LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksactually i am comfused wether it exist in this three dimensions or somewhere else
March 7th, 2007, 09:30 PM
actually i am comfused wether it exist in this three dimensions or somewhere else
it most likly exist in our 4DIMENSION spacetime
and if you can figure out what it is and prove it youre sure to get a nobel prize
you mean no one has yet found a proof of that matter?
than how can they talk about it?
There is some strong evidence towards it, the intreaction of galaxies for example, it's not absolute proof just supportive observational evidence, nobody has yet captured a KG of the stuff and looked at it closely though.Originally Posted by basim
Essentially as you scale things up, our laws seem to 'twist out of accuracy' and that's where dark matter (and relativity for that matter) begin to step in. - This also happens at the quantum level.
does gravity exist between matters and dark matters?
March 8th, 2007, 08:18 AM
I just restored my article on this subject for your information.
I edited all the comment out that was in the original post for brevity.
NS
March 8th, 2007, 10:15 AM
It is your personal assessment though if I am right, so it is unproven.I just restored my article on this subject for your information.
I edited all the comment out that was in the original post for brevity.
NS
no i mean prove what it exacly is, we know it is there but not what it is
couldnt agree moreIt is your personal assessment though if I am right, so it is unproven.
mike stay out of this kind of topics, dont drag people down with youI just restored my article on this subject for your information.
I edited all the comment out that was in the original post for brevity.
NS
Basim and Megabrain
My article on 'Dark Matter' has been moved to pseudoscience without an explanation.
This ia blatant censorship of real science with references and evidence.
On the other hand, the BB is purely 'subjective' with all the real science denied because it didn't exist when the BB originated. Ha ha.
NS
mike, assuming your idea is pseudo saves alot of energy since you have yet to show something that isnt subjective and pseudoscience. BB is objective and got alot that supports it
The only objective BB science is the Galactic redshift observations done back in the 1920's that were interpreted as Dopplerian and then REFUTED and replaced with the 'expansion of space'.
So the Doppler implications were replaced with the EoS as the cause for the apparent expansion of the universe.
So a new science was born with a beginning that no one knows how it all began? This spawned the creation of matter and energy out of the bible and a new physics with the nuclear accelerators that are smashing matter to smitherines to find the 'god' particle that started it all.
Zelos, is this your idea of objective science?
NS
yes, since i trust observations, facts and theories proven beyond doubt, wich you dont.Zelos, is this your idea of objective science?
There you two go again; handbags and duelling pistols at dawn
Lets talk about my bank account, thats a pretty dark matter, its also red-shifting.
id love to do a duell where his existens endThere you two go again; handbags and duelling pistols at dawn
Lets talk about my bank account, thats a pretty dark matter, its also red-shifting.
i think you two has gone out of the topic.
to bring it back,
Is that dark matters produced while big bang. or another bang of dark matters took place?
Everthing in our universe can be attibuted to coming into existence at or around the time of the big bang. (excluding any visiting aliens from another universe of course...).
is it not possible that we can never "see" dark matter specifically. There is a possibility that it is the same as regular matter but from our perspective, not luminated. Therefore as soon as we see it, it is not dark matter anymore, it is "regular" matter. Ways this could be possible: Some sort of natural glass type substance that is transparent, dark matter is luminated from a weird angle, dark matter is behind matter we can see. There are probably many more ways for this to be possible.
Ha ha.
Dark matter IS visible! X-ray satellites have detectected DM in the galaxy clusters.
These are SEPARATED ELECTRIC CHARGES that ENHANCE gravity.
DM is not some exotic particles with peculiat characteristics.
NS
think most feel our solar system formed about 5bya, much as we see other systems forming today. whatever we formed from was not likely left over BB debris, but what had fallen apart before.Everthing in our universe can be attibuted to coming into existence at or around the time of the big bang. (excluding any visiting aliens from another universe of course...).
Mike, i cant buy the "exotic" dark matter principles. matter that could flow through other matter, w/o effects, or that somehow has a different principle for gravity which holds known existence together (anti gravity) are a little far out.
dark matter, originally was given to matter that should be from energy sources from places where we simply saw nothing. we see very little energy to begin with and little outside our eye/brain ability. Pluto is dark energy to us, and much matter is to dim for Hubble, COBE or the others are not capable yet to pick this up. even those spots from distant places with observable energy 14 BYO require many lens openings over weeks to offer an image.
if you prefer the BBT, then they say all matter was created at this time. no referance is made to DM (unseen by humans) or matter that has a source for reflecting enough light or produces energy in our range. to me BB is unlikely to begin with, however i do not think they will enter a second BB just to cover DM....
"Ha ha" Mike,Ha ha.
Dark matter IS visible! X-ray satellites have detectected DM in the galaxy clusters.
These are SEPARATED ELECTRIC CHARGES that ENHANCE gravity.
