Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 203
Like Tree18Likes

Thread: Dark energy

  1. #1 Dark energy 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hessle, England
    Posts
    4
    I'm no expert in physics, I'm actually just applying for university. But I was reading an article about the speed of light and nothing can exceed it. I was wondering, could dark energy be responsible for this?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Dark Energy refers to the expansion of the Universe; It's a hypothetical 'force' to balance the equation. To account for the accelerating expansion that we observe, until we have a more accurate working theory to explain it.
    It's not related to c as a constant.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hessle, England
    Posts
    4
    So basically we have no idea until we have some form of theory about dark energy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by marctowse View Post
    So basically we have no idea until we have some form of theory about dark energy?
    Pretty much.... sucks, doesn't it?
    Dark energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hessle, England
    Posts
    4
    Yeah, but it's fascinating at the same time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Very true, it's why we're all here.
    marctowse likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    It's a hypothetical 'force' to balance the equation.
    Yes, it's a hypthetical force to balance the equations, as Neverfly explained. Maybe It's just a placeholder to explain observations until a better explanation comes along later. If so then its "discoverers" could count their lucky stars for the Million dollars, plus or minus, that went along with the Nobel Prize for its supposed discovery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hessle, England
    Posts
    4
    The universe is a strange place!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by marctowse View Post
    The universe is a strange place!
    Maybe it's far simpler than present interpretations and theory might seem to indicate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Or maybe it is even more complicated and strange than we can every imagine. Which would be way cooler.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Or maybe it is even more complicated and strange than we can every imagine. Which would be way cooler.
    If the universe is much simpler then we presently think then maybe in the not too distant future we may be able to do cool stuff, maybe something like star-trek, terraforming of extra-solar planets, etc.. But if it is complicated with dark energy, warped space, curved space, expanding space, extra dimensions, worm holes, multiverses,etc., then I don't expect anything much to happen in my lifetime. I would bet a case of beer on the former.

    I don't see it that stranger is cooler concerning the universe, maybe a strange wild woman?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman PhysicsApple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    39
    einstein_suresh_emre2.jpgIsn't that expanding force repulsive gravity. From what I know about Einstein theories say that you can have both types of gravities in the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman PhysicsApple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    It's a hypothetical 'force' to balance the equation.
    Yes, it's a hypthetical force to balance the equations, as Neverfly explained. Maybe It's just a placeholder to explain observations until a better explanation comes along later. If so then its "discoverers" could count their lucky stars for the Million dollars, plus or minus, that went along with the Nobel Prize for its supposed discovery
    If it is a placeholder, would it remain a place holder?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman PhysicsApple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Or maybe it is even more complicated and strange than we can every imagine. Which would be way cooler.
    If it does get more complicated it would mean schooling on Cosmology and other fields will also get more complicated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysicsApple View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    It's a hypothetical 'force' to balance the equation.
    Yes, it's a hypothetical force to balance the equations, as Neverfly explained. Maybe It's just a placeholder to explain observations until a better explanation comes along. If so then its "discoverers" could count their lucky stars for the Million dollars, plus or minus, that went along with the Nobel Prize for its supposed discovery
    If it is a placeholder, would it remain a place holder?
    No, it would only be a placeholder until we discover why we thought it existed in the first place, and if what we call dark energy now can properly be explained by a different explanation. Once we realized the problem we probably could correct it and properly identify dark energy as either being something different than we presently think, or just a misinterpretation or miscalculation of data -- which is my opinion based upon my related studies.
    Last edited by forrest noble; December 1st, 2012 at 11:33 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    If the universe is much simpler then we presently think
    ...then we would have figured it out long ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    I wonder if Dark Energy may not be an expression of Universal Potential.
    IMO, the BB was preceeded by a single instant of Universal Potential compressed into a singularity. What if dark energy is the remnant of the BB of Potentials which did not become expressed in reality, but continues to expand as latent energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    If the universe is much simpler then we presently think
    ...then we would have figured it out long ago.
    I disagree I suggest not to over-estimate the validity of present theories in science today. I don't think you will have to wait that long either to find out some major problems of present theory. My expectation is that within about 4 years after the James Webb is up the BB model will be seriously contradicted/ challenged. And the Higgs particle will be contradicted within a year or so, I predict. Maybe no more than a dozen years before quantum theory starts to show flaws, I predict. ...... and the list goes on I expect the 20th century will eventually be considered the dark ages of science theory -- because all of the major ones then proposed, I expect will all be replaced. Dark Energy is maybe the best example of what I expect will eventually be considered ill-conceived theory, whereby a Noble Prize was given.
    Last edited by forrest noble; December 2nd, 2012 at 03:56 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I wonder if Dark Energy may not be an expression of Universal Potential.
    IMO, the BB was preceeded by a single instant of Universal Potential compressed into a singularity. What if dark energy is the remnant of the BB of Potentials which did not become expressed in reality, but continues to expand as latent energy.
    What is "Universal Potential"?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I wonder if Dark Energy may not be an expression of Universal Potential.
    IMO, the BB was preceeded by a single instant of Universal Potential compressed into a singularity. What if dark energy is the remnant of the BB of Potentials which did not become expressed in reality, but continues to expand as latent energy.
    What is "Universal Potential"?
    I expect he means that a beginning BB entity would have necessarily had to have the potential energy within it to create the universe as we now observe it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I wonder if Dark Energy may not be an expression of Universal Potential.IMO, the BB was preceeded by a single instant of Universal Potential compressed into a singularity. What if dark energy is the remnant of the BB of Potentials which did not become expressed in reality, but continues to expand as latent energy.
    What is "Universal Potential"?
    some kind of cosmological values that write4u is working on' i will advice him not to write things that don't exist.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I wonder if Dark Energy may not be an expression of Universal Potential.
    IMO, the BB was preceeded by a single instant of Universal Potential compressed into a singularity. What if dark energy is the remnant of the BB of Potentials which did not become expressed in reality, but continues to expand as latent energy.
    What is "Universal Potential"?
    I expect he means that a beginning BB entity would have necessarily had to have the potential energy within it to create the universe as we now observe it.
    Exactly,
    Moreover, not all this potential was physically expressed (yet) and continues to expand as a latent excellence.

