A clash of clusters provides another clue to dark matter

August 27, 2008
Hubble and Chandra Composite of the Galaxy Custer MACS J0025.4-1222

Enlarge

This astounding view of galaxy cluster MACSJ0025 demonstrates how ordinary matter and mysterious dark matter interact. The blue cloud-shaped parts flanking the centre show the position of dark matter, mapped by the Advanced Camera for Surveys onboard the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope. The pink middle indicates ordinary matter, charted by NASA’s Chandra X-Ray Observatory. The position of the two matter types shown in the image are explained by MACSJ0025’s origin. It was formed when a pair of large galaxy clusters collided. Ordinary matter in the form of hot gas slowed down and pooled at the centre but ghostly dark matter passed straight through. Hubble used a technique known as gravitational lensing to obtain its data. The light observed was bent by the gravitationally massive galaxy cluster, resulting in an incredibly detailed image. This technique was originally predicted by Einstein. MACSJ0025 is located in the constellation Cetus, the Whale. Credit: NASA, ESA, CXC, M. Bradac (University of California, Santa Barbara, USA), and S. Allen (Stanford University, USA).

New Hubble and Chandra observations of the cluster known as MACSJ0025.4-1222 indicate that a titanic collision has separated dark from ordinary matter. This provides independent confirmation of a similar effect detected previously in a target dubbed the Bullet Cluster, showing that the Bullet Cluster is not an anomalous case.

A powerful collision of galaxy clusters has been captured with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and Hubble Space Telescope. Like its famous cousin, the so-called Bullet Cluster, this clash of clusters provides striking evidence for dark matter and insight into its properties.

Like the Bullet Cluster, this newly studied cluster, officially known as MACSJ0025.4-1222, shows a clear separation between dark and ordinary matter. This helps answer a crucial question about whether dark matter interacts with itself in ways other than via gravitational forces.

This finding is important because it independently verifies the results found for the Bullet Cluster in 2006. The new results show the Bullet Cluster is not an exception and that the earlier results were not the product of some unknown error.

Just like the original Bullet Cluster, MACSJ0025 formed after an incredibly energetic collision between two large clusters in almost the plane of the sky. In some ways, MACSJ0025 can be thought of as a prequel to the Bullet Cluster. At its much larger distance of 5.7 billion light years, astronomers are witnessing a collision that occurred long before the Bullet Cluster's.

Using optical images from Hubble, the team was able to infer the distribution of the total mass (colored in blue) -- dark and ordinary matter -- using a technique known as gravitational lensing. The Chandra data enabled the astronomers to accurately map the position of the ordinary matter, mostly in the form of hot gas, which glows brightly in X-rays (pink).

An important difference between the Bullet Cluster and the new system is that MACSJ0025 does not actually contain a "bullet". This feature is a dense, X-ray bright core of gas that can be seen moving through the Bullet Cluster. Nonetheless, the amount of energy involved in this mammoth collision is nearly as extreme as that found in the Bullet Cluster.

As the two clusters that formed MACSJ0025 (each almost a whopping million billion times the mass of the Sun) merged at speeds of millions of miles per hour, the hot gas in each cluster collided and slowed down, but the dark matter did not. The separation between the material shown in pink and blue therefore provides direct evidence for dark matter and supports the view that dark matter particles interact with each other only very weakly or not at all, apart from the pull of gravity.

One of the great accomplishments of modern astronomy has been to establish a complete inventory of the matter and energy content of the Universe. The so-called dark matter makes up approximately 23% of this content, five times more than the ordinary matter that can be detected by telescopes. The latest results with MACSJ0025 once again confirm these findings.

The results will appear in an upcoming issue of The Astrophysical Journal.

Source: Hubble Information Centre

view popular send feedback to editors
4.4 /5 (27 votes)  

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

TimESimmons
Aug 27, 2008

Rank: 1.6 / 5 (8)
Similar to the bullet cluster but completely different from this one:-

http://www.nasa.g...ure.html

But somehow they are all supposed to prove the existence of dark matter. I don't think so.
Velanarris
Aug 27, 2008

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (4)
I don't really see how they're different. The "ripple" effect described in your linked article is referring to light being bent by the presence of dark matter. Not dark matter itself rippling due to a collision.

