You see even when science admits not to know something it does it in a very constructive and methodical way. There is a precise story and sequence of ideas of why dark matter was introduced as a concept. I hope you know it before mentioning dark matter. The same happens with dark energy.
Defining the problem is 90 percent of finding the solution. It is a hard problem, we are still looking for a coherent explanations for what dark matter is and its properties. But just throwing a bunch of "personalized" definitions that make sense only to you is just crackpotish. I know this list is open to speculation and wild imaginative ideas but they should still be done with a minimum of knowledge and self discipline. Giovanni On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com > wrote: > Did you find it yourself? The Nobel prize is a million bucks you know. > Giovanni > > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:31 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> With your PhD, please find 95% of the universe and report back to me. >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < >> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Chem, please give some references and sources for your entropic particle >>> definition. >>> Thanks, >>> Giovanni >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < >>> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Where did you find this definition of an entropic particle? Can you >>>> show me the forces? >>>> By the way I have a PhD in Astrophysics. >>>> Thanks, >>>> Giovanni >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:16 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> It is a ball of entropy known as a micro black hole. They make up 95% >>>>> of the universe. I think you should stick to music with a name like that >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < >>>>> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Chem, >>>>>> I think you should stick to chemistry. I don't want to be impolite >>>>>> but which nonsense is this? >>>>>> What is an entropic particle? LOL >>>>>> Common. >>>>>> Giovanni >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:05 PM, ChemE Stewart >>>>>> <cheme...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> According to my Research & Theory: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) The Earth has an entropic dark matter core and creates its own >>>>>>> iron and nickel. Geologists are way over their head trying to explain >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> away as a bar magnet. >>>>>>> 2) The Earth's entropic core creates its own magnetic fields thru >>>>>>> annihilation and charged orbital dark matter and other particles >>>>>>> 3) The Earth's entropic core battery gets recharged as the sun spits >>>>>>> entropic particles at us triggering our weather and seismic events out >>>>>>> here >>>>>>> on the crust. Many of the large particles coalesce with the Earth's >>>>>>> entropic core and also cool the Earth down >>>>>>> 4) We are just part of the colorful 5% crust. >>>>>>> 5) If you look at that Chandra X-Ray Matrix, the Earth is one of >>>>>>> the intersecting/nodal points connected to the Sun which is a larger >>>>>>> nodal >>>>>>> point. >>>>>>> 6) The sun is about to get a millennial supply of orbital dark >>>>>>> matter from those two great comets coming . I just pray no nuclei break >>>>>>> off and come our way. Should be a good show either way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stewart >>>>>>> darkmattersalot.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < >>>>>>> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are many problems with this theory. >>>>>>>> One even if all these ideas would hold they could be applied only >>>>>>>> to later stages of the universe life because iron and nickel are >>>>>>>> created by >>>>>>>> massive stars and then released into space when they died as >>>>>>>> supernovae. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also consider that iron and heavy materials are very rare exactly >>>>>>>> because only very massive stars can produce these materials. >>>>>>>> Furthermore what you call natural magnetism is not something that >>>>>>>> occurs so naturally for dust in space. >>>>>>>> On earth natural magnetized material become magnetized because of >>>>>>>> the Earth magnetic field. Look up how magnetic rocks get magnetized in >>>>>>>> wiki: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_magnetism#Thermoremanent_magnetization_.28TRM.29 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You need a huge dynamo magnet like the one at the core of the earth >>>>>>>> to magnetize small things like rocks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The dynamo magnet is created by plasma that rotates at the center >>>>>>>> of the Earth and creates by induction a magnetic field. The fact that >>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>> is iron at the core helps to make the magnetic field stronger and >>>>>>>> helps to >>>>>>>> carry the electrical current of the plasma but it is not the source >>>>>>>> per se >>>>>>>> of the magnetic field of the earth. The sun doesn't have iron at the >>>>>>>> core >>>>>>>> and it has a very strong magnetic field. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The iron ended up at the core of the Earth because it is heavier >>>>>>>> than silica and the other lighter elements that make the earth crust. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gravity is the dominant force at astronomical scales because it >>>>>>>> acts on everything not special materials (like in the case for >>>>>>>> magnetism). >>>>>>>> Yes, it is weak but when you are dealing with huge quantity of stuff >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> dominates all the other forces in particular because electrostatic >>>>>>>> charges >>>>>>>> tend to neutralize themselves coming in pairs and magnetic forces are >>>>>>>> produced by moving charges and decay rapidly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And so on... >>>>>>>> The theory makes not much sense in physical terms. Sorry. >>>>>>>> Giovanni >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:55 AM, David Roberson < >>>>>>>> dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The vortex-l group of individuals have a great deal of knowledge >>>>>>>>> and open minds that I enjoy prodding on occasions. This morning an >>>>>>>>> unusual >>>>>>>>> concept came into my mind which resulted in a hypothesis that I would >>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>> to put forth. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Suppose that the universe is organized by the influence of >>>>>>>>> magnetic attractions between materials such as iron and nickel that >>>>>>>>> can be >>>>>>>>> permanently magnetized instead of gravity, at least in the formative >>>>>>>>> years. >>>>>>>>> We all know that gravitation is by far the weakest force within the >>>>>>>>> universe so why should we assume that such a modest effect would >>>>>>>>> dominate? >>>>>>>>> My hypothesis is that this concept is entirely backwards and that the >>>>>>>>> basic structures are formed by magnetic influences. After the >>>>>>>>> magnetic >>>>>>>>> effects have completed their portion of the task the gravitational >>>>>>>>> influence completes the puzzle. