Thread: DARK SCEIENCE

Hum then again another story of physics law im a average student of science but in my view there are few limits and boundaries which can be obtain if we goes with my law


LAW OF OPPOSITE ENERY AND DARK MATTER


As we all know E=MC2 but in large state if we observe energy E= +(positive energy)+-(negative energy). So what is positive energy?? Well this is to be described as since the universe is created every thing is taken its place either + or – we all are the result of + energy because in my view 60% is positive and 40 % is negative since we are the result of positive energy and we also surrounded by these positive things eg if you want to do some work in this universe your success is about 60% confirmed and you fail by 40% all planets, objects our minds, living things are the result of positive energy! So where is negative energy??? Well as I said since universe is created every this in this universe is created either positive or negative, then negative energy is lie in this universe as gaseous state like stars and other gases and every dimensions of this universe is lie in negative energy like sound,light,gravity etc.


DARK MATTER


So, from above you may know what I want to say then lets go with out wasting time hehehh.
Many physicts are collied with there view on dark energy so what is dark?remember a eg if you stand in light your shadow are behind with you that’s means light=- negative you= + positive and there reaction is??? Dark UNDERSTAND?? No if no then I don’t want to continioue my article and if yes then please write me or send me email I will write more on this till then bye bye

Originally Posted by mmmyyydas

Hum then again another story of physics law im a average student of science

I certainly hope not.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by mmmyyydas

Hum then again another story of physics law im a average student of science

I certainly hope not.

The sad thing is he probably is

Ugh. Why does everyone take the terms "dark energy" and "dark matter" and just make crap up about it? The word "dark" here means roughly "something observed, but without theoretical basis." In other words, we can see it, but we don't know exactly what it is. That's it. Nothing to do with positive and negative, or light and dark, or whatever.

The only logical possibility is that English is not the primary language of the OP'er.
The OP is so incomprehensible so as to be not even wrong.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Ugh. Why does everyone take the terms "dark energy" and "dark matter" and just make crap up about it? The word "dark" here means roughly "something observed, but without theoretical basis." In other words, we can see it, but we don't know exactly what it is. That's it. Nothing to do with positive and negative, or light and dark, or whatever.

Yeah I agree with you. It's probably some kind of reminiscent matter perpetuating in other dimensions where it does not have the physical properties of mass and energy to manifest and be observable using electromagnetic radiation or the like, yet it vibrates on another part of the universe somewhere somewhat like Quantum Entanglement perhaps.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Ugh. Why does everyone take the terms "dark energy" and "dark matter" and just make crap up about it? The word "dark" here means roughly "something observed, but without theoretical basis." In other words, we can see it, but we don't know exactly what it is. That's it. Nothing to do with positive and negative, or light and dark, or whatever.

thats the symbol im used to explain(no other method is available yet to explain these terms) dark cannot be seen as fear cannot be explained but in theoretical terms but you face that! same thing i want to explain get it?

i totally agree with the view of quantine

mmmyyydas,
welcome to the forum. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but your posts make almost no sense. I'm not sure if this is because you are very young, or are writing in a foreign langauge, but there is no precision, no cohesion and almost no meaning in what you have posted.

Let me consider one point you have made that is almost intelligble: " in my view 60% is positive and 40 % is negative since we are the result of positive energy and we also surrounded by these positive things eg if you want to do some work in this universe your success is about 60% confirmed and you fail by 40% all planets, objects our minds, living things are the result of positive energy!"

How did you arrive at these percentages? They appear to be plucked out of a vacuum, based on feelings and intution, neither of which constitute science.
You have not adequately defined positive and negative energy, so they are menaingless thus far.
In short, at the moment what you have posted seems either incoherent or wrong. Could you make an effort to clarify somewhat.

mmmyyydas wrote:
...im a average student of science...

Before you make this claim, you need to study science enough to know what science is.

Science consists of observations (measurements) and theories (primarily of a mathematical nature) which predict that things will behave in a way that fits the observations that have been made and (hopefully) that also fit observations that haven't yet been made but someday will be made. The test of a theory is whether it correctly predicts observed behavior.

Your ideas seem to be totally devoid of any predictive ability and are, thus, untestable. As such, they can't be considered science.

Chris

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

mmmyyydas,
welcome to the forum. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but your posts make almost no sense- there is no precision, no cohesion and almost no meaning in what you have posted.

In short, at the moment what you have posted seems either incoherent or wrong.

And that is far too generous an assessment!

Well, I reckon we have gnd/ref 0 in the wrong place.
What we call the vacuum of space is made of the same stuff we know it just falls into and below 0. Any mathematician will tell you 0 is a problem. Trying to find what we call nothing is a little contradictory.
It's merely a scale issue.
When trying to find the smallest particles in a relative vacuum we seek small things.
I think this is a mistake.
When exposed to reduced pressure things expand.
So perhaps looking for the very small expanded over a large area could yield better results.