Jump to content
BeAChooser

Dark Matter Even More Missing Now ...

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, bludog said:

But discarded if shown to be irrelevant.

 

Well it hasn't been in this case.   Not by you here or by anyone in the astrophysics community out there.    Just saying ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you just argue about sprites that might be on your grid or do you ever plan on hooking it up ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few days have gone by so it’s time for another dark matter gnome …


https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-the-best-place-to-find-dark-matter-may-be-in-a-rock-20190107/

 

Quote

 

Why the Best Place to Find Dark Matter May Be in a Rock


Dark matter may occasionally interact with minerals in the earth, leaving telltale tracks that physicists hope to decipher.

 


So they are proposing new experiments … which will, of course, cost money.   Possibly lots of money.   Because as the article states … “Research would have to take place deep underground, where the core samples would be protected from cosmic and solar radiation. And state-of-the-art nano-imaging would be required to resolve evidence of nuclei nudging.”   :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

universe is full of electricity not connected  but full of it 

 

always confusing when this group acts like mainstream science wont allow electricity to work 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 never understood the big deal about spinning something faster than light . Not sure what rules you speak of ? I know man has laws and those laws can be broken though you will be hard pressed to break a law.

 

  cosmic inflation breaks the rules, so I would think we have laws

 

 Givin light is electricity  and that electricity runs electromagnetism if light had no constant . then this post never happened

 

Religion has rules and insists you don't break them. It can only happen one way

 

 And that is a great reason to leave religion out of science

 

 

 here is a interesting outline on why we might like laws to work, again not that they MUST work

 

            

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rrober49 said:

universe is full of electricity not connected  but full of it 

 

Not connected?  

 

You couldn't be more wrong.  

 

By the way, did you watch that video:

 

 

If not, you're missing something.

 

And there are more videos where that came from ... all equally as good and persuasive.

 

Here, try this one, #1 in the series  ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah electricity in space there it is again

 

 speaking of thunderbolts  what is they do ?

 

 all i could find on the site was a blog about sound getting turned into light and why do i hear a humm noise in my ears

 

 did not seem to focussed on the stuff out there at all

 

 if anything it seems like all they do is write books and sell them

 

 

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2018/03/31/turning-sound-into-light/

 

 I know I wanted plasma guitar strings but i would settle for that

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rrober49 said:

... snip ...

 

^^^^ I appear to have attracted a pest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2018 at 9:05 PM, BeAChooser said:

What evidence do you have that they do understand it, rrober49?

 

Do they have a working fusion reactor?

 

 see the problem is

 

  Fusion is not a theory 

 

 how we harness it for electricity is

 

 it is not a is would could might thing

 

      " Nuclear Fusion. It is a nuclear process, where energy is produced by smashing together light atoms. It is the opposite reaction to fission, where heavy isotopes are split apart. Fusion is the process by which the sun and other stars generate light and heat."

 

 it is why you sell books and tee shirts at thunderbolts

 

 you are the guys that think we did not land on the moon

 

 suspending plasma at 1 second was the proof

now they can suspend it 8 seconds and the private sector has money  in it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, rrober49 said:

Fusion is not a theory 

 

 

...snip ...

 

suspending plasma at 1 second was the proof

now they can suspend it 8 seconds and the private sector has money  in it 

 

Like I said earlier, pest ... when might we see commercial fusion reactors?  

 

Fifty years?

 

Thirty years?   

 

Ten to twenty years ... like the experts were suggesting 70 years ago?

 

I already pointed out to you earlier that testing at ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) stretches out 30 years ALONE.  

 

They aren't expecting to even have the understanding to build a viable reactor before that's finished.

 

So call me skeptical.

 

And get this ...

 

ITER is REALLY, REALLY big, complicated and expensive.

 

The US Department of Energy is saying it will cost $65 BILLION DOLLARS (https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20180416a/full/ ).

 

And consume as much electricity as a medium sized city.

 

And use as much water as a city of a million people.

 

AND GENERATE NO ELECTRICITY.

 

And you want to boast about progress in fusion to suggest the mainstream community understands the nature of the universe?

 

LOL!

 

IF fusion is achieved anytime soon, I'll bet it will be by a startup company that's thinking outside the box ...

 

... and not dependent on the gnomes that are used by the astophysics community to explain what they think they see out there in the universe.   

 

Just saying ...