    I am a fan of David Bohm.
    Lifework of quantum physicist David Bohm by Will Keepin

    Fullness Of Empty Space
    Bohm's understanding of physical reality turns the commonplace notion of "empty space" completely on its head. For Bohm, space is not some giant vacuum through which matter moves; space is every bit as real as the matter that moves through it. Space and matter are intimately interconnected. Indeed, calculations of the quantity known as the zero-point energy suggest that a single cubic centimetre of empty space contains more energy than all of the matter in the known universe! From this result, Bohm (1980, 191) concludes that "space, which has so much energy, is full rather than empty." For Bohm, this enormous energy inherent in "empty" space can be viewed as theoretical evidence for the existence of a vast, yet hidden realm such as the implicate order.
    Bohm postulates that this Implicate order stems from a universal condition of "pure potential".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I wonder if Dark Energy may not be an expression of Universal Potential.IMO, the BB was preceeded by a single instant of Universal Potential compressed into a singularity. What if dark energy is the remnant of the BB of Potentials which did not become expressed in reality, but continues to expand as latent energy.
    What is "Universal Potential"?
    I expect he means that a beginning BB entity would have necessarily had to have the potential energy within it to create the universe as we now observe it.
    Exactly,Moreover, not all this potential was physically expressed (yet) and continues to expand as a latent excellence.I am a fan of David Bohm. Lifework of quantum physicist David Bohm by Will Keepin
    what really do you mean by potentials? The one my dictionary tells me,or the write4u definition?
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman PhysicsApple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    If the universe is much simpler then we presently think
    ...then we would have figured it out long ago.
    That would be really true. It probably isnt that complicated, the things that happen and why is complicated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Be latently excellent to one another.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Firguring it out: maybe! Our evolve theories and intellingence was fueled by complex universe.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Firguring out: maybe. Our evolved theories and intelligence are base on the fact that the universe was complex...we cannot solve a problem with thesame level of thinking that created them--Albert einstein...if the universe were simpler our thinkings would be simpler...it still would appear complex by then.
    PhysicsApple likes this.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    A man never realize how strong he is! Before somethingelse makes him discover his inner strength.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    merumario,
    What really do you mean by potentials? The one my dictionary tells me,or the write4u definition?
    I would urge you to really study the word "potential" and its implications as well as expressions.

    It is a word we use very casually and we kinda "know" what it means. I found the word potential to be one of the most profound and fundamentally pertinent symbols in human language.
    btw. the reason why you will find the word everywhere is because it has universal utility and is applicable at all levels. It is the single common denominator in the universe. All things (past/present/future) (were/are/will be) preceeded by Potential.
    Last edited by Write4U; December 2nd, 2012 at 04:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Be latently excellent to one another.
    I agree
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I would urge you to really study the word "potential" and its implications as well as expressions.

    It is a word we use very casually and we kinda "know" what it means. I found the word potential to be one of the most profound and fundamentally pertinent symbols in human language.
    btw. the reason why you will find the word everywhere is because it has universal utility and is applicable at all levels. It is the single common denominator in the universe. All things (past/present/future) (were/are/will) be preceeded by Potential.
    Doesn't sound much like physics, though.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I would urge you to really study the word "potential" and its implications as well as expressions.

    It is a word we use very casually and we kinda "know" what it means. I found the word potential to be one of the most profound and fundamentally pertinent symbols in human language.
    btw. the reason why you will find the word everywhere is because it has universal utility and is applicable at all levels. It is the single common denominator in the universe. All things (past/present/future) (were/are/will) be preceeded by Potential.
    Doesn't sound much like physics, though.
    That is true, somewhere the concept of potential crosses from physical into meta-physical. It is the moment of the Implicate becoming Explicate in reality.
    But considering the current great interest in String theory, I believe the term is very much appropriate at Planck scale, where apparently Dark Energy dwells.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    and what would be the potential of the universe write4u? what implication thoes it make? in meta-physics or reality?......make a statement of formalism with respect to the universe and its intrinsic properties.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    and what would be the potential of the universe write4u? what implication thoes it make? in meta-physics or reality?......make a statement of formalism with respect to the universe and its intrinsic properties.
    I'm sorry, I do not have the formal knowledge of physics to formulate a proposition. But intuitively I feel comfortable with the following.
    One of the most impressive theories emerging out of scientific cosmology respecting these ancient truths was set forth by the late physicist, David Bohm in his book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Using the language of mathematics, Bohm set out to describe the transcendent reality and its graded energetic hierarchy in four basic states or orders of energy beginning with the physical world, which he called the Explicate Order.

