given the number that would be required, would be a lot of the time.

 

Unless you can produce some calculations and/or evidence to show that the scientists who looked into this got it wrong?

 

 

Why are you insisting on a mysterious form of matter that is invisible? The dust is there and it is as easily unseen as the black holes.

 

Again, the amount that is required to account for the missing mass would be visible either by its own emissions or by blocking the light from other sources.

 

Unless you can produce some data or other evidence to show that the scientists who looked into this possibility got it wrong?

 

 

I cut & pasted from this article: http://galacticconne...rged-particles/

 

Here is a link to the NASA article, rather than some new-age dick: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/H-12-331.html

 

And this, of course, has nothing to do with dark matter.

 

 

Are you including the halo which contains as much mass as the visible galaxy? Are you including all the satellite clusters of galaxies involved? It does matter...

 

1. Yes, all these have been included in calculations. (The clue is in the name "missing baryon problem" - in other words, scientists had a good idea how much "normal" matter there should be in the galaxy. This research fills in some of the gaps.)

 

2. Satellite galaxies cannot affect the orbital speeds of stars and gas inside the galaxy.

 

 

Yea, that can happen when the bodies involved are in the proper locations, but not always.

 

And, given the enormous numbers of black holes that would be required, this would be very visible.

 

Unless, of course, you can produce some calculations and/or evidence to show that the scientists who looked into this got it wrong?

 

 

Anyway... back to dark energy...

 

Excellent!

 

So are you now going to address some of the questions / objections to your idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent!

 

So are you now going to address some of the questions / objections to your idea?

Hold on there tiger! :mellow: All I`m stating is that something in our galaxy caused them to get absurd results ( even with two teams ) in an experiment done. I`m not sure what it is exactly, but I`m sure it has to do with time dilation. Whether through speed or mass. Maybe there`s a small black hole creeping up on us right now...

 

 

Unless, of course, you can produce some calculations and/or evidence to show that the scientists who looked into this got it wrong?

 

Now you know Dark Energy is a theory, too, but I`d much rather go with Newton :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newtonian dynamics allowed us to realize dark matter is there. To be honest with you, I am not surprised nor even have trouble relating to a particle that is difficult to detect.

 

If anything we have an excellent example with neutrinos, here we have an example of a particle that being weakly interactive can pass through a thousand light years of solid lead often without interaction.

 

Dark matter may or may not have any relations to the neutrino family, however it can exhibit many of the difficult to detect similarities.

 

As far as your model is concerned, the blackhole approach simply cannot match the rotation curves properly. Take it from someone who has a comprehensive understanding on how the Navarro-Frenk-White profile works.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarro%E2%80%93Frenk%E2%80%93White_profile

 

As far as particle physics side of DM, this material may be too heavy but it showsva viable possibility to DM in the form of sterile neutrinos. These models do not depend on the SO (10) Minimal supersymmetric model, there is variations under SO (10) minimal standard model.

 

The key to the DM presented has to do with the Higg's metastability and the Pati-Salam sub groups under SO (10).

 

Alot of the SO (10) serious work, when the Higgs was discovered in 2012, the Higg's metastability is still a serious research underway.

 

DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301

http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on there tiger! :mellow: All I`m stating is that something in our galaxy caused them to get absurd results ( even with two teams ) in an experiment done. I`m not sure what it is exactly, but I`m sure it has to do with time dilation. Whether through speed or mass. Maybe there`s a small black hole creeping up on us right now...

No, you hold on. You made several other statements which Strange either refuted or questioned you on. These are clearly laid out in post #5. Will you please answer and address these now. Alternatively you can retract each of them, en masse, or individually.

 

Steve, no one here is out to give you a hard time, but this is a science forum and speculations and hypotheses will be properly subject to close scrutiny. You have made statements that conflict with many observations and with current theory. It behooves you to address questions and refutations made in relation to those statements. It is your statements that are being attacked, not you.

