INVISIBLE OR NONEXISTENT? A composite image of the galaxy cluster Abell 520 shows the inferred presence of matter, primarily dark matter, in blue.
Image: X-ray: NASA/CXC/UVic./A.Mahdavi et al.; Optical/Lensing: CFHT/UVic./A.Mahdavi et al.
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Theorists and observational astronomers are hot on the trail of dark matter, the invisible material thought to account for puzzling mass disparities in large-scale astronomical structures. For instance, galaxies and galactic clusters behave as if they were far more massive than would be expected if they comprised only atoms and molecules, spinning faster than their observable mass would explain. What is more, the very presence of assemblages such as our Milky Way Galaxy speaks to the influence of more mass than we can see. If the mass of the universe were confined to atoms, the clumping of matter that allowed galaxies to take shape would never have transpired.
Dark matter was theorized into existence to account for the missing mass. The prevailing view holds that dark matter contributes five times as much to the mass of the universe as ordinary matter does.
But some researchers have taken to approaching the problem from the other direction: What if the discrepancy arises from a flaw in our theory of gravity rather than from some provider of mass that we cannot see? In the 1980s physicist Mordehai Milgrom of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, proposed a modification to Newtonian dynamics that would explain many of the observational discrepancies without requiring significant mass to be hidden away in dark matter. But it fell short of describing all celestial objects, and to incorporate the full span of gravitational interactions, a modification to Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity is needed.
A review article in the November 6 Science checks in on the status of these modified-gravity theories, including a proposal put forth by physicist Jacob Bekenstein of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 2004. Pedro Ferreira, a University of Oxford cosmologist and one of the review paper's co-authors, says that there is good news and bad news for proponents of such models.
The bad news is that in order for modified versions of general relativity to work, some sort of unseen—or "dark"—presence must be in play, which in some cases can look a lot like dark matter. "If you try and build a consistent, relativistic theory that gives you modified Newtonian dynamics, you have no choice but to introduce extra stuff," Ferreira says. "I don't think it will be described by particles, in the way that dark matter is described—it may be described in a more wavelike form or a more fieldlike form."
In other words, a theory of gravity can do away with dark matter but cannot describe the universe simply as the product of a tweaked Einsteinian gravity acting on the mass we can see. "The old paradigm where all you were doing was modifying gravity simply doesn't hold," Ferreira says. "You modify gravity, but through the backdoor you introduce extra fields, which means that the distinction between dark matter and modified gravity isn't as clear as people thought before."
The good news? According to Ferreira, "all is not lost." Observational campaigns now in the works, such as the Joint Dark Energy Mission planned by NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy as well as an international radio telescope project known as Square Kilometer Array, should allow astronomers and cosmologists to test competing worldviews in the next decade or so.
By cross-correlating large-scale surveys of galaxies and observations of how galaxies distort background light in a relativistic process known as weak lensing, Ferreira says, the true nature of mass and the forces acting on it can be tested. "Whether gravity is modified or not will greatly affect the result," he predicts.
Although Ferreira works on theories of modified gravity, he is careful to note that the new paper does not advocate for those theories' correctness over the prevailing model. In his personal view, Ferreira says, "by far the simplest proposal is normal gravity plus dark matter."
See what we're tweeting about
100 Comments
Add CommentSorry to be repetitive, but apparently it’s necessary…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe identified requirements for Dark Matter are a result of the discrepancy between observed gravitational affects and estimates of affects based on estimated mass. While established gravitational theories may have a few shortcomings, it is astrophysicists’ direct application of simple equations intended only for discrete spherically symmetrical objects of mass to relatively proximal, disperse, non-spherical aggregations of primarily massive objects that produce these discrepancies. If the instructions for using these simple equations are carefully followed, these disperse configurations of mass, would require much more complex estimation methods, but the results would be much closer to the observed affects. Please look for yourself, paying close attention to the keyword ‘spherical’: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
The standard equations generally work great for planets and stars, but at extreme proximities even their minor deviations from spherical symmetry in their distribution of mass introduce significant estimation errors. As merely an old information systems analyst, I’d have hoped some competent mathematicians would have examined these estimation methods several decades ago, before the myth of dark matter had consumed so many of the resources of astronomy, physics and cosmology.
Before any dark matter deniers pounce on jtdwyer's comment, can we hear something from one or more of the many "competent mathematicians" out there about estimation errors? I find it hard to believe that absolutely no one working in this field has wondered how accurate are the mass estimation methods with which he or she is working. At the least, I would expect some error bars of plus or minus so many percent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBefore any of the kneejerk dark matter deniers pounce on jtdwyer's comment, could one or more of the many "competent mathematicians" out there comment on the accuracy of the mass estimations with which the people involved in this field of endeavor actually work? I find it hard to believe that people came up with dark matter (and dark energy?) to plug the holes in the equations simply because they never thought to question how accurate the estimates of mass on which they were relying actually are, or now to start trying to solve the problem by tweaking the equations. I look forward to finding out what the solution is, if there is one, as a follower of Haldane. It is all awfully queer, isn't it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not understand why the existence of dark matter / dark energy(aether) must be rejected. For over 100 years modern physics has tried to stamp out the existence of aether and their best proof has been the failure of the Michielson / Morley experiment. Since when is the failure of one poorly laid out experiment used to prove anything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone that looks at all the data can see that there is something out there. Just because we can not grab a hold of a handfull does not mean it does not exist.
It would be much easier to describe aether then invent ways to circumvent it's existence.
Once you understand the true nature of aether everything becomes clear.
Mathematics can only be useful after understanding not before. Mathematical formulas that work can only be created after all the facts are known.
How about the idea that mass attracts mass, mass repells antimass, and antimass attracts antimass (likes attract and opposites repell). I've hypothesized that the jets of matter coming out of a blackhole are actually antimass being created and repelled by the blackhole, and perhaps this goes part of the way to explaining why entire galaxies seem to repell each other while other galaxies attract each other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother consideration is the idea of denser forms of mass, perhaps even micromass and microantimass blackholes that are invisible to light.
I passionately believe in jtdwyer proposition. One can't help but wonder how these very precise and methodological physicists could have missed this. However, I'm concrete in my belief that some, at the very least, have pondered this intriguing 'solution.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs jtdwyer mentioned:
"...it is astrophysicists direct application of simple equations intended only for discrete spherically symmetrical objects of mass to relatively proximal, disperse, non-spherical aggregations of primarily massive objects that produce these discrepancies."
This insight is interesting, and I would be very pleased if this argument could be presented to physicists experting a keen insight in this area of Particle Physics.
However, the existence of dark matter is not completely out of the question for me. Jtdwyer's proposition is simple and fundamental, and as a believer in simplicity, I support his method of approaching the situation over theorizing completely new concepts.
pgtruspace has a very good point. EM radiation does propagate in a medium and we should not overlook the existence of an aether/ether. If all we observe is vibrations in a medium, then everything is made up of this medium and connected in it. Just because we cannot detect it as particles does not mean it does not exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgoneskyfishing
Dark matter /energy is the fundimental stuff that everything is made up of. when it's chaos is organized it becomes a true singluarity, a proton with it's electron shell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAether has charge and is supramagnetic, that is, it is easily influenced by magnetic fields and pushes on it's self. (a lack of charge is positive, an excess of charge is negative, a balanced charge is "O" but still a charge)
Once you understand you will see how a neutron works, and therefor mass /inertia and gravity. and maybe that which is.
mathematics describes reality, the language of the first cause.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat is seen it what is chosen from the possibilities of awareness, described.
dark matter? wave form? isn't it being created in its recognition? Reality is more than matter and dark matter, unless our concepts can be expanded our expereince will always be bound.
mathematics describes reality, the language of the first cause.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat is seen it what is chosen from the possibilities of awareness, described.
dark matter? wave form? isn't it being created in its recognition? Reality is more than matter and dark matter, unless our concepts can be expanded our expereince will always be bound.
Why Dark Matter is needed is not simply because of missing mass in galaxies. It is because of distribution of stars does not really match to gravity law (which is well proven!).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you cannot get rid of dark matter by simply increasing estimate of amount of total mass in galaxies. I hope this is clear to everyone.
To clarify, I have no basis for questioning estimates of system mass used in estimating gravitational affects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy point is that Newton’s equation for estimating gravitational affects is mathematically correct only for pairs of discrete point-masses: either spherically symmetrical objects of mass or objects whose separation distance is so great in proportion to their spatial dimensions as to be insignificant. Newton’s proof of mathematical correctness for his equation describing gravitation was based on his Shell Theorem, which explains how spherically symmetrical distributions of mass can be represented by a point-mass. Relatively proximal non-spherical distributions of mass do not qualify as point-masses.
My assertion is that all observations for which the requirement for dark matter was determined by applying the Inverse-Square Law to two relatively proximal objects, in which at least one is a virtual object composed of many discrete objects of mass, is technically in error and should be reevaluated. This is especially true for the initial reports of observations describing the Galaxy Rotation Problem, which established general credibility to the Dark Matter hypothesis.
