Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By Schneibster
  • 1 Post By PhDemon

Thread: Dark Matter or Primordially Warped Space-Time?

  1. #1 Dark Matter or Primordially Warped Space-Time? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1
    Hi, all. I'm in my musing mode today. Bear with me. :-) Googled around; couldn't find anything like it; not sure if that means I'm innovative or too stupid to realize it's definitely incorrect. What do you all think about this...?

    Perhaps "dark matter" isn't matter at all---exotic or otherwise. The only real reason it is assumed to be some sort of matter is because we know that what we call dark matter exerts a gravitational force. However, what guarantee do we really have that gravitational force ABSOLUTELY requires the presence of matter-energy? After all, bodies of matter-energy do not directly exert a force on other nearby bodies. Instead, the presence of matter-energy in a region of space-time warps that space-time locality, and it is the warping of local space-time that transmits what we call a gravitational force. In other words, gravity is nothing more than the warping of space-time. Einstein established this. Because of the fact that we have only ever observed the warping of space-time in the presence of matter-energy, many have assumed that space-time warping can ONLY occur in the presence of matter-energy, but is this really a safe assumption---especially with regard to the utterly singular conditions of the early universe just after the Big Bang and during the inflationary period, toward which we can directly see only as far back as 380,000 years post Big Bang?

    Here is a possible(?) scenario by which space-time might become self-consistently warped, even without the presence of matter-energy: Some scientists who posit the existence of extra dimensions within an 11-dimensional framework have hypothesized that some or all of the extra dimensions are not detectable because they are compactified to an infinitesimal size, something on the order of the Planck scale. One synthesis of the inflationary model with this hypothesis of compactified extra dimensions posits that perhaps some or all of the extra dimensions became compactified during the inflationary phase following the Big Bang, at the same time that the three dimensions of common experience were inflating; and that the three common dimensions only stopped inflating when the extra dimensions had compactified to the Planck scale (or when the inflaton reached a minimum-energy stability, whichever came first). Perhaps most 11-dimensional space-time localities succeeded in completing this point-counterpoint process of inflation-compactification smoothly, resulting in a smooth, minimum-energy zero curvature to the three dimensions of common experience and nice little Planck-scale Calabi-Yau manifolds among the compactified dimensions; however, a very small percentage of localities of 11-dimensional space-time, perhaps due to quantum fluctuations of a certain unique order and effect, may have failed to smoothly complete their course of inflation-compactification. Perhaps the process of compactification in these precious few space-time localities snagged the process of smooth inflation of the three dimensions of common experience, so as to produce a warping of these three dimensions. Whereas it is the nature, all things being equal, of space-time to return to a low-energy, unwarped state in the absence of matter-energy, perhaps the compactification to the Planck scale of the extra dimensions acted as an umbilicus or knot that locked in and maintained the local warping of the common three dimensions in these few regions of space-time. Based on what we know about the process of inflation, such a warping of common three-dimensional space would have been stretched and thus greatly augmented as the inflation continued, such that just a few, very small regions of space-time that underwent such snagged warpings could account for the massive amount of "dark matter" that must exist today 0according to our gravitational observations. That such warp-causing snags of the inflating dimensions might have been caused by the compactification of the other dimensions, without such regions of space-time being able to immediately recover and smooth themselves out, is perhaps not far-fetched; after all, leading estimates of inflationary cosmology theorize that the inflation(-compactification) of the early universe inflated the dimensions of common experience by a factor of 10 to the 50th power in only 10 to the -33 seconds. Relaxations of space-time curvature can only propogate at the speed of light and the inflation of space-time occurred many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light, which would have stretched and augmented the initial warpings of the inflating dimensions far faster than any relaxations of curvature could have propogated. By the time the inflation of the dimensions of common experience had augmented the initial warpings of those dimensions and then abated, it may, for reasons not yet clear, have been too late for such highly complex, gnarled, augmented space-time geometries to ever relax to a pristine, minimum-energy, flat curvature.