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no!   More problems for black holes …


https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/aging-voyager-1-spacecraft-undermines-idea-dark-matter-tiny-black-holes

 

Quote

 

Aging Voyager 1 spacecraft undermines idea that dark matter is tiny black holes


Humanity’s most far-flung spacecraft, NASA’s 41-year-old Voyager 1, has poked a hole in a long-shot theory of dark matter. Some theorists have argued that the mysterious, unseen stuff, which makes up 85% of the universe’s matter, could consist of countless black holes lingering from the big bang. But Voyager 1, which launched in 1977 and slipped out of the solar system 6 years ago, sees no signs of such hordes, a pair of theoretical physicists reports. The data don’t kill the idea that dark matter is black holes entirely, however, as Voyager 1 can detect only tiny black holes.


“I never thought we’d be able to contribute in any way to studying dark matter,” says Alan Cummings, a space scientist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena who has worked on Voyager 1 since 1973 and who was not involved in the analysis. “That’s great!”


For decades, astrophysicists have thought some sort of unseen matter provides the gravity needed to hold galaxies like our Milky Way together. For nearly as long, some scientists have speculated that dark matter might consist of black holes, knots of ultraintense gravitational fields typically created when massive stars collapse under their own weight to infinitesimal points.


But making black holes work as dark matter is tricky. In the universe, dark matter outweighs ordinary matter six to one, and there can’t have been enough collapsing stars to produce that lopsided ratio. So the black holes would have had to arise in a different way, through the collapse of tiny fluctuations in the soup of fundamental particles that filled the newborn universe long before stars formed. Such primordial black holes could have nearly any mass, but they cannot be too abundant without running afoul of astronomical observations. For example, throngs of black holes much more massive than the sun would shred galaxies like cannon balls crashing through chandeliers. Hordes of smaller black holes should distort the images of more distant stars and galaxy through so-called gravitational lensing.


Such observations leave just three possible mass ranges for primordial black holes, says Bernard Carr, a cosmologist at Queen Mary University of London, who has worked on the idea for 40 years. They could have masses between one and 10 times that of the sun; about one-billionth that of the sun; or below about a quadrillionth that of the sun—10 billion metric tons. Those smallest black holes would only be as wide as an atomic nucleus.


But if they’re there, the tiny black holes should produce a telltale radiation that Voyager 1 should see, argue Mathieu Boudaud and Marco Cirelli, theorists at Sorbonne University in Paris, in a paper in press at Physical Review Letters. Black holes earn their name because anything that gets too close to one, even light, cannot escape. However, in 1973, the late Stephen Hawking reasoned that black holes should radiate some light and particles nonetheless.


According to quantum mechanics, empty space roils with particle-antiparticle pairs flitting into and out of existence. Hawking realized that if such a pair pops into existence at just the right distance from a black hole then one particle might fall into the black hole while the other flies away in what is now called Hawking radiation. The smaller the black hole, the hotter it would be and the more it would radiate.


Tiny black holes weighing 10 billion metric tons should be hot enough to radiate electrons and positrons. Earth-bound detectors would not be able to spot those low-energy particles, as they would be deflected by the sun’s magnetic field. But Voyager 1 should be able to spot them from its position outside the sun’s magnetic bubble, the heliosphere.


In fact, since it exited the heliosphere in 2012, Voyager 1 has measured a small, consistent flux of positrons and electrons. But even if they all come from tiny black holes, there wouldn’t be enough black holes to account for more than 1% of the Milky Way’s dark matter, Boudaud and Cirelli calculate. Cummings says the energy spectrum of the particles suggests they all come from more mundane sources such as the remnants of supernova explosions.


The new work comes close to ruling out the lowest mass primordial black holes as dark matter, Carr says, although he adds that he has always favored the scenario in which the black holes weigh several solar masses. “This [low] mass window has never been my favorite,” he says. “It doesn’t personally bother me if the constraints now rule it out.”


Voyager 1 can’t search for the higher mass primordial black holes. They would be so heavy and cold that they could not radiate massive particles such as electrons and positrons. Instead, they would only shine an exceedingly feeble and likely undetectable light. So, for the moment, the idea of black hole dark matter lives on.

 


Like the undead.

Share this post


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

The US Department of Energy is saying it will cost $65 BILLION DOLLARS (https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20180416a/full/ ).

 

And consume as much electricity as a medium sized city.

 

And use as much water as a city of a million people.

 

 

ITER disputes DOE’s cost estimate of fusion project

 

65 billion dollars to build it over how long ? and you thinking there is only one reactor in the world ?