There are likely thousands of scientific papers relating to dark matter that have been published in the past nearly forty years. I cannot assess each one to evaluate or invalidate their estimation methods. I certainly cannot debate any of the thousands of scientists that have received funding for projects pertaining to Dark Matter. I do stand by my assertion that many have used invalid gravitational estimation methods to determine requirements for dark matter.
pgtruspace said
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Anyone that looks at all the data can see that there is something out there. Just because we can not grab a hold of a handfull does not mean it does not exist."
The idea of the aether was eventually rejected because a better theory came along to replace the old one that was not working very well. The idea of Ptolemaic geocentric motion was eventually rejected because a better theory came along to replace it.
The ideas of dark matter and dark energy are suspect because they appear to be inventions similar to epicycles and the aether that keep the old trusted theory in place.
So maybe its time we throw out our 300 year old belief that mass has some mysterious ability to either attract or mass or warp space and replace this unphysical idea with the idea that it is the heat emanating from mass that produces the gravitational force.
In my paper I describe five experiments that show that the heat transferring through a test mass will either increase or decrease the test mass's weight (at the 2-9 % level) depending on the direction of heat flow.
This paper is entitled "Is the sun's warmth gravitationally attractive?" and it can be found here:
http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0018
pgtruspace said
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Anyone that looks at all the data can see that there is something out there. Just because we can not grab a hold of a handfull does not mean it does not exist."
The idea of the aether was eventually rejected because a better theory came along to replace the old one that was not working. The idea of Ptolemaic geocentric motion was eventually rejected because a better theory came along to replace it.
The ideas of dark matter and dark energy are suspect because they appear to be inventions similar to epicycles and the aether that keep the old trusted theory alive.
So maybe its time we throw out the 300-year-old belief that mass has some mysterious ability to either attract or mass or warp space and replace this unphysical belief with the idea that it is the heat emanating from mass that produces the observed gravitational force.
In my paper, I describe five experiments that show that the heat transferring through a test mass will either increase or decrease the test mass's weight (at the 2-9 % level) depending on the direction of heat flow.
The paper is entitled "Is the sun's warmth gravitationally attractive?" and it can be found here:
http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0018
My theory is based on the universe being comprised of gravity in oscillating densities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreation of the Universe & Unification Theory
http://www.aclepd.com/universe.html
Thank you,
Robert Evan Howard
aclepd.com
aclepd@aclepd.com
1-801-856-3200 / U.S.A.
If dark matter exists it shall be widespreaded. We should have dark matter in the near. How didn't we ever find it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf dark matter exists it shall be widespreaded. We should have dark matter in the near. How didn't we ever find it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDark Matter or Dark Space
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake your pick, either of these concepts can explain the galactic rotation problem.
Dark Matter is well discussed, and is accepted into the standard model. But it has no well defined origin of its nature. All that is contemplated is that it is a new kind of particle that is still to be discovered with strange properties such as it should have mass but have no electromagnetic properties so that it remains invisible. It may or may not have a physical cross section so that It may or may not bump into each other or may or may not bump into real matter.
On the other hand, what I call Dark Space is simply the hypothetical existence of an extra cosmic size bounded spatial dimension. With this concept I show and derive the theory behind the empirical MOND formula. MOND is now established as able to explain most of the galactic anomalies.
As you know, space by it self is invisible, but Dark Space is even more, simply because electromagnetic energy cannot traverse this space. But gravity can venture into the Dark Space and lead to MOND like behavior as I discuss in my article at cosmicdarkmatter dot
Com. So it is equally worth the effort to spend time and money on research to discover an additional cosmic size space dimension. Only one of these concepts can be right.
/ Tissa Perera
Gravity is a Push
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlack holes are neither. Space-time and matter are mutually antagonistic. Gravity is not a force, just a consequence of this interaction of space-time and matter. When enough matter is concentrated in one place, space-time pressure reaches a value that results in a balance between space-time and matter. This balance results in a "bubble" of matter of nearly infinite density becoming virtually a two-dimensional sphere with nothing on the inside.
When a star collapses, space-time is stressed to the point that it rebounds forcing the mass outward resulting in a nova. If there is enough matter, space-time pressure (gravity) will balance the outward pressure of collapsed space-time resulting in a black hole.
Extrapolating backward in time, the beginning of our universe can be attributed to the intrusion of matter/energy into this space-time continuum. The reaction of space-time on this intrusion dispersed most of the intrusion driving it violently apart. The remainder became a bubble of space-time with a two-dimensional surface; the first black hole.
Indidentially, the mystery of why no anti-matter exists in our universe even though matter and anti-matter were created in equal amounts at the birth of the universe is no mystery at all; the first black hole absorbed it all reducing it's mass to the point that it exploded driving a second violent expansion of the universe at a much later time. It is the second expansion that occured 13.7 billion years ago that we call the Big Bang that resulted in our observable universe. That is why stars and galaxies exist beyond the 13.7 billion light-year limit of our ability to observe.
Therefore, gravity is not a force. Gravity is the consequence of the space-time pressure on matter. This pressure results in spherical planets, the limit of the speed of light, and the accelerating expansion of the universe.
As a consequence, gravity does not precisely follow the Newtonian Inverse Square Law. Observations of trajectories of spacecraft slingshoting around planets show a clear, consistent discrepancy between the mathematical predictions and actual results. These are just some observations that are not adequately accounted for by conventional theories of gravity:
Part 2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this• Extra fast stars: Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern. Dark matter, which would interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically, would account for the discrepancy. Various modifications to Newtonian dynamics have also been proposed.
• Pioneer anomaly: The two Pioneer spacecraft seem to be slowing down in a way which has yet to be explained.[1]
• Flyby anomaly: Various spacecraft have experienced greater accelerations during slingshot maneuvers than expected.
• Accelerating expansion: The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up. Dark energy has been proposed to explain this.
• Anomalous increase of the AU: Recent measurements indicate that planetary orbits are expanding faster than if this was solely through the sun losing mass by radiating energy.
• Extra energetic photons: Photons travelling through galaxy clusters should gain energy and then lose it again on the way out. The accelerating expansion of the universe should stop the photons returning all the energy, but even taking this into account photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation gain twice as much energy as expected. This may indicate that gravity falls off faster than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[4].
• Dark flow: Surveys of galaxy motions have detected a mystery dark flow towards an unseen mass. Such a large mass is too large to have accumulated since the Big Bang using current models and may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[4].
• Extra massive hydrogen clouds: The spectral lines of the Lyman-alpha forest suggest that hydrogen clouds are more clumped together at certain scales than expected and, like dark flow, may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[4].
These and other observations suggest a revision of classical gravitational theory is necessary.
If, as I suggest, gravitation is a consequence of space-time pressure on matter due to mutual antagonism, then gravitational phenomena are not linear but volume dependent. Instead of an inverse square law, gravitation requires an inverse cube law; Gravity at A = gravity at B × (distance B / distance A)3 .
Interestingly, this suggests that what is called the Strong Nuclear Force that serves to hold atomic nuclei together is not a separate force at all, but the very same space-time pressure that results in what we perceive as gravity. This theory also accounts for the galactic rotational anomalies “explained” by the fallacy of dark matter and the accelerating expansion of the universe attributed to “dark energy.”
Using simple, undergraduate level equations, the mass pressure of space-time can easily be calculated as 5.757 X 10-17 gs. Using this, the observable limit of the speed of light in a vacuum becomes a consequence of space-time pressure. This is the calculation: Space-time mass pressure @ C = 1.727 X 10-26 m/gs2. Incidentally, this means that photons have mass, despite what you read in high school physics textbooks.
Further research to refine mathematical rigor and make the observational measurements necessary is indicated.
Now everyone knows that quarks are made of electron linked to positrons,their negative and positive quarks at the the egdes of a dual tetrahedron arrangement.positive quarks are p-e-p and negative e-p-e,dual tetrahedrons do have an orientation or does every one think that thats an accident,what is the purpose of that orientation on an isolated body... Read More you may ask ?before suching for hypothetical particles like gravitons we need to know this answers.under nuclear forces electrons bind to positron in 3s to for a quark.In electromagnetism electrons bind to positrons in pairs to form photons, Is that not a link between gravity and electron -magnetism.sometimes we dont need to think so hard ,when you understand gravity at subatomic level you will see that it can be attractive on small scale and occasionally repulsive on large scale.then there will be no need for dark energy and dark matter, unless of course you believe that some were else in the universe electrons can bind to positrons in a more than triple formations under different forces. kasuleconcepter@yahoo.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo clarify on the point i made above,which may be confusing to some because there several models out there i will post a link below for more information about the qaurk i am talking about which is zerre-quark
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.zerretheory.com/index.php?sayfa=sayfa-goster&kitap=1&konu=5&s=2
re.: 'How about the idea that mass attracts mass, mass repells antimass, and antimass attracts antimass (likes attract and opposites repell).'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat’s an interesting subject, seemingly open to speculation. As I understand, particles and antiparticles commonly materialize and subsequently annihilate each other in otherwise apparently empty space. This suggests that there is no antimass characteristic. This also suggests why there can be no antigravity, especially if gravity is manifested as the curvature, or perhaps more correctly contraction, of external spacetime.
