[/caption]
Way off in the constellation of Virgo, galaxy cluster MACS J1206.2-0847 -or MACS 1206 for short – is making news as the forerunner of a brand new Hubble Space Telescope survey. What’s new for the aging telescope? Now astronomers are able to assemble a highly detailed dark matter map… one that involves more galaxy clusters than ever before.
These “dark matter” maps are proving their worth by allowing astronomers to test some theories. In this case, it’s some unusual findings which suggest dark matter is more densely packed inside galaxy clusters than some models predict. If this holds true, it may point to evidence that galaxy clusters pulled together sooner than once predicted. The multiwavelength survey, called the Cluster Lensing And Supernova survey with Hubble (CLASH), takes an unprecedented look at the distribution of dark matter in 25 massive clusters of galaxies.
“The era when the first clusters formed is not precisely known, but is estimated to be at least 9 billion years ago and possibly as far back as 12 billion years ago.” says the Hubble team. “If most of the clusters in the CLASH survey are found to have excessively high accumulations of dark matter in their central cores, then it may yield new clues to the early stages in the origin of structure in the universe.”
To date, the CLASH team has finished their observations of six of the 25 clusters. Of these, MACS 1206 has a distance of about 4.5 billion light-years and was photographed with Hubble’s Advanced Camera for Surveys and the Wide Field Camera 3 in April 2011 through July 2011. What are the strange shapes? These “distortions” are where the light is bent by the extreme gravitation of dark matter.
“Lensing effects can also produce multiple images of the same distant object, as evident in this Hubble picture. In particular, the apparent numbers and shapes of distant galaxies far beyond a galaxy cluster become distorted as the light passes through, yielding a visible measurement of how much mass is in the intervening cluster and how it is distributed.” says the team. “The substantial lensing distortions seen are proof that the dominant component of clusters is dark matter. The distortions would be far weaker if the clusters’ gravity came only from the visible galaxies in the clusters.”
Original Story Source: Hubble News Release.
Quick Tammy, before Ivan sees it, last sentence of first paragraph- ‘on’ should be ‘one’. I want tell anyone.
Too late, Tammy, I’ve spotted it already.
whoops! my slip was showing… 😉
And what color might that be? ~@; )
In this context it has to be red shifted.
Hopefully she won’t come ‘at me’ for this comment? Then it would be blue….
bending light doesn’t have to be interpreted as gravitational lensing for a dark matter core. The highest hottest known temperature plasma medium surrounds the galaxy cluster with a high density light refractive index, that bends light. There is ten times the mass of this high temperature plasma medium surrounding the galaxy cluster, then the mass of the constituent galaxies. 1/10 mass of galaxies and 9/10 mass of hot plasma comprise a galaxy cluster. Why is this fact neglected, when seeing the bending of light near the galaxy cluster, and a hypothetical dark matter core invented to replace that which does not need to be fixed? Light passing through hot dense massive plasma is going to appear like a gravitational lens, I would think. Sure these galaxies in galaxy clusters are orbiting way to fast, and would be flying apart, if there wasn’t some kind of missing gravity to keep them in place. But 10 tens more dark matter gravity then normal matter? Another force then gravity more obviously simpler explains this. galaxy clusters in hot plasma medium must have attractive galaxy plasma forces that are related to this high temp charged plasma medium rather then between the galaxies gravitational forces themselves. This keeps the galaxies from flying apart without requiring dark matter. Just my belief.
— Why is this fact neglected, when seeing the bending of light near the galaxy cluster, and a hypothetical dark matter core invented to replace that which does not need to be fixed? —
I hope you have some hard calculations accompanying this hypothesis and not a fluffy fuzzy word game and EU in disguise?
Um, what disguise? The article was nowhere about plasmas, yet the first sentence was subject denial, and of the remaining ~ 50 % mentioned the EU key word “plasma”.
If that is a disguise, then Berlusconi hasn’t ever had a face lift.
Did you comment on metamaterials ?
Indeed I do have the math calculations. Faraday’s Law creates magnetic fields on neutral earth metals. In outer space, the motion of charged plasma creates magnetic fields. Einstein’s relativity was deliberate to make celestial mechanics consistent with maxwell’s electromagnetism. Charge is analogous to mass, the graviton gravity analog is the Coulomb charge, gravity g is the equivalent of the electrostatic field E, and Newton’s constant G corresponds to the coulomb force constant k. Gravity and Electromagnetism are disconnected from each other, and I have my beliefs on what the correct interpretation of relativity really is. EM forces are real, but gravity is a pseudo-force. So I believe more in EM reality, then secondary arising gravity never observed.
— and I have my beliefs on what the correct interpretation of relativity really is. —
Believes? What about evidences?
And so far you are listing maths but does not provide maths to your hypothesis. Maybe start with something simple, like calculating the refracting index in your hypothesis and the red-shift of the light that passes through it.
