dark matter

mickeyl

My discussion:
----Dark matter is the the matter that powers/energizes atoms. It is everywhere,--and gives us the ability to live in a universe, that is composed of the past, present, and future. It allows us to have motion/movements with the continuous refreshing of atoms and photons in the universe, --much as a movie projector displays a movie, frame by frame. Space, does not exist, --what is thought of as space is actually an invisible substance, --very-low-mass dark matter. Because we're born into the visible universe, it's normal to think of space, as an actual entity, --without the ability to step outside our misconceptions, --and realize it is actually very low mass dark matter, --that is continually refreshing/energizing all the atoms of the universe.
And:
Gravity is the presence of dark matter, surrounding any mass/or massive object, --that is necessarily accumulating around an object (as it passes/or prepares to pass through) it, --to re-energize it's atoms. The more massive/energy laden, the body, the greater the gravitational pressure that is exerted by dark matter. The greater the mass of a celestial object, the deeper and stronger the gravitational waves necessary for dark matter to accumulate around, pass through and effectively, continuously, re-energize the atoms. So, this refreshing of atoms action, gives us the function of time-and-space movement. Dark matter is more than five times as abundant as all the matter detected in our visible universe. It's origin is outside of our universe, --which leads to the universe's expansion, --and dark-matter is partially, being injected through massive black-holes. The "speed-of-light", is the continuous speed of dark-matter injected into our universe, --on which light photons are being carried along. Of course, without dark-matter, the universe would cease to exist.
So, to repeat:
What we know as space, is in fact, very-low-mass, dark-matter. Dark-matter is more than five times as abundant as all the matter detected in our visible universe. Mass-atoms, within the universe, are being re-energized by this dark-matter that is being infused from outside our universe, moving at the "speed of light". Photons of light are carried along in all directions by this very-low-mass, dark-matter dispersion. This atom interaction, produces an ever changing universe, --with a past, present, and future. --also an ever expanding universe. Gravitational forces, are the result of the attraction of dark-matter to the mass of an object. So, re-energized atoms of mass, or "carried-along" photons of light, can never exceed the speed ("speed of light"), of this energizing/injected dark-matter.
----by: mickey lawson----

sdhobbs

Why does there have to be an opposite at all?

Just because there is gravity, does that mean there is anti-gravity?
Just because there is matter, does that mean there is anti-matter?
Just because there is energy, does that mean there is anti-energy?

So why should there be any such thing as dark-matter or dark-energy?

Is light visible, or is it just invisible energy that is detected by the way it stimulates our retina, in fact until it hits another particle or surface it cannot even be detected.

Is the light emitted from the sun or is that just pure energy that then excites anything it comes into contact with thus emitting another form of energy that we can detect and call light?

We have protons, the opposite is an electron, but what's the opposite to a neutron?

If I have an apple I have an apple, because I don't have an apple doesn't mean I have an anti-apple. If you go allong that line then there's negatie energy and not just an energy deficit. That would mean there is not even an absolute zero!

If I turn the light off is it just devoid of light energy or am I surrounded by "black". Absurd really and I think it's just used when equations don't fit the results expected rather than admitting they made a mistake.

Too much sci-fi me thinks. All it's about is "Can the reverse of fission that releases huge amounts of energy actually produce yet more energy?". Common sense alone says no that's rubbish, fusion will always consume energy to make the huge energy sub-atomic bonds broken by fission, yet a lot of supposedly clever people still wish to go ahead and try and prove different. That's there thing I spose, upto them, I wouldn't bet on it.

anyway the sheer wording stating "I think" is patently wrong as this energy form is possibly mentioned in star-trek and probably futurama and isn't this just jumping on the next conenient band-wagon theory?

Still even Albert Einstein clung onto others. He plagerized Newton and I suspect he probably wasn't the greater of the two minds involved in the Einstein-Boltzmann work.

Anyway, isn't this along the same lines of the two-states fluctuating in and
out of existence, hmm, I wonder what the "dimensional phase shift difference is and if we could only adjust it" says Jordy to Data.

Soz, can't see it myself.

Lisa Pruitt

Space doesn't exist? That's not logical. Space is nothing - it does exist. There are places in it which in empty space don't seem to exist because there is nothing to differentiate them. Why dark matter began out of this is caused by very logical aspects of space itself. It's complicated. What I wonder is, if I or anyone figures it out how do you get credit and protect your own research.

But dark matter - its always been there. Its a combo. of different aspects of space. If everything has what was in it before (and it has to have - it has to start from something) If it came out of empty space which doesn't seem to exist because there's nothing in it - then dark matter would have that quality because that's what it comes out of.
Your comments are so interesting though.

sdhobbs · Last edited by sdhobbs on Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:57 pm; edited 2 times in total

Sorry bad english, Space is "nothing-ness", a lack of matter and energy, not the opposite of it.