I wonder whether the undetected so called particle characteristic of mass is not strictly a characteristic property of particles but rather a separate external field, analogous to gravity, perhaps an encompassing redirection of emission velocity produced by the external energy density of the initial universe. In this case, it is the temporally diminishing energy density of the early universe that performs the function of selecting particles to receive mass, assigned to the hypothesized Higgs Field, and the LHC, or any other particle accelerator, will never detect the hypothesized Higgs Boson particle of mass, as it is not exist.
Durka durka durka durka,,,,,when the durka durka fills up the matter is then durka durkad. This is a wonderful day, becuase durka durka durka hits the durka in just the right way that durka durka gets caught in the durka durka durka; however, Eistein proved this wrong when he durka durka the experiments with durka durka durka. So all of you are wrong if you think that durka could ever be a durka durka or a durka durka durka for that matter!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisre.: 'How about the idea that mass attracts mass, mass repells antimass, and antimass attracts antimass (likes attract and opposites repell).'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMass is an interesting subject, seemingly open to speculation. As I understand, particles and antiparticles commonly materialize and subsequently annihilate each other in otherwise apparently empty space. This suggests that there is no antimass characteristic. This also suggests why there can be no antigravity, especially if gravity is manifested as the curvature, or perhaps more correctly contraction, of external spacetime. Perhaps the antithetical characteristic states of fundamental particles are limited to their spin and charge of properties.
This further suggests that undetected so-called particle characteristic of mass is not strictly a characteristic property of particles at all but rather a separate external energy field, analogous to gravity, perhaps an encompassing redirection of emission velocity produced by the external energy density of the initial universe. Perhaps in the extreme thermal density of the initial universe emitted particle energy could neither be moved nor reabsorbed. In this case, it is the temporally diminishing energy density of the early universe that performs the function of selecting particles for the acquisition of mass, commonly assigned to the hypothesized Higgs Field, and the LHC, or any other particle accelerator, will never detect the hypothesized Higgs Boson particle of mass, as it does not exist.
In this scenario, perhaps an accumulated potential velocity of mass, resulting from its self-opposed internally directed configuration, (for spherically symmetrical objects) radially contracts spacetime, just as sufficient linear acceleration applied to matter linearly contracts spacetime as it proceeds.
Please notice that this line of reasoning infers physical characteristics to mass and its quantum relationship to gravitation.
Please read my balloon inside balloon theory of twin cyclic universes of matter and antimatter on opposite entropy path and theory of gravitoethertons in doc.6198 and report submitted to NASA in nasa report-1. Observation shows that distant galaxies are flying faster , our milky way is bright glow at centre of galaxy ,there is a magnetic band encircling our galaxy and other things like why our earths centre is hot iron core, source of earths magnetism , universal gravitation, earths magnetism, etc etc etc. Now if we just think that our matter universe is enclosed by another antimatter universe ,then we we can have the missing dark matter in outer antimatter universe. When I try to solve string theory on polar coordinates and general relativity, indeed the missing dark matter show as negative which means nothing but antimatter universe. This antimatter universe pulling our outer galaxies with bigger force causing faster flight and when they approach common spherical boundary ,then violent anihilation of matter and antimatter take place giving huge gravitoethertons which also call ether or wimps or god particle or dark energy etc etc. That is why you see violent bright glow spots at the edge of our universe all over in every direction approx. ten billion light years away. This gravitoethertons is causing gravity in our universe as per the mass it is flowing over. Therefore our universe is flow of gravitoethertons and we live in gravitoethertons as fish in water. But we cannot detect it because of its very high --a few times light speed and very small wave length but very high frequency as per my calculation. We can call this gravitoethertons as string also in string theory or comology constant factor in Einsteins theory. But we see the gravity effect of gravitoethertons but do not recognise it. Now when this gravitoethertons focus at centre of earth we see hot molten core due to heat generation and flow of electrons in iron core giving rise to earths magnetism. Same thing is happening in milky ways centre producing glow and magnetic band around. Even we see earhths corona and surface temperature very high compared to inside due to flash of gravitoethertons on surface. Michelsons light speed ether drift experiment given null result because gravitoethertons flow vertical to his horizontal table at very high speed so that the idea of ether drag was ridiculus. But Einstein mistakingly interpreted light speed constantcy to aply lorentz transform and a wrong theory of relativity.-D.DATTA. .INDI.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy theory is that the universe is made of cranks. As evidence I cite comments 1 - 26, except for a couple. Those not cited know who they are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, medicine has made great, OK at least pretty fair strides in the management of paranoid schizophrenia in the past decade. Keeping this in mind, I recommend as a service to the public, that all serious posters to this blog who lack a PhD. in physics seek treatment immediately. No, really. Immediately. And I also mean a real degree, not just one you printed yourself. And if you live in your Mom's basement, just call 911. It's Friday night, and all the private practice psychiatrists are home now, but Monday is just to long to wait. The county hospital will evaluate you and keep you in a safe environment over the weekend.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDegree of crankness vary on a different relativity theory. Keeping no comment option for higher degree cranks is advisable .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf no dark matter, then my theory must be correct, which posits that the validity of us noticing that the farther we see, the older things appear, also includes the concept of density, only we see it inside out. The Big Bang universe was very small, but the inside-out universe is actually a shell surrounding the visible universe today. This snell tapers off to infinite density, which is why the outward expansion of our surrounded universe accelerates uniformly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, this seems remarkable, but it is not actually that hard to visualize, since we already see slightly post Big Bang conditions at the edge of the universe. Roll that back slightly more and we should see exceedingly dense conditions.
Gosh, I might as well add my two-cents worth. Perhaps the dark matter is in a parallel universe. We therefore cannot see it, but we "feel" its effect on our "interwoven universe". A thought for today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi think that to understand dark matter n gravity of the universe it is more important to know about the cause behind gravitational forces and some of the other fundamental forces.....this may indirectly indicate us the reasons behind the extra mass that we can not see or observe(dark matter)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe.: ‘inside-out universe’
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael, that is a very useful way to transform our often spatially oriented interpretation of observations into it perhaps its more correct temporal perspective, as the universe actually appears to us as if it were temporally expanding in towards us.
On a separate subject, using this perspective, if distant objects are actually more distant than expected, based on standard cosmological models, wouldn’t those observations support the conclusion that the expansion of the universe is actually decelerating due to entropy, as opposed to accelerating, requiring Dark Energy? I think it does...
There are no crackpots here okay!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually what we have here are a few super-geniuses who lack any high level math or physics but who already solved the mysteries of the Universe through a new kind of reasoning that the regular one cannot make any sense of !
Now what we need to do is just get rid of all math, physics scientists and all the textbooks and read these new "theories".
(If you think about it these would make a lot of students happy. :-)
There has to be dark matter in open empty space - as it is where negative energy and planetary and all matter recedes. It is the fabric of the universe where everything exist in it. Dark matter is the substance that allowed the universe to evolve into the state and deity it is today. A vassness of empty open space spread with planets,stars and galaxies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my book ""THE SUPERTELLIC UNIVERSE "" for short spelling I illustrate the dark matter issue against the dark energy issue that states that empty space is an erotic type energy or for that instance negtaive energy. But you have to realize that negtaive energy is a make up equal to that of p[ositive energy that form the energy cycle as a whole. The energy sprectrum is not not even. With this in mind we can look at the vasness of space as empty zero point space that allows the planets and matter in it to cushion itself as it orbits through time and space. The dark matter fabric as Einstein called it is the backbone of everything that exist in it from the very beginning and even before the matter universe was born. The facts apply. Even though the standard theory exhibits the universe as all beginning at the same time T=0 including dark matter I wouild hgave to say that that is impossible since there had to exist a material growth beginning of pods at the unstable level and before the big bang. If it did all happen at once - than where did it all come from?
To make it ealier to understand...you have to realize that if dark matter was dark energy as implied than the theory of energy is wrong. Positive energy has a counter parthner negative energy. As you alreadsy know the universe is only four percent matter meaning that the positive energy implied with negative energy is also only four percent. That's a fact of physics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an author of ""The Supertellic Universe "" I go on to explain everything about dark matter. Without it as the 96 % percent it occupies - there would be no growth or expansion. And as yopu know there is.
i dont understand why only crankpots post comments here. ive seen this in other articles too. dont the experts have anything to share?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCrank-pots should be filtered on comments. they're scaring away the phd's. cant see one expert comment here. the last time i heard a discussion showing such intellect was when fourth graders came out of the planetarium.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisentropy isn't described correctly, it's not disorder it's balancing.....gravity is the same thing as entropy, is the same thing as electrons being in their lowest energy orbits, is the same thing as chemical equations seeking equilibrium...it's a class of behavior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdark matter isn't, it's the unseen multiverse.....which includes probable realities.....that are verging on existing.
bunch of retards..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisaffect -> effect
it's -> its
Mass attracts; it doesn't repel. Contramass repels.