    'The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order. It is the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order.' Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science Journal
    When Bohm's resonant fields are arranged in a vibrational hierarchy they represent energy in successive states of manifestation from infinitely subtle to the gross physical reality
    .
    The Quantum Brahman by Robert Wilkinson
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    The point is that regardless of what it is we call dark matter or dark energy, it was, is, and will be preceeded by potential.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    David bohm was a wonderful physicist. I thought he took same side with me in the quantum mind-body problem.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    The point is that regardless of what it is we call dark matter or dark energy, it was, is, and will be preceeded by potential.
    you mean potential of the universe! Its possible to be,but not yet actual.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysicsApple View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    If the universe is much simpler then we presently think
    ...then we would have figured it out long ago.
    That would be really true. It probably isnt that complicated, the things that happen and why is complicated.
    The universe can be considered complicated, where complicated would mean many details involved with its contents. But, I think, it is relatively easy to understand concerning the entities involved to explain the parts and mechanisms of its details. Of course to be "simple," such details and mechanisms would need to be far simpler and different from present theory.
    Last edited by forrest noble; December 2nd, 2012 at 06:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    The point is that regardless of what it is we call dark matter or dark energy, it was, is, and will be preceeded by potential.
    you mean potential of the universe! Its possible to be,but not yet actual.
    Yep, the Implicate which may become reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman PhysicsApple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    The point is that regardless of what it is we call dark matter or dark energy, it was, is, and will be preceeded by potential.
    There is a difference between dark energy and dark matter. Dark matter is believed to be the infamous neutrino. Which is simplest terms is a particle with no charge and has very little interaction with any matter. They are everywhere. It is also believed that this could also be involved when light bent through space. While dark energy is the rest of space that we have no clue about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman PhysicsApple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    39
    Well it depends on how you look at it. If you think about a set of ideas; it's complicated. If think about another set of ideas; it's simple.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysicsApple View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    The point is that regardless of what it is we call dark matter or dark energy, it was, is, and will be preceeded by potential.
    There is a difference between dark energy and dark matter. Dark matter is believed to be the infamous neutrino.
    There are no neutrino proposals for dark matter that I know of. Instead they believe dark matter involves neutral, uncharged and unknown particles.

    Which is simplest terms is a particle with no charge and has very little interaction with any matter. They are everywhere. It is also believed that this could also be involved when light bent through space. While dark energy is the rest of space that we have no clue about.
    Yes, dark matter is a hypothetical particle and dark energy is a hypothetical force.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Keep your heads up and your eyes fixed.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    65
    Black holes suck energy/matter from this dimension then regurgitate, in the form of dark matter/energy. The universe is accelerating in expansion, but will not continue to. Implosion will eventually bring about the eternal pulse of existance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Succinct and wrong.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    65
    Wrong?, what's your take on it, oh learned one?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Black holes do not produce dark energy, there's no reason or indication that accelerating expansion is going slow down and your last sense is meaningless woo.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by dencat View Post
    Wrong?, what's your take on it, oh learned one?
    Do you honestly think that science is just whatever you make up? If so, aren't you amazed your computer works at all?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    65
    Black holes do produce dark energy. Via extra dimentia, the energy is reintroduced. The great expansion will abate because the fuel
    will expire, thus starving dark energy/matter driving acceleration.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Please stop posting crank nonsense in the physics threads. We have a trash subfourm for you to use.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by dencat View Post
    Black holes do produce dark energy. Via extra dimentia, the energy is reintroduced. The great expansion will abate because the fuel
    will expire, thus starving dark energy/matter driving acceleration.
    Evidence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    65
    Neverfly, thats a really macho image you choose to represent yourself by footsoldier.
    Do you have anything to say on this thread, or are you going to carry on with your continually, unimaginative, banal, vacuous posts?.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by dencat View Post
    Neverfly, thats a really macho image you choose to represent yourself by footsoldier.
    Do you have anything to say on this thread, or are you going to carry on with your continually, unimaginative, banal, vacuous posts?.
    Yeah ok- Evidence to support your claims?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    65
    AlexG, when you refer to 'we', who are you talking about?. I mean are you sitting there, next to your laptop, with a posse of bona fide,

