Understanding Cosmology (Post 4)

[JoshuaTree]

The way baryonic matter condenses into really compact objects like planets and stars is accreting (such as into a planetary disk) and radiating when it’s hot. Dark matter’s inability to radiate keeps it diffuse; its full mass still interacts with gravity the same way.

Not at a keyboard right now or I’d be more thorough; but accreting into really solid objects needs radiation and conservation laws to happen.

If dark matter can't radiate, what happens to the energy it absorbs? If dark matter can neither radiate or absorb, then wouldn't it be repulsive? If repulsive, then gravity wouldn't interact with it would it?

 

[Meow Mix]

If dark matter can't radiate, what happens to the energy it absorbs? If dark matter can neither radiate or absorb, then wouldn't it be repulsive? If repulsive, then gravity wouldn't interact with it would it?

I’m out being a pool shark tonight, I’ll respond to this and to @Native tomorrow or Monday. Probably tomorrow but have some social stuff then too.

 

[Meow Mix]

I’ve made $60 since this post ^.^

 

[JoshuaTree]

I’ve made $60 since this post ^.^

Yeah, no way you a robot ha ha.

 

[Meow Mix]

Yeah, no way you a robot ha ha.

Womp womp back to $20 overall. Also I should stop logging on, I’m getting drunk ^.^

 

[Meow Mix]

Haaaaa finished $60 up anyway. Tonorrow is not going to be a good morning. Peace ^.^

 

[Native]

But I do understand what you're describing in plain words and sentences. But vague ideas only go so far. Before we could seriously propose that everything attributed to gravity is actually electromagnetic, we'd need a theory of how this would be done. Period. We'd need the mechanism (because the existing mechanisms for E&M do not work for this), we'd need to quantify it, even in a test system with only two objects. We'd need to explain why net-neutral charge objects like planets would respond to the force. Etc.

Dear Meow Mix Curious Kitty
I fully appreciate your fine work of describing "things in modern cosmology" and I´m also very pleased with your way of debating and discussing different issues.

But, as you surely have noticed, my approaches are significantly different from yours, so I will not "derail " you OP´s too much with my thoughts and just direct you to my own OP of Cosmic Electromagnetism and Plasma Cosmology here at -
Cosmic Electromagnetism and Plasma Cosmology

Both scientific and philosophical issues are handled with and backed up by a couple of scientific and philosophical video´s.

There should be lots of alternate thoughts for you to ponder over . . . Especially about the present "scientific methods in cosmology" here:

 

[Meow Mix]

If dark matter can't radiate, what happens to the energy it absorbs? If dark matter can neither radiate or absorb, then wouldn't it be repulsive? If repulsive, then gravity wouldn't interact with it would it?

This is a rough morning so @Native we're gonna have to wait on the Penrose process, that's going to be a longer post.

JoshuaTree, dark matter doesn't absorb photons is the short answer; but the long answer is some types might very weakly. I could probably give a longer answer tomorrow, if I remember right, some cosmologists have been watching the galactic core for some kinds of interaction that I don't remember off the top of my head as part of the WIMP search. I have not worked with that directly but I'm familiar with the project, just struggling to remember precise details and don't want to say anything incorrect.

But the short answer is it just doesn't absorb.

 

[JoshuaTree]

This is a rough morning so @Native we're gonna have to wait on the Penrose process, that's going to be a longer post.

JoshuaTree, dark matter doesn't absorb photons is the short answer; but the long answer is some types might very weakly. I could probably give a longer answer tomorrow, if I remember right, some cosmologists have been watching the galactic core for some kinds of interaction that I don't remember off the top of my head as part of the WIMP search. I have not worked with that directly but I'm familiar with the project, just struggling to remember precise details and don't want to say anything incorrect.

But the short answer is it just doesn't absorb.

So dark matter can nether absorb or radiate yet interacts with gravity... So what happens when dark matter falls into a black hole, does dark matter emit dark energy? Seems that would be the only option for dark matter than can nether radiate or absorb... Or be absorbed?