The medium is the same as the body, el�ctr�ns here.
jameylynne, a bunch of handwaving without work.. There are no black holes: http://twitter.com/alysdexia/status/4323682209. If antimatter did beniht the event horizòn, the black hole would shine off by Hawking radiation until it blew up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA fotòn has no mass by definition. If a fotòn gains mass, it is no longer one and becomes a plasmòn or other quasiparticul. Here it could be a radiòn.
You may find the solution at www.metrocosmos.blogspot.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoesn't subquantum kinetics already answer this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt unifies quantum theory and gravity (it also unifies electromagnetism & gravity), and is the only explanation for the 'biefeld-brown effect'. (That we can verify via experiment, even thought i believe M-theory is definately on the right path.)
Getting back to the original question: ‘What if there is no Dark Matter’, about 18 months ago I was kind of watching TV when I heard a video clip of Dr. Vera Rubin discussing her early 1970s observation of the stars in a spiral galaxy that led to the popularization of the Dark Matter hypothesis. I had retired after 30+ years working with the world’s largest information systems, much of that time spent locating the source of very difficult problems in complex information systems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was stated that galaxies work just like the solar system, except that stars in galaxies orbit a central black hole. Dr. Rubin went on to explain how the orbital velocities of planets in our solar system decline with distance, but that stars at the periphery of spiral galaxies have the same orbital velocity of stars near the center of the galaxy. Enormous quantities additional mass seemed to be required to produce that result.
Knowing little about gravitation except that it is proportional to mass and diminishes with distance, I immediately visualized the spatial distribution of mass in the solar system and that of a spiral galaxy. I just as immediately knew that Dr. Rubin was operating under a misconception, since the solar system’s mass is almost entirely centralized (>98% is located within the Sun), whereas the mass of a spiral galaxy is highly distributed throughout its vast galactic plane.
With additional investigation I found that Dr. Rubin had calculated the attraction between galaxy mass, at the periphery of the galactic bulge, and the mass of individual stars throughout the galactic plane to determine expected orbital velocities. She had imposed the centralized mass orbital model on a highly distributed mass gravitational system. Apparently in checking her results, astrophysicists had determined that she had correctly followed the standard method of determining the rotational curve of an orbital system. The astrophysics community became largely convinced that Dark Matter existed.
So, forty years ago the quest for dark matter began. Particle physicists spent perhaps a billion dollars building dark matter detectors, and particle physicists theorized what it could be made of and search through their collider experiments for evidence, all to no avail. Astronomers were much better at seeing dark matter wherever they could similarly identify gravitational anomalies. Cosmologists found there models worked much better with dark matter than without. So, here we are.
Unfortunately, the original estimations of expected spiral galaxy rotational curves completely ignored the local affects of the innumerable much nearer stars in the massive galactic plane. While I haven’t investigated all the ‘observations’ of dark matter, I strongly believe that the source of the problem is the application of a simple equation, intended by Newton to determine only the gravitational attraction between two discrete (proximal spherically symmetrical) objects of mass (stars and planets), to disperse aggregations of massive objects. Please refer to my first posting in this blog on 11/05/09.
P.S. If, for each star considered within the galactic plane of a spiral galaxy, Dr. Rubin had also estimated its multidirectional attraction to all nearer neighboring stars, it should have been clear that stars within the galactic plane of a spiral galaxy do not independently orbit the central mass of the galactic bulge, but that they collectively rotate around the center of mass as a loosely bound massive object.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.S.2 This explains, without requiring dark matter or any other additional mass, why stars at the periphery of spiral galaxies have the same orbital velocity as stars near the center of the galaxy, and their flat rotational curve.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDark energy can cause the effects seen if we look at how matter behaves in a rapidly expanding space-time I bet it will look very much like the universe we see today. The clumping of galaxies could be caused if space-time expansion happens more outside large collections of matter than it does inside them. The matter inside large clumps of matter does not seem to be getting further and further apart so it may be time to think about what a large universe of varying growth of space-time would look like.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon Flowers
As a layperson, I'm unable to base my opinion on much more than Occam's Razor. Given the choice between dark matter and the possibility that there are gaps in our knowledge that prevent us from seeing the full picture, I know where I'll put my money. I recognise that there are plenty of mystical and incredible conditions around the universe, but the concepts of dark energy and dark matter have never resonated with me - they sound like excuses for lack of a real understanding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease pardon my typo, as it does not exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA comment from a "provo", lay in astrophysics: some say that the expansion of universe follows the curve described by the equation (X raised to 1/X). This would be an asynthotic curve, the extreme never reaching the horizontal axis, but the theory of strings predicts that there is a limit in the small extreme of compressed matter, that would be precisely in he size of the strings, so the flat zone of curve will have and end too. An old joke compared the reactions of an engineer and a mathematician when told that at the end of a path a very big price is waiting for the first to arrive, the condition is that the runner must run in each minute half of the total distance, the next minute half of the rest and so on. The math person stucks and tells the engineer: why are you running?, you'll never walk the full distance. The engineer replies: I know I can't, but I can reach close enough. An spanish early 20th century astronomer Jose Comas-Sola ,that Albert Einstein acknowledged as one that understood from the first moment the Relativity theory, pointed that the deviation to red of light coming from far stars and galaxies was not due to a Doppler effect from the speed they were coming apart, but from an undetected space matter that absorbed the higher energy light in the violet zone and beyond. It's unprobable, it's obsolete, but it is a wonderful "boutade"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe force that binds together the entire universe is mostly invisible, NOT black or dark. It is easily detectable and follows predictable rules. It is enormously more powerful than gravity (x10^37) and is in common use on planet Earth. It has been known for 150 years but discarded by astronomers for most of that time. It is quite simply electricity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpace provides a marvellous environment for atomic particles to separate. With charge separation comes the ionisation of 99.9% of the universe - the state of plasma! Electricity flows very easily via filamentary Birkeland currents and is detected by their associated magnetic fields.
Galaxies owe there existence to the natural twisting nature of paired currents - the classic spiral galaxy has been demonstrated in lab and computer. At no time was any dark matter required, quite the reverse. Plasma focus (Z-pinch) often forms vast light and energy sources.
The variable outlines of these amazing structures owes much to the fractal nature of matter (fractaluniverse.org). Right down to DNA spirals, the cellular behaviour of double layers can be seen throughout nature. Why do we need to invent mathematical constructs when lab experiments produce the answer! Dark matter belongs with black holes, in science fantasy world.
Actually, when Pluto orbits the sun on its highly eccentric orbit, it appears as if the mass of the sun and the mass of Pluto do "repel" each other at least half the time--i.e. the times when they are accelerating away from each other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThrow a great big handful of dust near a black hole and you will observe that as the dust sorts itself into an accretion disk only half the material goes inward, the rest goes outward and much of that will actually escape the B.H. in exact proportion as the inward stuff nears the event horizon.
All of which is to say that general relativity does not exclusively describe gravity as an "attractive" force, but only as a rule of motion for massive objects. Through intellectual habit of mind people forget that half the time in most instances gravity is actually "repulsive."
What I wanted to do when I came here today was raise the name of Lisa Randall, the world's loveliest physicist who proposes that gravity leaks over from the other seven dimensions. I am wondering if dark matter is a kind of leaking over of the distribution of normal mass in those other dimensions. . .
Of all the comments I have read at this site,and on all others,voiceofreason,is the one that smacks of true arrogance and delusions of Godhood,I believe he or she or both, needs immediate treatment before they cause great harm to themselves or others, but most likely others,that don't fit in their delusional view the world.It is clear that they would if they could remove"everyone elses right to everything, if they didn't have a PhD" ,which by your own argument could never be achieved,after all a thesis for a PhD is a comment.So the next time you have a thought,don't. It would be better for the rest of us,and by the way where did you get your PhD.A Cracker Jack box maybe?Since you don't have anything of knowledge to contribute,please go back to your momma's basement till you do.Hope she isn't dead in her bathtub,because she didn't have a PhD.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisre.: Gravity is a Push
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJameylynne, I agree that gravity is a physical force imparting velocity to matter, produced by the local (for spherically symmetrical objects of mass, the radial) contraction of spacetime. This can be effectively described as a ‘push’ from space.