    Alternatively, and possibly more compelling, perhaps the roiling and frenetic sea of quantum fluctuations, a basic feature of normal space-time at the Planck scale, allowed for Planck-scale tears in space-time that many scientists believe occur quite often throughout normal space-time but normally mend within tiny fractions of a second; however, during the inflationary period, such myriad tears which exist throughout space-time at any given instant may have experienced delayed normal closure because of the effects of extremely expansive and quick space-time stretching inherent in the inflaton effect. This may have allowed the mechanism by which space-time tends to self-repair such tears to reapproximate the torn edges of the torn fabric of space-time only after complex warps and twists had taken place, thus producing umbilici or knots, again locking in and maintaining the now Klein bottle-esque geometry of such local regions of space-time. (How do you contain the two-dimensional surface of a Mobius strip within a flat two-dimensional plane without first tearing the Mobius strip? How do you create a Mobius strip from a flat two-dimensional surface without tearing, twisting, and reanastomosing that surface?) That such an alternative process would have originated with such a common and widespread occurrence per unit time as Planck-scale space-time tearing not only easily explains the present-day ubiquity of what we call dark matter, but may go a long way toward explaining some of the latest data which suggests that the dark matter distribution in the early post-inflation universe was fairly uniform, though has tended to clump over time.

    So, in the end, perhaps what we call dark matter IS nothing more than empty regions of space-time that have been self-consistently warped, and thus exert the gravitational force you would expect any curved region of space-time to exert.

    Even observed gravitational lensing that has been attributed to "dark matter" would still be expected to occur in the absence of even exotic matter-energy in self-consistently warped regions of space-time, as electromagnetic radiation follows the curved geodesics of such regions and is thus "lensed." Further, if it is indeed the case that the dark matter distribution from the time of the early universe to today has evolved from a fairly even distribution to a more clumped distribution, then perhaps this as well can be explained entirely in terms of the mutual attraction and interaction of primordially warped regions of otherwise empty space-time. While we don't generally believe that regions of space-time can actually move toward other regions of space-time, perhaps the devilishly gnarled geometry of such regions is not tied to any specific absolute space-time coordinates but can propogate along or slide across regions of normal space-time, carrying the self-consistently reinforced and maintained gnarled geometry along through the space-time fabric in the direction of propogation, similar to how a reversed kink in a spiral phone cord can be shifted along the length of the cord but is difficult to dispense with altogether and tends to remain intact rather than righting itself. The mechanism by which these warped geometries would propopate through the space-time fabric would presumably be the same mechanism by which all gravitational wavefronts / warped space-time geometries propogate---the mechanism by which Einstein defeated Newton's result to the thought experiment regarding what would happen if our sun were to suddenly blip out of existence. Newton believed that the Earth would instantaneously hurtle out of its orbit if the sun were to suddenly disappear, but Einstein demonstrated that the relaxation of the warped space-time at the location of the sun would propogate across the intervening space-time fabric at no faster than the speed of light, and thus the Earth would not break orbit until approximately 8 minutes after the sun had disappeared. Configurations of normal matter-energy gravitationally attracted to these initially empty, yet self-consistently warped regions of space-time might have acted to further warp these space-time regions in a dynamic interplay that may have been the impetus for the evolution of "dark matter" distribution from relatively uniform to relatively clumpy, essentially using normal matter-energy as a bridge of indirect effect between regions of gnarled geometry; though perhaps such unique and highly complex primordially warped regions of space-time may well be able to directly interact with each other without the benefit of intermediary interactions with normal matter-energy, in much the same way that two relatively simple gravitational wavefronts can directly interact.

