Dark Matter, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news5340.html

It seems the velocity curve shows apparently increasing angular momentum with increasing radius. This angular momentum if large enough would prevent concentration in the center. If dark matter is less concentrated at center, it must have larger angular momentum than visible matter.

Thank you for your interest and intelligence.

Before January 06 I will publish a more detailed and informative PDF-paper about my empirical theory on my website.
I do so because I have sent my application to the big ESOF-2006 conference in München < http://www.esof2006.org/ >.
And my idea is that the audience can read it in god time and prepare their questions and arguments.

Till then, as you are interested, I will give you the advice to read Max Planck's Nobel-lecture and the presentation at
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/19...ck-lecture.html
where you can read about "the state of the art" at the time when theoretical speculations won over empirical experiments and insights.

Compare with Planck what I write about energy - entropy.
Read that the measurements was made on the hot-radiation's wavelengths and temperature (which Wilhelm Wien has shown are proportional to each other). Read that Planck didn't understand the meaning of the measurement.
Planck lost the understanding and contact with reality when he transformed the wave-length measurings to frequencies in search for the answer to this "fractional change" of radiation as energy per time-unit.

Planck wrote: "Either the quantum of action was a fictionally quantity, then the whole deduction of the radiation law was in the main illusory and represented nothing more than an empty non-significant play of formula ..."

Planck searched the entropy mechanism behind heat- and electro-dynamical radiation and the interpretation as Rudolf Clausius had defined his idea about entropy as dissipation of the radiation-energy.
Read that Clausius never accepted Ludwig Boltzmann's statistical interpretation of entropy (about thermodynamical equivalence) at:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~histor...s/Clausius.html
There you can read that:
Clausius' great legacy to physics is undoubtedly his idea of the irreversible increase in entropy, and yet we find no indication of interest in Josiah Gibbs' work on chemical equilibrium or Boltzmann's views on thermodynamics and probability, both of which were utterly dependent on his idea. It is strange that he himself showed no inclination to seek a molecular understanding of irreversible entropy or to find further applications of the idea; it is stranger yet, and even tragic, that he expressed no concern for the work of his contemporaries who were accomplishing those very tasks.

Read also the very interesting article by Robert Marc Friedman at http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/34/article5.pdf
about the intrigues behind the Nobel price to Einstein.
Friedman has also written a more uncovering article in Nature Vol. 292 - 27 August 1981 at Pages 793-798.
I will later give some important citations from this article.

Friedman has also written a great book The Politics of Excellence about the secret chose of the Nobel winners: Read the book-review at http://physicsweb.org/articles/review/15/4/2/1.

I will be back if you are interested
Ingvar, Sweden
http://www.theuniphysics.info

An interesting article in the CERN Newsletter re. dark matter. Some physicists have re-worked galactic rotation curves using general relativity in place of a Newtonian model, and ..... poof. No need for dark matter. Here's the abstract (with a link to the paper):

http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/45/8/8

Bruce

Thanks birdan for the link. I was looking for it after reading an article about it at Yahoo.

g_l

I digress from this thread, as I already know that dark matter may have come from colossal galactic formative explosions, where some areas of vast matter was super-compressed.

So this had to have left a dense field of this matter, which in some ways, would still possess the liquidity of movement, however in relationship to our realization of matter, would be infinitely more dense.

This is not, "and I stress this", black hole matter.

[FONT=Arial]ok guys im sorry but i think it would be very depressing to find out something like this we need to just let it go soryr to offend anyone we need to just live life and no i dont support creataionism or big bang i could care less





that is all

Dark matter doesn't make a lot of sense...

It supposedly acts gravitationally, yet no one seems to have considered what such an abundant mass must do to the gravitational lensing of light around galaxies and galaxy clusters. It supposedly resides in halos surrounding galaxies, right? Therefore, the lensing effects should extend farther out from the galaxy center than expected (you'd think this would be a no-brainer).

It's dark, it resides in halos, and yet galaxies viewed on edge do not appear dimmed by it? Even if it can't absorb light, it's gravity should strangely diffuse the light, right?

It acts gravitationally, yet it doesn't clump (like normal accretion disks)?

It acts gravitationally, yet it predominately hangs out in the least dense regions of galaxies--seemingly defying gravity!

It acts gravitationally, therefore colliding galaxies should seem to be falling together more rapidly than their apparent mass would indicate (another no-brainer).

Dark energy, is it really this simple?

In theorizing about how light propagates thru a vacuum, one must understand that the vacuum of space is NOT empty. Space is filled with a continuous multidirectional stream of randomized fields or packets of quantum photonic ENERGY. This random orientation photonic bombardment propagates across the full energy spectrum in the form of quantum packages of photonic electromagnetic waves. Each of these spectral waves exists at different energy levels according to their frequency and corresponding wavelength and are arriving at any fixed point in space from an infinite number of randomized directions, Each of these multitudes of random quantum energy packets originates from some specific point source of origin in the universe and is the artifact of an electromagnetically generated energy emission process.

These various randomized electromagnetic spectral energy packets encompass the entire energy spectrum as well as their respective quantum energy levels. The E and β fields of each random quantum packet are all propagating and existing simultaneously as they cross a specific point at a specific time, but their random orientation prevents their energy field planes from being normally in phase. The fields associated with each quantum packet are not aligned along a common phase plane since they are coming from random directions and orientations. We cannot observe these quantum energy packets,
even though they exist, because their E and β fields are not directionally aligned where we can detect or observe them. There is the possibility that skewed or offset field phase interactions might occur between same frequency discrete quantum electromagnetic fields, which might generate some background noise component due to the partial phasing alignment interaction and it might cause an observable phase shift if the visible plane of observation is correct.

As long as there is a temperature above absolute zero there is energy propagation
and transmission in a vacuum. Is it possible that low energy emission/transmission acts as a conduit or quantum“lubrication” that allows higher energy propagation to occur?

Can light exist and propagate at absolute zero? Not if an electron is immobilized and locked in a fixed energy position because it cannot change energy levels which is a pre-requisite for photon emission. When electric and magnetic fields interact there is energy transfer, so a photon and quantum energy cannot propagate at absolute zero.

At absolute zero everything stops….which infers that time also stops since time and matter are interdependent.

So is dark energy merely random non oriented spurious background radiation that might be considered the ether?
------
Feel free to comment or shoot holes in this... Laserlight

Yes, we should be able to se it but the dark mater is cold thus fore it's dark blending into it universe and there is so much of it that is packs tightly arould stars, planets, comets, and just about anything else. Black holes are formed by the creation of other galexies, a.k.a. a big bang.

would an electromagnetic field stabilize an anti gravity field ?