Also unlike gravity, same charges repel each other. That is a very annoying feature in your hypothesis. They refuse to stay together and diffuse over time.
Same charges repel by having opposite spins. Charge separation forms both matter and anti-matter, having opposite spin. Matter having gravity mass (charge) is obeying EM physical laws floating in outer space vacuum zero gravity. The evidence is obtained by using maxwell’s EM equations for relativity. The belief of the correct interpretation of relativity is my own, because it already explains and preceded all versions of dark matter gravity cores bending light. The evidences are not correctly described, but instead twisted warped into big-bang cosmology instead of EM cosmology. EM forces rule everything without any quantum gravity found and so I believe in what is real and not what scientists hope to find soon but never do which is black holes, gravity waves, dark matter, and dark energy. The only thing found so far is about 3 percent visible matter, because Em forces are given zero net worth today.
— Same charges repel by having opposite spins. —
Ah yeah?
What if you have 3 electrons? According to your claim at least 2 will be attracted. Or 100,000 electrons, according to your claim 50,000 should attract.
— Same charges repel by having opposite spins. —
Ah yeah?
What if you have 3 electrons? According to your claim at least 2 will be attracted. Or 100,000 electrons, according to your claim 50,000 should attract.
usually there’s close to an equal number of electrons and protons, and not just 3 electrons as you, not I, claim to say. Electrons flow on metamaterials in vacuum with aligned spins, so the actual attraction vs repulsion ratio of electrons is negligible, compared to say the volume of our solar system where metamaterial space can organize electrons by optics.
Here we go again…
Yeah? So, it’s EM that keeps you on the ground? Interesting…
Yes, EM keeps me alive and on earth. As mentioned, all of Newton’s gravity values have EM analogues. There is no fundamental difference between spin, orbit, and revolution. I stay on earth not because of the pull from the quantum dot center of earths mass, but because the earth spins, orbits the sun, which revolves around the galaxy, and which orbits in the local group, etc. This has been stable very long, so we stay on the surface. We would fly away from earth, if the sun were jerked away, because of the acceleration effect. Likewise feathers, plastics stick to hands, etc. float in the air because of EM charges and not gravity or they’d fall fast to the ground. Gravity probe b confirmed that the EM equations of Maxwell, named Einstein’s relativity, can explain things like the Geodesic effect, the frame-dragging magnetism component, and Thomas Precession. The evidence findings are contorted to support the big-bang, for a gravity interpretation of relativity, instead of from the real EM source that exists in quantum mechanics. By studying, admitting, the true EM source and foundation for relativity, we see that the equations used for gravitational lensing calculations, black hole jets, black holes, neutron stars.. are really EM phenomena, but described as if it is the real universe of gravity that we are observing. Gravity waves have never been detected, but electrons have been photographed riding the light wave. This interplay of light and electrons in metamaterials like the vacuum is very important and relativity mimics it, uses its equations.
Really?! Then try sticking a metal-handled knife in your electric toaster while standing barefoot on a wet concrete floor, and see what happens!*
* WARNING: Do not try this at home, kids!
Unplug all electric appliances before touching them. only use a rubber knife and be insulated wearing rubber tennis shoes. The current will flow from negative to positive charge (ground). If the circuit connects, you will be fried or bitten, and unable to pull away, which is like a jolting vibration that disrupts cells. watch how dumb squirrels run across power lines, and call the power company if you see one hanging dead on power lines
— I stay on earth not because of the pull from the quantum dot center of earths mass, but because the earth spins, orbits the sun —
Wahaha, So if Earth stops spinning then we would be all weightless.
the sun has greater effects then the spin of earth. Earth would fly away from the solar system if the sun was pulled away from its orbit around the galaxy. That’s because gravity is acceleration and a pseudo-force appearing to hold us to the ground. Larger scaled effects have more acceleration then smaller effects.
So far you have not produced any mathematical evidences.
Maybe you should start to give us some maths to calculate to orbital periods of our solar system so we can verify your claims. e.g. calculate the speed the ISS requires to have to stay in orbit.
The ISS must travel faster to stay in lower orbits. The earth spins rotates on its axis eastwards at 28,000 km/hour. Earth makes a complete 360* rotation on its axis in 24 hours. If the ISS makes one orbit around the earth in 90 minutes, then how high or where is it?
X^ / 90 minutes per orbit = 360^ / 24 hr * 60 min
multiplying the denominator, then canceling like terms gives,
X^ / 1 = 360^ / 16
So the ISS is located at 16 degrees longitude (between 0 and 90^) as it makes one orbit. The altitude and speed can also be calculated. Take into account, for calculating the acceleration that holds me on earth rather then gravity, that the galaxy is orbiting spinning around the local group, and the local group is very far at the edge of the Virgo supercluster, which also orbits spins in the Local supercluster group. This gives a lot more acceleration then just if our solar system and galaxy was only considered. Spin produces acceleration, and gravity is acceleration, said Einstein ! Gravity secondarily arises as a pseudo-force from primordial EM forces where light can propagate in vacuum proved Maxwell.