    Granted, there is a difference between the simple warping of space-time that occurs in the presence of a nice, normal chunk of mundane matter and the fantastically gnarled and seemingly impossible Klein bottle-esque warping of space-time geometries I'm talking about, but I don't believe such a possibility is necessarily precluded on the basis of fantastic complexity alone. After all, there is still so much that we don't yet understand about the otherwise inescapable implications of Einstein's physics. For instance, we know from Einstein's work that there is no such thing as an absolute velocity---that all velocities are relative---such that you could be traveling at 90% the speed of light and could launch a missile toward your vector of travel, also at 90% the speed of light, and though the missile would only appear to speed ahead of you very slowly to another observer in an outside reference frame, the missile would appear from YOUR point of view to speed ahead of you at 90% the speed of light over and above your own speed. The way that space-time has to warp to achieve the proper relative appearances for all applicable reference frames is UTTERLY complex and mind-boggling, and I don't think that the propogation of such gnarled space-time geometries as described above is really any more unbelievable or complex than what we readily accept as unassailable implications of Einstein's insights.

    Anyhoo, the above inflation-compactification scenario and the alternative Planck-scale space-time tearing scenario are just off the top of my head to foster thinking along these lines, but even if such specific examples aren't possible for technical or even fundamental reasons, could some other currently unknown process cause a self-consistent warping of space-time that persists even in the absence of matter-energy? Are there specific theoretical reasons why what we call dark matter couldn't possibly be nothing more than empty regions of warped space-time?

    If the thought that what we call dark matter is nothing more than primordially warped space-time seems a bit of a stretch (no pun intended), I wonder if it is really any more of a stretch than the concept of an exotic form of matter that produces no detectable radiation and does not interact with electromagnetic energy? Some scientists believe that we should have detected dark matter by now, given the broad and varied nature of the dark matter detectors and indirect-evidence experiments we've spent millions on thus far, and are quite puzzled at the fact that we haven't yet detected any. If "dark matter" is actually nothing more than empty primordially warped regions of space-time, then it would certainly explain why we haven't detected any exotic matter in our dark matter detectors and no indirect evidence in our other dark matter experiments. Perhaps the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna and other such technologies that we are poised to deploy in the near future might have their designs modified to be able to detect regions of highly localized warping of space-time, though my suspicion is that the sensitivity necessary to detect such highly local warpings might be rather far off.

    I believe that the idea of dark matter as nothing more than warped space-time might even offer some explanatory power regarding the "dark flow" concept espoused in 2008, where dark flow may be nothing more than the effect of primordially warped regions of space-time, resulting in the directed motion in relation to the cosmic microwave background of galaxy clusters, whose motion is otherwise in opposition to current cosmological models. (In other words, perhaps there is a region of empty high primordial space-time curvature in the Vela-Centaurus expanse that is exerting a gravitational pull on galaxy clusters observed to be racing toward it.) Astrophysicist Alexander Kashlinsky and his team at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center first disovered these observations from the kinematic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich transforms of the three-year WMAP satellite data, and while the leading hypothesis for what could be causing this effect regards supersized structures pushed outward in the universe by inflation to perhaps hundreds of billions of light years away (far past the point where light from these structures could have reached us in the 13.7-billion-year age of the universe), even Kashlinsky admits that these structures, "to create such a coherent flow,...would have to be some very strange structures, MAYBE SOME WARPED SPACE-TIME. ('Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space,' by Clara Moskowitz, staff writer, http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ark-flows.html)" So, why not primordially warped space-time WITHIN our observable universe rather than without? Anyway, that's my thinking...

    I'm certainly no cosmologist/physicist myself, and I really don't know how much of this is at all possible and how much is nothing more than my limited "pop science" understanding (and perhaps one too many sci/fi novels), so I would be especially interested in hearing the thoughts of professional cosmologists/physicists on this question, though, of course, all comments are very welcome. Thanks very much for the read!


    DannyBoy1974

    "Fix reason firmly in her seat and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, for if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind-folded fear." ---Thomas Jefferson
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Gyd
    Gyd is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    73
    "So, in the end, perhaps what we call dark matter IS nothing more than empty regions of space-time that have been self-consistently warped, and thus exert the gravitational force you would expect any curved region of space-time to exert."