Edited by Ophiolite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I`m not sure what it is exactly, but I`m sure it has to do with time dilation.

 

 

If you are so sure, then perhaps you can present the math or evidence that convinced you. Maybe we will be convinced as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know that dark matter and dark energy are problems in physics. But you can't solve a problem by insisting that it doesn't make sense and therefore doesn't exist. If our observations made sense, they wouldn't be problems.

 

Science is like doing a jigsaw puzzle of the world. You pick up a piece by making an observation. You develop a hypothesis about where it goes based on its shape and coloring and if you can find a place where it seems to fit, you've got a theory. The more pieces you can fit into a single chunk, the more robust the theory and the more likely it is that the pieces actually do all fit together and that you didn't just find pieces that coincidentally fit together almost but not quite.

 

Anyone who has done puzzles knows that tends to happen on occasion and can stall progress for a bit until someone finds the piece that doesn't fit and is able to swap it out for the right one, and often that suddenly creates a home for a whole bunch of pieces that just didn't seem to fit anywhere.

 

Now, scientists love nothing better than to connect large disconnected chunks of the puzzle. Heck, who doesn't love to do that? You get a whole bunch of progress on the overall puzzle all at once.

 

Right now, we've got a couple of disconnected chunks of puzzle hovering around the edges that we label dark matter and dark energy. Based on the pattern of those chunks, we've got some decent guesses as to the general area of the larger puzzle that we've put together so far that they fit in, but it seems that we're missing a few pieces that are needed to connect them up with everything else.

 

You are currently insisting that we already have so many puzzle pieces that there can't possibly be any more and that we just need to look harder for the spot that these chunks link up with the rest of our puzzle because they must already be there somewhere, despite the fact that experts have dedicated decades and entire careers to trying to find a spot we are able to do so with no success thus far.

 

You can't just look at one piece on the dark matter chunk and one piece on the larger puzzle and say "Hey, maybe these kind of look similar" when none of the surrounding pieces fit with each other. It either links up in total or not at all, and so far, there hasn't been a spot where everything fully fits together.

 

Thus, we almost certainly need discover some more pieces in order to make the connection. We even have some ideas about what those pieces would have to look like based on the bumps and holes of the various edge pieces.

 

So unless you found an actual piece that was overlooked or the exact spot where everything matches up that no one noticed, and have actually made all the connections and don't just assume everything probably lines up somehow because it has to, you don't really have a solid counter to the prevailing ideas about what it is we need to be looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent analogy, well used to make some important points.

 

 

despite the fact that experts have dedicated decades and entire careers to trying to find a spot we are able to do so with no success thus far.

 

I think a lot of people don't realise that the first evidence for dark matter was found in 1933.

 

It seems rather unlikely that 83 years of excited young physicists, keen to make a name for themselves by discovering ground-breaking new physics, have failed to spot the obvious. At this point you can't even blame the "dogma" of science, narrow-minded scientists or Planck's "science advances one funeral at a time". We have had three generations of people looking at this. That is more than enough funerals to overcome any level of reluctance.

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know that dark matter and dark energy are problems in physics. But you can't solve a problem by insisting that it doesn't make sense and therefore doesn't exist. If our observations made sense, they wouldn't be problems.

 

Science is like doing a jigsaw puzzle of the world. You pick up a piece by making an observation. You develop a hypothesis about where it goes based on its shape and coloring and if you can find a place where it seems to fit, you've got a theory. The more pieces you can fit into a single chunk, the more robust the theory and the more likely it is that the pieces actually do all fit together and that you didn't just find pieces that coincidentally fit together almost but not quite.

 

Anyone who has done puzzles knows that tends to happen on occasion and can stall progress for a bit until someone finds the piece that doesn't fit and is able to swap it out for the right one, and often that suddenly creates a home for a whole bunch of pieces that just didn't seem to fit anywhere.

 

Now, scientists love nothing better than to connect large disconnected chunks of the puzzle. Heck, who doesn't love to do that? You get a whole bunch of progress on the overall puzzle all at once.

