Do we feel forces of Dark Matter?

[Mike C]

I've been thinking a lot about Dark Matter. I know we observe bodies that feel the gravitational pull of Dark Matter, and we feel the pull of gravity from these observed bodies. However, is there proof that our point of reference feels the gravitational pull of the Dark Matter?

 

This might be a ridiculous question, but your input is appreciated.

 

-s

 

In answer to your question, yes, we can feel the forces of dark matter, but not the way you would do to compare to the force of gravity.

 

An example of feeling' the force of dark matter can be the comparison of the common 'black magnetic blocks' as compared to holding a couple of lead balls close together to feel their attraction to each other.

 

The attraction between these black blocks is an example of the coulomb magnetic component of the EM forces and the gravitational attraction between the lead balls.

You would not feel this attraction between the lead balls but you would certainly feel the attraction between the black blocks.

 

This explains why the EM forces are so much stronger than the GF.

Using electric charges here as an example is not practicable here.

 

Mike C

[CraigD]

The solar flares blast all the electrons out of the Sun except the 2 inner electrons in these heavier elements.

There may be some positive ions (remaining nucleuses) blasted out of the Sun but IMO, these could be very small in quantity.

and their velocities would be much slower to cause them to be captured within the galaxy whewreas, the electrons would have sufficient velocity to leave the galaxy.

Can you provide any references supporting these claims?

 

None of the literature of which I’m aware providing data from several decades of measurement of protons, electrons, and other massive particles emitted by the sun (the solar wind) by many spacecraft (Apollo, Helios, ISEE-3/ICE, Ulysses, WIND, SOHO, etc.) has discovered significant disparity in charge of the solar wind, nor variation in the average velocity of its electrons, protons, and other fully and partially ionized nuclei.

 

In short, you claim, and subsequent claims based on it, appear to be contrary to all existing data. The velocity and number of solar wind particles is not difficult to measure (once the considerable challenge of flying the necessary spacecraft has been met), and has been measured to high precision.

[Mike C]

Can you provide any references supporting these claims?

 

None of the literature of which I’m aware providing data from several decades of measurement of protons, electrons, and other massive particles emitted by the sun (the solar wind) by many spacecraft (Apollo, Helios, ISEE-3/ICE, Ulysses, WIND, SOHO, etc.) has discovered significant disparity in charge of the solar wind, nor variation in the average velocity of its electrons, protons, and other fully and partially ionized nuclei.

 

In short, you claim, and subsequent claims based on it, appear to be contrary to all existing data. The velocity and number of solar wind particles is not difficult to measure (once the considerable challenge of flying the necessary spacecraft has been met), and has been measured to high precision.

 

The satellite sources you mention above do not explain the causes of the eruptions or give an evaluation of the causes of these eruptions as I have given.

You can add the 'Northern Lights' to the above as evidence.

 

I derived my information here from the references given below. This data,

S & T gets from the professional journals. See beloiw:

 

The sources below are the S & T magazines dated June, 1989, p. 590-591 and the S & T magazine dated December, 1989, p. 600-601.

This proves that the cause of these eruptions are the impacting bodies on the Sun. This results in 'chemical explosions' between hydrogen and oxyhen.

 

Current theory says that the magnetic fields are the causes.

 

There is more evidence on this website below:

 

JUNE 2, 1998: Projectiles Hit Sun

 

Mike C

[freeztar]

The satellite sources you mention above do not explain the causes of the eruptions or give an evaluation of the causes of these eruptions as I have given.

 

The causes of the eruptions are not what is in question.

You can add the 'Northern Lights' to the above as evidence.

You can't just add on "evidence" without explaining your reasoning.

I derived my information here from the references given below. This data,

S & T gets from the professional journals. See beloiw:

 

The sources below are the S & T magazines dated June, 1989, p. 590-591 and the S & T magazine dated December, 1989, p. 600-601.

 

Can you describe something in the article that you "derived" your ideas from?

 

This proves that the cause of these eruptions are the impacting bodies on the Sun. This results in 'chemical explosions' between hydrogen and oxyhen.

Where is the proof?