 

[JoshuaTree]

Also, concerning dark matter falling into a black hole, wouldn't the conversion (if this makes any sense at all) from dark matter to dark energy be 100% as opposed to 10% conversion to gravity waves for real matter in merger of black holes?

 

[JoshuaTree]

Suppose dark matter falling into black holes generated dark energy... If dark energy is repulsive wouldn't it counteract the greater gravity of the supermassive black hole center of galaxy and bring balance to the rotation of the Galaxy? But that has nothing to do with expansion of space does it?

 

[Meow Mix]

So dark matter can nether absorb or radiate yet interacts with gravity... So what happens when dark matter falls into a black hole, does dark matter emit dark energy? Seems that would be the only option for dark matter than can nether radiate or absorb... Or be absorbed?

Dark energy isn’t emitted; I’ll get more into it in my next posts this week. It is either a pure cosmological constant (comes from GR and is a property of space) or a consequence of quantum mechanics (such as Quintessence).

Despite the names, dark matter and dark energy aren’t at all related.

If dark matter is captured by a black hole, it’s just lost behind the horizon and the horizon grows proportionally as a consequence of black hole thermo.

Edit: I’ll be talking about black hole thermo when I talk to Native about the Penrose process (when I’m at a keyboard, plus I’d like to have the papers I wrote on it handy).

 

[Meow Mix]

Also, concerning dark matter falling into a black hole, wouldn't the conversion (if this makes any sense at all) from dark matter to dark energy be 100% as opposed to 10% conversion to gravity waves for real matter in merger of black holes?

There are theoretically 100% efficient thermo processes with black holes, and it’s actually a problem for classical thermo conceptions (it relates to adding information to a black hole without the usual consequent horizon enlargement). This gets resolved when we add quantum considerations: something about the Killing vectors always prevents it. Super related to the Penrose process too.

Will talk on this more with my response on Penrose process, probably tomorrow.

 

[Meow Mix]

Suppose dark matter falling into black holes generated dark energy... If dark energy is repulsive wouldn't it counteract the greater gravity of the supermassive black hole center of galaxy and bring balance to the rotation of the Galaxy? But that has nothing to do with expansion of space does it?

This is sort of answered in one of the responses above; nothing about dark matter falling into a black hole makes dark energy (I am going to have to double check quintessence ideas to be sure there’s not a “well, but…” here, but consider this the short answer).

Edit: I’ve used some technical terms that likely aren’t very clear. I promise I will make it more clear when I post from a keyboard.

 

[JoshuaTree]

I'm curious, if dark matter neither reflects radiates or absorbs... What happens when something bumps into it... Does it just magically occupy the same space and time of another particle while passing through? You said dark matter can't clump because it can't radiate, seems like dark matter being absorbed by a black hole is clumping.

Thanks!

 

[Native]

So dark matter can nether absorb or radiate yet interacts with gravity... So what happens when dark matter falls into a black hole, does dark matter emit dark energy? Seems that would be the only option for dark matter than can nether radiate or absorb... Or be absorbed?

It´s a huge scientific and philosophical dilemma!

First it was assumed that the Newtonian gravity in celestial motions worked all over the places. Then it was contradicted by factual observations in galactic realms and a "dark matter" was inserted to regulate the galactic motions.

If "dark matter" is thought to have gravitational influences on the orbital motions of starry matters in galaxies, it surely must work according to all assumptions of "mass and gravity" in general.

The initial assumption was wrong and a new assumption was inserted which lead to lots of further loose ends which also cannot be explained logically.

"Oh, something is wrong in our theory and it surely must be something with the factual cosmic observation which is wrong and not something with our theory".

This is unfortunately an ordinary "scientific method" in modern cosmology.

Contradictions are overlooked! Theories are not seriously revised or discarded! And several cosmic dark ghosts patches are invented al over the places, leading scientists farther and farther away and lost in space.