If you read towards the last paragraph, the linked article actually states that "Although the invisible matter has been found before in other galaxy clusters, astronomers say it has never been detected to be so largely separated from the hot gas and the galaxies that make up galaxy clusters."

So basically the effect from your article, and the effect from the above article are the same, in which a galactic collision separated the hot gas from the dark matter resulting in discernable dark matter presence without baryonic matter presence via gravitational lensing.
TimESimmons
Aug 27, 2008

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
In this and the bullet cluster the lensing is in the centres of the clusters. In the other it is in a ring. Different. Explain.
ryuuguu
Aug 27, 2008

Rank: 1.7 / 5 (3)
In this and the bullet cluster the lensing is in the centres of the clusters. In the other it is in a ring. Different. Explain.


off hand it seems pretty simple. In the picture above the ordinary matter has collided and come to a stop, with dark passing through and coming out the other sides. In the bullet I would guess we are earlier in the collisoin, so the ordinary matter has slowed down and the two sets of dark matter have met in the middle. I think later the bullet will look like the above as the dark matter keeps moving.
ripley60
Aug 27, 2008

Rank: 2.7 / 5 (3)
I am truly puzzled by the responses to this article. While the article was informative it did nothing to uncover or explain the nature of "dark matter." The article explained that gravitational lensing was used to "reveal" matter and dark matter. How was this accomplished if the nature of dark matter is still not understood? I wish the article explained the connection between gravitational lensing and dark matter. If dark matter is truly a form of matter, yet is "invisible," how can the scientists declare the "visible, blue area" as dark matter?
The article was deficient in explaining the connection and nature of the blue haze, which according to one reader is %u201Cinvisible.%u201D Have scientists definitively determined the unseen force is actually matter? Isn't it still plausible that this mystery involves a type of force without mass? The article was interesting but far from edifying for those of us who follow the hunt for "dark matter." Other readers inferred that dark matter bent or distorted light. This infers that scientist know something of the fundamental nature of dark matter; other than its gravitational influence. This is news to me, and the authors of this article failed to reveal what they knew specifically and why they believed gravitational lensing can expose this unseen force. One reader even referenced the absence of baryonic matter as a way of "peeking into the unknown and the indefinable." Please have the authors eloborate.
TimESimmons
Aug 28, 2008

Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
My point above was that this cluster and the bullet cluster are very similar. However this one:-

http://www.nasa.g...ure.html

is very different. I agree with ripley that while we have identified lensing that doesn't prove there is extra mass there. I have my own crackpot theory which is set out here:-

http://www.presto...ndex.htm
Velanarris
Aug 28, 2008

Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
By current theory Gravity requires a source. It doesn't spontaneously occur.

Dark matter has gravitational effect but no other known effect like baryonic matter on it's surrounds as far as we can detect.

To explain the ring system the two systems collided and the baryonic (visible) matter has been splayed out by the gravitational interactions while the dark matter has settled into a conventional ring shape.

In the bullet and this new cluster the interaction is assumed to have happened more recently so the dark matter is still splaying out from the standard ring shape due to gravitational interaction from the baryonic matter on the dark matter.

As for gravitational lensing and dark matter I can give a layman's explaination. Dark matter is suspected to have a gravitational effect, and so the presence of dark matter can be seen when there is no sufficient gravitational force yet light is being bent around an object exerting gravitational force. So by seeing the light bend with no baryonic cause it is assumed to be dark matter exerting it's gravitational influence on the passing light.

The coloration in the images is added after the fact to show the areas of dark matter, real dark matter you wouldn't be able to see (according to theory).

I hope this is a little more clear.

