<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Stuart LaForge </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:avant@sollegro.com" target="_blank">avant@sollegro.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div> A universe that experienced a big bang,<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>where temperatures were around 1.4*10^32 Kelvin.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>By Boltzmann's thermal velocity formula, the most probable velocity of<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>protons at this temperature would be v = sqrt(2K*T/m) where K is<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>Boltzmann's constant and m is the mass of a proton. The answer to this<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>admitttedly rough approximation is that the average proton would be going<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>about 6*10^25 times the speed of light.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">Boltzmann's<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>formula is only an approximation that works pretty well when matter is chilly, less than a few hundred thousand degrees or so, but it breaks down entirely and produces ridiculous numbers when things get much hotter than that for the same reason Newton's theory works pretty well at highway speeds but not at starship speeds.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>Boltzmann's<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>formula doesn't take into account the Special Theory of Relativity much less the General Theory, but that wasn't Boltzmann's<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>fault, he died several years before Einstein developed either theory.</font><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>we went through an inflationary period where<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>spacetime expanded faster than light to grow to the point where the far<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>regions of our universe had lost any causal relationship between them that<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>they might have had.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>Yet 13.8 billion years have passed.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>Plenty of time for protons going 10^25<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>times the speed of light to have caught up with us.</blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">If protons or anything else </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">could move faster than light </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">(they're called </div>T<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">achyons</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">) </div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">then I could </font><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">use them to send </div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">send you </font><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">message that you'd receive before I sent it, and that would create logical paradoxes. Also the mathematics clearly show that the faster a Tachyon moves the less energy it has, one that was only slightly faster than light would have a lot of energy but one 10^25 faster would have almost no energy. </font></div></font></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size="4">Nobody knows what Dark Matter is but we do know that if it is to explain observed galaxy formation and clustering (and that is after all the entire point of the Dark Matter theory) then it must be made of very slow moving particles.</font></div></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Riddle me this: Gravity crushes everything more massive than the asteroid<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>Ceres into spheres: Planets, stars, black holes, etc. Why does dark matter<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>form gigantic filaments with embedded galaxies instead of spheres?</blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">Because gravity is not the only tool regular matter has to help it form larger structures, it also has chemistry and that is essential to get the ball rolling; but Dark Matter doesn't seem to have anything equivalent to chemistry. When 2 microscopic particles of regular matter come close to each other the gravitational force between them is utterly insignificant, but microscopic particles can be and often are electrically charged, and even when the overall particle is neutral one side of it is slightly positive and the other slightly negative. The charge may be small but the Electromagnetic force is over a billion billion billion billion times stronger than gravity so it dominates on the small scale. Once the particle has grown to a million tons or so gravity can start to have a small but measurable effect, but as far as we know Dark Matter just has gravity and so has no way to take the first few steps. </font> </div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">John K Clark</font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>