Current theory says that the magnetic fields are the causes.

Causes of what? I'm not even sure what you are referring to at this point.

There is more evidence on this website below:

 

JUNE 2, 1998: Projectiles Hit Sun

 

Your source is a site called cyberspaceorbit.com which presents a NASA article (presumably) on comet impacts with the Sun, as seen by SOHO. How does this support your ideas and how do you reconcile this link with your first sentence quoted above?

 

Furthermore, I'd caution against using sources that contain non-science slanderings such as:

 

"Sorry, NASA, but once again your flippancy cuts no ice with me.

 

Quoting a friend, "Is it reasonable to assume that these ridiculous Nasa/s Nasa/JPL explanations and non-explanations on these recent events on Mars, the Sun and MIR are just feelers to see how groups like ours react to disseminating this info and studying our reactions?"

[modest]

I did not say or imply that they are in the central regions of the individual galaxies.

Electrons are blown out of the galaxies in all directions but the ones in the drection of the central cluster regions are approaching each other and therefore stop in this region to form the clouds.

 

First off, thank you freeztar for quoting the word flippancy which is an honest-to-god word of the english dictionary that I've never heard. It has made my day :)

 

Mike C,

I've got what you are saying now. You propose intergalactic space is charged negatively while galaxies carry a positive charge. The result being an enhancement of gravity between galaxies or among the cluster. Ok, problems with this might include but are not limited to:

 

• We assume intergalactic space is made from the same stuff (same subatomic particles) as galaxies.

 

• The Coulomb force would, at its most basic, serve to enforce this equilibrium far before it started supplementing gravity in a serious way.

 

• Solar ejecta is made of the same stellar stuff which is made from interstellar and ultimately intergalactic stuff as all the other ionized gas in the universe. There is no evidence nor any reason to assume solar wind is richer or poorer in electrons as any other source of plasma.

 

• Even if everything you propose is possible and correct, the end result is not what we see of dark matter. Galaxy rotations (especially on the outskirts) would slow - like an iceskater spinning with arms outstretched. The force between the galaxy and the intergalactic medium would counter (or appear to counter) the force of gravity by slowing its spin. We observe the opposite and attribute it to dark matter.

 

- modest

[Mike C]

The causes of the eruptions are not what is in question.

 

You can't just add on "evidence" without explaining your reasoning.

 

 

Can you describe something in the article that you "derived" your ideas from?

 

 

Where is the proof?

 

Causes of what? I'm not even sure what you are referring to at this point.

 

 

Your source is a site called cyberspaceorbit.com which presents a NASA article (presumably) on comet impacts with the Sun, as seen by SOHO. How does this support your ideas and how do you reconcile this link with your first sentence quoted above?

 

Furthermore, I'd caution against using sources that contain non-science slanderings such as:

 

"Sorry, NASA, but once again your flippancy cuts no ice with me.

 

Quoting a friend, "Is it reasonable to assume that these ridiculous Nasa/s Nasa/JPL explanations and non-explanations on these recent events on Mars, the Sun and MIR are just feelers to see how groups like ours react to disseminating this info and studying our reactions?"

 

The subject duiscussion regarding the subject question was answered in post#18. .

 

Craig brought up the ejecta content that departed from the original question regarding the dark matter. So I introduced the sources for my theory of the darki matter.

Anyway, post #18 answered the subject question in a different way.

 

Mike C

[freeztar]

The subject duiscussion regarding the subject question was answered in post#18. .

 

Craig brought up the ejecta content that departed from the original question regarding the dark matter. So I introduced the sources for my theory of the darki matter.

Anyway, post #18 answered the subject question in a different way.

 

Mike C

 

 

And what does any of that have to do with comets hitting the sun?

[Mike C]

The causes of the eruptions are not what is in question.

 

This had to do with the introduction of solar particle ejections as observed by the satellites.

 

Can you describe something in the article that you "derived" your ideas from?

 

The evidence that the article presented was that immediately after a giagantic solar flare, ions of iron, sulfur and oxygen were detected by the xray satellite Solar Max.