And there is a giant problem with your AGM theory. We exist. If there was a sufficient amount of AGM out there it would have disrupted galactic formation, not encouraged it.
yyz
Aug 28, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
@TimESimmons, you're mixing up the galaxy clusters mentioned in the article. The 'Bullet Cluster' is 1E 0657-56. The cluster your link points to is CL 0024 17, so get your clusters straight, first. The paper referring to MACS J0025.4-1222 is at: http:/arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0808.2320v2 . Page 9 of the 10 page paper compares 1E 0657-56 'Bullet CL' & MACS J0025.4-1222 & concludes both observations confirm the current model of DM (MOND & TeVeS do NOT explain thses 2 observations). As for the ring-like distribution of DM in CL 0024 17, the paper states that we are seeing 2 clusters merge from an 'end-on' perspective & this does not show the DM-energy distribution in this merger as well as the previous 2 galaxy clusters, due to perspective effects. Seriously, check out the paper mentioned above, as it lays out a coherent argument for the DM distribution in these 2 galaxy clusters.
TimESimmons
Aug 28, 2008

Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
yyz My links are correct. The message of this article and the bullet cluster article here:-

http://www.nasa.g...ven.html

is that the dark matter has passed through the collisions while the gas clouds have not. The message of the blue ring article here:-

http://www.nasa.g...ure.html

is that the dark matter has "rippled" outwards. Different behaviour. Once again my crackpot theory that explains the difference is here:-

http://www.presto...ndex.htm

Velanarris - Please explain why AG Matter would have disrupted galaxy formation. I have explained in my website how it actually causes galaxy formation. Please explain how galaxies form without AG Matter. Discs, cores, spiral arms, globular clusters, molecular clouds, supernova remnants etc.
TimESimmons
Aug 28, 2008

Rank: 1.3 / 5 (3)
eee dear! let's try again with those links:-

http://www.nasa.g...ven.html

http://www.nasa.g...ure.html

http://www.presto...ndex.htm
Velanarris
Aug 28, 2008

Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Alright well here we go. You propose that AG matter exists. For it to exist it would have had to exist from the beginning or be introduced from somewhere. Since you didn't offer that it was introduced or created I'll go with it's been around since the beginning of the universe.

Now here's where your theory turns to trash:

If AGM was in existance since the beginning and repulses everything due to it's negative mass then it would technically have negative energy as proposed by e=mc^2. If it has negative energy, and not negative energy in relation to it's environs, but negative energy in relation to everything then it would annihilate itself at the beginning when the universe was of infinetesimal size.

Ok since you left us with no math to support your AGM setup we'll rough it out with empirical logic. How exactly would AGM explain your models on Galactic formation if it repulses everything?

If AGM and regular grvatic matter were in existance at the onset of the universe then all the gas that ever existed would have been forced to the middle of the universe while all the agm would be forced to the outside due to how repulsion works.

Since you supposed that AGM repulses everything, including itself, it would have repulsed regular matter and AGm away from itself, spreading out to the lowest energy state, (which in your mind is negative) meaning it would be pushing harder and harder on regualr matter forcing it all into a singularity, not into an assortment of galaxies.
TimESimmons
Aug 28, 2008

Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
No not negative mass. Positive mass and negative weight. That is, particles of positive mass that are repelled from each other and from normal matter.

In the early universe normal matter and AG Matter separate. Normal matter is pulled together by its own gravity and pushed together by the AGM around it. AGM also causes drag which saps kinetic energy and helps normal matter to come together. Hence the early formation of galaxies in the universe.
Velanarris
Aug 28, 2008

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
No not negative mass. Positive mass and negative weight. That is, particles of positive mass that are repelled from each other and from normal matter.

In the early universe normal matter and AG Matter separate. Normal matter is pulled together by its own gravity and pushed together by the AGM around it. AGM also causes drag which saps kinetic energy and helps normal matter to come together. Hence the early formation of galaxies in the universe.


Ok then how does the light from other galaxies traverse through this field of anti gravity so that you can make your observations of galactic formation?