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Picture a region in open space that has a large collection of >>>>>>>>> dust and gases. It is certain that many specs of iron or nickel >>>>>>>>> laden dust >>>>>>>>> exist within this region and that many of these posses natural >>>>>>>>> magnetic >>>>>>>>> fields. The attraction due to the magnetic field would dominate the >>>>>>>>> net >>>>>>>>> attraction between these particles by an extremely large margin. As >>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>> progresses the magnetized portions would strongly attract and then >>>>>>>>> collect >>>>>>>>> together into larger magnetic units. This should occur far faster >>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>> gravitational collection due to the enormous difference in forces. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, masses such as the earth's core come together quickly and >>>>>>>>> consist of large concentrations of iron and nickel and any other >>>>>>>>> magnetic >>>>>>>>> materials. The same would occur in the early formations that >>>>>>>>> eventually >>>>>>>>> become other planets and stars. When the collection of magnetic >>>>>>>>> materials >>>>>>>>> is mostly completed, then it would be natural for the less magnetic >>>>>>>>> matter >>>>>>>>> to be gravitationally concentrated toward these large metallic >>>>>>>>> centers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In my model, it seems likely that pebbles held together >>>>>>>>> magnetically should withstand much more pounding in collisions than >>>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>>> merely confined by gravity. This difference in cohesive strength >>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>> further tend to result in large magnetic bundles at the expense of >>>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>>> formed of other materials. With this in mind, it seems likely that >>>>>>>>> all the >>>>>>>>> planets that form in a region of space that contains the metals that >>>>>>>>> can be >>>>>>>>> magnetized will grow an iron like core first and quickly until these >>>>>>>>> materials have been swept clean of the region. This process is then >>>>>>>>> followed by the gravitational attraction of the metal cores to the >>>>>>>>> gasses >>>>>>>>> and other materials. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The same type of influence should be exhibited throughout the >>>>>>>>> universe at large. Some of the formations have appearances that seem >>>>>>>>> unusual if gravitation is the prime force at work. Gravity does not >>>>>>>>> generate shapes with spatial directivity to the degree that magnetic >>>>>>>>> attraction does. Gravity only pulls items towards each other in a >>>>>>>>> straight >>>>>>>>> line. Magnetic materials generally have a dipole field or a complex >>>>>>>>> field >>>>>>>>> that is composed of the addition of many such dipoles. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If we consider that my hypothesis results in the collection of >>>>>>>>> the magnetic materials rapidly and dominantly throughout space, then >>>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>>> of these would tend to influence others of their kind in the near >>>>>>>>> vicinity. >>>>>>>>> This should dominate the early formation of matter that eventually >>>>>>>>> leads >>>>>>>>> to galaxies, etc. I suppose that it is a good thing that the magnetic >>>>>>>>> fields of iron masses falls off rapidly with distance due to the >>>>>>>>> dipole >>>>>>>>> nature or the universe might be dominated by truly enormous >>>>>>>>> collections of >>>>>>>>> magnetic core objects. The shorter range of these dipoles compared >>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>> monopole of gravity allow what we observe today. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is it possible that the enormous black holes at the centers of >>>>>>>>> galaxies began in this magnetic manner? It would not be difficult to >>>>>>>>> imagine that most of the iron and other magnetic materials would be >>>>>>>>> swept >>>>>>>>> together first and fast if present within a nearly created dust cloud. >>>>>>>>> Once a core has been established, it should easily dominate the >>>>>>>>> remainder >>>>>>>>> of the cloud and attract the gasses by its quickly formed >>>>>>>>> gravitational >>>>>>>>> field that reaches far into space. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Another idea to consider is that the strong magnetic field at >>>>>>>>> the core of the black hole reaches out far enough to impart >>>>>>>>> directivity to >>>>>>>>> the motion of materials moving in the direction towards its center. >>>>>>>>> Any >>>>>>>>> smaller magnetic masses would be pushed or pulled by the mother field >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> the hole into directions that tend to follow its field pattern. The >>>>>>>>> smaller magnetic components would then impart some of this force upon >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> gases and other materials by direct coupling among them. As the total >>>>>>>>> combination of materials approach the hole, the kinetic energy >>>>>>>>> imparted >>>>>>>>> upon the mass send it past the north or south polar region into >>>>>>>>> orbit. It >>>>>>>>> is premature to attempt to define the structure of a black hole under >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> influence of magnetic effects until a more complete picture emerges. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I can visualize the wild and amazing behavior that would be >>>>>>>>> imparted upon a gas with magnetic particles immersed within as it >>>>>>>>> approaches a large magnetic black hole. Once the gas is turned into a >>>>>>>>> plasma by the heat and forces applied, it would possess a tremendous >>>>>>>>> electric current induced within by the motion through the hole's >>>>>>>>> magnetic >>>>>>>>> field. Great forces could occur that may result in the beams that >>>>>>>>> are seen >>>>>>>>> emitted by the galactic center black holes. Perhaps someone could >>>>>>>>> allow a >>>>>>>>> super computer the chance to predict this behavior. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The hypothesis is supported by the known core of the earth. >>>>>>>>> this is known to be composed of iron and nickel. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Meteorites are composed of various materials. The metallic ones >>>>>>>>> have a large concentrations of magnetic matter within that may have >>>>>>>>> collected together rapidly at the formation of the parent body. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The shape of the clouds associated with the enormous explosions >>>>>>>>> of super nova tend to be non symmetrical on many occasions with >>>>>>>>> patterns >>>>>>>>> associated with dipole or quadrapole fields. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do other vortex members see support of reasons to believe that >>>>>>>>> this hypothesis is not workable? I am seeking inputs from our >>>>>>>>> esteemed >>>>>>>>> members that might help to put this puzzle together. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dave >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