    certifiable 'scientists', or are you, as I suspect, pedalling the hocum of your particular university of indoctrination?.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    .......what's your take on it.............?
    Maybe the best take on it should be that dark matter and dark energy are still hypothetical entities. We do not really know anything about them other than observations may be better explained by their existence. It may turn out that neither really exists. To draw any conclusions as to what else they might do or cause, presently is generally speculative.
    Last edited by forrest noble; December 3rd, 2012 at 12:15 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by dencat View Post
    pedalling the hocum of your particular university of indoctrination.
    Ah, yes, the typical crank disdain for an actual education. Did you flunk out, or just never attend?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Do know how the universe is? You think it was so easy and a priest from vatican hav'nt won a nobel yet...what do you know about black holes? CAN SOMEONE TAKE IT TO THE TRASH CAN!!! PLZ
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by dencat View Post
    Wrong?, what's your take on it, oh learned one?
    Science is not about who can come up with the "most creative" idea. It is about evidence and testing ideas to destruction. As your claim that black holes "regurgitate dark matter/energy" is not supported by any evidence and flies in the face of established (i'e. well-tested) theory, I think we can safely ignore it.
    PhysicsApple likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by dencat View Post
    Via extra dimentia
    Dementia, maybe.
    Markus Hanke, Kerling and Neverfly like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysicsApple View Post
    Dark matter is believed to be the infamous neutrino.
    Neutrinos have been ruled out as a possibility. One of the observed properties of dark matter is that it is "cold"; i.e. has relatively low velocity. Neutrinos, because of their small mass, always travel at something very close to the speed of light.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Kerling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysicsApple View Post
    Dark matter is believed to be the infamous neutrino.
    Neutrinos have been ruled out as a possibility. One of the observed properties of dark matter is that it is "cold"; i.e. has relatively low velocity. Neutrinos, because of their small mass, always travel at something very close to the speed of light.
    Okay, I have to be fair here. Dark Energy? The effects have been hypothesized by Wheeler in the sixties in his article 'On the nature of quantum geometrodynamics' Albeit nog so observable.

    And Dark matter? Well, me, and nobody else in my department here really gets the big deal. As it is our jobs to make matter dark. It is a form of stability in quantum states where they no longer decay into a lower state. Since space i relatively cold, it isn't at all surprising that such a state can be achieved for simple molecules. And then it would be electromagnetically inert. Honestly, I don't see the big idea. I'd like to know what it is, so we don't have to think of other forms of dark matter. Dark matter in my opinion is just simple.
    In the information age ignorance is a choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Freshman PhysicsApple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    39
    Neutrinos have been ruled out as a possibility. One of the observed properties of dark matter is that it is "cold"; i.e. has relatively low velocity. Neutrinos, because of their small mass, always travel at something very close to the speed of light.
    What other things could it possibly be?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman PhysicsApple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by dencat View Post
    Black holes suck energy/matter from this dimension then regurgitate, in the form of dark matter/energy. The universe is accelerating in expansion, but will not continue to. Implosion will eventually bring about the eternal pulse of existance.
    So you assume that at one point it will stop and fall back into itself? I think not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Kerling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysicsApple View Post
    What other things could it possibly be?
    Well, if you take an entangled state, when properly prepared, it can decay naturally in the 'dark state' an energy state where it can't get out of (without perturbation) Then this applies to all the properties of 'Dark matter'

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_state
    In the information age ignorance is a choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysicsApple View Post
    Neutrinos have been ruled out as a possibility. One of the observed properties of dark matter is that it is "cold"; i.e. has relatively low velocity. Neutrinos, because of their small mass, always travel at something very close to the speed of light.
    What other things could it possibly be?
    The general consensus is the dark matter consists of an unknown neutral particle of some kind. Another idea is that it could be some kind of so-far undetectable baryonic matter of some kind. Another idea proposes large unseen quantities of black holes etc. An alternative hypothesis is that General Relativity is not the correct model of gravity and therefore dark matter would not really exist.
    Last edited by forrest noble; December 4th, 2012 at 10:58 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    how many of us here want to think that general relativity is wrong?
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    It would be inconvenient, but it doesn't matter much. If GR was in error, I think most people would want to know about it.
    Since GR holds up against testing quite well, it's reasonable to say it's a good theory but it may need corrections or tweaking with new observations.

    If a theory that is more accurate and explains observation better comes along, I highly doubt there will be any tears.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    there really won't be tears,or did anyone cry over newtons big blow,given to him by einstein!
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    If a theory that is more accurate and explains observation better comes along, I highly doubt there will be any tears.
    Quite the reverse, if anything. I imagine there would be quite a bit of excitement, even in the popular press. Look at the fuss that was made about the "faster than light neutrinos" story.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    buh that is still hypothetical,base on the neutrino.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerling View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysicsApple View Post
    Dark matter is believed to be the infamous neutrino.
    Neutrinos have been ruled out as a possibility. One of the observed properties of dark matter is that it is "cold"; i.e. has relatively low velocity. Neutrinos, because of their small mass, always travel at something very close to the speed of light.
    Okay, I have to be fair here. Dark Energy? The effects have been hypothesized by Wheeler in the sixties in his article 'On the nature of quantum geometrodynamics' Albeit nog so observable.

    And Dark matter? Well, me, and nobody else in my department here really gets the big deal. As it is our jobs to make matter dark. It is a form of stability in quantum states where they no longer decay into a lower state. Since space i relatively cold, it isn't at all surprising that such a state can be achieved for simple molecules. And then it would be electromagnetically inert. Honestly, I don't see the big idea. I'd like to know what it is, so we don't have to think of other forms of dark matter. Dark matter in my opinion is just simple.
    If it is that simple, why hasn't it been considered? Or wouldn't you think it has been considered, but eliminated as a candidate? Also, even atoms in dark states can still collide with other matter, no?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    kerling,

    Concerning dark matter:
    .....I don't see the big idea. I'd like to know what it is, so we don't have to think of other forms of dark matter. Dark matter in my opinion is just simple.
    I didn't get your meaning in your explanation. Are you saying that dark matter is just undetectable cold matter. Is this the way, in your opinion, that the dark matter hypothesis is "just simple?" I think the problem is more in the distribution of dark matter and the source of its supposed angular momentum surronding a galaxy.