The Inverse Square Law was used by Newton to effectively describe, for spherically symmetrical objects of mass, gravitation’s affect as a virtual attractive force. In physical reality, Newton’s attraction vectors represent the net effect of two intersecting opposingly directed radial contractions of spacetime, each imparting additional velocity to the other object of mass.
The observed discrepancy between predicted and observed trajectories of spacecraft, sent very near planets to gain velocity, results from the planets’ slight deviations from spherically symmetrical mass distribution. Their slight deviation from spherical symmetry becomes significant at the extreme proximity of the approaching spacecraft. These effects become most significant for spacecraft landings, which must account for increasing, varying discrepancies from predictions, including topographical mass variations. If the actual distribution of mass is accurately represented, I believe the Inverse Square Law remains in effect. However, estimation for multiple ‘attraction’ vectors is likely required to produce accurate estimates.
In a letter to a friend Einstein questioned the spacetime continuum basis of his GR theory late in life, in which case, quote: &my castle in the sky amounts to nothing, but so does the rest of modern physics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a discontinuous universe a very different perspective of relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology and astrophysics necessarily emerges. Spacetime concepts derived a posterior from creation are not arbitrarily raised to a priori status to explain creation. Atoms are synchronously projected as very rapid series of space frames linked up by light in a cosmic movie. Atoms are particles and waves at the same time because one oscillation defines one primary interval of time. Light can only travel a limited distance with respect to each atom in each space frame so its speed is universal. It defines external space with respect to the internal spherical space of an atom. Space and time are quantized. There is no other universal measuring rod out there.
Patterns of inertial momentum are distinct from gravity consistent with Foucaults pendulum and they introduce a small family of quantum forces associated with the need for a preponderance of synchronicity in the universe as a whole. These quantum forces regulate gravitational attraction at cosmic, galactic, stellar and planetary levels in an analogous way that a spinning top does not fall over or a gyrocompass maintains its orientation to the fixed stars. It is these hitherto unrecognized quantum forces that account for dark energy and the missing mass.
This offers alternate mechanisms for galactic dynamics, stellar creation and migration. Website articles available at www.cosmic-mindreach.com explore this new methodology consistent with the empirical evidence.
The article Gravity, Quantum Relativity & System 3 introduces a related method of Historic Coordinates to derive the Lorentz Transformations in a direct transparent way. The methodology requires direct confirmation in phenomenal experience, thus complementing traditional approaches to the empirical evidence. The website article on Cosmology & System 3 explores an alternate approach to cosmology that necessarily follows.
A current contender for dark energy is the roiling sea of probabilistic quasi-particles that constitute the quantum vacuum, and whose negative pressure accounts for the unexpected currently accelerating expansion of the universe. Since these are ghostly entities that that are neither nothing nor something, we can assert that a modicum of "stuff" is not needed to account for gravitational effects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn terms of a candidate for dark matter, I'm waiting for the results of the LHC effort to detect the Higgs boson. That said, however, virtual particle pairs are continually emerging from, and disappearing back into, the quantum vacuum - but occasionally one of the pair is energetic enough to remain actual. If this process was more pronounced after post-Big Bang inflation, and the greater-than-estimated matter exists outside of our observable light cone, then perhaps said particles could be defined as the dark matter under discussion.
In the fractal paradigm (5th age of science), the Universe is made of fractal space-time discontinuums, which are invariant at scale. Thus there are two membranes, the macrocosmic membrane of gravitation, whose repulsive force is dark energy and its substances is dark quark matter (the substance of black holes, pulsars and quark stars) and the quantum membrane of electormagnetism. Both can be unified as i showed in the 51 congress of ISSS at Tokyo and my book 'the Error of Einstein' with a self-similar fractal equation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2 simple proofs for those who did not attend the conference or read the book (99.9999999% of the physicists population :)
- The standard model doesnt require gravitation because gravitation is a force of the macro-cosmological membrane whichis not felt inside the atom
- When you substitute the values of the Gravitational equation Gm2=r3xw2 by thoseof the bohr atom you obtain a G 10 upto 40 times stronger, the difference between gravitational and electromagnetic force, hence both forces are self-similar cyclical vortices of spacetime of two different membranes. The long quest for unifying forces is solved. It is not possible but we can understand why and the self-similarties of both membranes
The problem of physics today is that it is not upgrading into the fractal paradigm nor listening to its founders, wich are to XXI century what Riemann, planck and Einsein were to the quantum paradigm. But as Planck cynically said 'all te people who believe in aether might have to die for the new paradigm to be imposed' (as per Kuhn). We have resolved most of the questions poised by the quantum paradigm and science will indeed if we survive the challenges of new weapons (like the quark cannon at CERN or the nano-bacteria as per bil joy) enter into a new age of enlgihtement.
For those interested in the fractal paradigm www.unificationtheory.com
we are dust of space-time and dust we shall become
luis sancho
In 2003 Vasily Yanchilin published his book The Quantum Theory of Gravitation in which he proposed a new theory based on the hypothesis that the mass of the universe causes the laws of physics. This was guessed so already in the 19th century by the Austrian Mach. Yanchilin argues that radiation represents kind of energy which in turn respresents mass. Dark mass therefore might consist of radiation but perhaps in a changed form. I think that research should be done how fading electromagnetic waves of different but near wavelength possibly can accumulate to something new, which is obeserved as gravity from dark matter. Yanchilin notes that around Earth space is full of photons although we do not observe these at night.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis Russian scientist shows in words and formulas that the old general theory of relativity is wrong. It is a shame that Scientific American boycots his work and does not want sofar to present a good article on the new theory or have an interview with Yanchilin to which the latest results of his work can be added. Wikipedia also boycots the scientist like in the dark Middle Ages unwelcome books were burnt. This to the disadvantage of students who now still are confronted with a bad theory, namely that of Einstein before quantum mechanics was introduced. P.e regard the red shift in sunlight. In the old theory time passes slower near the sun and thus red shift results. But also the photons have to overcome the sun's gravity and red shift occurs. However not the sum of both but only one is registered. Which one? Yanchilin gives a satisfying new interpretation. That includes a faster second near mass, which is in accordance with the enormous speed of processes at the Big Bang and contradicts standstill of time at black holes. Which do not exist and neither negative energy, a cosmological constant and acceleration of the the universe' expansion. Read the book, which is available in the Library of Congress.
Want to know how in the new theory gravity is explained? Yanchilin says it is is a pure quantum-mechanic phenomen:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA particle is subject to the Heisenberg law and Yanchilin proposes that p.e. an electron shows up and disappears innumerous times discontinuously within a sphere with Heisenberg dimensions. For simplicity I call such an appearance an iet. Direction an external mass uncertainty gets limited and this causes that in the half of the sphere closest to an external mass less iets will make transition to the other half of the sphere which is farther away than iets from there going to the nearest half. The result is what we call gravity.
So a qualitative explanation is presented by Yanchilin while Newton and Einstein only gave quantitative description. His book should be studied intensely since it opens new horizons. It leads to the question how in the general theory of relativity mass can influence empty space. What is empty space, what receptacle might it have?
Also there is to be searched for more explanation about the character of the potential of the total mass of the universe. Yanchilin argumentates that electromagnetic radiation is related to that potential and the speed of light was bigger in the past and becomes zero at the "edge" of the universe where everything looses speed and direction, where complete uncertainty exists.
As for the properties of mass then also further research is required.
See that then supernovae Ia still can serve as guide stars but that acceleration of the universe by negative energy disappears?
Has this been examined on Universe, via the History Channel?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas this topic been examined on the History Chan., via Universe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas this apper'd on Universe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf one considers a mass as a collection of positive and negative charges, one may produce the forces of gravity simply by noting that the centers of the negative charge distribution is different from center of the positive charge distribution. Thus gravity is not a separate force of nature and can be explained with Maxwell' s equations on electromagnetism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRufus G. Warren, Jr.
I have often wondered if dark matter and conversely dark energy are really local variations in the radius of curvature of spacetime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDark Matter as Gravitational Estimation Error
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe identified requirements for Dark Matter are a result of discrepancies between observed gravitational affects and estimates of affects based on estimated mass. While established gravitational theories may have a few fundamental shortcomings, it is the improper application of simple gravitational equations, intended only for discrete spherically symmetrical objects of mass, directly to relatively proximal, disperse, non-spherical aggregations of massive objects that produce these observational discrepancies.
In the commonly used gravitation of classical mechanics, derived from planetary motions within the Solar system, Newton used his shell theorem to show that a discrete body containing a spherically symmetrical distribution of mass, specifically stars and planets, could adequately represent each of the two point-masses specified for his law of universal gravitation, an inverse square law. Representing relatively proximal non-spherically symmetrical distributions of mass, such as galaxies and other large scale aggregations of masses, as a single point-mass is mathematically invalid, producing erroneous results. If the complete instructions for using this conveniently simple equation are strictly adhered to, these disperse configurations of masses would require much more complex estimation methods, but the results would be much closer to the observed affects. Please confirm for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
The standard equation generally works well for planets and stars, but at extreme proximities even their minor deviations from spherical symmetry in their distribution of mass introduce significant estimation errors, as evidenced by the orbits of Mercury and Venus around the Sun. Moreover, in identifying the Galaxy Rotation Problem, which generally established the Dark Matter hypothesis, the expected orbital velocity of individual stars within the galactic plane of the M31 spiral galaxy was determined based solely on the improperly estimated attraction between each subject star and the galactic bulge, just as if they were simply relatively isolated planets orbiting a massive star.