    But what about the regions outside of space-time.
    The universe has to be expanding into something.
    This something must be taken into account as an
    exerting force as well.


    GONE ON A LONG WALK
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    No, spacetime isn't expanding into anything.

    It's best to think of expanding space time this way: over time, the distance between points in space (that is, how many seconds it takes light to travel between points in space) is increasing.

    It doesn't have to expand into anything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Gyd
    Gyd is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    No, spacetime isn't expanding into anything.

    It's best to think of expanding space time this way: over time, the distance between points in space (that is, how many seconds it takes light to travel between points in space) is increasing.

    It doesn't have to expand into anything.
    Does that mean that light slows down between the points?
    GONE ON A LONG WALK
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    That's another way of looking at it. In fact, the two are identical, since all methods of measuring distance make use of the speed of light in one way or another (a yard stick stays at a length of 1 yard because of the various molecular forces at work, which radiate out from each molecule at... c!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    To All

    If you rely on power science, you will be misled.

    Fritz Zwicky discovered the DM problem in the Galaxy clusters.

    This DM has been calculated to be 10 times greater that gravity in the clusters.

    So forget about space curvature and spacetime warps .

    The coulomb force is also attractive between the two individual particles.
    So when these two particles are 'separated, they will be attracting each other to recombine as the HA normally does.
    These particles are separated in the 'star' eruptions
    This was proven when Solar Max detected elemental remains of iron, sulfur and oxygen that had their nuclei 'stripped' of ALL their outer electrons except the two inner ones.
    So there are a lot of 'free' electrons being blasted out of the stars.

    So in these clusters, there are electrons being blasted out of all the galaxies in the clusters and the central part of these clusters are collecting these electrons from all directions.
    So this central region is attracting the galaxies back toward thenselves to rejoin with the positive charged galaxies again.
    So this is the added boost to gravity that Zwicky detected.

    Also, this matter is detected by the x-rays they generate in the centers of clusters. The coulomb force is extremely more powerful than the GF. So it would not take many of these particles to add the 10x to the GF.

    So there is NO REAL matter here but just the separated CF betwqeen the two particles.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    3
    I had basically the same thoughts and found this question while trying to search for the reason why this theory must be wrong. I haven't found anything that makes sense and explains why dark matter must be some no interactive invisible particle. The reply above says to forget about primordial warped space time as an explanation of dark matter, but the explanation doesn't make sense to me. Can anyone explain it in a more understandable way or is it nonsense?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    12
    When god washed the fabric of space time, he wrung it and forgot to iron it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by YellowKazooie View Post
    When god washed the fabric of space time, he wrung it and forgot to iron it.
    If you are going to post nonsensical crap, at least have the decency to post it in your own goofy crap-filled threads.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Cosmologically speaking the large-scale structure of the universe is large voids, surrounded by a web of dark matter and ultraviolet- and X-ray-visible superheated gas that has concentrated around it. We can see one void toward Hercules and one past the other side of M81, the giant elliptical at the center of the Virgo Supercluster, of which we and our near neighbors M31 and M33 are a very small local group, part of the Virgo Cluster, a subsection of the Supercluster.

    Our Supercluster and all the other matter associated with what we refer to as "our visible universe" seem to have been squeezed out like toothpaste from between these two expanding voids.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Cosmologically speaking the large-scale structure of the universe is large voids, surrounded by a web of dark matter and ultraviolet- and X-ray-visible superheated gas that has concentrated around it. We can see one void toward Hercules and one past the other side of M81, the giant elliptical at the center of the Virgo Supercluster, of which we and our near neighbors M31 and M33 are a very small local group, part of the Virgo Cluster, a subsection of the Supercluster.