    In my opinion dark matter is also just simple, because non-existence is a relatively simple concept to comprehend. I have the same opinion of the hypothesis of dark energy, Nobel Prize and all
    Last edited by forrest noble; December 4th, 2012 at 11:25 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    dark matter accounts for 90% of the observable universe,...forrest are we sharing the prize in physics?
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Kerling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I didn't get your meaning in your explanation. Are you saying that dark matter is just undetectable cold matter. Is this the way, in your opinion, that the dark matter hypothesis is "just simple?" I think the problem is more in the distribution of dark matter and the source of its supposed angular momentum surronding a galaxy.

    In my opinion dark matter is also just simple, because non-existence is a relatively simple concept to comprehend. I have the same opinion of the hypothesis of dark energy, Nobel Prize and all
    Yes, it is just simple because (dark matter, not dark energy, I didn't look into that yet) Dark matter, is just that, matter that isn't optically active. And this is very important. Especially in star forming. It is not completely unlikely that my hypothesis is true. And that it is just a normal kind of molecular set-up with an entangled dark state that is stable. This would simply mean that it is not optically active. This could easily be derived to be for all possible wavelengths (except perhaps one very specific one, finding that one isn't easy but the lack of it would disprove my hypothesis)

    Now in star forming we are talking fusion, nuclei, this is not an optical process, just put mass in a furnace and it works. So dark matter would contribute to larger sun's. But, unlike with optical matter, it is optically inactive and so not dependend on optical pressure. That would mean that in a 'dark matter cloud' all the matter that can fall into a star will do so, and all those orbiting around it, won't get blown away. This would basically mean that optically seen a planetary system and its sun would be the same. But mysteriously much heavier. Because there is not physical system to blow the cloud away.

    So yes, im my perspective it is very easily explained. And disproved for that matter. Basically it would mean that 70 percent of the universe is shielding us from one specific colour of light. Which one is the big question!
    In the information age ignorance is a choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    I can understand the concept of Dark Energy being of a certain (as yet unknown) wavelength.
    But Dark Matter should have mass, no?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I can understand the concept of Dark Energy being of a certain (as yet unknown) wavelength.
    I don't think wavelength is relevant to dark energy.

    But Dark Matter should have mass, no?
    It does. That is how it is detected, by its gravitational effects (affecting the orbital velocity of stars in galaxies, gravitational lensing ...)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerling View Post
    [Yes, it is just simple because (dark matter, not dark energy, I didn't look into that yet) Dark matter, is just that, matter that isn't optically active. And this is very important. Especially in star forming. It is not completely unlikely that my hypothesis is true. And that it is just a normal kind of molecular set-up with an entangled dark state that is stable. This would simply mean that it is not optically active.
    I am no expert, but I think this is where you idea falls down. If matter in this dark state still engages in electromagnetic interactions then it cannot be a dark matter candidate. The distribution of dark matter suggests that it only interacts gravitationally.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    316
    The distribution of dark matter suggests that it only interacts gravitationally.
    and via the weak force or other interactions no stronger than that. if they are wimps of course.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    and that is exactly why they are called dark matters,only gravitational effect...absorbs no light and gives out no light...not even reflect.its like it is too dark......hahaha
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I can understand the concept of Dark Energy being of a certain (as yet unknown) wavelength.
    But Dark Matter should have mass, no?
    The definition and general hypothesis is that dark matter is a kind of matter that via its mass creates the gravity needed to explain the behaviors of stars in spiral galaxies, and galaxies within a cluster. I lean the other way believing that "dark matter" has no mass to it but instead influences other matter by pushing it via its currents. To be mass-less does not necessarily mean it has no substance, it just means that it would "float" within a gravitational field, something like an atmosphere "floats" around a planet. The particulates might be vastly smaller than matter particulates. This kind of hypothetical dark matter might be better described as a background field, and/or an aether. If this is the characteristics of dark matter then we probably discovered it many decades ago and now call it the Zero Point Field.

    Present beliefs are that we will discover the nature of dark matter particles within maybe four years from now since it is running out of places to hide. If within a decade or so if they still cannot find it I expect there will be a number of other hypothesis, maybe one like the one I mentioned above, concerning a mass-less dark matter. This kind of dark matter also might require another theory of gravity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Yes, it is just simple because (dark matter, not dark energy, I didn't look into that yet) Dark matter, is just that, matter that isn't optically active. And this is very important. Especially in star forming. It is not completely unlikely that my hypothesis is true. And that it is just a normal kind of molecular set-up with an entangled dark state that is stable. This would simply mean that it is not optically active. This could easily be derived to be for all possible wavelengths (except perhaps one very specific one, finding that one isn't easy but the lack of it would disprove my hypothesis)..................
    There seems to be another dark matter problem seldom discussed. Adding a great deal of unseen mass/matter surrounding spiral galaxies would not by itself cause the outer stars of the galaxy to orbit more rapidly, that new matter would also need the energy of motion concerning a large angular momentum to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    There seems to be another dark matter problem seldom discussed. Adding a great deal of unseen mass/matter surrounding spiral galaxies would not by itself cause the outer stars of the galaxy to orbit more rapidly, that new matter would also need the energy of motion concerning a large angular momentum to it.
    I'm not sure I understand that. Why wouldn't the increased mass in the galaxy affect the orbital velocity? And how would the angular momentum of the dark matter be relevant?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I can understand the concept of Dark Energy being of a certain (as yet unknown) wavelength.
    But Dark Matter should have mass, no?
    The definition and general hypothesis is that dark matter is a kind of matter that via its mass creates the gravity needed to explain the behaviors of stars in spiral galaxies, and galaxies within a cluster. I lean the other way believing that "dark matter" has no mass to it but instead influences other matter by pushing it via its currents. To be mass-less does not necessarily mean it has no substance, it just means that it would "float" within a gravitational field, something like an atmosphere "floats" around a planet. The particulates might be vastly smaller than matter particulates. This kind of hypothetical dark matter might be better described as a background field, and/or an aether. If this is the characteristics of dark matter then we probably discovered it many decades ago and now call it the Zero Point Field.