 

 there is a plasma reactor with the Z pinch in the video. I know I know the fools

 

ITER will push out 500 megawatts for 50 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, rrober49 said:

ITER disputes DOE’s cost estimate of fusion project

 

What did you expect them to do, snowflake?   Of course they dispute the DOE cost estimates.   It's their livelihood they are talking about, after all.   They have to continue to sell it ... just like Jerry Brown needs to continuing selling High Speed Rail despite cost estimates for that EXPLODING.    The original cost estimate of ITER was just 5 billion EUROs for construction costs.  Now it's ballooned to 20 something billion?   That shouldn't inspire much confidence in ITER's cost estimating ability.    And ITER (or it's backers) must be concerned too, since just a year ago they partnered with a new firm to help them do future cost estimates.  Wonder what they've done to stop the growth in cost?   They seem vague about that.  Just saying ...

 

By the way, the DOE is not the only one saying ITER is going to cost far more than the $20+ billion that ITER is admitting.   These people (https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/iter-fusion-project-lies-about-the-dates-budget-and-power-levels.html ) say "The budget is only to get ITER to 2025. It is not to the full power experiments which might start in 2027 and not for the deuterium and tritium experiments starting in 2035 and likely continuing to 2040.   ITER is really spending about $2 billion per year. Normally when these projects get to the major operational phases the budget goes up. It would be likely that after 2025 the budget will start going up to $3 billion to $4 billion per year. This would mean another $45-60 billion from 2025-2040".   That looks to be in line with what the $65 billion that the DOE is suggesting.

 

Quote

and you thinking there is only one reactor in the world ?

 

By all means, give us a full list.   Show how much money is really going into this boondoggle, rrober.  :P

 

Quote

ITER will push out 500 megawatts for 50 

 

First, that's only a CLAIM.    A hope.   A gnome?    They only claim they will "produce a fusion plasma equivalent to 500 megawatts (MW) of thermal output power for around twenty minutes while 50 megawatts of thermal power are injected into the tokamak."    Whether they will or not is anybody's guess.   What did designers of previous fusion *experiments* claim, rrober?   Bet they claimed they'd do much better than they actually did.   Which is why commercial fusion is still 20 years off?   Just saying ...

 

And the article states "The total electricity consumed by the reactor and facilities will range from 110 MW up to 620 MW peak for 30-second periods during plasma operation."   That wide range makes me think the the reactor might produce less MW than costs to run."    Indeed, the article states "Thermal-to-electric conversion is not included in the design because ITER will not produce sufficient power for net electrical production."   Did you get that?  They seem to be admitting that ITER could not break even in the electricity arena.    So they aren't even going to try to produce electricity.   ALL the heat produced will be vented to the atmosphere.  That's what the article says, and indeed, here's a handy dandy chart (from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/bpasite/documents/webpage/bpa_184795.pdf ) that indicates a net electrical power deficit results from ITER:

 

ITER-85.png

 

And you call that progress?

 

 
Twenty years is the same promise the fusion *experts* made 70 years ago.    Why should we believe them when their premiere research facility (ITER) is anticipating that it will still be doing  *experiments*  30 years from now?   Wikipedia indicates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER ) that "full deuteriumtritium fusion experiments" won't "START" until 2035, 16 years from now.   So how in the world can anyone suggest ... with that title page ...  there will be a viable fusion power plant in 20 years?    I think it's just another pipe dream, snowflake.  Indeed, the Wikipedia article on ITER states "ITER's planned successor, DEMO, is expected to be the first fusion reactor to produce electricity in an experimental environment."   And ITER's own webpage (https://www.iter.org/sci/iterandbeyond ) states that DEMO isn't expected to begin operation before the "2040s".      And Wikipedia states that "DEMO's anticipated success is expected to lead to full-scale electricity-producing fusion power stations and future commercial reactors."   And how long do those take to design and build?   DECADES?   Add up all these times and allow for delay because history says you should expect it, and it's highly optimistic to think fusion will be on line producing commercial electricity in 50 years.   Not with this approach.   And again, that ASSUMES that ITER actually succeeds in telling engineers what they need  to know to build power plants.  But if they physics really is based on gnomes that don't pan out, we will have thrown huge amounts of money down the toilet.   And let's be honest, the track record of these sorts of *experiments* hasn't been that good so far.
 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, rrober49 said:

I like to troll, trolling, trolled

 

Like I said ... looks like I've acquired a pest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now the mainstream is claiming they’ve finally seen a black hole at the moment of creation …


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/01/astronomers-see-star-become-black-hole-neutron-star/


And there is a beautiful photo (from the Chandra X-ray observatory) of a supernova remnant gracing the top of the article (even thought the object in that photo actually has nothing to do with the observation that National Geographic is claiming astronomers have made).   Here is a high resolution photo of that object:

 

casa_life_lg.jpg

(either click on it or this http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2017/casa_life/casa_life_lg.jpg to enlarge ... from http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2017/casa_life/


Now look closely at that image, folks … look at all the filaments strewn about it.