These actions or lack of actions really don´t compute with the dogmatic, in concrete carved, OP title of "Understanding Cosmology". (Sorry to say so, Meow Mix).

No wonder of the scientific saying of: "The more answers we get, the more questions are raised".

 

[JoshuaTree]

So dark matter mostly exists to explain why inner parts of our galaxy doesn't spin faster than the outer parts as our solar system does? Difference I see is the Galaxy has a super massive black hole, the solar system does not. Seems clear the solar system coalesced from a glass cloud, so math makes sense. If the math doesnt make sense for the galaxy, perhaps the galaxy evolved given a supermassive black hole to start with? Not sure what the age of the universe is these days, but seems to me the time it takes to create a supermassive black hole via stellar evolution and orbital decay would sure take a long long time to add up to billions and billions of solar masses?

I find these threads fun cause I can just make stuff up and someone eventually feels obliged to correct me so I learn a lot.

 

[JoshuaTree]

Seems gravity is the key to "showing" dark matter exists in cosmology, so I ask has it been proven that gravity is not instantaneous? Instantaneous gravity would explain why stuff falling off the particle horizon doesn't violate conservation of energy, right? If gravity were instaneous then seems to me the only way to prove it would be to pluck a big chunk of matter out of the universe and note if all points in the universe experienced a change of gravity instatenously. Of course I know we can't do that, yet, but can we rule out instanteous gravity with complete confidence today or does the possibility remain open? How would instantaneous gravity change the dark matter discussion?

Thanks!

 

[Heyo]

Seems gravity is the key to "showing" dark matter exists in cosmology, so I ask has it been proven that gravity is not instantaneous? Instantaneous gravity would explain why stuff falling off the particle horizon doesn't violate conservation of energy, right? If gravity were instaneous then seems to me the only way to prove it would be to pluck a big chunk of matter out of the universe and note if all points in the universe experienced a change of gravity instatenously. Of course I know we can't do that, yet, but can we rule out instanteous gravity with complete confidence today or does the possibility remain open? How would instantaneous gravity change the dark matter discussion?

Thanks!

With instantaneous gravity there would be no gravitational waves. But they are there and it has even been confirmed that they travel at the speed of light.

 

[Meow Mix]

So what do you think of the following:

Subject: “Strongest Gamma Ray Burst Stole Energy from a Black Hole - Proving Penrose Process”.
From an Anton Petrov Video:

His video notes:
0:12 Black hole giving more energy than it takes.
0:18 The Penrose Process
0:24 Extract energy from a spinning black hole.
0:39 Works only for spinning black holes.
0:55 Neutron stars black holes spinning thousands of RPS.
1:06 The faster the spin, the lesser we understand what happens in the black hole.
1:17 Black hole a singularity – or “ringularity”.
2:40 Theoretically achieving up to 25 % energy from the spinning “ergo-sphere”.
3:02 A weird science fiction anomaly, but it apparently it really exists.
3:30 The strongest ever (EM) GMR burst was detected - The newborn black hole in GRB 191014C proves that it is alive
3:44 It wasn´t clear what caused this burst.
4:01 Consensus explanations and further ideas.
4:21 The GMB radiated all kinds of EM frequencies.
4:42 Difficult to explain by modern theories what caused this strong GBR burst.
5:03 Applying Penrose´s ideas.
5:15 Extracting energy from the black hole.
5:32 Forming stars via Super Nova.
6:08 Neutron star collapsing and exploding and creating a black hole.
6:38 But some of the magnetic lines were still there around the hole after the explosion.
7:08 Twisting and bending the magnetic lines thus creating even more electromagnetic energy than there were before the explosion.
7:21 Electromagnetic energy started to be transferred into the GRB.
7:42 The energy to this GRB was originally taken from the energy of the rotational black hole.
7:58 The direct proof of the Penrose Process theory of gaining energy out from a black hole surroundings.
8:13 The entire process took just 3,99 seconds for the neutron star to become a black hole and ejecting the GRB.
8:46 Black hole spinning at 40 % of the speed of light and having a powerful magnetic field as well.
------------
Cosmo Logics:
The force of gravity cannot be explained dynamically and causally as a force; hence it is scientifically endangered and left to live its life in the astrophysical and cosmological department of assumptions and ad hoc assumptions.