    Present beliefs are that we will discover the nature of dark matter particles within maybe four years from now since it is running out of places to hide. If within a decade or so if they still cannot find it I expect there will be a number of other hypothesis, maybe one like the one I mentioned above, concerning a mass-less dark matter. This kind of dark matter also might require another theory of gravity.
    Perhaps we enter this world at the Planck scale. A dynamic field (Higgs?) from whence particles form and sometimes disappear. If the formation of stable particles is sufficiently large but diffused throughout the universe, we might never see the creation itself, but the accumulated effect is DM gravity
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    316
    I lean the other way believing that "dark matter" has no mass...
    that would put it in a special class of particle and if it was massless it would travel at lightspeed i believe, and so is probably ruled out by what we know os the standard model. also, even the massless photon creates gravity so there is no need for "currents" pushing on anything.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    I lean the other way believing that "dark matter" has no mass...
    that would put it in a special class of particle and if it was massless it would travel at lightspeed i believe, and so is probably ruled out by what we know os the standard model. also, even the massless photon creates gravity so there is no need for "currents" pushing on anything.
    I have a real problem with visualizing Dark Energy being stronger than the total gravity of Entire Mass of the universe.
    What could cause this unequal function in context of the universal constants of gravity and the conservation of energy?

    Is it possible that the answer lies outside (below Planck) our universe. Perhaps Universal Gravity is creating space! Spacetime is stretched in the vicinity of a massive body. Perhaps what we perceive as expansion is in fact a constant collapse of infinitely stretched nothingness into spacetime.
    Perhaps we should treat this at GR and the observation of "expansion" is relative to the observation of "contraction". That would solve any apparent conflicts or paradoxes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I have a real problem with visualizing Dark Energy being stronger than the total gravity of Entire Mass of the universe.
    Why? Gravity is, after all, a comparatively weak force, as forces go. For example, it's over 40 orders of magnitude weaker than the electric force.

    What could cause this unequal function in context of the universal constants of gravity and the conservation of energy?
    I see no logical connection between your first sentence and this one. For example, the conservation of energy has no apparent connection with what's under discussion. Ditto for the "universal constants of gravity," whatever they may be.[/QUOTE]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerling View Post
    Yes, it is just simple because (dark matter, not dark energy, I didn't look into that yet) Dark matter, is just that, matter that isn't optically active. And this is very important. Especially in star forming. It is not completely unlikely that my hypothesis is true. And that it is just a normal kind of molecular set-up with an entangled dark state that is stable. This would simply mean that it is not optically active. This could easily be derived to be for all possible wavelengths (except perhaps one very specific one, finding that one isn't easy but the lack of it would disprove my hypothesis)

    Now in star forming we are talking fusion, nuclei, this is not an optical process, just put mass in a furnace and it works. So dark matter would contribute to larger sun's. But, unlike with optical matter, it is optically inactive and so not dependend on optical pressure. That would mean that in a 'dark matter cloud' all the matter that can fall into a star will do so, and all those orbiting around it, won't get blown away. This would basically mean that optically seen a planetary system and its sun would be the same. But mysteriously much heavier. Because there is not physical system to blow the cloud away.