ROTFLMAO!
sorry, the earth spins slower then that, but the math is good for the ISS orbit. I had advanced algebra which became fun, and three college calculus courses, memorizing functions and spotting memorized patterns of equations EU nutballs can only do 5th grade math, and are nobody compared to me and my scientific beliefs
Click Here.
Not it _has_ to be the result of the dark matter predictions, since cluster results such as the bullet cluster shows DM isn’t plasma or any other kind of ordinary matter.
DM has passed through the collisions and shows a gravitational influence where there is no ordinary matter to be expected (since it drags from interactions) or seen.
Of course you can always come up with models that layers mechanisms “just so”, but those are invalidated as soon as new data shows up. Plasma models have been consistently invalidated, in contrast DM continues to predict well.
Your belief can only be sustained by dismissing evidence over and over again. And that isn’t good enough to convince anyone else.
The bullet cluster is where the scientists directly observed intersecting cosmic filaments located where galaxy clusters are colliding together. Since the gravity is not at all there to explain this, dark matter filament components are attached somewhat inside yet nearby these vast million to billion light year long observed filaments. Most of the mass of the universe is in filaments, predicted the big-bang, with galaxy clusters second in overall mass. Low surface mass density makes detection difficult, the filaments in supercluster SCL 2243 are large enough to represent the actual cosmic web, which they insert dark matter filamentary components for both the optical visible part too. Galaxy clusters collide along cosmic filaments like in the bullet cluster, and the characteristic width of all filaments is about 2.0 h -1/70 MPC. The same location for both plasma filaments and dark matter components, indicates to me that dark matter is not necessary, because other forces besides gravity can explain what is being directly observed.
It appears that matter coalesced a lot quicker in the early universe than previously thought. Super massive black holes appeared quickly as well.
LC
ah hah! a very interesting point there LC. it brings to mind the old chicken and egg paradox.
assuming that atomic hydrogen had to cool then coalesce then form massive stars then fuse furiously then detonate to form collapsed remnants then collide and fuse and accrete material
to reach such huge mass….
the question arises: was there time enough for them to do so or are they remnants of a progenitor?
is there a boundary beyond which no quasars are seen? or do they appear near the ‘wall’ (CMB)?
The accumulation of matter in the early universe may have been facilitated by gravity waves. I and a fellow in Italy have worked out some aspects of this. Gravitons in the early universe also may have lead to a massive form of gravity wave which is stationary or slow moving. These gravity waves moving or stationary in various configurations can be compared to the waves on the surface of water. Light passing into the water is focused into caustics which can be seen on the bottom of a pool as those wriggling bands of light. In much the same way matter and radiation in the early universe may have been focused into filamentary clumps which persisted. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey map of galaxies reveals filamentary or domain structures similar to these optical caustics.
If we are right this may have facilitated the gravitational clumping of matter early on. So the universe in the earliest moments had anisotropies and structures which amplified from then on. In the post radiation dominated period there is the so called dark age where there were no stars. However, the accumulation of material was underway, which then brought about the first PopIII stars. These stars then paved the wave for further large structure formations. The dark age period ended about 400 million years after the big bang or the end of the radiation dominated period. Of course this is a domain of considerable observational interest, and the JWST is needed to bring this phase of the universe into sharper focus.
LC
ah hah! a very interesting point there LC. it brings to mind the old chicken and egg paradox.
assuming that atomic hydrogen had to cool then coalesce then form massive stars then fuse furiously then detonate to form collapsed remnants then collide and fuse and accrete material
to reach such huge mass….
the question arises: was there time enough for them to do so or are they remnants of a progenitor?
is there a boundary beyond which no quasars are seen? or do they appear near the ‘wall’ (CMB)?
Hi Tammy,
Also second to last paragraph should be “What are the strange shapes?”, not “What’s”.
Thanks for another good article.
Love ya
-J
Hi Tammy,
Also second to last paragraph should be “What are the strange shapes?”, not “What’s”.
Thanks for another good article.
Love ya
-J
Hi Tammy,
Also second to last paragraph should be “What are the strange shapes?”, not “What’s”.
Thanks for another good article.
Love ya
-J
Besides the obvious lensing of the bent/warped galaxy(s), the two face on spiral galaxies in the 11 o’clock and 5 o’clock positions and the two edge on galaxies in the 2 o’clock and 7 o’clock positions look suspiciously symmetrical.. and the red (far distant) objects especially intriguing!
Nice correlation with the recent result on the first stars, not primordial black holes, being responsible for reionization. De novo structure formation must have happened fast, on the background of inflated quantum fluctuations.