Ok, if gravity is just dark matter pulling down on earth and not just a weak excuse because we cannot access the full size of the universe and find some black hole or other that could be just gumph! Then why does it not pull astronauts to one side of the space craft or the other if they step away from the center of the craft.

In short this also begs the question about wether "centrifugal" force operates outside of the Earth's magnetic or gravitational fields. Could this field be a result of one force crossing another force at 90 degrees
just like EMF?

Here's some interesting thoughts, which also beg the question the significance of 3,6 and 9 in mythology.

Me=9.1093818872e-31 (mass of electron)
Mp=1.67215813e-27 (mass of proton)
Mn=1.6749271613e-27 (mass of neutron)
δMnp=2.7690312999999995e-30
Mp+Me=1.67306906818872e-27 (Mass neutron calculated Mnc)
Mn-Mnc=-1.858093111279987e-30 Difference between calculated value and actual found value (at moment)
Imagine the electrons as satelittes of the proton+neutron, the extra is mass is converted to kinetic energy, heat, light and radio waves on the split?
Mx=3.0397576194394586
Mx*2=6.079515238878917
Mn/Mp=1.0016559625853087
Is this the ratio of elementals in each particular particle.
IF electron is base unit(1) then should be integer number within proton.
Mp/me=1835.6439006576552
IF electron is base unit(1) then should be integer number within neutron.
Mn/me=1838.6836582770947
Could actually say fractional part is errors, so:
No. of electrons per proton is:1836
No. of electrons per neutron is:1839
As measurements increase in accuracy, there is a slight upward trend in the value of mn,mp and me
The trend suggests mn/me tends towards 1836. As increase in descrepency on mn is greater than that in me
The trend suggests mp/me tends towards 1836. As increase in descrepency on mp is greater than that in me
This is only a difference of only 3 units which as postulated by Quark theory that an electron is a group of 3 quarks(-+-) grouping is rather suprising, that is to say that by removing the same 3 basic units of an electron from a neutron you'd get a proton.
Even without rounding the figure is only:1835.6439006576552/1838.6836582770947=-3.0397576194395697
or to put it another way accounts for a pretty accurate 99.83467750932817% of the mass of the electron, considering the errors that could creep in on such small scales this is pretty damn fantastic I'd say!
In fact these slight errors could be easily dismissed as errors in magnitudes of 10 from the true number of particles within each subatomic particle.
For example would the same hold true to the figures if the unit of mass of the absolute small particle was:1/3 of the mass of an electron... ok so that's 3.03646062906... recurring, we could equally say this is 303 particles and the 0.646062906666666666666666666667 is the error. Would it still hold true for the rest of the workings to the same level of accuracy in that The proton+electron = neutron. AND neutron/mass of particle AND proton/mass of particle are whole numbers (near enough) and that these hold true to the numbers above in that

particles/neutron = particles/proton + particles/election. And also that if particles/electron is odd then particles/neutron=even and particles/proton=odd.

In a C program this could be written as fullfilling the requirements.
(ParticlesPerNeutron==ParticlesPerProton+ParticlesPerElectron) &&
((ParticlesPerElectron & 1)==(ParticlesPerProton&1)) &&
((ParticlesPerElectron & 1)!=(ParticlesPerNeutron&1))

Judging this so that all resultant distances are a result of some force
acting against another force (ie, centripedal force and centrifugal force) then in a physical atom you would get a mass/spin ratio dependent on the time until they collapse back to zero. Irrelevant of the next stage after that, for a Hydrogen Atom and with electrons actually being 3 particles of "the next level".

As for E=MC^2, this would not limit masses matter to the speed of light anyway, this is the odd part of the theorum whereby the wording does not appear to fit the equations and in all of these equations, where lies PI the ancient constant passed onto us?

This is all much along the lines of the "oozlum woozlum bird" mentioned in the carry on films which goes round and round in ever decreasing circles until it finally disappears up its own ass! A humerous take on the "whole/hole" subject if you can excuse the pun (works when said aloud).

In fact the volume of a sphere would be 4*pi*radius[cubed].

Dunno, just some strange points. Maybe the whole BIG BANG nonsense (so called I reckon cos doesn't he just BANG on and on and on)... is merely because the further we look the more we can see and we are still nor ever will be any closer to finding the elusive center of the universe however billion miles into space we look, and if we "do" then there will be found to be more than one.

As far as I know, the universe is limitless and I would not worry to much about it being otherwise, I certainly won't be suffering with a headache when or if it all dissappears and to be honest after I leave this plane to the best of my limited human knowledge this universe will for all intents and purposes do so too.

Or maybe this theory where there has to be a + for every - is stating that instead of like other forces the -- does not repel but actually merge to form a larger minus and every + does the same, but only + and - cannot be merged. But even this would not hold true because eventually all you'd get is a massive group of + and a massive group of - which would mean that itself is flawed in that one could not truly be formed from the other.

