The Freeze Thesis--by Pollux V Based on my limited understanding of astronomy and the mysteries that have been for the past several years and decades perplexing cosmologists I have formulated a thesis that may explain Dark Matter, the fact that stars on the outer edges of galaxies rotate at almost the same speed as those closer to the center, and that the Pioneer spacecraft are being acted upon by a strange force that is slowing their exit from our Solar System. The reason for which we cannot detect Dark Matter is simple: it doesn't exist. It is merely the temperature, or rather, the intense cold of most of the universe that enhances the gravities of stars and galaxies. Although for the most part this influence is fairly weak (that's why the stars at the edges of galaxies don't move in tandem with those in the center) it does exist and become more powerful as space becomes colder. Towards the centers of galaxies stars are clumped together, overall it is warmer than the outside spirals inside the hub. Around this spiral galaxy are where most of the stars are spread, over an extremely large distance they exist. This means that we can infer that it is colder in this area in space, and that the theoretical black hole at the center has almost as much influence on the outside as it does on the inside. To reiterate, the coldness does not create gravity, it merely enhances it. The black hole in the center of this galaxy holds onto everything around it, but in the coldness its gravity is much more powerful and noticeable than in, for example, a solar system. As the distance from the black hole increases the gravity weakens but the relative temperature remains the same. My purpose for posting this here is to hear any criticisms that various people would offer (wet1, Q, and James R), that if anyone supports this thesis they could help to better it. I'm very unsure of this whole thing and don't know if I believe or disbelieve it myself, and since I've grown to listen to the various voices of this community I'd like to hear their opinions on it. But really, any criticism from anyone would be extremely...enlightening. Thanks for reading.
First of all, there is no such thing as cold. There is varying amounts of heat (though some of it, from a human point of view, is damn cold). Secondly, temperature is a property of matter. Space itself is neither warm or cold; it has no temperature, because it has no (allright, virtually no) matter in it. Radiation, including heat radiation, passing through space has a gravity, but that factor is well known and is surely accounted for in the calculations of the amount of matter in the Galaxy. Finally, we have for long been working with calculating the effect of gravity on bodies of very different temperatures, from stars hotter than the Sun to deep-frozen comets, so if temperature had any measuarable influence on the force of gravity, it would be known. So, its an interesting idea, but I wouldnt start counting on that Nobel Prize just yet, if I were you, heheh. Hans Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thanks Okay, so there are varying amounts of heat. The less heat you have, the stronger gravity gets. But there is some degree of temperature between stars, isn't there?
Hey Pollux Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think it might help you if you understand exactly what gravity is, and to that end we can use an old analogy. Think about what would happen if you were to place a bowling ball on a rubber membrane. Pretty much the same thing happens to the fabric of space in response to the presence of a large mass. In other words, 3 dimensional space responds to objects within it in much the same way as a 2 dimension rubber membrane responds to objects on it. It warps. That warping of space is exactly what gravity is. If you were to roll a ball-bearing onto the rubber membrane in exactly the right direction and at exactly the right speed, you could send it into "orbit" (ignoring friction of course) around the balling ball. The same thing is happening in space with moons and planets and stars. They are all travelling in straight lines through warped or curved space. To quote someone who was either famous or really intelligent (forgive me, because for now I can't remember his name) "Mass grips space by telling it how to curve. Space grips mass by telling it how to move." The rubber membrane analogy has many shortcomings. As you would quickly realize, the bowling ball warps the membrane because of the Earths gravity which is obviously not why mass warps space. The warping of space in response to the presence of mass is actually a "property" of space itself. Also, for the sake of simplicity, it has done away with an entire dimension. Nevertheless, many physicists will tell you that that analogies like this one, especially when you are dealing with the many additional theoretical dimensions of ultra-microscopic space (like those in M theory), are perfectly acceptable to use as a tool for guiding your own intuition. To relate this a little more specifically to your idea, the severity with which an object can warp the fabric of space is directly dependant on the mass of the object we are talking about. The mass of an object is a measure of how much matter it contains. Personally, I think fine to think of the mass of an object in terms of how many protons, neutrons and electrons it contains. If you have deeper understanding of the microscopic universe, or a better scientific vocabulary, you can break it down even further, but you get the point. I believe MRC_Hans has filled in any gaps between what I am saying and the possibility you were presenting. Until Einstein formulated his General Theory of Relativity, no one knew exactly what gravity was. Not even Newton, who actually discovered it. Newton understood it's effects completely. He developed complex equations that are still used today to calculate the orbits of planets and even stars, but by his own admission he had no idea what the "agent" of gravity was, so it was viewed by everyone then, and most people (who haven't studied General Relativity) now, as some kind of unknown or invisible "tether". Einstein was able to show what the mechanism of gravity actually was, and gaining an intuitive understanding of it dramatically alters your perception of everything going on "out there". Ok, I'm going to recommend a book or 2 now because there is a whole wealth of shit that I've neccessarily left out since 1) I can't spend the night turning this post into an essay, pulling out books, and annoying everyone who doesn't like long posts and 2) since you already seem to be fascinated by this stuff, you'd probably love being knocked off your chair. Personally, I love banging my head against the virtual wall in my mind and smiling like a semi-drunk person sitting in the corner with the giggles. I dunno, this stuff does it for me. "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene - This is a book that deals primarily with string or M theory, but it has a great section on special and general relativity. It will send you nuts Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)) "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. The classic. "The Universe in a Nutshell" also by Stephen Hawking. I found Hawking hard to read before I understood enough about what he was talking about to appreciate the brilliance in his thinking. Brian Greenes book is better to start with imo. These are all books that show you don't have to be a mathematical genuis to gain a thorough understanding of the nature of the universe. Half of you guys have probably read them all, and many others, but if you haven't, go crazy. Nothing better than learning for the pure enjoyment of it.
Okay, yeah, I've heard a variation of the rubber membrane comparison (wasn't it a mattress?). And I think that I have a basic grasp of the theory of relativity. My original intent was to propose a cause for the excess gravity that's out there, but does this mean that you're shooting it down (in a positive way)? It may not be the answer, but it may be a coincidence that there is a much less abundance of heat in the areas between stars and, more importantly, on the outer edges of galaxies. Alright, I believe I understand this. You're saying that temperature can't be measured without some matter inside it, correct? Areas that are devoid of any atoms whatsoever, total voids. Okay then, let me reform my thesis. Hmmm...I'll have to think this one over for a bit. Thanks for your contributions, Raz and Hans. Take care.
Rav: "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene - This is a book that deals primarily with string or M theory, but it has a great section on special and general relativity. It will send you nuts " Excellent book, fairly easy to read for for us non-technical people.
