| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics - Electromagnetic Forum » johnreed take 23 - dark matter August 8, 2007
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| johnlawrencereedjr |
 Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Johnreed Take 23 - Dark Matter
July 23, 2007
The disparity in the measure of mass in galaxies, has caused us to
propose a type of matter called the dark-matter. "Today most
astronomers and physicists believe that this is the right answer to
the puzzle. There is missing matter, which is actually there but which
we don't see. This mysterious missing matter is referred to as the
dark matter. The dark-matter hypothesis is preferred mostly because
the only other possibility --- that we are wrong about Newton's laws,
and by extension general relativity --- is too scary to contemplate."
Quote taken from "The Trouble With Physics", 2005, Lee Smolin, PhD
In the post "johnreed Take 5.1" I briefly introduced a notion for
electromagnetic, star formation mechanics, that I call constructive
fusion. The thrust of this idea is that under the extreme conditions
of pressure that are believed to exist within star forming galactic
clouds, the electromagnetic properties of the relentlessly compressed
atoms ultimately control[1], such that the internal atomic
electromagnetic properties of each atom arrange in the most efficient
manner to preserve atomic integrity. Externally each atom shifts
position maximizing the efficiency of the optimized stability seeking
internal structure. As the pressure continues to increase, the range
of the efficiently ordered internal electromagnetic atomic fields
extend beyond the physical limit of each atom, and as the atomic
matter continues to compress, the fields outside the atom ultimately
"constructively" join [1]. A collapse of the cloud core ensues, as the
join of many electromagnetically optimized atoms, into one (or perhaps
many) superatom(s)[2], releases the less efficiently used, individual
atomic, occupied space. The collapsed cloud core takes with it a
surface covering of primarily, non-super condensed internal galactic
cloud matter. This covering may include attendant, partially
"efficient" condensed matter, that we see today as sun spots [3].
A shock wave results from this process such that much of the surface
covering of the collapsed star core is blown away in (nearly) all
directions in space. Much of this debris ultimately returns to the
newly formed star, while much of it returns to the spacial location
consistent with its origin, now far outside the surface of the
collapsed cloud core, and passes around the star to be thrown into a
distant star space orbit. The controlling process here is super-
electromagnetic rather than gravitational.
The creation of all atomic elements during the compression process may
occur prior to the control and collapse, of the most efficiently
constructed atoms.
Quote: From my rough guesstimates, based on the average diameter of atoms and
nuclei, and on a varying diameter for the sun, such a collapse could
free up most of the space previously occupied by the individual
atoms. Again by similar calculations, this could encompass a volume
that extends to the outermost terrestrial planets. If viable this
process replaces neutron stars, and blackholes. It also nicely
incorporates all the exotic cosmology items we have so far observed,
that I am aware of.
However, in the interests of brevity I will extend this take in a Part
2. For now I merely want to apply it to the matter that we don't see.
The matter that we don't see (measure), within the expectations of
Newtonian and general relativity theory, and call dark or non-
illuminating, or reflecting matter, is due in part, to the condensed
matter inside the star cores [4].
Endnotes
(1) I think that the primary principle involved here can be studied in
the laboratory at Einstein-Bose condensate temperatures. {See
"johnreed Take 15" and supplemental post}. For example the use of
differing amounts of a pure substance to determine its effect on the
resultant condensate might provide constraints on the number of atoms
contiguously condensed. If such constraints exist, within our ability
to measure, it would tend to weaken my cosmological premise for a
super-atom. However, it would still strongly support my proposed
atomic structure. A condensate from iron might display a retention
time as the temperature is raised due to the efficiency of its crystal
structure.
(2) This concept conceptually, cannot be obviously assimilated within
the mathematics used to describe our "particle equilibrium" view of
atomic structure. However it falls out as a logical consequence of the
"johnreed Take 6" view, which is consistent with the experimental
data, and which ultimately reduces to a field view, built not from
fundamental particles of matter, but from physically "interlocked
threads" of electromagnetic radiation (consider tired light, as
monopoles or dipoles, or both), independent of any background other
than (perhaps) the absence (attenuation) of the electromagnetic field
itself.
(3) The name I have given to this proposed new state of matter is the
"randamajor". For the sake of communication however, I have called it
a super dynamo and super atom, in past posts. Such an electromagnetic,
constructive fusion process, is predicted to ultimately result in a
reasonably stable, contiguous star core, mirroring the atomic
structure of iron. The atomic structure it is based on predicts that
electric current passes through the center of the atom (see Takes 6
and 15). I call that atomic structure the "randaminor".
The reader might initially view this proposal with incredulity. A
super atom indeed! If so, she/he will then experience the response I
had on first learning of our gravitationally predicted "blackhole".
Laughable but for our deeply ingrained a priori notion for mass
generated gravity. And on the face, a reductio ad absurdem argument
against the idea for mass generated gravity. However it was not the
problem I had with blackholes that led me to constructive fusion. The
elimination of the blackhole was a collateral benefit. The randamajor
"fell" out of the randaminor. The Einstein-Bose Condensate may be a
laboratory example. Unfortunately the entire construct required that
I address Newtonian gravitation in the same manner I previously had to
eventually address atomic structure. Essentially from scratch, while
remaining consistent with the experimental data.
(4) This idea may bear also on the consmological constant, dark energy
and the expansion of the universe but I would tread lightly in that
area. My recent posts on the falsity of mass generated gravity,
eliminate outright the central idea for a big bang {See Catch 22 and
addendum to same}. While the evidence for an expanding universe
supports the notion for a big bang, its supporting data exists
independently. Even so, I believe that, that data will eventually be
explained differently.
(5) I began my quest seeking to conceptually explain atomic structure
physics. I held similar beliefs as do some of the string theorists,
ten years before they existed, in that they believe that finding a
mathematical model that fits all contingencies of the 'current'
paradigm, would surely have to be the correct model, however
contrived, and however many dimensions and massaging constants it
contained. I took this notion a step further, early on. I believed
that if I found a coherent conceptual explanation for all the diverse
phenomena and the anomolies, it would certainly be a good argument. It
turned out to be an argument where the mathematical model falls out as
a logical consequence of the (also as it turned out), revised
conceptual model.
Author's Note:
I use the discussion groups as a filing system for my progress. I
discovered that this system easily became cluttered and difficult to
manage. I began titling my posts as "johnreed take this and take that"
with dates, because it served two useful purposes. 1) Easy access by
me, and 2) it offered a simple means to allow any reader to ignore it.
I am retaining this convention while including a brief description of
the subject of each post hereafter. Something I should have thought to
do, long ago.
Those familiar with my most recent posts on gravity, might recognize
an unfolding connection. And the more astute reader might perhaps even
suspect that Newtonian mass driven gravitation will ultimately be
overwhelmingly shown [5] to be falsely based, solely on the "emergent"
properties of inertial mass that we work against, within the defining
parameters of least action motion.
Have a good time.
johnreed |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Aug 30, 2008 1:22 am
|
|