# [ExI] Dark mass = FTL baryons?

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Mon Aug 21 21:58:48 UTC 2017

```On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:

>
​> ​
>  A universe that experienced a big bang,
> ​ ​
> where temperatures were around 1.4*10^32 Kelvin.
> ​ ​
> By Boltzmann's thermal velocity formula, the most probable velocity of
> ​ ​
> protons at this temperature would be v = sqrt(2K*T/m) where K is
> ​ ​
> Boltzmann's constant and m is the mass of a proton. The answer to this
> ​ ​
> admitttedly rough approximation is that the average proton would be going
> ​ ​
> about 6*10^25 times the speed of light.
>

Boltzmann's
​ ​
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.
​ ​
Boltzmann's
​ ​
formula doesn't take into account the Special Theory of Relativity much
less the General Theory, but that wasn't Boltzmann's
​ ​
fault, he died several years before Einstein developed either theory.

> ​> ​
> we went through an inflationary period where
> ​ ​
> spacetime expanded faster than light to grow to the point where the far
> ​ ​
> regions of our universe had lost any causal relationship between them that
> ​ ​
> ​ ​
> Yet 13.8 billion years have passed.
> ​ ​
> Plenty of time for protons going 10^25
> ​ ​
> times the speed of light to have caught up with us.

​If protons or anything else ​
could move faster than light
(​they're called
T
​achyons​
​) ​
then I could
​use them to send ​
send you ​
​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. ​

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.

> ​> ​
> Riddle me this: Gravity crushes everything more massive than the asteroid
> ​ ​
> Ceres into spheres: Planets, stars, black holes, etc. Why does dark matter
> ​ ​
> form gigantic filaments with embedded galaxies instead of spheres?

​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.    ​

​

John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170821/07fd3a16/attachment.html>
```