 

Causes of what? I'm not even sure what you are referring to at this point.

 

If you read most of the posts in this thread, you would know what is being diuscussed.

 

I did not make those critical statements about NASA.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

• Even if everything you propose is possible and correct, the end result is not what we see of dark matter. Galaxy rotations (especially on the outskirts) would slow - like an iceskater spinning with arms outstretched. The force between the galaxy and the intergalactic medium would counter (or appear to counter) the force of gravity by slowing its spin. We observe the opposite and attribute it to dark matter.

 

- modest

 

Regarding the galaxy clusters, Zwicky detected this 'dark matter' by his observations of the cluster galaxy velocities that had excess velocities that did not conform to the estimated masses to luminosity ratios. The central space in these clusters accumulate the electrons to form a cloud of electrons IMO to enhance the gravity. Xrays have been detected in the central regions of these clusters to prove their presence.

 

In the spiral galaxies, a DM problem is also detected because the outer regions of spirals do not conform to the 'virial theorum' regarding the outer spiral star velocities.

I explained this as caused by outer hydrogen gases capturing some of these free electrons to form 'negative hydrogen ions' to cause a gravity enhancement in the ouiter spiral galaxy regions.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

And what does any of that have to do with comets hitting the sun?

 

You do not seem to understand that I am providing evidence to show that comets cause 'solar flares' that create 'free electrons' that cause the DM problems.

 

See above article to Modest.

 

Mike C

[CraigD]

You do not seem to understand that I am providing evidence to show that comets cause 'solar flares' that create 'free electrons' that cause the DM problems.

I think that I, and most people who have read your post history, understand the theory you are proposing, Mike.

 

To be sure, let me restate it: The Sun (and all stars or all similar stars) eject a greater number of negatively charge particles (electrons or, possibly, negative ions) than positively charged ones (protons, helium nuclei, and positive ions), due to collisions with comets. These accumulate in interstellar space, where they exert an electrostatic (Coulomb) force on the now positively charged stars, resulting in the motion many currently ascribe to the gravitational attraction of “dark matter”.

 

As has been posted in reply to this claim several times, there is at least the following major problem with it: Lack of evidence that solar flare, or any other form of solar ejecta has a net negative charge (that is, contains more electrons than protons).

 

Extensive direct spacecraft instrument measurements of the numbers of electrons, protons, and other nuclei found in solar flare and CME ejecta, as well as in the continuous and much higher quantity solar wind, show no such disparity.

 

Many others problems with the have been posted in response to it, but this one alone is enough to disprove it.

 

In short, extensive, reliable, direct measurements directly contradict your theory. Given this hard data, I fail to see how you can continue, Mike, to claim that the sun ejects matter with significantly greater negative than positive charge, regardless of how otherwise attractive the theory is.

[Mike C]

I think that I, and most people who have read your post history, understand the theory you are proposing, Mike.

 

To be sure, let me restate it: The Sun (and all stars or all similar stars) eject a greater number of negatively charge particles (electrons or, possibly, negative ions) than positively charged ones (protons, helium nuclei, and positive ions), due to collisions with comets. These accumulate in interstellar space, where they exert an electrostatic (Coulomb) force on the now positively charged stars, resulting in the motion many currently ascribe to the gravitational attraction of “dark matter”.

 

As has been posted in reply to this claim several times, there is at least the following major problem with it: Lack of evidence that solar flare, or any other form of solar ejecta has a net negative charge (that is, contains more electrons than protons).

 

Extensive direct spacecraft instrument measurements of the numbers of electrons, protons, and other nuclei found in solar flare and CME ejecta, as well as in the continuous and much higher quantity solar wind, show no such disparity.

 

Many others problems with the have been posted in response to it, but this one alone is enough to disprove it.

 

In short, extensive, reliable, direct measurements directly contradict your theory. Given this hard data, I fail to see how you can continue, Mike, to claim that the sun ejects matter with significantly greater negative than positive charge, regardless of how otherwise attractive the theory is.

 

Craig

 

Can you post this evidence so I can see for myself?