In order to be strong enough to account for galactic formation including current spin speeds without disassociation due to the inherent weakness of gravity it would have to repel all light back to it's original source as well, and without sunlight we wouldn't be here.
TimESimmons
Aug 28, 2008

Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
It's a field of anti-gravity matter throughout deep space. It doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation except by gravity. The two clusters in the image above are rotating. As they rotate they drive two anti-gravity matter vortices. The vortices reduce the local density of anti-gravity matter. The density reduction generates a gravity field that we observe as the blue regions in the image. The blue ring in my link above is also a vortex effect. See my website for an explanation and mpeg of a laboratory demonstration:-

http://www.presto...ndex.htm
yyz
Aug 28, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
@TimESimmons, Look & read the copy on your second NASA link, the one with the ring-like DM. Does it not say that the pictured cluster is CL 0024 17 = ZwCL 0024 1652? Again, the 'Bullet Cluster' is 1E 0657-56 & the cluster in the article is MACS J0025.4-1222. If you can't see your error in nomenclature, why are you even posting at this site. Why should anyone believe your wild AGM hypothesis if you can't or won't even read the sources you quote? Check the NED or HyperLEDA reference sources if you still can't figure out what galaxy cluster you're referring to. Then carefully read the original paper I noted above on MACS J0025.4-1222. It mentions all three galaxy clusters in a short 10 pages. Just check your facts before you post, that's all I'm trying to say.
yyz
Aug 28, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
BTW, the original paper on DM in the 'Bullet Cluster' 1E 0657-56 can be found at: http:/arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407v1 .Compare & contrast it with the MACS paper mentioned in my previous posts. I have read the papers supporting the MOND theory as an alternate explanation for the 'Bullet Cluster', but several more (including the current MACS paper) cast severe doubts as to its' validity in explaing the 'Bullet Cluster' observations. I don't reject MOND out of hand, but it seems more conclusive work and confirmational observations will be necessary to bolster its' claims. As for AGM, TimESimmons deserves the Nobel Prize in Physics(not) or just another footnote in science gone bad.
yyz
Aug 28, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
And finally, for future reference, the paper describing the ring-like DM seen in CL 0024 17 can be found at: http://arxiv.org/...5.2171v1 and just the abstract alone explains why the DM structure appears ring-like (the perspective effect).Careful study of the papers may help to explain to non-astronomers the particulars of these 3 fascinating galaxy clusters. Just take a moment to read these peer-reviewed articles.
Velanarris
Aug 29, 2008

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
It's a field of anti-gravity matter throughout deep space. It doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation except by gravity. The two clusters in the image above are rotating. As they rotate they drive two anti-gravity matter vortices. The vortices reduce the local density of anti-gravity matter. The density reduction generates a gravity field that we observe as the blue regions in the image. The blue ring in my link above is also a vortex effect. See my website for an explanation and mpeg of a laboratory demonstration:-

http://www.presto...ndex.htm


Which means your setup for drag is wrong. Also means this "vortex" would cause galaxies to be funnel shaped or globular since repulsive forces don't have angular vectors.

You still haven't conquered the beginning of the universe where like repulsive magnetic forces you'd end up with all the matter in the same central location causing a singularity.

Besides, what you're proposing sounds an awful lot like a really poor man's dark energy concept.

(still not a spot of math about your theory either, that alone makes it useless)

You should re-read your own paper. You know why they call them crackpot theories? Because like a cracked pot, they don't hold water.
earls
Aug 29, 2008

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Here is his maths page: http://www.presto...aths.htm

I seriously doubt he'll ever be swayed. Try taking an objective look, Tim.

While the polarity of "dark energy" and "gravity" may exist, I seriously doubt they will ever be discovered to manifest themselves with the properties he has laid out.

As pointed out, this theory attempts to explains one thing and nothing else.
yyz
Aug 29, 2008

Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
For Tim & earls, why not write up a detailed, comprehensive account of your AGM theory and submit it to a peer-reviewed astronomical publication, just to spread the word, instead of using homemade pages posted at various internet sites. Maybe after passing peer review and being published your hypothesis (as such) may be taken more seriously. Just a thought.
earls
Aug 29, 2008

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Cool, thanks for totally misinterpreting my post. But I suppose the failure to communicate was all mine.

I have been a staunch opponent to Tim's theory for quite some time.

I seriously doubt he'll [Tim] ever be swayed. Try taking an objective look [at your own theory], Tim.

