The Ratio Of Anti/dark Matter To Matter ...

[LaurieAG]

Moderation note: the first 5 posts of this thread were moved from Antimatter, (Where has it gone?) because they are not related to that thread's topic

 

 

Hi all,

 

Isn't the ratio of anti/dark matter to matter the same ratio as that between the mass calculated from observations of the visible spectra to the mass calculated from observations made of the x-ray spectra?

 

This ratio is just the average number of complete rotations of all the large rotating bodies captured in a visible set of astronomical data with the same depth of field.

 

The glancing incidence mirror structure of a modern x-ray telescope means that other parts of the wave path that are in phase but out of cycle are ignored.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolter_telescope

 

Will we ever see a correctly transformed image of a spiral galaxy with the spin removed?

[CraigD]

Isn't the ratio of anti/dark matter to matter the same ratio as that between the mass calculated from observations of the visible spectra to the mass calculated from observations made of the x-ray spectra?

Laurie, you appear to have a misconception about what antimatter and dark matter are.

 

Writing “Anti/dark matter” states that antimatter and dark matter are synonyms. They are not.

 

Antimatter is mater consisting of fundamental particles with opposite charge of the ordinary matter partners: for example, an atom of antihydrogen consists of an positron ([imath]\mbox{e}^+[/imath]) and an antiproton ([imath]\mbox{p}^-[/imath] or [imath]\bar{\mbox{p}}[/imath]), vs. an atom of hydrogen’s electron ([imath]\mbox{e}^-[/imath]) and proton ([imath]\mbox{p}^+[/imath]).

 

Dark matter is matter that cannot be visually observed, but that’s gravitational effect can be.

 

While antimatter is well understood, and its effects observed in everyday scientific experiments and medical imaging technology, there is no scientific consensus as to what kind of particles constitute dark matter, or even if and how much of it exists.

 

This ratio is just the average number of complete rotations of all the large rotating bodies captured in a visible set of astronomical data with the same depth of field.

 

The glancing incidence mirror structure of a modern x-ray telescope means that other parts of the wave path that are in phase but out of cycle are ignored.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolter_telescope

You must back up strange claims like these with links or references. The Wikipedia article for a Wolter telescope, a kind of of x-ray telescope, explains what is meant by grazing (also known as glancing) incidence optics, but not your other claims.

 

Will we ever see a correctly transformed image of a spiral galaxy with the spin removed?

By “spin”, I assume you mean the movement of stars relative to the center of mass of a galaxy.

 

The rotational speed of stars in galaxies of various shapes is so small that the resulting shift in their spectra is smaller than can be seen with the naked eye (for example, the Sun’s v=220000 m/s galactic orbital speed gives a frequency change of [imath]1-\frac{2v}{c} \dot= 0.0015[/imath]), so I can’t see why this would be useful. An image of a galaxy with the color adjusted to remove these very small red and blueshifts would be indistinguishable from one without the adjustment to an unaided human observer.

[LaurieAG]

Hi CraigD,

 

You must back up strange claims like these with links or references. The Wikipedia article for a Wolter telescope, a kind of of x-ray telescope, explains what is meant by grazing (also known as glancing) incidence optics, but not your other claims.

 

This entire issue can be resolved very easily without resorting to 'strange claims' by just answering these 2 questions.

 

(1) Can you capture an image of a sparkler (like on birthday cakes) rotating in a circle so that the image shows a circle not a point? YES/NO

 

(2) Would you expect to catch a similar image on a galactic scale when the scale was in proportion to (1) above? YES/NO

 

Can you please give me your honest answers to the two questions above.

[CraigD]

You must back up strange claims like these with links or references. The Wikipedia article for a Wolter telescope, a kind of of x-ray telescope, explains what is meant by grazing (also known as glancing) incidence optics, but not your other claims.

Hi CraigD,

 

 

 

This entire issue can be resolved very easily without resorting to 'strange claims' by just answering these 2 questions.

Laurie, when you make claims that are not conventionally accepted – “strange” one – or merely state information that is not common knowledge, you are expected to back them up by, preferably, providing links to webpage, or if this is not possible, references to books, articles, or papers, showing their scientific legitimacy, and explaining them in enough detail that a reader can familiarize himself with them. If you’re unable to do this, you shouldn’t make the claims. If you insist on making claims without backing them up, or otherwise not following our site rules, you posting privileges at hypography may be suspended.

 

(1) Can you capture an image of a sparkler (like on birthday cakes) rotating in a circle so that the image shows a circle not a point? YES/NO

If the exposure time – how long a photographic film or electronic light detecting device is allowed to record incoming light – is at least as long as the period of rotation of the sparkler, yes. If not, the image would show only an arc of the sparkler’s motion. If the exposure time is a very small fraction of the period of the sparkler’s rotation, the image would show a “frozen” image of the sparkler, without much indication that it is moving.

 

(2) Would you expect to catch a similar image on a galactic scale when the scale was in proportion to (1) above? YES/NO

No. I’ve photographed galaxies, and the image is not similar to a long exposure of a sparker being rotated in a circle.

 

For this to occur, say with the brightest stars of regions of the galaxy in place of the sparkler, the exposure time would have to be greater than their rotational period. These periods are on the order of millions to hundreds of millions of years, much longer than the exposure time of any photograph, or even that cameras or humans have existed.

 

The motion of stars in our and other galaxies is not measured by allowing them to “blur” in long photographic exposures, such as how motion is shown in sports photography or twirling sparklers. It’s done by photographing the spectra of stars, and comparing them to that of similar stars to measure their Doppler shift (see this for more).

 

Your claims appear unrelated to this thread's original question, "where has all the antimatter gone in our universe?" What point are you trying to make?

[LaurieAG]

Hi CraigD,

 

Your claims appear unrelated to this thread's original question, "where has all the antimatter gone in our universe?" What point are you trying to make?

 

My point is that the anti matter never went anyware because it didn't exist in the first place. Thats about as KIS as you can get.

 

I thought like you until I realised that the depth of field meant that the configuration of the lens set the depth of field for an astronomical observation not the length of exposure. The pysical differences between the lenses used in the Wolter x-ray telescope and optical telescopes, the areas being observed and what would be expected to be captured and what would not, will give the ratios I describe.

 

http://www.deepastronomy.com/hubble-deep-field.html

 

The detector on the Hubble Space Telescope employs a really old CCD that is 800x800 pixels square. To cover more area, they took many sets of images and moved the telescope around as they did so. Then they stitched them together to make the final image.

...

This was not done all at once. Many individual images were taken over the course of weeks, and then all of them were added together.