    Our Supercluster and all the other matter associated with what we refer to as "our visible universe" seem to have been squeezed out like toothpaste from between these two expanding voids.
    The question posed in this topic is what you assumed right off in this explanation. Namely, that the cosmic web is caused by a web of dark matter. How do you know that? And what is the flaw in supposing that the universe is not uniform over large scale but is fundamentally shaped (meaning space-time) in a web structure? If it is, we have no need to suppose that there is non-detectable, non-interacting, gravity-inducing exotic matter that has for some reason formed a web shape. The explanation of the visible cosmic web is that the shape of the universe provides intrinsic gravity that is normally ascribed to dark matter.

    Since dark matter is the prevailing theory, both the OP and I presume there must be some flaw in this alternative view? What is it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by skrymsli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Cosmologically speaking the large-scale structure of the universe is large voids, surrounded by a web of dark matter and ultraviolet- and X-ray-visible superheated gas that has concentrated around it. We can see one void toward Hercules and one past the other side of M81, the giant elliptical at the center of the Virgo Supercluster, of which we and our near neighbors M31 and M33 are a very small local group, part of the Virgo Cluster, a subsection of the Supercluster.

    Our Supercluster and all the other matter associated with what we refer to as "our visible universe" seem to have been squeezed out like toothpaste from between these two expanding voids.
    The question posed in this topic is what you assumed right off in this explanation. Namely, that the cosmic web is caused by a web of dark matter. How do you know that?
    Because we can see the movements of the superheated gases, that radiate in the UV and X-ray. There is nothing else to make them move like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by skrymsli View Post
    And what is the flaw in supposing that the universe is not uniform over large scale but is fundamentally shaped (meaning space-time) in a web structure?
    Ockham's Razor. We already know there is dark matter for other reasons, primarily the rotation curves of the stars in galaxies.

    Quote Originally Posted by skrymsli View Post
    Since dark matter is the prevailing theory, both the OP and I presume there must be some flaw in this alternative view? What is it?
    Ummwut? If you claim there's no dark matter that's an extraordinary claim. Do you claim there's no dark matter?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skrymsli View Post
    And what is the flaw in supposing that the universe is not uniform over large scale but is fundamentally shaped (meaning space-time) in a web structure?
    Ockham's Razor. We already know there is dark matter for other reasons, primarily the rotation curves of the stars in galaxies.
    The way I understand it rotation curves show that something is causing an unexpected gravitational effect. This raises the problem and since we don't know what's causing it we refer to the cause as "dark matter". So, that's one definition of dark matter. In that sense, we know that dark matter exists. The other definition of dark matter is with respect to a particular theory of what dark matter ACTUALLY is (ie that it is a real particle but one that does not interact with regular matter except through the gravitational effect). I don't think we know that this theory is true. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skrymsli View Post
    Since dark matter is the prevailing theory, both the OP and I presume there must be some flaw in this alternative view? What is it?
    Ummwut? If you claim there's no dark matter that's an extraordinary claim. Do you claim there's no dark matter?
    I presume that there IS dark matter (meaning non-interacting, invisible particles that have gravitational effects on visible matter) because I'm not an expert and that's what the experts say. The flawed alternative view is the idea that space time is primordially warped as an explanation for the observed gravitational effects. I'm looking for reasons why we know that's wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Because we can see the movements of the superheated gases, that radiate in the UV and X-ray. There is nothing else to make them move like that.
    Maybe this is what I'm looking for. I will read up on this, thanks!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by skrymsli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skrymsli View Post
    And what is the flaw in supposing that the universe is not uniform over large scale but is fundamentally shaped (meaning space-time) in a web structure?
    Ockham's Razor. We already know there is dark matter for other reasons, primarily the rotation curves of the stars in galaxies.
    The way I understand it rotation curves show that something is causing an unexpected gravitational effect. This raises the problem and since we don't know what's causing it we refer to the cause as "dark matter". So, that's one definition of dark matter. In that sense, we know that dark matter exists. The other definition of dark matter is with respect to a particular theory of what dark matter ACTUALLY is (ie that it is a real particle but one that does not interact with regular matter except through the gravitational effect). I don't think we know that this theory is true. Correct me if I'm wrong.
    The evidence for the web is as good as for dark matter in galaxies.