While the polarity of "dark energy" and "gravity" may exist, I seriously doubt they will ever be discovered to manifest themselves with the properties he [Tim] has laid out.

As pointed out, this theory [AGM] attempts to explains one thing and nothing else.
yyz
Aug 29, 2008

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
@Earls, my humble apologies go out to you for misunderstanding your previous post. I got it wrong, totally wrong. It seems you & Velanarris both got it right with regards to Tim's so-called AGM theory. 'For Tim, why not write up a detailed, comprehensive account of your AGM theory and submit it to a peer-reviewed astronomical publication, just to spread the word, instead of using homemade pages posted at various internet sites. Maybe after passing peer review and being published your hypothesis (as such) may be taken more seriously. Just a thought. But my suggestion to Tim still stands, and I heartily agree with earls' comment 'I seriously doubt he'll ever be swayed.Thanks go to earl & Velanarris intelligent discussion on this issue. Original paper on the
'Bullet Cluster' can be found at http://arxiv.org/...608407v1 .CL 0024 17 is at http://arxiv.org/...5.2171v1 & MACS J0025 is at http://arxiv.org/...8.2320v2 .These three papers lay out the case for DM & expound upon alternate gravitational models (incl. MOND & TeVeS, but not AGM!).
yyz
Aug 29, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
Sorry, those last two refs should be arXiv:0705.2171v1 for CL 0024 17 and arXiv:0808.2320v2 for MACS J0025.4-1222.
earls
Aug 29, 2008

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
yyz, no problem.

I kind of feel for Tim because he has put so much work into his theory only for it to be so quickly devastated.

I know he has basic components correct, but the unnecessary invention of particles and forces just because they appear to fit the picture doesn't help.

"Unexperiements" based on wild theories of untestable speculation prove nothing.
yyz
Aug 29, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
I , too, feel for Tim & his ilk, for 'I know he has basic components correct, but the unnecessary invention of particles and forces just because they appear to fit the picture doesn't help.'. It seems that with the rise if the internet, infinite possibilities exist for people to 'publish' their pet theories online and publish books supporting these (sometimes outlandish)models they have intuited (case in point, 'Null Physics' or B.L. Farmer's 1996 book 'Universe Alternatives' both chock full of a mish-mash of equations that elucidate nothing). All this reminds me of the magazine Scientific American when for a while, they would fill their April 1st(fools-day) letters section with abridged versions of the many letters they would recieve during the year from readers who claimed to have invented tachyon drives, unified the 4 forces of nature, invented working perpetual-motion devices, etc. and demanded that they be published. Some were written in crayon, some contained reams of paper expound this theory or that. Nowadays, the internet takes over this function, prodding well-intentioned individuals to post their GUT theories, pet theories, etc. But who really knows, or has the time to slog through these mountains of info to find a diamond in the rough. As they say, a little knowledge can be a bad thing.
TimESimmons
Aug 29, 2008

Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
I am watching your posts guys and waiting for something I can respond to. You don't appear to be convinced. But you haven't explained why.
Velanarris
Aug 29, 2008

Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
I am watching your posts guys and waiting for something I can respond to. You don't appear to be convinced. But you haven't explained why.


Explain this:

In your theory there is AGM all throughout the Universe, and Gravity has a known affect on light. So how can you justify your theory if we can see other stars and galaxies? AGM would have to be redirecting that light away from our galaxy due to the nature of the affect of gravity on light. And if the AGM was not present all visible galaxies would have to appear to be approaching or orbiting us due to the repulsive nature of AGM but that is contrary to our current observations.

