Dark matter is held together by 'attractors'
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Rotational forces
Next: Earth equator tilted?
From: Yousuf Khan on 11 Aug 2010 06:56 I haven't the foggiest what these guys are trying to prove, equating Dark Matter to how stars burn their fuel. No clue what connects them. But you can read it for yourself, if you're interested. Yousuf Khan *** Dark matter is held together by 'attractors' http://www.physorg.com/news200673321.html
From: JT on 11 Aug 2010 07:11 On 11 Aug, 12:56, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > I haven't the foggiest what these guys are trying to prove, equating > Dark Matter to how stars burn their fuel. No clue what connects them. > But you can read it for yourself, if you're interested. > > Yousuf Khan > > *** > > Dark matter is held together by 'attractors'http://www.physorg.com/news200673321.html Just another halfbaked lie try cover up phenomens that travel FTL, like gravitational collapses of stars now they try to persuade the monkeys that phenomens occured much earlier in the Novas development not from the actual supernova collaps. JT
From: nuny on 11 Aug 2010 07:35 On Aug 11, 3:56 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > I haven't the foggiest what these guys are trying to prove, equating > Dark Matter to how stars burn their fuel. No clue what connects them. > But you can read it for yourself, if you're interested. > > Dark matter is held together by 'attractors'http://www.physorg.com/news200673321.html Not really "equating", more like "comparing". They're just saying that dark matter has preferred arrangements at a particular size scale, temperature etc just like matter does. At planetary-mass scales, cold matter likes to be spherical with a particular density profile; that's its attractor. At supergalactic scales, dark matter also likes to be spherical but with a flatter density profile; a different attractor. That's what I get anyway. Not especially shocking, but puzzling... Mark L. Fergerson
From: Yousuf Khan on 11 Aug 2010 18:53 On 8/11/2010 7:35 AM, nuny(a)bid.nes wrote: > Not really "equating", more like "comparing". > > They're just saying that dark matter has preferred arrangements at > a particular size scale, temperature etc just like matter does. At > planetary-mass scales, cold matter likes to be spherical with a > particular density profile; that's its attractor. At supergalactic > scales, dark matter also likes to be spherical but with a flatter > density profile; a different attractor. > > That's what I get anyway. > > Not especially shocking, but puzzling... > > > Mark L. Fergerson Yeah, it's puzzling because it seems to be saying absolutely nothing that we don't already know. It doesn't even try to make a proof for something we already know, it's just restating it all in a different way. Yousuf Khan
From: nuny on 12 Aug 2010 07:48
On Aug 11, 3:53 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > On 8/11/2010 7:35 AM, n...(a)bid.nes wrote: > > > Not really "equating", more like "comparing". > > > They're just saying that dark matter has preferred arrangements at > > a particular size scale, temperature etc just like matter does. At > > planetary-mass scales, cold matter likes to be spherical with a > > particular density profile; that's its attractor. At supergalactic > > scales, dark matter also likes to be spherical but with a flatter > > density profile; a different attractor. > > > That's what I get anyway. > > > Not especially shocking, but puzzling... > > > Yeah, it's puzzling because it seems to be saying absolutely nothing > that we don't already know. It doesn't even try to make a proof for > something we already know, it's just restating it all in a different way. It reminds me of string theory in that respect. What's the word for "minimum publishable unit of information that justifies further funding" again? Mark L. Fergerson |