    The fact it's called "dark matter" is pretty indicative, I'd say, and in fact it's called "cold dark matter" in what is being hailed as the "Standard Model of Cosmology," also known as "ΛCDM" or "lambda-CDM," where lambda is the cosmological constant from the Einstein Field Equations and CDM is the aforementioned Cold Dark Matter.

    This kind of obviates it being a field, because fields work at the speed of light, and for it to be "cold" means it is not moving at that speed. So this wouldn't be just a new little detail in an existing theory, it would be a whole new physics of a field that does not work at c. We know of others but none of them are possible in free space as CDM must operate to do what we see.

    Quote Originally Posted by skrymsli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skrymsli View Post
    Since dark matter is the prevailing theory, both the OP and I presume there must be some flaw in this alternative view? What is it?
    Ummwut? If you claim there's no dark matter that's an extraordinary claim. Do you claim there's no dark matter?
    I presume that there IS dark matter (meaning non-interacting, invisible particles that have gravitational effects on visible matter) because I'm not an expert and that's what the experts say. The flawed alternative view is the idea that space time is primordially warped as an explanation for the observed gravitational effects. I'm looking for reasons why we know that's wrong.
    Ah. That makes things much clearer. You will find the above helpful, then.

    There is no single piece of evidence; you shouldn't expect one blinding revelation. Rather it is built up from a large number of things that must all be true, for example that it's cold dark matter. IIRC Wikipedia has a pretty good section on all the various evidence in one of the cosmology articles; if you like I'll try to ferret it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by skrymsli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Because we can see the movements of the superheated gases, that radiate in the UV and X-ray. There is nothing else to make them move like that.
    Maybe this is what I'm looking for. I will read up on this, thanks!
    It's definitely one of the more important pieces of evidence. And it's not very old; they've just started finding these clouds of superheated gas everywhere due to new instrumentation on new satellites; you'll find that X-ray and UV astronomy are booming right now because we're finally getting telescope designs that can focus them, and we're finally making them small enough to launch on satellites where the atmosphere doesn't block everything out so we can actually see stuff. If you have trouble finding data, mention it here, my google-fu is strong, and is at your service if you like.
    nnunn likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YellowKazooie View Post
    When god washed the fabric of space time, he wrung it and forgot to iron it.
    If you are going to post nonsensical crap, at least have the decency to post it in your own goofy crap-filled threads.
    Come one, it was creative. Get a sense of humour
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    11
    Sorry if this is offensive, but physicists are the most arrogant people in the world. (people who like physics too)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,431
    Not offensive, just stupid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman Dissily Mordentroge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Gyd View Post
    "So, in the end, perhaps what we call dark matter IS nothing more than empty regions of space-time that have been self-consistently warped, and thus exert the gravitational force you would expect any curved region of space-time to exert."


    But what about the regions outside of space-time.
    The universe has to be expanding into something.
    This something must be taken into account as an
    exerting force as well.
    What prevents the Universe from expanding into nothing?
    What if the region outside of space time is a black hole and
    if so where is the energy coming from to push it out of the way?
    What would an equation look like descibing our universe as being inside a black hole
    and expanding until we trigger another big bang - and so on ad-infinitum?
    Last edited by Dissily Mordentroge; March 9th, 2014 at 06:25 AM. Reason: Whim
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman Dissily Mordentroge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    13
    my google-fu is strong, and is at your service if you like.
    Excuse my aged ignorance but what is a 'google-fu'?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissily Mordentroge View Post
    Excuse my aged ignorance but what is a 'google-fu'?
    It means "skill at Googling" (presumably based on a misunderstanding of the Chinese morpheme 夫 (Wiktionary) in gong-fu).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •