Thread: Dark Matter

Greetings

If there is a universal structure whereby matter is arranged much like we observe with Saturn and its rings (ie a central sphere surrounded by a two dimensional plane), and if that plane is then surrounded by another sphere/boundary (ie as the Oort Cloud indicates our solar system is, or Gravitational Lensing suggests galaxies are), then is Dark Matter not a measure of this structure? Which is neglected when measuring individual stars, solar systems, galaxies, etc.

Dark Matter been comparable in this situation to, someone identifying a proton but been unaware that it exists within a nucleus, and then discovering a quantity of unidentifiable mass around that proton, which turns out to be none other than the strong nuclear force.

In observing the orbits of the moons around Jupiter (http://www.solstation.com/orbits/jup-sys.htm), one can see that the moons closest to it - orbit upon a plane (near enough) level with the equator of Jupiter. Further out we observe a tilting of the plane, which I predict happens in a continuously smooth manner, however as the moons formed at various points along the ‘structure’, this tilting will be observed as a ‘jump’ as a pose to something continuously gradual.

I perceive this aspect of the structure as a two-dimensional plane that is required to be balanced upon the scales of the equator, at some point there must be an even bigger jump, which is observed in the moons orbiting furthest out, and how the tilt of these orbits is opposite to the tilt of the orbits of the group of moons directly inside them.

A further prediction is that if the substance had been available, the structure I predict would continue out, with the orbits of moons tilting in a manner that would eventually encapsulate the entire area in a sphere, and it is at this point a boundary is formed, in the case of the solar system, just inside where the Oort Cloud lies. However in the case of a galaxy (where there is more mass inside the encapsulated sphere), there is too much matter for the plane to tilt in this manner, however there must still be a force balancing either side of the plane, and it is this that enables a boundary to form where Gravitational Lensing is observed.

And so another prediction is that this boundary must exert its own gravitational influence.

It is however apparent that the influence of near by bodies, especially those with greater gravitational influence, prevent the cohesion that is required for large structures to form. So in the case of binary star systems, we have what are in effect two competing structures that each has the potential to form a grand solar system.

To explain this further, I would like to make a comparison with the creation giant crystals in caves underground. These are formed in part due to the isolation of the cave, where the substance available does not experience turbulent conditions, and hence forms in a cohesive manner upon the foundation of a single structure, and you get a grand crystal.

In fact I have a better understanding of it now, the tilt happens only when matter orbits in a fractured manner. And so in the case of a galaxy even though the stars represent a fracture, there is a star opposite to it balancing it out on the scales. With the moons orbiting Jupiter there is no such ‘immediate balancing’ and hence the balancing happens but in a more fractured manner, mainly due to the small scale with which we observe the structure compared to the large scale of a galaxy.

Boys, Dark matter is hypothetical at best. Do we need a filler or can we have, like on Earth a gradient.

For those following along at home that is an area less than.

What say you.

Vincent

To help prove my hypothesis that matter is ordered via geometrical structure and not some mythical trading of gravitons, I would like to use my explanation of what is happening in the two-slit experiment…

If we start with an electron at the source, and do not measure which slit the electron passes through, what we are in fact measuring is the wave aspect of matter (and not the particle aspect of the electron).

To explain this further I would like to point out that if we were just measuring an electron, we would not need to give it any kind of straight-line momentum, we could just place it in a vacuum, and measure it from every angle, to satisfy our curiosity that it is a particle. Hence when we give the electron straight-line momentum, and do not measure which slit it passes through, we are not measuring anything other than this straight-line momentum (irrespective of what we have given that straight-line momentum to).

So if we now take light - which I am viewing as having no mass, because even if you were travelling along side it, to measure it, you would have to take a 90-degree turn, by which time it has speed away at the speed of light - and perceive the constant that is its speed, as the speed all energy travels when its momentum is channelled into one direction, we gain a clear understanding of why the electrons passing through the two slits take on a wave like appearance.

The wave like appearance observed is merely the fact that we only measure the straight-line momentum, which we had artificially given the electron (as its real momentum is the momentum of a particle, i.e. it can be measured from all directions). What can also be deduced is that in this scenario - straight-line momentum is the wave aspect of wave-particle duality - and when we measure which slit the electron passes through, we measure a particle at the cost of the straight-line momentum - the wave.


If I may now put this understanding into a context that relates to my earlier posts…

In the two-slit experiment the electrons, that here represent the fracture (ie a particle), enter into a smooth continuous geometrical structure (ie the wave), and are arranged in accordance with this geometry. Likewise the moons of Jupiter, enter into a smooth and continuous geometrical structure, and are arranged in accordance with the scales of the equatorial plane.

I hope you are ready for me to explain that which you have so far failed to do so, a more thorough explanation will come in good time.

And if you think this statement is cheeky, bring what you have!

So there is no singularity in my explanation of phenomena.

And to be honest I feel no motivation whatsoever to offer a more detailed explaination, for I have already given you an explanation of events that fits the data, and what have I recieved in return for all my effortrs?

Jack shit!