Unfortunately, that method completely ignored the many significant, multidirectional, attractions to much nearer stars within the galactic plane. Unlike the Solar system, in which as much as 99.8% of total system mass is centralized within the Sun, a significant percentage of the so-called visible mass of spiral galaxies is distributed throughout their galactic plane, especially within their namesake spiral structures, whose very existence provides more direct evidence of additional intra-galactic gravitational affects. More complete evaluation of gravitational affects within galaxies should eliminate any requirement for dark matter.
All reports of dark matter identified by determining the gravitational affects of non-spherically symmetrical distributions of massive objects are likely erroneous and should be carefully reexamined if not disregarded. As an old information systems analyst, I would have hoped that professional peer review would have identified these fundamental errors several decades ago, long before pursuit of the dark matter hypothesis had consumed so many of the resources of astronomy, physics and cosmology and directed their development.
Has anyone looked into the possibility that light traveling through dark matter might be subject to gravitational effects that mimic Doppler shifts to some extent. Calculations of star and galaxy motions would then have to be revised. That, in turn, might require new estimates of the amounts of dark matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo if I understand correctly, what we are really looking for is a Force Field ...impacting upon our time-space matter ... whose effects exerts ... “five times as much to the mass of the universe as ordinary matter does.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLets see, i) unseen black mass coexisting within our time-space home with its gravitational force field is one answer, ii) a force field polar in effects to that of gravity ... that we could call Force Field of Equilibrium .. i.e. ... like that which causes the effect of the olfactory diffusion of a smell in the air, iii) and then there is always the much espoused about “Psi Force Field of Attraction” operating in an entirely different phased dimension (out side of our boxed in thinking) with its effects bleeding through and into our time-space field/box.
What I don't understand is why everyone just sort of jumped on option #1 and totally negated the options of the other two. And besides, instead of calling it “black energy” they just should have called it “The Big X Field” where X is obviously stands for the big unknown.
Lawrence Carson
Boise, ID
This something I already posted as a comment on a same subject piece in April 09, I still think it's a worthwhile proposition, and it doesn't contradict general relativity.:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I think the intervention of a « dark energy » isn’t needed to account for the apparent paradox between an accelerating universal expansion and small scale structural stability.
It is our understanding of gravity that needs to be questioned. If space is viewed as a very fluid and slightly elastic medium permeating matter into its most discreet corners but repulsive of it; then are predicted the same observations as the ones currently attributed to a pulling force. Without the need for an unknown yet undiscovered agent.
It works this way:
Gravity:
bits of matter are pushed against other bits of matter. A particle falls against the closest other particle because the pressure between it and the other is less than between these two, respectively, and others positioned farther away
Expansion:
all particles and aggregates move away toward the edge of the system as the space-medium reconcentrate itself: large objects bound by electromagnetic, strong, weak, and acquired kinetic forces (all stronger than gravity) accelerate away from each other in all directions, sometimes colliding.
Nature repeats itself, the same thing can be deducted and modeled from atmospheric phenomena or gases in water once the vertical limitation of these systems is modified into an omnidirectional proposition. For instance gases going up to the surface of water don’t just do it as single molecules but form bubbles on the way."
estermazda - A more consistent way to transform Newton’s attractive force into a pushing force is to simply consider a gravitational field (for a spherically symmetrical object) as a radial contraction of spacetime, imparting velocity to mass. As such Newton’s attraction vector between two objects represents the intersection of two opposingly directed gravitational fields. The curvature of spacetime in general relativity becomes the intersection of contracted fields in conjunction with the independent relative velocity of the two objects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is just a joke, so please, don’t anyone take this personally:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith the continuing attribution of new observational evidence to the presence of Dark Matter, astrophysicists have now proven that the two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity…
Stupidity you write ... I will take the fifth on that any day I can. :-) I love it! And thanks!!! And ... I really mean that – no sarcasm here at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany people spend a heck of a lot of time and thought on defending that “They” are not “stupid.” And then there is the other end of the spectrum that invests an infinite amount of time, thought and emotions (even wars) on proving to themselves and others that they are “bright ... smart ... clever ... powerful ... and therefore RIGHT.”
I really feel sorry for the former and smile in angst at the latter for both are being totally manipulated by thought transformers (self-sustaining belief systems) misinforming and telling them what to think. Someone else many years ago told us the same thing but in different terms when he said ....
“I think not so much the farmer owns his cows ...
as the cows own the farmer.” - Henry D. Thoreau
The Adoption of an Artificial Identity
It’s as though man truly believes that he is our belief library ... his collective opinion’s library of beliefs ... and nothing else. Since he does not really know who he is, - and rarely seeks to find out - he has taken on an artificial identity, his beliefs. Or should I say, his beliefs have taken him on and won hands down.
Core Causation of Viet Nam, etc.
Thus the professing intellect protects his core beliefs and values (belief hierarchies) with his very life ... whether he has a Ph.D. in physics espousing the sanctity of Gerald Ohm’s law or just some poor soldier fighting some war in some mange infected, far off swamp with the belief that by doing so his life will “Earn” more meaning ... so he can become a hero ... and can then nurse and suck up the Approval Ratings ... from the masses ... just as lame as he in their collective thought transformers.
The Visa of Curiosity
If Leonardo’s seven steps to achieving the brilliant mind state of acuity insight are functionally correct, then one of them. i.e. “CURIOSITY” must be nurtured and fed at all costs for that is the motive of the true explorer ... the avid and passionate scientist ... seeking to understand how the masterful creative forces do what they have done ... and better yet ... what they are about to do ... that has never been done before. Oh but to only have a single and fleeting moment inside the Masters Meta Library and then come back to replicate on earth what he has just seen.
So ... stupidity is being blindly controlled by a collective set of myopic belief systems ... with out the host’s knowledge. However, the brilliance of genius always keeps as many polar belief options in their library as possible. Having a choice of one ... is not a choice ... it is the force field of entropic decay of what otherwise could have been an evolutionary excursion ... within this very simple dimension I call the temporary residence of human experience.
The field (context) and effects (content) giving rise to a “process” ... “a verb” ... that we label “gravity” ... must have “there” polar opposites. I suggest we all go find them. I can only hope that we first learn ... how to behave as gentle beings ... before we enter the Meta library of sciere. Einstein’s revelation nearly killed us all.
So, if you really wish to explore the realms of “What’s on you mind?” you may wish to visit www.atica.us/psandqs/ and no ... I am not selling anything. Have a great day.
L Carson – Boise, Idaho
Socratic Wine
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(aka: On Dark, Black and Missing Matter)
There was a physics student in Plight
Who was studying the quantum of Light
She went out one Day
In a relative Way
But returned the previous Night. (unknown)
To her class she returned in her Prime
As having drunk the Socratic Wine
And said with a Smile
“We may measure the Mile
But no man will ever manage Time”.
“Changing Time controls the Space
And creates the flow for quantum’s to Pace
But equilibrium remains Fixed
Controlling the Mix
And keeps “photons” all in the Race
She declared while passing time’s Gate
While traveling wormholes to Fate
“Meaning is Wise
For it carries no Guise
Hell … my homework on physics can Wait”.
“The “Principiums” of “stuff” is time
As space remains lock-step in Line
Beyond what man Sees
Are dreams of infinite Possibilities
From the Divinity of Conscious Design.”
Her professor stood but Aghast
As having awakened from a mental Fast
Declaring “Good Grief
Science is merely a Belief
Like some Hitchhikers Guide from the Past”.
His beliefs when changed got Mad
But in defense it’s ironically Sad
To expand man’s Breadth
Requires the Death
Of pretexts on what’s good or Bad.
“With such insights” she said, “man can Be
Then with courage we all can See
To be released from those Beliefs
And then pass through our Grief’s
And venture forth in time to be Free”.
She whispered, “Seek destiny’s Prime
While traveling the Matrix in Time
And think not Dismayed
Of this earthly Charade
But seek out . . . your Socratic Wine
Yrral Nosrac – 2002
After I posted this I decided - or my beliefs did - to post the above poem written by my best friend entitled "Socratic Wine."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope this community of 'seekers' enjoys the inner journey that this poem may evoke.
