Dear Yousuf Khan:

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Okay great, then assuming by some discovery we find out
how much of the universe is outside of our viewing range,
will that affect the calculations for the age of the universe?


How could we find that out? Light (and its close cousin,
virtual photons) is our only means of detecting *anything*.

That's why I said "assuming by some discovery", which should
obviously mean it's hypothetical.

Then you really mean "non physical", since all geometry is based
on light.

No. As I have said, the CMBR a billion years ago (baed on
observations) indicated an age of the Universe that was a
billion years younger.

Okay that's a good possibility, how do we know the CMBR is
cooling? Are we measuring microscopic changes in temperature
of the CMBR and then extrapolating backwards? Or are we just
taking our theories about the temperature of the Big Bang and
curve fitting backwards from today to a billion years ago?
Basically what is the mark left on things from a billion years
ago
that what would indicate the CMBR was warmer back then?

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publ...e.html?1132005
.... CMBR interacting with galaxies some 7 billion years ago...
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-27-00.html
.... CMBR interacting some 10 billion years ago...
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/s...pic217658.shtm
.... about a billion years ago, the CMBR temperature was about 9.1
K. Measured by two different researchers, with different
physical models.

It is cooling.

Well, how do we know the distribution of matter isn't highly
iron?


The spectrum of the stars is that of mostly hydrogen ad
helium.

Yeah, the spectrum of the stars is like that, but what about
the halo? There's little to no sprectrum to be seen there.

As far back as we can see is mostly hydrogen and helium. It is
written into every point source.

We don't even know what dark matter is composed of yet.


Yes, we know what it isn't, however. And baryonic matter
(iron, hydrogen and the like) is what it isn't.

What if Milgrom's MOND is right at least to some extent? It
won't
banish the existence of dark matter, but the dark matter itself
doesn't have to be as massive as we need it to be right now.

MOND isn't the answer. Neither is Dark Matter, in my opinion.

What if all of the
stuff out in the galactic halos are long dead star cores
(including neutron stars and stellar blackholes), which
somehow migrate out into the halo over time?


These areas are full of dust. How is it that the "neutron
stars and stellar blackholes" prevent discovery by NOT
consuming the dust and producing the ever-present X-rays?
Like their counterparts in less dusty areas manage to do...

Okay, understood. Then let's change the parameters a little
bit, how about long dead star cores, but only the type below
1.4 solar masses, and not the exotic ones above 1.4 solar
masses, like neutrons and blacks.

Stable neutron stars are 0.8 solar masses. How far down will you
define "too small to detect"?

Again, the sieving effect caused by some quirky nature of MOND.

Concentrate on getting a star drive. The rest is armchair
quarterbacking.

Separated out by gravity in some sort of natural
galactic centrifuge. Afterall it seems like the laws of
gravity are
starting to undergo modifications these days as we do more
detailed observations of the rest of the universe -- perhaps a
galactic centrifuge is a quite logical outcome of the laws
that
we will eventually discover?


Not too likley. No such motion is evident, and we can see
several galaxies "closely" and quite clearly.

Maybe I should've been a bit more specific when I said that
the theories of gravity are undergoing modification, before.
I *was* thinking of the MOND theories partially. But it isn't
just
MOND there's other anamolies being presented here too.
Those anamolies can be explained by MOND, dark matter,
superstring theories, etc.

SPACE.com -- The Problem with Gravity: New Mission Would
Probe Strange Puzzle
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ay_041018.html

If it isn't a mystery we don't send a probe. And there are as
many flavors of solutions, as there are people looking at the
data.

The particles represent the temperature of the hole. Not very
much mass is going to be produced this way. Even with all the
holes we have discovered. You are a few loads shy of a
workable hypothesis.

Well, at various points in the life of the universe a lot of
mass
has been locked away inside blackholes. Stephen Hawking said
that blackholes radiate their mass away as antimatter particles
fall into them, releasing their associated matter particles to
keep
living.

As long as their temperature is above the "background
temperature", yes.

If there is a natural skew to the universe that prefers that a
few more
percentage of antiparticles will fall into blackholes rather
than
particles, then perhaps blackholes are a form of cosmic bank
vault. In fact, Hawking said that we should just now be seeing
some microscopic blackholes with masses the size of
mountains or asteroids created during the big bang to be
completely disappearing right now, simply from the effects of
vaccuum energy eating away at them. At some point all
blackholes (even the biggest galactic ones) will have eaten
away at most of the material nearest to them, and there will
be nothing else falling in to any great rate, at that point the
vaccuum energy eating away at their insides might become
a greater effect. Right now we're still depositing into the
blackhole banks, later we might be withdrawing.

I suspect that black holes are simply "pushpins", around which
galaxies coalesce. The amount of matter that infalls is
inconsequential. It is not that their gravity is abnormally
high, just that their "surface" is abnormally small. Makes them
even harder to hit. And, if they are spinning, will actually
serve to boost nearby masses into *higher* orbitals.

The
new particles could go into refreshing the galactic gas clouds
for new star formation. And mass and energy conservation
would be preserved in the universe by the fact that every
year,
more parts of the universe become inaccessible to us as they
go "beyond the rim".


There are surprises in store for us, don't worry. But our
ticket is one way, and we are going to end up cold and in the
boonies... no matter how large or old the Universe is.

And the Dark Energy force that's forcing the galaxies apart at
an accelerating rate, might at some future point switch over to
a decelerating and reversing force which could end up bringing
everything back together.

There are some theories that hold this to be true, yes.

But that might only be triggered by the universe becoming
sufficiently cold. No evidence for the Dark Energy doing that
yet,
but then again there was no evidence for Dark Energy at all
just
a few years ago -- and now there is.

I suspect both Dark Matter and Dark Energy to end up being huge
fudge factors. I am usually wrong, however. Just don't look to
them to stay "unmodified and eternal".

David A. Smith