alt.sci.physics

Dear jason:

wrote in message
news:416349f8-3545-4a3e-83ac-1fb0da9095c6@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
...
> 1)The physicists discussing this topic on "The
> Universe" discounted black holes as BEING
> dark matter because there simply are not
> enough of them to produce its gravitational
> effects; What I suggested in my original post
> was that black holes may EMIT it, which is a
> star of a different magnitude.

That was clear. In fact, I agree with that, given that the "it"
that is emitted is a field, rather than stuff.

> 3) I realize it may be a matter of semantics, but
> it was said on that same episode of "The
> Universe" that the normal matter in the universe
> is sticking to the dark matter, not vice versa.
> Don't know what, if any, difference that really
> makes.

It is total bullshit. I suspect you misunderstood. No Dark
Matter has ever been detected, save through microslensing and
anomalous rotation. *We* are matter, and no DM is stuck to us.
We do the same sorts of stuff that could generate DM, yet the
energy balance is zero. DM production would carry off energy,
since mass is energy.



Given.

> It is, therefore possible to have a particle able
> to move with enough velocity to escape a black
> hole without violating the laws of physics!

It is interesting that you assert that DM is a particle, then you
follow later with it can't form atoms. How do you know this?

> You also said that we don't know that dark
> matter is not composed of atoms. Well, unless
> there is an element on the periodic table that
> I'm not aware of which contains no protons,
> neutrons OR electrons, whatever dark matter is
> *cannot* be atomic in nature! If it were, it
> wouldn't be "dark" because we would be able to
> detect it directly.

Find positronium on the periodic table. Find anti-hydrogen on
the perodic table. Being on the table means nothing in this
discussion.

> You also made the point that Hot Dark Matter
> would be fatal to the Universe

I did not say this.

> and not bound to galaxies. I have two things to
> say on this. 1) I don't know about you, but I
> would call any force that will one day cause the
> universe to pop like a cosmic balloon and then
> dissipate "fatal";

The Universe "popped" when the CMBR quenched. The Universe
popped at the instant of the Big Bang. "Popping" is also birth.

> and 2) Cold Dark Matter does exist,

... and remains undetectable, except through certain
observations. Hell, even LIGO should pick up DM if it has any
sort of "lumpyness".

... snip Hot Dark Matter bit
> This brings me to another point in favor of the
> idea I brought up in my original post: Dark
> Matter--Hot and Cold alike-- conforms to all the
> laws of physics, including the Newtonian laws.

How does it blow past *now*, and strike (and push us away from)
only the past? There were black holes in the past, and they
emitted powerful jets of matter, just like they do now...

> We do know that when two objects collide, there
> is a transfer of momentum between them. The
> slower object will speed up and the faster one will
> slow down. Therefore it is possible that Hot Dark
> Matter colliding with Cold IS the dark energy that
> is causing the expansion of the universe to
> accelerate, as I suggested because the Hot would
> not just rip through the cold and keep going at its
> original speed. Nor would the Cold remain still
> upon the collision. The Hot would "cool off" and
> slow down, while the Cold would "heat up" and
> gain speed, moving with the momentum transferred
> to it.

Dark Matter does not interact with itself (or normal matter),
except via gravitation. It cannot impact other Dark Matter
particles.

> The normal matter fixed to the Cold would simply
> move along with it!

They did not say this. We can see normal matter. We see that
Dark is co-located with normal matter. We see that Dark Matter
is in places we have not yet seen normal matter. No "adhesion"
is required. Dark Matter looks like some sort of lattice, but
only gravitational "forces" hold the lattice together.

> Lastly, I will address your point about Hot Dark
> Matter not helping Science by saying this: Neither
> does assuming that we know all the rules

Yes, you repeat yourself.

You argue points that you are sure of. You ducked most of my
arguments. If you insist on wasting energy on being "right", I
am done with this thread. If you want to do some research, now
would be a good time.

David A. Smith