 

Right now, we've got a couple of disconnected chunks of puzzle hovering around the edges that we label dark matter and dark energy. Based on the pattern of those chunks, we've got some decent guesses as to the general area of the larger puzzle that we've put together so far that they fit in, but it seems that we're missing a few pieces that are needed to connect them up with everything else.

 

You are currently insisting that we already have so many puzzle pieces that there can't possibly be any more and that we just need to look harder for the spot that these chunks link up with the rest of our puzzle because they must already be there somewhere, despite the fact that experts have dedicated decades and entire careers to trying to find a spot we are able to do so with no success thus far.

 

You can't just look at one piece on the dark matter chunk and one piece on the larger puzzle and say "Hey, maybe these kind of look similar" when none of the surrounding pieces fit with each other. It either links up in total or not at all, and so far, there hasn't been a spot where everything fully fits together.

 

Thus, we almost certainly need discover some more pieces in order to make the connection. We even have some ideas about what those pieces would have to look like based on the bumps and holes of the various edge pieces.

 

So unless you found an actual piece that was overlooked or the exact spot where everything matches up that no one noticed, and have actually made all the connections and don't just assume everything probably lines up somehow because it has to, you don't really have a solid counter to the prevailing ideas about what it is we need to be looking for.

Well said... I`ve been trying the last 6yrs to get friends to disprove my ideas & now i`ve found an ideal site. I plan on answering everyone. I`ve even started tackling speed in my equation (complicated!).

What you said: "The more pieces you can fit into a single chunk, the more robust the theory..."

also reminds me... i think maybe we are traveling down a blind ( because we can`t see) dead-end alley called the search for dark energy. The fact that I question Dark matter is really not relevant to this discussion because it`s a different discussion ie. I question it for different reasons & I don`t want anyone to muddy up my point. I ask, hey, what causes mass out in the far reaches to orbit a black hole, and they say, Dark Matter. So I ask, "what is Dark Matter?" And I hear... "well, we don`t have a clue"

I am not proposing any kind of new theory,either, this is all Einstein & Newton I`m using & I think by now, everyone knows this is all about whether or not the effects of their theories are significant enough for this application. Has anybody calculated to what distance a supermassive black hole`s reach is as far as it`s event horizon on out? No they haven`t ...

I don`t believe the whole halo of the Milky Way & how it works together is being considered, either. I can guarantee it because we can`t say we know enough about it. Can you anyone, yet?

I have to go out tonight but I really do appreciate everybody`s comments & try to get to all of them...

Edited by stevecastleberry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody calculated to what distance a supermassive black hole`s reach is as far as it`s event horizon on out? No they haven`t ...

Really? You appear to be suggesting that not only does the gravitational pull of an object fall of with the cube of the distance, but that at some point it simply disappears completely. I repeat a point-of-information: I am crap at physics, but your apparent assertion here just seems to be wrong. And since the only thing required to assess the "reach" of a black hole is its mass, then I think you will find it has been calculated many times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think maybe we are traveling down a blind ( because we can`t see) dead-end alley called the search for dark energy.

 

 

The trouble is, there is evidence for something happening that is not yet explained. You seem to think it is a mistake to try and find an explanation for this evidence.

 

Why is that?

 

 

 

 

Has anybody calculated to what distance a supermassive black hole`s reach is as far as it`s event horizon on out? No they haven`t ...

 

Why don't you do it? You just need Newton's law of gravity. You will find that the gravitational force extends to infinity. However, it rapidly becomes insignificant compared to the mass of the stars in the central bugle. (I don't know why you think no one has done this, it is a trivial bit of arithmetic.)

 

 

 

I don`t believe the whole halo of the Milky Way & how it works together is being considered, either.

 

Of course it is. The only reason that there is a need for dark matter in galaxies is because there isn't enough mass in the hub, the arms and the halo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The trouble is, there is evidence for something happening that is not yet explained. You seem to think it is a mistake to try and find an explanation for this evidence.

 

Thanx :) This is the crux of the matter of our disagreement. If you haven`t noticed, I`m not a mathematician so I can`t give you what you need. I`m talking of a possibility that as far as what I know of Einstein is plausible & far more probable in this matter. If I`ve said anything in ignorance of him or Newton, please somebody stop me...

I`m assuming your evidence is two independent teams & not the Nobel committee ( that`s another story). Even Barack Obama would be the 1st to say their judgement was a little questionable back then :P.

...I myself, have already explained how & why two teams may have misread their results or actually ... correctly read off the tainted results. To believe in the theory of Dark Energy would require me to drop Newton`s Laws of motion & I`m unable to do that yet. Not when I know that these tests were performed around known & unknown black holes. Not when I know the effects of super massive black holes are not well known & I feel I have to remind you that questioning is still in the realm of science. Here is another way to explain my point:

We are hovering in space about a few light days from a super massive. I look at you & say goodbye & fall towards the singularity. You see me as slowing down & starting to red shift, all the while slowing my movements until I reach the event horizon, whereupon my movements are frozen. I see my wristwatch running normal the whole time. I look back & see your movements slowly speed up. I see the galaxies all around me speeding away faster & faster. I see - ... <_< hey, this sounds familiar.

You`ve all brought up some good points but haven`t convinced me I`m wrong yet.

Thanx to everybody!

An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. -Marcello Truzzi

Edited by stevecastleberry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about simple size scales. An entire galaxy is roughly a few parsecs across.

A BH is far smaller than a galaxy. Numerous galaxies form large scale structures, These correlate to roughly 100 Mpc.

The Hubble horizon itself is roughly 4400 Mpc away from us and the universe is roughly 3 times that volume.

So I ask you how can you possibly think A BH can possibly have any measurable influence at these scales?

You don't have to be a mathematician to see blackholes are less than a grain of sand at these cosmological scales. They only have localized influence regardless of their mass. This is because the strength of gravity falls off in strength as a function of radius.

 

A blackholes gravity doesn't even move a dust particle past a lightyear let alone affect an entire galaxy.

 

For example take [latex]f=\frac{GMm}{r^2}[/latex] With the mass of Sagittarius A 4.3*10^6 kg. At one light year (9.5*10^15) metres. The gravitational force on a single kg is roughly 3.43*10^-37 Newtons. This would be less than a Newton of force even if the second object was identical mass the Sagittarius A...

 

We haven't even gotten close to a single parsec. Which is 3.018*10^18 metres. Let alone being able to have measurable influence at a diameter of 31 to 55 kpcs (diameter of Milky way)

 

One simple formula shows that a BH is insignificant on a global scale. Certainly cannot possibly account for dark energy. Its amazing people that try to explain galaxy rotation curves and dark energy never stop to calculate just how INSIGNIFICANT a BH's gravity is at extreme distances... If you were to remove all other objects. Just leaving Sagittarius A and our Sun. There would not be enough gravity to maintain an orbit. Our sun would escape.

 

 

Why don't you do it? You just need Newton's law of gravity. You will find that the gravitational force extends to infinity. However, it rapidly becomes insignificant compared to the mass of the stars in the central bugle. (I don't know why you think no one has done this, it is a trivial bit of arithmetic.)

 

Precisely, very trivial arithmetic. See formula above...

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

, I`m not a mathematician so I can`t give you what you need. I`m talking of a possibility that as far as what I know of Einstein is plausible & far more probable in this matter.

These two statements are not really compatible. How can you consider yourself qualified to comment on the highly mathematical theory of general relativity if you claim to "not be a mathematician" when asked to do a relatively simple but of mathematics?

 

I five it very difficult to take the rest of your post seriously after that. You further seem to be ignorant of the evidence for dark energy that you're trying to explain. My best advice for you is to go away and learn the physics (which includes the maths).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.