L Carson
Boise Idaho
Thanks, Lawrence. Glad to help. Just a stupid joke, but I couldn’t resist. I’d have preferred to reference more of an organic compound, but having walked through a few cow pastures in my day I finally learned to watch my step:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith the continuing attribution of new observational evidence to the presence of Dark Matter, astrophysicists have now proven that the most abundant element in the universe is not hydrogen but …
got it, but I think space is just another form of matter and time has nothing to do with that. Time is something else entirely. To evaluate what sort of matter space is , one needs to look at the properties of light in space compared , say , with translucent solids or fluids or plasma.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisestermazda – You might find the article “Splitting Time from Space—New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime” interesting, or at least curious, as I did.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy previous comments attempted to explain how the two established gravitational theories relate to the actual physical phenomena, in terms as consistent as possible with them both. I do have my own ideas, making no apologies to qualified physicists or their textbooks.
I do not attempt integrate the concept of an accelerating universe (requiring dark energy), as I believe this conclusion is based on a fundamental misperception. The observations leading to it indicated simply that a set of galaxies about 10B light years away were further away than was predicted by standard cosmological models, whereas a set of galaxies about 5B light years away were not. The astronomers reporting these observations apparently (it was not explained) leapt to the conclusion that the periphery of the universe is currently receding away from us at a faster rate than previously. I can only interpret the observations to indicate that the more distant light, emitted into the earlier universe, had been subjected to the greater expansion rates, therefore expansion has decelerated in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. Based on this analysis, the observation results were fundamentally misinterpreted due to the astronomer’s strictly spatial perspective of the temporally developing universe.
Accepting only that expansion has decelerated, my personal conception of space is that it was and is produced by the initiating pulse of energy providing a synchronized velocity to the universe, increasing distance between matter. Without getting further into mass and gravitation (as a courtesy to the reader), its localizing effects produces the increasing clumpiness of universal matter. Space is, in one sense, simply the universally synchronized increasing distance between localizations of mass (within their locally determined space/time). However, it is also still permeated by the remaining energy of initial expansion, thus it is still an affective medium, somewhat akin to matter in that regard.
While it is often said that gravity shapes the universe, I think it is more consistent with special relativity to consider that velocity shapes the universe, space, time and matter. I believe general relativity has not yet been completed, and that studying particles is like studying the photo finish at a horse race, disregarding that they had been running… Subject to further revision...
I agree with you in the sense that time is the key if we can ever understand how it really works. Here is one approach:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhen reasonning things out it is necessary to define objects and their boundaries, and then to reduce some values to zero or push them to their maximum known levels. With this in mind, let's assume that the only alternative to the reality we know is nothing, unreal nothing: no time, no dimensions and no one to observe any of this, as this does not exist. It's difficult to fathom. However, ex nihilo comes the Big Bang or whatever. And here goes away nothing, because now there's a BEFORE the Big Bang and an AFTER. It implies time must have existed before everything else. The question is what is it really , and do we have as a species the ability to grasp and integrate in our culture what needs to be understood.
estermazda – Meanwhile the temporal before and after have a corresponding spatial within and without. All our observations are made from our spatial and temporal position within this universe. This is no way for us to observationally determine what was before or is outside this universe. The simplest way for me to consider this is that our universe sprang from what might be described as a hypermassive black hole, or contraction of spacetime, which, perhaps because of the dispersal of its external spacetime, transformed into a white hole, converting its gravitational energy into matter, space and time. As such, the originating black hole had existed within an external spacetime; we now exist within its new internal space, whose internal velocity meters the progression of its internal motion, which we perceive as time. There may have been external space and time before the origin of our own universe, which may continue to exist outside of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least, that’s an overview of my own simple conception of time: it is the synchronous motion of objects within space as metered by a synchronizing velocity. This occurs on earth as motion is locally synchronized by the collective potential velocity of aggregated local mass.
I understand and it makes sense. But it doesn't deconstruct to any new interesting proposition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOccam's Razor - the simplest answer is likely the truth. I'm not an "anti dark matter" guy per se, but the fact that it has not yet been observed begs the question if it really exists at all. I like this article and the thought that maybe the concept of dark matter is just a bandage on some math that is off in the first place. I'll be really interested when the riddle of dark matter is solved (its either detected or proven a miscalculation). In my non-expert opinion, I've got a gut feel there's a combination of unknown or misunderstood dynamic that's not been fully realized yet (for some reason I don't think there's extra "stuff" we're not seeing), or perhaps under extremes of distance or in singularities gravity doesn't act as we'd expect, something we're not able to directly observe or theorize yet. Again, I'm no expert, feel free to shoot me down, just some thoughts I have on an exciting topic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease allow yet another revion of this logical analysis, unfortunately without mathematical proof or data analysis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDark Matter as Gravitational Estimation Error
The identified requirements for Dark Matter are a result of discrepancies between observed gravitational affects and estimates of affects based on estimated mass. The established gravitational theories may have a few fundamental shortcomings: most critically, their standard equations describe only its affect for discrete objects consisting of a spherically symmetrical distribution of mass. The apparent observations of gravitational anomalies are directly produced by the improper application of simple gravitational equations to relatively proximal, disperse, non-spherical aggregations of numerous individual massive objects.
In the still most commonly used gravitation of classical mechanics, derived from planetary motions within the Solar system, Newton used his shell theorem to show that a discrete body containing a spherically symmetrical distribution of mass, specifically stars and planets, could adequately represent each of the two point-masses specified for his law of universal gravitation, an inverse square law.
Representing relatively proximal non-spherically symmetrical distributions of mass, such as galaxies and other large scale aggregations of masses, as a single point-mass is mathematically invalid, producing erroneous results. If the complete instructions for using this conveniently simple equation were strictly adhered to, these disperse configurations of masses would require much more complex estimation methods, but the results would be much closer to the observed affects. Please confirm for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
The standard equation generally works well for planets and stars, but at extreme proximities even their minor deviations from spherical symmetry introduce significant estimation errors, as evidenced by its inability to correctly predict the orbits of Mercury and Venus around the Sun. This effect of proximity is exceeded only by internal attractions, such as those of a discrete object within a disperse structure of mass, for which the diverse directionality of actual attractions becomes highly significant.
The requirement for additional, undetected mass was effectively established within the astrophysics community by the identification of the Galaxy Rotation Problem in the early 1970s. In response, the Dark Matter hypothesis was proposed to most simply fill that requirement.
Astrophysicists had expected that orbital velocities of stars within spiral galaxies would diminish at increasing distances from the galactic center, just like the planets orbiting our Sun, despite the obvious significant differences in their spatial distributions of mass. Observations of the M31 spiral galaxy had surprisingly indicated that the orbital velocities of stars within the galactic disc remained relatively constant regardless of distance, as if the entire galactic disc was a rotating solid mass. Expected orbital velocities had been determined based solely on the estimated attraction between each subject star and the galactic bulge, a generally elliptical aggregation of stars near the galactic center now known to be independently orbiting a supermassive black hole.
Unfortunately, that overly simplified estimation method, proven for the isolated planets of the Solar system, completely ignored the many multidirectional, more significant attractions to much nearer neighboring stars within the galactic disc. Unlike the Solar system, in which as much as 99.8% of total system mass is centralized within the Sun, a significant percentage of the enormous, so-called visible mass of a spiral galaxy is distributed throughout its vast galactic plane, especially within their namesake spiral structures.
The existence of persistent spiral substructures within galaxies provides direct evidence of these robust local gravitational bindings, in addition to the common centralized attraction to galactic mass. Their curvature, extending throughout the breadth of the galactic disc, indicates that these local structural bindings are by themselves sufficient to withstand galactic rotational forces, preventing expulsion of peripheral stars without requiring any additional mass provided by external galactic dark matter. More complete evaluation of localized intragalactic gravitational affects should eliminate any compensatory requirement for galactic dark matter.
Rather than the highly centralized mass planetary system model, larger scale aggregations of massive objects represent a more loosely bound distributed gravitational model, forming networks of vectored attractions among peer masses. While gravitation may tend to form more stable spherical structures at all scales, more loosely bound larger scale structures are susceptible to permutational influences, most often producing non-spherical structures.
As a result, while the affects of gravitation are identical at all scales, equations presuming spherical symmetry cannot be universally successful for large scale massive structures. As mathematically described, the law of universal gravitation is most directly applicable to planetary orbital systems. Using the physics of classical mechanics, non-spherically symmetrical distributions of mass require vectored solution for many if not all discrete points of actual gravitational attraction.
That gravitation is not completely described by the simple equations of either classical mechanics or general relativity is illustrated by the special conditions presented by the relatively dense clouds of molecular gases known as stellar nurseries. These still disperse clouds contain sufficient mass to spawn many massive stars without significant depletion, yet they do not curve spacetime sufficiently to effectively attract nearby stars. Moreover, the imbedded stars that they produce do not rapidly orbit each other, despite their relative proximities.