DM is not some exotic particles with peculiat characteristics.
NS
Lithium-7 and deuterium set upper and lower limits on the baryonic matter in the universe, respectively. The normal matter that you and I are made of cannot make up much more than 4% of the critical density.
Deuterium production in the big bang depends strongly on the density of normal matter. If there were a large amount of protons and neutrons, they would have collided with the deuterium and converted it into helium. If the density of normal particles was less, more deuterium would survive.
Lithium-7 is another isotope that could have been made in small amounts during the big bang. There is no stable nucleus with atomic mass 5, so regular nuclear reactions during the big bang could not convert helium into lithium. If, however, the density of normal matter such as protons and neutrons was high enough, a few nuclear reactions could have leaped the gap and produced lithium.
Both lithium and deuterium are easily destroyed (converted into other elements). In fact, they are destroyed in stars as opposed to being created in stars.
Abundance measurements in the spectra of distant quasars give the amount of these isotopes. The look-back time for these quasars is large enough that we see these elements before stars could have appreciably altered the abundances. With deuterium setting the lower limit of baryonic matter, and lithium-7 setting the upper limit, the result is that normal matter (baryonic matter) cannot make up much more than 4% of the critical density of the universe.
Yet observations reveal that galaxies and galaxy clusters contain large amounts of matter (because of the rotation curves for one...), still, we don't directly detect this matter other than by its gravitational effect.
From the gravitational effect, we can calculate that the amount of gravitational matter in the universe makes up about 27% of the stuff in the universe (dark energy making up about 73%).
Okay... now let's think about this for a bit....
27% of the stuff in the universe produce a gravitational effect. Yet only 4% can be normal matter (baryonic matter, like protons and neutrons). You do the math.
Bottom line Mike (which I have no doubt you'll continue to ignore...) is that it cannot be, as you say,Last I checked, electric charges were baryonic.SEPARATED ELECTRIC CHARGES that ENHANCE gravity.
"Ha ha" back at you Mike.
I don't know why you continue on this fool's errand....
Take care,
william
I'll make this short... dark matter has NOT been directly observed. The only evidence for it is what William said.Ha ha.
Dark matter IS visible! X-ray satellites have detectected DM in the galaxy clusters.
These are SEPARATED ELECTRIC CHARGES that ENHANCE gravity.
DM is not some exotic particles with peculiat characteristics.
NS
To All
Read my post on 'Mysterious Dark Matter' that has been moved to the 'pseudoscience' segment.
This is just another example of BB censorship tactics
I give reasons for all my posts that are based on real physics.
Galileo did not get any respect from the power faction at that time and neither does Halton Arp who has a PhD, get respect today.
NS
not if you dont want to read crapRead my post on 'Mysterious Dark Matter' that has been moved to the 'pseudoscience' segment.
no its called getting rid of stupidity or would you rather prefer the old fasion way where the individual goes with his idea?This is just another example of BB censorship tactics
dingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingding. Wake up call for Mike, time to come back to earth
Are you equating me with the 'extra terrestials?dingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingding. Wake up call for Mike, time to come back to earth
Remember, these are highly advanced creatures to be able to visit Earth.
The current earthlings are still in the 'stone age' when compared to the ET's.
We should welcome these ET's with open arms to learn from them the secrets of advanced science. Ha ha.
NS
no its just a nicer way of calling you stupidAre you equating me with the 'extra terrestials?
once again you prove your own stupidityRemember, these are highly advanced creatures to be able to visit Earth.
i rest my caseThe current earthlings are still in the 'stone age' when compared to the ET's.
judge i demand the jury make a decision!!We should welcome these ET's with open arms to learn from them the secrets of advanced science. Ha ha
If you want to talk about 'aliens' I could move this thread to sci-fi, or psuedo. - There is no evidence for any kind of life anywhere other than on Earth, there is only speculation. There is evidence for the Big bang.
Why do you believe something for which there is no evidence and ignore something for which there is? - then to suggest others are behaving like 'religious fanatics' - is plain laughable. :wink:
Yes, the universe if totaly dry cleaned from life except earth. Not a bacteria, just as god said, and he lives in heaven so he can't be wrong.
i really hope that is a joke or im calling the mad-house
To which previous post are you referring to zelos?
Zelos, compare yourself to kaiser wilhelm.
well to answer the unanswered question on the starting:
Dark Matter is matter which dosn't reflect or absorbe light. Thats dark matter, it is 100% sure that it exists, the real question is: where is it. (You're mostprobaly thinking: AH! Not HE again!) Well heres my theory:
dark matter is matter on another coordinate of the 4th spatial dimension.
Ok, can someone tell me what would happen if matter would exist on another coordiante of the 4th spatial dimension (hint: its like describing dm)
Or better still Don't answer it, this is cosomology, astronomy, you want psuedoscience.