 

This evidence contradicts the Solar Max Xray satellite evidence that was observed (iron, sulfur and oxygen positive ions) that were left in the Sun after a giant flare caused these residual positive ions to be left in the Sun.

The stripped electrons from these elements that totaled 52 electrons were sent on their merry way out of the galaxy and its surroundings.

In the meantime, the positive ions were left in the Sun.

So here you have a net loss of 52 electrons and a net gain of these positive ions.

And here I am only counting one of each positive ions that probably numbered up to a hundred or more.

 

Mike C

[freeztar]

Can you post this evidence so I can see for myself?

 

The burden of proof rests on you, Mike.

If you make claims against "common knowledge", then you must support it somehow.

[CraigD]

Extensive direct spacecraft instrument measurements of the numbers of electrons, protons, and other nuclei found in solar flare and CME ejecta, as well as in the continuous and much higher quantity solar wind, show no such [charge] disparity.

Can you post this evidence so I can see for myself?

Here are a few starting points for data from some well-known solar wind, flare, and CME composition and energy measuring probes: Helios, ISEE-3/ICE, Ulysses, WIND, SOHO. There are more but these give a reasonable sense of the basic data.

 

As with most specialized datasets, there’s a bit of a learning curve necessary to interpret them (although, with similar instrument suites, understand one in depth makes understanding others much easier). For a more general description, encyclopedic sources such as the wikipedia articles “solar wind”, “solar flare”, and “coronal mass ejection” might better serve.

This evidence contradicts the Solar Max Xray satellite evidence that was observed (iron, sulfur and oxygen positive ions) that were left in the Sun after a giant flare caused these residual positive ions to be left in the Sun.

What’s your reference for this, Mike?

 

It’s important to note that matter in the visible part of the Sun, and, it’s theorized, the invisible parts, too, is in a plasma state. Effectively all of it is fully ionized, at least in a transient sense: free electrons in the plasma interact with nuclei (nearly all of them hydrogen, that is, free protons), so in a sense, as with most plasmas, the matter is in a constant state of flux between a plasma and a gas state.

 

Matter existing in a plasma state does not imply that it has a significant net charge.

[Mike C]

The burden of proof rests on you, Mike.

If you make claims against "common knowledge", then you must support it somehow.

 

Freeztar:

 

By common knowledge, do you mean the establishment view?

 

The EV is promoting the BBT and that is loaded with unanswered questions and refuting of current physics and science data.

 

I am not being arrogant. Just interested in promoting the 'truth' in science from all points of view.

 

Mike C

[modest]

"Extraordinary evidence is needed for an extraordinary claim"

- Paul Johnson

[Mike C]

Here are a few starting points for data from some well-known solar wind, flare, and CME composition and energy measuring probes: Helios, ISEE-3/ICE, Ulysses, WIND, SOHO. There are more but these give a reasonable sense of the basic data.

 

I checked out those sites you have given above and did not find one that provided the ratio or couints of the electrons and protons.

 

Helios just gave the equipment used to track the contents of the wind or flare partricles.

 

ISEE or ICE was used mainly to check out a comet.

 

Ulysses was placed at the polar regions of the Sun and tracked the nature of the solar winds and magnetic fields

 

Wind was used for what it says. Just charts of the solar wind variations.

 

SOHO did the same thing with a lot of charts plus other data.

 

As I said above, none provided the particle counts of the winds or ejections.

 

As with most specialized datasets, there’s a bit of a learning curve necessary to interpret them (although, with similar instrument suites, understand one in depth makes understanding others much easier). For a more general description, encyclopedic sources such as the wikipedia articles “solar wind”, “solar flare”, and “coronal mass ejection” might better serve.What’s your reference for this, Mike?

 

It’s important to note that matter in the visible part of the Sun, and, it’s theorized, the invisible parts, too, is in a plasma state. Effectively all of it is fully ionized, at least in a transient sense: free electrons in the plasma interact with nuclei (nearly all of them hydrogen, that is, free protons), so in a sense, as with most plasmas, the matter is in a constant state of flux between a plasma and a gas state.

 

Matter existing in a plasma state does not imply that it has a significant net charge.