Each theory seems to work on the same basic principle of waveform wherein -- atually amplifies and ++ amplifies and +/- actually cancel,
ie. string theory.

Remember the electro magnetic spectrum, yes that's the spectrum of electricty on one end and magnetism on the other. Electricity being magnetism in the opposite plane? but when they cross we get a force. (2d becomes 3d)

By creating infinite force do we then get a unit of mass? and if we create
an infinite mass it exerts and infinite force which we then call gravity, because "every force must have an equal opposite?" Dunno, maybe every single force in the universe is just EMF. If all matter is slightly magnetic and most of it has various degrees of charge, all whirling and spinning around in a vaccum then EMF would be produced, wonder if that's at least partially linked to gravity or vica versa.

Fusion: If we split an atom and it releases energy, how do we expect to produce energy by combining them, all that will ever do is use energy. common sense.

And now we delve into fiction

I mean I could say that we are all echoes radiating back from a particle of "time" and that each wave radiates causing a worm of alternate universes each one being a three-dimensional time slot, the sun is the "light" we are following and the dark voids are where we've been, we started as mercury and then as time progressed we became venus, then Earth, then once more we go further along and we are mars.

Until we run out of "energy" trying to keep up with the sun and fall off into space... at some point the moon explodes, then it's recombined as rings etc etc etc... but there appear to be a few too many size differences in the idea (but then maybe not, maybe earth IS venus and it's our perception that is altered because we don't have a lens to look through time!. Much the same principle. In which case all it would take is time and energy Confused

It's a bit like the speculation that one of jupiters moons was hollow... and who is going to prove it wrong? To me that sounds like a waste of my "time and energy".

When we get further forward in time, we become the sun, the light beams are us evacuating our home world and flying back through time as our whole lives pass before our eyes, this is echoed back but kept seperate from us as inifintely small and smaller bubbles of time and space each held seperately and independently from our own for as we travel back in time our universes (waves) are compressed smaller and smaller over the time period travelled.

Chuckles. A bit of a take on sir Issac Asimovs worlds within worlds.

Or maybe the mass-spin ratio is inself just a measure of the deviation
from the norm of the space time line and on this line it's one value, on
another it's another and so on, where we are also energy transmitted out from an interwoven fabric of time which we can measure our deviation from the norm in by our mass-spin ratio. chuckle.

Where some superior beings split time and energy and we are just echoing along with not enough energy in this "universe" where time is infinitely slowed for us in comparison to jump forward or back thus echoing along in it's wake. Truth is no-one yet undertands time and I doubt it's something we could manufacture as hard as we might try and it is always the same with humans as they near the end they wonder more and more on how it can be avoided or reversed. We'd all like to be younger or defy the laws of time, but I don't think that's possible at present and it's probably even more terrifying for "scinetists" who then have to turn to change their minds to some other alternative or accept the fact they face nothing but a ceasing of existence and chemical oblivion.

In truth whose to say we are getting closer to the sun and stuff like that
and not just infinitely spinning along in space at the same distance continually because it was just a "nice" place to be. I haven't measured it lately. I dunno, maybe light is the visible form of our immortal souls?

Chuckle, maybe we are all echoes along a worm-hole of "energy" used in adam's synapse when he was asked if he wanted the apple, he obviously had at least 2 choices, "yes/no" and an inifinte number of reasons for either. Chuckles.

Chuckles. Dunno, but there is some good sci-fi about. And actually only of late is sci-fi tomorrows science, years ago it was always the opposite. For example when the masses heard of radiation, we gave stories of super heroes, once more the possibilities were endless. Gamma radiation obviously caused gigantism and then "kryptonite" and super-man.

Chuckle. You could even look at the structure of our DNA, the whole story of our existence 'til now and it appears to be a numerous collection of tunnels held together by numerous weak and strong bonds, only certain combinations work and once more it revolves around human "numbers", and ironically they even color code that Red Green and Blue.

Brain waves are grouped into alpha-beta-delta (and now I think they have sub-divided it further)... possibly the same energy yet again just a bit shorter/longer wavelength.

And there is no reason that this is not in itself a wave from particles either, as if you span particles in 3d through 4d space and time then would it not result in a wave form when it echoed! chuckle.

sdhobbs

As no-one else seems to want to discuss the phenomenon and give a definitive answer, I will post another shorter reply.

It is not unfeasible to propose the existence of dark energy or dark matter but how you define this is possibly the problem.

A cloud of gas in space may well be far enough away from other light sources to be invisible (not reflecting their energy as far as we can detect) and yet still be there.

As for dark energy that is also invisible, all chemical elements are slightly magnetic. The sun has a magnetic field and so would such "dark matter". I can't see magnetism so is that "dark force", I can't see electricity until it arcs either, or for that matter heat.