Gravity is described as a one direction force of attraction, but still it is thought to make expanding explosions in the opposite direction - and this is the simple inconsistent basics in “gravity cosmology”.

Everything in the observable Universe is attempted to be explained by these simple and unexplained “Standard Cosmology” assumptions, which in general are disconnected from all other fundamental forces.

THOUGH: In the present video the E&M forces and GRB emissions ARE in fact connected to the former assumptions of the gravity forces alone as the causes and explanations.

The Standard Model of having a cosmic neutron object spinning with several thousands of RPS is utterly impossible. It´s only electromagnetic frequencies which can achieve, rotate, and radiate impulses with these RPS, so speaking of physical gravitational rotations is non-cosmo-logics.

The same gravitational misconception and inconsistencies also rules in the Super Nova “explanations”. These novae have shown up to be able to “explode” several times in a row, thus directly contradicting the very super nova assumption itself.

The logical explanation is that stars frequently have their E&M bursts – just like the burst in this video and the bursts in our Sun as well. It all is a simple question of frequently EM charging and frequently discharging.

This present video contents are de facto connecting the so called “gravitational black hole” to have “powerful E&M field results” – which I´ve claimed for as working in galactic “black holes” for some decades and getting much ridiculing for in this RF and other fora.

The galactic formation is governed by the EM force as everything else in the Universe, and it is explainable, in contrast to the assumed “gravity”. And this EM force apparently also goes for the "black hole" observations in this video. (Holes which just are "transformative attractive and repulsive EM funnels of formation".

There is NOTHING peculiar and unexplainable in this present video content when having the EM perceptive, perspective and descriptive approach.

Link.
Penrose process - Wikipedia

Ok, I'm finally at a keyboard.

We use offshoots of the Schwarzschild metric to describe black holes (t goes to infinity at the horizon with your "basic" Schwarzschild metric, so we use Eddington-Finkelstein [EF] metric. We call the EF metrics particular to holes with angular momentum some variation of Kerr metrics, and so we call such holes Kerr black holes). There are four Killing fields, one being time-like and the other three are related to the spherical symmetry. (Actually for a Kerr hole there are only two Killing fields; but the time-translation one is the one we care about). The time-like Killing vector becomes null on the horizon, and inside the horizon is spacelike. This is associated with a spatial momentum component as a conserved quantity (translation: it can be negative).

This can actually occur outside the event horizon in the case of Kerr black holes (which I see the video notes). And this is how we technically define the ergoregion: it is a region where its time translation Killing vector at infinity becomes space-like.

If you were to theoretically send a particle into the ergoregion where it could decay, and were careful to make sure some decay product with negative energy fell into the hole while the rest escaped the ergoregion, the only place the energy could be paid back from is the hole's angular momentum (so, consequently, we know that the escapee must have angular momentum opposite to that of the hole).

This actually has a lot of consequences for classical conceptions of black hole thermo, because it's possible to extract energy from the hole without affecting the size of the horizon (this is tantamount to a 100% efficient thermodynamic exchange; this led Hawking and others to propose the Area Theorem expressed in the First Law of black hole thermo), and this is what the bulk of my paper was about, though I suppose that's tangential to this.

Now the main point I want to make here after this (probably too thorough) explanation of the Penrose process is that it has pretty much nothing to do with E&M, so I don't know why you've brought it up with respect to E&M/plasma physics.

There are metrics for charged black holes (and charged, rotating black holes). There is a Penrose-like process for extracting energy by lowering a charge to the horizon. If the particle and the hole are oppositely charged, there is something like an ergoregion (and extraction comes at the cost of the hole's mass and charge). This is also pretty well-understood as with the Penrose process, and I cannot see what it would have to do with a proposed E&M or plasma-based cosmology, either.