    So yes, im my perspective it is very easily explained. And disproved for that matter. Basically it would mean that 70 percent of the universe is shielding us from one specific colour of light. Which one is the big question!
    You keep using the phrase 'optically active'. This implies that it interacts with the electromagnetic spectrum somewhere outside the range of visible light. That's not what Dark Matter does. It does not interact electromagnetically at all. Which means that you don't find it clumping. You don't find it in stars contributing to fusion. Aside from gravitationally, it doesn't interact with normal matter at all.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    There seems to be another dark matter problem seldom discussed. Adding a great deal of unseen mass/matter surrounding spiral galaxies would not by itself cause the outer stars of the galaxy to orbit more rapidly, that new matter would also need the energy of motion concerning a large angular momentum to it.
    I'm not sure I understand that. Why wouldn't the increased mass in the galaxy affect the orbital velocity? And how would the angular momentum of the dark matter be relevant?
    Think of it this way. Throw a huge amount of matter outside the galaxy. What would the galaxy's orbital momentum be different from a galaxy without this dark matter disk? It would take matter that has a great orbital velocity faster than the interior galaxy for the momentum of the outer galaxy to effect the orbital momentum of the internal galaxy, resulting in a galaxy rotating fasten than one without this dark matter exterior.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Kerling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    You keep using the phrase 'optically active'. This implies that it interacts with the electromagnetic spectrum somewhere outside the range of visible light. That's not what Dark Matter does. It does not interact electromagnetically at all. Which means that you don't find it clumping. You don't find it in stars contributing to fusion. Aside from gravitationally, it doesn't interact with normal matter at all.
    Ehm, no that is not what I am implying. In Quantum physics matter has so called optical transitions. When I say optical I mean the entire range of the electro magnetic scale. I don't see why you would interpret it otherwise as the field its named optics for a reason. Now I theorize that dark matter is in a sharp dark state with a very broad exited state. What that means is that all decay, even natural will fall its population of a state into the dark state and all other dynamics being to slow to give reasonable contributions.Then you have a perfect dark state. It is normal matter, but it does apply to all the observational data.I think it is the best theory because of Occam's razor, it is the simplest solution.
    In the information age ignorance is a choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Kerling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    440
    And therefore it would sustain fusion. As the optical effects of nuclei is tiny with respect to atomical optical effects. And fusion is a nuclear effect, and not atomic.
    In the information age ignorance is a choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Think of it this way. Throw a huge amount of matter outside the galaxy. What would the galaxy's orbital momentum be different from a galaxy without this dark matter disk? It would take matter that has a great orbital velocity faster than the interior galaxy for the momentum of the outer galaxy to effect the orbital momentum of the internal galaxy, resulting in a galaxy rotating fasten than one without this dark matter exterior.
    Hmmm... I kinda see what you mean but ... why outside the galaxy?

    And what do you see as the mechanism for the transfer of angular momentum?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerling View Post
    Ehm, no that is not what I am implying. In Quantum physics matter has so called optical transitions. When I say optical I mean the entire range of the electro magnetic scale. I don't see why you would interpret it otherwise as the field its named optics for a reason. Now I theorize that dark matter is in a sharp dark state with a very broad exited state. What that means is that all decay, even natural will fall its population of a state into the dark state and all other dynamics being to slow to give reasonable contributions.Then you have a perfect dark state. It is normal matter, but it does apply to all the observational data.I think it is the best theory because of Occam's razor, it is the simplest solution.
    I haven't studied optics in detail yet, but wouldn't there still be Compton scattering if dark matter was "normal" baryonic matter ? And wouldn't that aforementioned scattering be detectable ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,067
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    There seems to be another dark matter problem seldom discussed. Adding a great deal of unseen mass/matter surrounding spiral galaxies would not by itself cause the outer stars of the galaxy to orbit more rapidly, that new matter would also need the energy of motion concerning a large angular momentum to it.
    I'm not sure I understand that. Why wouldn't the increased mass in the galaxy affect the orbital velocity? And how would the angular momentum of the dark matter be relevant?
    Think of it this way. Throw a huge amount of matter outside the galaxy. What would the galaxy's orbital momentum be different from a galaxy without this dark matter disk? It would take matter that has a great orbital velocity faster than the interior galaxy for the momentum of the outer galaxy to effect the orbital momentum of the internal galaxy, resulting in a galaxy rotating fasten than one without this dark matter exterior.
    You are operating under a misconception about dark matter. It isn't something that just surrounds the galaxy it permeates it too. Think of the visible disk of the galaxy imbedded in a large spherical "cloud" of DM. I realize that this misconception is pretty common and likely arises from the fact that we talk about the "halo" of DM surrounding the Galaxy. The thing is that the word "halo" in astronomy doesn't refer to the common image that forms in most people's of a doughnut shaped ring.

    So why does this effect the speed of the outer stars of the galaxy? To determine how fast they should orbit we take the distance they are from the center of the galaxy and the total mass of everything closer to the center than they are. So if you are just considering the visible matter, you count all the stars in the galactic disk closer in to the center. DM on the other hand isn't confined to just the disk, to calculate its gravitational effect on the outer stars you have to total up the its mass in the whole spherical volume with a radius less than the stars radial distance. This is a much larger volume that that which contains the visible disk of the galaxy. So even though the overall density of the DM in this volume is less than the density of the visible disk, the vastly greater volume allows for it to contribute significantly in terms of gravitation effect on those stars.
    KALSTER and Strange like this.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerling View Post
    And therefore it would sustain fusion. As the optical effects of nuclei is tiny with respect to atomical optical effects. And fusion is a nuclear effect, and not atomic.
    Yes, fusion is a nuclear effect, as is nucleosynthesis. Studies have shown that the percentage of DM that can be baryonic is small. Essentially it works like this: If there was significantly more baryonic matter in the universe than what we see, then the relative abundances of the elements would be different than what we measure.
    KALSTER likes this.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    dark matter is dark,so dark in nature also....lets take a break...or what do you think?
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Think of it this way. Throw a huge amount of matter outside the galaxy. What would the galaxy's orbital momentum be different from a galaxy without this dark matter disk? It would take matter that has a great orbital velocity faster than the interior galaxy for the momentum of the outer galaxy to effect the orbital momentum of the internal galaxy, resulting in a galaxy rotating fasten than one without this dark matter exterior.
    Hmmm... I kinda see what you mean but ... why outside the galaxy?
    It could lie inside the galaxy too but the majority of it would need to lie outside the galaxy to control galaxy orbital momentum. I think of it as roughly similar to the lever principle, whereby the farther out the dark matter extends form the visible galaxy, and the greater the mass and angular momentum of this dark matter, the greater influence it would have on the momentum of the stars in the galaxy in general, and the stars in the outer galaxy in particular. Humorously something like the tail wagging the dog.