Explain that behavior.

yyz
Aug 29, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Tim. I have yet to see a refereed paper published in any reputable professional journal (g.g. Astrophysical Journal, Nature, Science, Astronomical Journal, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Astronomy & Astrophysics, etc). Instead of creating fancy web sites to explain your AGM theory, why not publish an irrefutable article in a peer reviewed professional astronomical journal and enlighten us all of your wonderous theory !! After your article is deemed worthy enough to publish consider a posting of your paper on the arXive website for everyone to see. This is the appropriate way to disseminate your AGM theory. Can you imagine the great leap forward (or backwards) for the entire astronomical community. The ball is in your court to explain & refute your theory to the astronomical community. It's not up to astronomers to reufute or rebut your arguments , it's up to you to prove them all wrong and your right. I am awaiting to see such a paper published in a peer-reviewed, reputable journal to more fully understand where you're going with this.
TimESimmons
Aug 30, 2008

Rank: 1.5 / 5 (2)
Velanarris - In deep space well away from normal matter AGM spreads itself out fairly evenly. If you or a photon are in deep space in the middle of a large constant density field of AGM then actually you feel no net gravity because it all cancels out. Hence photons travel through deep space almost unaffected by AGM. It's only when the AGM interacts with normal matter that you get variation in the density of AGM which causes "dark matter" effects.

yyz - I know! I'm building the case slowly. But I am making progress and I believe I have offered explanations for many observed phenomena that we otherwise do not understand. I will continue to collect them on my website.

http://www.presto...ndex.htm
Velanarris
Aug 30, 2008

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Velanarris - In deep space well away from normal matter AGM spreads itself out fairly evenly. If you or a photon are in deep space in the middle of a large constant density field of AGM then actually you feel no net gravity because it all cancels out. Hence photons travel through deep space almost unaffected by AGM. It's only when the AGM interacts with normal matter that you get variation in the density of AGM which causes "dark matter" effects.


So then you're ignoring the effects of the cosmic web on your AGM. The universe would have to be almost opaque with matter to support your theory, which it is not.

Your simulations are wrong, your math is somewhat non-existant, and your theory holds no water.
superhuman
Aug 30, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
Tim how is your AGM different from dynamic dark energy?
TimESimmons
Aug 30, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
What's that?
TimESimmons
Aug 31, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
If it's as described here:-

http://berkeley.e...er.shtml

then the difference is that they are assuming that the invisible dark matter is located at the positions of gravitational attraction. I am proposing that the density of repulsive invisible AG Matter is fairly constant throughout the universe but is reduced where they think there is dark matter. It's a double negative. Reductions in density of AG Matter can be caused by normal matter, or can be caused by vortices in the AG Matter.
superhuman
Aug 31, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
What's that?

Its explained here:
http://en.wikiped...k_energy

Dark *Energy* is something that is not visible and exerts gravitational repulsion it is theorized to be spread fairly evenly throughout space. One hypothesis postulates it to be a static field permeating all space, the other postulates it is dynamic and varies in its density. The latter seems pretty much like your AGM theory as far as I can tell at a glance.
JerryPark
Aug 31, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
There is no compelling reason to suppose that the matter on either side (shown in blue) is any different from the matter in the middle (shown in pink) except for the temperature.

I know scientists want to find evidence of exotic (dark) matter and will jump at any possibility to show that such matter exists. But this just doesn't show that such matter exists.

Presume that the two galaxy clusters contained a thinly dispersed and cold matter in the intergalactic spaces (this is normal). Such matter is not apparent because it is thinly dispersed and is very cold. If it radiated, we would have difficulty seeing through it.

When the galaxy clusters collided, some of the intergalactic mass collided. This mass slowed and heated -- it is the mass shown in the center. The rest of the intergalactic mass did not collide. It passed through the collision and remained cold. It is inferred by the lensing but cannot be seen.

No need at all to presume exotic matter.
TimESimmons
Aug 31, 2008

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
superhuman - Yes I expect that the repulsion of AG Matter throughout the universe is what causes dark energy effects. Two observation lead me to believe that the cause is particulate in nature. These are:-
o In certain circumstances the density of AG Matter can drop to (but not below) zero. This leads to phenomena like bulging galaxy cores, globular clusters and molecular clouds.
o Normal matter objects feel drag as they pass through AG Matter. This leads to phenomena like galaxy discs, spiral arms, the movement of molecular clouds, and the behaviour of supernova remnants.

http://www.presto...ndex.htm
superhuman
Sep 01, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
What is particulate and what isn't is more a question of interpretation then a fundamental difference.
TimESimmons
Sep 02, 2008

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Nevertheless AG Matter acts like an atmosphere of particles pervading deep space. It causes drag on normal matter objects passing through it. In turn they drive currents and eddies of AG Matter.
Velanarris
Sep 03, 2008

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
You still haven't turned this hypothesis into a theory. You have no real experimentation or derivative data making this feasible.