It's not 100% certain that dark matter exists. It's just the easiest way to explain why galaxies exert more gravity on their stars than it seems like they should.
This theory has the wonderful attribute of being nearly un-disprovable because there's no way to see dark matter, just like there's no way to know if God really exists. It's a matter of faith in pretty much the same way.
under the original meaning of DM, matter which cannot be seen but known to produce energy and general location known; even in our solar system, which is no pup, we have still tons of left over stuff orbiting the sun. as stars form prior to ignition or illumination, all this is DM to us.
exotic DM, if it exist has not been seen. even some of the definitions infer we could never see, for speeds and content.
miomaz, i think is considering the visual concept limitations to being a dimension which would be a continuance of our three if somehow widened, to what is visible.
tbh, dark matter falls in the category of Einstein's cosmological constant : it needs to be invented to make the current way of scientific thinking work
whether it really exists is a totally different matter
if scientific thinking requires exotic dark matter to justify something, were all on the wrong track to begin with. Gravity an issue, no one seems to be fully satisfied with, explained with somewhat less or in my opinion realistic effect on distant matter there would be no need for EM. i think the requirement your referring to is 70% or more of the total universal mass as DM and this in my opinion extremely unrealistic.
just a thought... not my opinion... but what if there is just some minor flaw in our math that causes us to think something is missing from the universe when it really isn't?
That is what I wonder too. Are they just adding up all the matter/mass in a galaxy then determining how far the outer stars are from the center of that mass, or are they taking into account the spiral shaped geometry of galaxies, that might help explain things?shawngoldw
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Forum Sophomore
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 130
just a thought... not my opinion... but what if there is just some minor flaw in our math that causes us to think something is missing from the universe when it really isn't?
I've been looking for this, but I can't seem to find the information I'm after.
well there r lots of proof on dark matter but the most solid is
GRAVITATIONAL LENSING (a result of general reletivity)
hello??
time is the 4TH dimension
The more I read about it, the more it seems like they're leaving the geometry of galaxies out of it. A galaxy isn't a sphere like the Earth is. It's a disk, and it has fairly constant overall density (unlike a solar system).
It's unlikely a disk would behave like a sphere. Each individual particle of matter exerts gravity independant of the others around it. These pulls average out to a net force toward the center of gravity, but in a disk a different percentage of them are near to you than in a sphere, so even if the disk has the same amount of mass as the sphere, it should be pulling with a different force.
In other words, the fact almost all the stars in the outer disk of a galaxy are moving at the same speeds, regardless of distance might be the natural result of a galaxy's shape.
dark matters neither absorb or reflect light. does that mean that light is passing thgough the dark matter?
dark matter is psuedoscience.
We don't know what it is nor where it is. Its just all theoretical.
My theory about dark matter is not really a theory at all, it is simply observation of other proven theorys that I combine.
no, it means only we do not have the means to pick up what it may reflect, or give vision to that matter. what we do see with energy receptors are other energy produced by all matter.
DM, in theory is matter known to exist from energy emissions, to equipment, but unobservable to our current limits to see. too dim...
Philip Mannheim doesn't think dark matter exists, and he has to say the following on the subject :
"... points out that astrophysicists don't measure the value of the cosmological constant directly. Instead, they deduce it from a quantity that is proportional to the cosmological constant multiplied by Newton's gravitational constant (G), which is thought to be a universal constant of nature. Mannheim says that if G had a smaller value on cosmological scales than measured in lab experiments, it would counteract the effect of a very large cosmological constant, thus explaining the observations.
In his model, there are two gravitational constants, bringing two different forces into play. The first is the familiar G(Newton) which appears in Einstein's equations of general relativity. G(Newton) dominates on small scales and explains the motion of bodies within the solar system. Mannheim's second constant, G(Cosmo) - deduced from particle physics - takes over on large cosmological scales. It is has a repulsive, anti-gravity effect, accelerating the expansion of the universe - just as dark energy is thought to do."
(from NewScientist)
interesting - does it say anywhere how hubble compiled the map ?
No, but i will keep looking. So far every website ive been to tells almost the same story but without the details.
this is what i understand about dark matter : it existed since spacetime began, and that, its high density shapes spacetime acc to Relativity , resulting in the interaction between galaxies, their clusters and also their shapes. But dark matter is omnipresent, and probably a million times avogadro no of neutinos (also dark matter) must be passing thru our bodies per sec. the only thing is that we cannot see or feel dark matter. (Although a few scientists spotted an evidence of d-m some several lightyears away from our cluster by sensing gamma-ray bursts occurring due to dark matter)
well, as i said before, this is what i understand about d-m , cos i havent made a study of it, and i am just a college fresher. there may be many flaws in my post, but please correct it.
| « Escape Velocity | The Most Amazing Picture! (Huge Resolution) » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