    And what do you see as the mechanism for the transfer of angular momentum?
    In dark matter models in general, it is though to be the gravitational pulling effect/ the change in the configuration of space. In my own model it would be the vortex currents of this dark matter material as a background field carrying matter with it as it enters and orbits the lower pressure galaxy while pushing with an average directional vector upon all matter.
    Last edited by forrest noble; December 6th, 2012 at 04:27 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    [It could lie inside the galaxy too but the majority of it would need to lie outside the galaxy to control galaxy orbital momentum.
    As Janus has nicely explained, that isn't how it works.

    Generically in dark matter models in general, it is though to be the gravitational pulling effect/ the change in the configuration of space.
    But any dark matter outside the galaxy will have no gravitational effect on matter inside the galaxy (assuming a roughly even distribution). That is why I wondered what mechanism you thought would be responsible for the transfer of angular momentum.

    In my own model ...
    Yes, well. I think we can safely ignore that. Unless you are able to show how this would quantitatively explain rotation curves?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    There seems to be another dark matter problem seldom discussed. Adding a great deal of unseen mass/matter surrounding spiral galaxies would not by itself cause the outer stars of the galaxy to orbit more rapidly, that new matter would also need the energy of motion concerning a large angular momentum to it.
    I'm not sure I understand that. Why wouldn't the increased mass in the galaxy affect the orbital velocity? And how would the angular momentum of the dark matter be relevant?
    Larger volumes of mass does not create larger angular momentum. The largest galaxies, elliptical galaxies, are often much greater in mass than spiral galaxies yet most do not generally rotate. For a galaxy or solar system to rotate it takes objects of varying relative motions to come together to form a vortex. A torus or vortex of material trying to spiral inward toward the gravitational center of the galaxy.

    (my quote)
    Think of it this way. Throw a huge amount of matter outside the galaxy. What would the galaxy's orbital momentum be different from a galaxy without this dark matter disk? It would take matter that has a great orbital velocity faster than the interior galaxy for the momentum of the outer galaxy to effect the orbital momentum of the internal galaxy, resulting in a galaxy rotating fasten than one without this dark matter exterior.
    You are operating under a misconception about dark matter. It isn't something that just surrounds the galaxy it permeates it too. Think of the visible disk of the galaxy imbedded in a large spherical "cloud" of DM. I realize that this misconception is pretty common and likely arises from the fact that we talk about the "halo" of DM surrounding the Galaxy. The thing is that the word "halo" in astronomy doesn't refer to the common image that forms in most people's of a doughnut shaped ring.
    Yes, dark matter is theorized to exist within the galaxy as well but it would seemingly have not much more momentum to it than the galaxy itself. So it would seem that the dark matter outside the galaxy is where the increased momentum must come from.

    So why does this effect the speed of the outer stars of the galaxy? To determine how fast they should orbit we take the distance they are from the center of the galaxy and the total mass of everything closer to the center than they are. So if you are just considering the visible matter, you count all the stars in the galactic disk closer in to the center. DM on the other hand isn't confined to just the disk, to calculate its gravitational effect on the outer stars you have to total up the its mass in the whole spherical volume with a radius less than the stars radial distance. This is a much larger volume that that which contains the visible disk of the galaxy. So even though the overall density of the DM in this volume is less than the density of the visible disk, the vastly greater volume allows for it to contribute significantly in terms of gravitation effect on those stars.
    The outer dark matter halo, orb, or torus would need a source of momentum to effect the inner galaxy. Again, stationary mass could not cause a galaxy to rotate.

    Dark energy, on the other hand, is even more problematic.
    Last edited by forrest noble; December 6th, 2012 at 04:22 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Strange,

    (my quote)
    In my own model ...
    Yes, well. I think we can safely ignore that. Unless you are able to show how this would quantitatively explain rotation curves?
    In my model a background field of minuscule particulates spiral in a vortex form, into a spiral galaxy. The field according carries a higher rotation velocity/ momentum than the galaxy itself and imparts this increased momentum on the outer stars first while its influence of pushing would slowly decrease as it would spread inward toward the mass of the galaxy. Of course this is just my model. What I think is missing from the standard model is the source the momentum of the dark matter, since it would have to be greater on the exterior of the galaxy to explain the observed galaxy rotation curves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Black holes, dark matter & dark energy
    By Cuete in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2013, 05:33 PM
  2. Dark Matter, Dark Energy and the Hyperbolic Gravitational Field
    By Gary Anthony Kent in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: April 28th, 2013, 03:17 PM
  3. Dark energy, Dark matter, Fine tuning problem,Negative mass!
    By icarus2 in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: July 31st, 2011, 12:12 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 22nd, 2005, 10:51 PM
  5. Replies: 25
    Last Post: July 14th, 2005, 07:14 PM
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
  •