And notice how many of them seem to be helically wound pairs of filaments.


They especially show up in the blast wave (the blue portion).


Helically wound filaments are something that the mainstream to this day has trouble explaining.


Or simply ignores.


Helically wound filaments have driven more than one mainstream supporter on this from to flee this thread.


Or to begin posting erratically and irrationally as rroper49 is now doing.


I love when the mainstream media shoots itself in the foot like this.

 

Providing the means to destroy the meme.


By the way … the National Geographic article contains a bunch of other interesting filament photos in the slide show …


Like this one of the Cygnus Loop Remnant:


opo9301a.jpg

(Enlarge: https://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/images/original/opo9301a.tif)


Look closely and you find helically wound filaments all over that image.

 

Or look at the image of object N63A in the National Graphics article slideshow, that it describes as “gas and dust”.   Here’s that object in greater detail …


heic0507a.jpg

(enlarge https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/heic0507a.jpg)


Those sure look like helically wound filaments in the white areas!


Everywhere astronomers look they find them … helically wound PLASMA filaments ... and can’t rationally explain them.


Just saying ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and the double troll

 

 

e·lec·tron
/əˈlekˌträn/
noun
PHYSICS
plural noun: electrons
  1. a stable subatomic particle with a charge of negative electricity, found in all atoms and acting as the primary carrier of electricity in solids.
     
     neet
     
    ur bad at science

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

helically wound filaments in the white areas!

 

  

       ?

 

 again do you understand helical ?

 

 I do not think you use this word like it means 

 

hel·i·cal
/ˈhēlik(ə)l,ˈhelik(ə)l/
adjective
 
  1. having the shape or form of a helix; spiral.
    "helical molecules"
     
     
     you see a spiral in that photo ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/01/16/mysterious-galaxy-measured-exquisitely-and-contains-no-dark-matter-at-all/#7859ac3e2473

 

Quote

Mysterious Galaxy Measured Exquisitely, And Contains No Dark Matter At All

 

I guess these authors haven’t heard that the small sample statistics that were used to make that claim are … well … let’s say … problematic.  

 

So maybe claiming this as “proof” that dark matter exists (oh the irony) is a bit premature.  

 

In fact, think about the logic of their saying that not finding a gnome is proof the gnome exists.  

 

The cognitive dissonance needed to believe that is unreal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, this is going to be EXPENSIVE …


http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/science/cern-aims-to-reveal-the-mysteries-of-dark-matter/article/541165

 

Quote

 

CERN aims to reveal the mysteries of dark matter


CERN, known for the Large Hadron Collider and the discovery of what were once theoretical particles, has revealed further plans for its next, bigger machine — the Future Circular Collider, which will be used to assess dark matter.


… snip …


The next big development


In terms of future research, CERN has announced plans for the world's largest particle accelerator to explore antimatter and dark matter. The new machine will be called the Future Circular Collider. The new device will be immense in size: 100 kilometers (62 miles) around. In comparison, the Large Hadron ColliderC is just 27 kilometers (17 miles) in length. This device will include a superconducting proton accelerator ring, with an energy of up to 100 tera electron volts (TeV), which is many times more powerful than the Large Hadron Collider. One TeV is a unit of energy used in particle physics. One TeV is about the energy of motion of a flying mosquito.


According to CERN researcher Gian Francesco Giudice, who spoke with Engadget, the Future Circular Collider will be capable of achieving more powerful collisions and from this "exploring the highest possible energies with bold projects is our best hope to crack some of the mysteries of nature at the most fundamental level."


In terms of what the device will be used to explore, this includes dark matter. This is a hypothetical form of matter which probably accounts for 85 percent of the matter in the universe, plus one quarter of the universe’s total energy density. It is theorized that dark matter is composed of as-yet undiscovered subatomic particles. One reason why understanding dark matter is important is because it is thought to exert gravitational effects on astronomical objects.


Those interested may need to wait a long time for the full set of results. The new collider will take at least a decade to construct and it has an expected project life-time of 70 years.

 

 

Maybe they should call it Colossus, instead …


… because it’s going to be a colossal waste of time, resources, talent and money.


Just watch …

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

×