That and it's contrary to current scientific observation.
Rank 4.4 /5 (27 votes)
Tags

bullet cluster, dark matter, ordinary matter
Related Stories
more news
Relevant PhysicsForums posts
  • Titan's lack of impact craters
    created15 hours ago
  • Real pictures of black hole eating a star?
    createdFeb 08, 2012
  • Hypothetical way to travel faster than light, but not technically exceed lightspeed
    createdFeb 06, 2012
  • How do scientists monitor the Sun's activity?
    createdFeb 05, 2012
  • Search patterns in observational studies
    createdFeb 05, 2012
  • Derivation of Pogson's law
    createdFeb 03, 2012
  • More from Physics Forums - General Astronomy

More news stories

New views show old NASA Mars landers

(PhysOrg.com) -- The High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter recorded a scene on Jan. 29, 2012, that includes the first color image from orbit showing ...

Space & Earth / Space Exploration

created 19 hours ago | popularity 4.9 / 5 (7) | comments 7 | with audio podcast

Deconstructing a mystery: What caused Snowmaggedon?

In the quiet after the storms, streets and cars had all but disappeared under piles of snow. The U.S. Postal Service suspended service for the first time in 30 years. Snow plows struggled to push the evidence ...

Space & Earth / Earth Sciences

created 11 hours ago | popularity 4.7 / 5 (3) | comments 1 | with audio podcast

Black holes and star formation

(PhysOrg.com) -- It has long been recognized that galaxy mergers or even close interactions can play a vital role in shaping the morphology of galaxies. One way they can do so, it is thought, is by triggering ...

Space & Earth / Astronomy

created 18 hours ago | popularity 4.1 / 5 (7) | comments 5 | with audio podcast

Ocean microbe communities changing, but long-term environmental impact is unclear

As oceans warm due to climate change, water layers will mix less and affect the microbes and plankton that pump carbon out of the atmosphere – but researchers say it's still unclear whether these processes ...

Space & Earth / Earth Sciences

created 13 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (2) | comments 2 | with audio podcast

Researchers create 3-D laser maps that show how earthquake changes landscape

Geologists have a new tool to study how earthquakes change the landscape down to a few inches, and it's giving them insight into how earthquake faults behave. In the Feb. 10 issue of the journal Science, a team ...

Space & Earth / Earth Sciences

created 13 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (4) | comments 0 | with audio podcast


'Dark plasmons' transmit energy

Microscopic channels of gold nanoparticles have the ability to transmit electromagnetic energy that starts as light and propagates via "dark plasmons," according to researchers at Rice University.

FDA-approved drug rapidly clears amyloid from the brain, reverses Alzheimer's symptoms in mice

Neuroscientists at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine have made a dramatic breakthrough in their efforts to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease. The researchers' findings, published in the journal Science, show t ...

Hydrogen from acidic water: Researchers develop potential low cost alternative to platinum for splitting water

A technique for creating a new molecule that structurally and chemically replicates the active part of the widely used industrial catalyst molybdenite has been developed by researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley ...

Ultraviolet protection molecule in plants yields its secrets

Lying around in the sun all day is hazardous not just for humans but also for plants, which have no means of escape. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun can damage proteins and DNA inside cells, leading ...

Soraa LED light may dim 50-watt halogen rivals

(PhysOrg.com) -- Soraa, a Fremont, California company founded in 2008, this week launched its first product, a light that uses LEDS (light emitting diodes). The "Soraa LED MR16 lamp" is the "perfect" replacement ...

Anyone can learn to be more inventive, cognitive researcher says

There will always be a wild and unpredictable quality to creativity and invention, says Anthony McCaffrey, a cognitive psychology researcher at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, because an "Aha moment" is rare and ...