Probagation of light "waves" in a vaccuum possibly seems so improbable that it is easier to think of particles, but if they were minute oscillations in a magnetic field, could that not be the answer?

So "yes" it probably does exist, but the truth is it is just the same matter as everywhere else but without reflected energy or sufficient energy to emit its own signal.

Possibly the sceptism lies in the wording which in fact hints at the sci-fi region of matter and anti-matter, light and anti-dark. I for one firmly belief there is NO such thing as anti-matter or anti-light and that there absence is merely a lack of it as although I too like cartoons and sci-fi, I am still a realist too.

(Afterthought: Wouldn't "Anti-matter" still be just matter, after-all it would still occupy space (and time if you are one of those that think of that as a matrix too rather than the matrix as merely a model which we use to measure its passing.) as how would it occupy a negative space?

If the question is about "anti-matter" then an example would be that for every atom there would be an "anti-atom" which would take up the same space and volume as the atom itself, which is not only hard to imagine but a self-destructing theory as that would mean each atom would take the space of 2 atoms? [owww my head hurts]

As for the infinity of the universe: We generally as a species use various forms of reflected radiation to detect objects in space but these waves themselves have a high but none the less limited energy, so sooner or later we will no doubt reach the limit of what our sensors can detect no matter how powerful the recievers.

socratus

The Dark Matter is another official dogma of our astronomy.
/ V.H.Vergon ./

shblotsoft

But there is true. it is
Namely that the universe will end and end to the life and end the universe.
I know this since 10 years ago.

socratus

a)
When Einstein worked on GRT, he asked astronomers:
“ What is the average mass of matter in the Universe?”
The result was lamentable. The quantity of mass was
insignificantly small. It was impossible to keep gravitation
law with such insignificantly little mass and so, the Universe
must be “open”, endless. But what to do with the infinite
space, Einstein didn’t know. Therefore he took (from the
heaven) “ the cosmological constant” in order to “close”
the Universe. The taken mass was enough for creating the
condition of gravitation. Without “ the cosmological constant”
the Universe is endless.
b)
In 1922 Friedman wrote, that we could not take “ the
cosmological constant” in calculation. Instead of it, it is
enough to take “time” and the Universe will be “closed”.
Friedman was correct, but why? Because “time”, by its
nature, is a limited physical quantity and, be taken in
mathematical calculation, automatically gives “closed” result.
c)
So, the detected material mass of the
matter in the Universe is so small (the average density
of all substance in the Universe is approximately
p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that the gravitation law doesn't work.
Astronomers and astrophysicists know about this fact and
therefore (to save the gravitation law) invented new matter
a "dark matter", a new energy a “dark energy” and another
abstract objects. This “ invention” is only a result of our
mentality , which says: ” If in a theory you meet infinity it
means the theory is nonsense”. It is very hard to take that
the Universe is infinite. It is no easy matter to give up
a lifetime of habit .
d)
On my opinion it is impossible to use GRT to Universe as
a whole. The Newton/ Einstein's gravitation laws are correct
only in the local parts of Vacuum. The Universe / Vacuum
as a whole is endless.
=======================..

6.3 Emergent gravity

One of the more fascinating approaches to “quantum gravity” is
the suggestion, typically attributed to Sakharov [332 , 393 ],
that gravity itself may not be “fundamental physics”. ( !!! )

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3

=================…..
Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspective
Authors: Matt Visser (Washington University in Saint Louis)
(Submitted on 19 Apr 2002)
Abstract: Sakharov's 1967 notion of ``induced gravity'' is currently enjoying a significant resurgence. The basic idea, originally presented in a very brief 3-page paper with a total of 4 formulas, is that gravity is not ``fundamental'' in the sense of particle physics. Instead it was argued that gravity (general relativity) emerges from quantum field theory in roughly the same sense that hydrodynamics or continuum elasticity theory emerges from molecular physics. In this article I will translate the key ideas into modern language, and explain the various versions of Sakharov's idea currently on the market.

Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspective
--Matt Visser
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204062

=========================..

When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless
infinite void.

http://discovermagazine.com/topics/space

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything

by Tim Folger
published online July 18, 2008
=================================..

Sylwester Kornowski

In my opinion, the dark matter is composed of the Fe+Ni granules created during the era of big stars just after the beginning of big bang – it is very difficult to detect it because the dark matter has the same temperature as the cosmic microwave background radiation.

In my opinion, the dark energy it is remnant of the object before big bang and it is the vectorial field responsible for the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions. My theory leads to conclusion that this field is composed of the BINARY SYSTEMS of neutrinos. The LOOPS built of the binary systems of neutrinos define the weak and strong interactions. Lifetimes of such loops depend on their radii so range of these interactions is finite.

See my theory on my website.

dark matter

Forum Options