Disperse gaseous masses do not appear to produce the gravitational affects required of dark matter, commonly envisioned as an enormous amorphous mass encapsulating galaxies. This may be understood in terms of the multidirectional local attractions gaseous masses have for their embedded stars, likely producing the opposite effect expected of dark matter.
The principle distinctions between amorphous clouds of mass and discrete objects are their mass density and the dispersed gravitational affects they produce. This implies that mass density is a critical factor in determining gravitational affects, yet it is not considered in the equations describing gravitation. Additional study of these special gravitational environments may prove to be highly instructive.
The affects of gravitation are identical at all scales, but not all masses are spherically symmetrical, and not all orbital systems are dominated by a single object containing the majority of system mass. Standard gravitational estimation methods are not directly applicable to disperse non-spherically symmetrical distributions of mass. All reports of dark matter identified by estimating the gravitational affects of non-spherically symmetrical distributions of massive objects are likely erroneous and should be thoroughly reevaluated, if not discarded. As an experienced information systems analyst, I’d have expected professional peer review to have identified these fundamental errors decades ago, long before pursuit of the dark matter hypothesis had consumed so many of the resources of astronomy, physics and cosmology.
Those whose command of language exceeds their understanding of reality, may be considered with the proponents of many universes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" before and after "
A great article Sci-Am (as usual) and some good discussions. Opinion does seem to be locked one way or t'other on the pro's and con's of dark matter, so perhaps a bit of lateral thinking might not go amiss. It must all be down to origins really and if dark matter DOES exist, then it must therefore be included as an integral component in any hypothesis of cosmic creation as a NECESSITY. By the same token its non-existence should be treated likewise. So far as I am aware, there are no theories or ideas which address these points at all and dark matter has always been an 'addendum' to existing convention.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout evidence to the contrary, a 'dark matter' solution seems a logical step, but this of course creates more questions than answers and this becomes the paradox. There is a different perspective that goes some way to providing a solution to this problem and this can be viewed at:
http://chortheproject.web.officelive.com/
Mark McLoughlin
London, UK
I will repeat my comment. If one does a summation over the negative charge distribution and the positive charge distribution of any body, one may make two assumptions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The centers of each distribution are located at the same place.
2. The centers are not in the same location.
If the location differs by as much as 10 to the minus 39 meters then one may compute the force of gravity, using superposition, for the planet earth, using a simple alignment of the centers from different bodies.
+ -
- +
of course other alignments are possible, at any rate, one finds that the force of attraction is due to electromagnetic attraction. Meaning the unlike charges will more likely be closer together than the like charges. Hence, an attractive force.
Now if one wishes to create a repulsive force, then I suppose one could create some exotic form of matter. Or may be created with relative motion, magnetics, as well as particle distribution.
Rufus
Another comment, Einstein's relativity, although may be a correct theory, the error of having mass as a function of velocity implies that momentum is a function of displacement. This is probably an error. So one might seek another expression, maybe a fractal tensor will be a better choice. But then, physics wold be computational. One would need a computer to express the laws of physics. This would destroy the beauty of our physical equations. Or, would it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRufus
Actually, reality is not a function of math.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisahem,
I guess the non-locality of it all proves that.
Again: Dark Energy And Dark Matter YOK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA. From "Ancient dawn's early light refines age of universe
Satellite images reveal new aspects of Big Bangs relic radiation."
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55957/title/Ancient_dawns_early_light_refines_age_of_universe
- "The ancient light, known as the cosmic microwave background, is peppered with hot and cold spots, signs of the tiny primordial lumps from which galaxies grew", And "(It is suggested) that theorists will have to revise their understanding of galaxy clusters".
- The "universal composition" mantra is displayed, again, as 4.5% ordinary matter, 22.7% dark matter and 72.8% dark energy.
B. From "No Dark Matter, No Maybe"
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/240/122.page#4545
- Enough is enough. Humanity has been hallucinating about dark energy and dark matter for circa 100 years.
- The "tiny primordial lumps" grew NOT into galaxies, but into galaxy clusters.
- "Galaxy Clusters Evolved By Dispersion, Not By Conglomeration".
- "There's No Dark Energy Nor Dark Matter". All the initial singularity energy and matter is still there in space-distance, accounted for by E=Total[m(1 + D)] .
C. And "Cosmic Evolution Simplified" accounts for the origin and nature of evolutionary biology via the cosmic gravity monotheism.
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
Well, there is one fine point that seems to be ignored: We do not operate with a workable theory of gravity, therefore these eccentric ideas are no more valid than mythology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRufus
It should never have been expected that spiral galaxies would rotate like the sparse, centralized Solar system. This invalid expectation led to the perception of the Galaxy Rotation Problem which generally established the requirement for additional, compensatory mass, most simply resolved by undetectable Dark Matter. Unlike planets in the Solar system, at galactic scales stars gravitationally interact primarily with their nearest stellar neighbors and massive gaseous clouds. Please review my essay, “Mass Distribution Characteristics Invalidate the Galaxy Rotation Problem”, posted at:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciencewithoutfiction.com/uploads/Mass_Distribution-_Galaxy_Rotation_Problem.pdf
The myth of gravity pull has no basis. Gravitoethertons push mass at molecular level on mono pole magnetic theory. That is called gravity. So calculations to be corrected. Cosmology constant another wrong idea. Stars rotate in galaxy by gravitoethertons whirl. That is why velocity is constant. It is not centrifugal force or Newtons gravity. Dark matter is outside antimatter universe which is pulling because matter and antimatter pull each other. But matter do not pull each other. That is why accelerated expansion as normal expansion is given by inflow of gravitoethertons. For more understanding read my balloon inside balloon theory published in ASTRONOMY.NET in year 2002.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTO DAYS REPORT --THERE IS NO DARK MATTER. DR.ROGER PENROSE IS CORRECT BY SAYING PHYSICS IS WRONG. -- THINK SIMPLE --UNIVERSE IS SIMPLE DESIGN PROBABLY BY LORD BRAHAMHA , HINDU ENGINEER GOD --THAT IS WHY FLUID DYNAMICS AND THERMODYNAMICS OF GRAVITOETHERTONS EXPLAIN MANY THINGS. ANY CONSTRUCTION REQUIRE ENGINEERS NOT THEORETICAL PHYSICSITS. BUT WHY SO MANY GOD PARTICLES. --MAY BE MANY MORE ENGINEER GOD BUDDHIST,CHRISTIAN,MUSLIM ETC ETC JOINED HIM.-- NOW ALL GODS PLAYING DICE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo tweaking required. My theory of gravitoethertons atlast found useful. Many God particles in my gravitoethertons will be the dark energy we talk about. Each God particle is causing each fundamental force of the universe. But no dark matter is actually outside antimatter universe on opposite entropy path .As per my calculation after five billion yers from now ,the out side antimatter universe will reach tends to zero entropy and the next bounce will occur as per CP violation again two universes will born and it will be again re cyclic again and again .............and after trillion cycles suitable laws will permit life in universe and again we will take birth but may be sulphur based --not carbon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs we know now that matter do not attract each other but gravity is push by gravitoethertons at the molecule level due their magnetic mono pole which is constant for all molecules , that is why all matter any mass fall equally as Galeo observed in PISA. Also AVOGADROS LAW is basically due to this irrespective of any gas molecule when gravitoethertons are equal due to same press and temp. so we do not require cosmology constant of EINSTEIN. But gravitoethertons are injected in our universe as space of dark energy.. so it is at variable field strength as per mass of matter and that is why NEWTONS GRAVITY EQUATION IS MODIFIED BY PERMEABILITY FACTOR--P-- . SO NOW NEWTONS EQUATION IS F=P.G.M.m/R.R ---WHERE --P --IS PERMEABILITY. WITH THIS EQUATION ROTATION CURVE OF PLANETS AND STARS IN SPIRAL GALAXY CAN BE EXPLAINED WITHOUT LOOKING FOR ANY DARK ENERGY IN OUR UNIVERSE. BUT OUTER ANTIMATTER UNIVERSE IS DARK MATTER AND SPACE IN OUR UNIVERSE IS GRAVITOETHERTONS OR DAR ENERGY . READ MY THEORIES PUBLISHED IN ASTRONOMY.NET IN YEAR 2002.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDark Energy and Dark Matter is as real as Black Holes in spacetime. "In addition to being composed of the same elements brought together by the force of "The Secret" Law of Attraction, which is gravity, we are, in fact, living inside of a gigantic atom:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[DE] Dark Energy (repulsive)
[DM] Dark Matter (attractive)
"G THEORY" postulates that DE fits the characteristics of electrons, while DM resembles protons and neutrons joined together to form the nucleus of our world—the universe."
EXCERPT from: Solar Plexus: The Secret Gravitational System [ISBN: 1456300474]
* Courtesy of Whiffs of Bliss
That's exactly what people used to say about God, things become clear if you just read our books, follow our teachings, and have faith that everything we say is true. Scientists are the new preachers, we need to be careful not to blindly follow them when they insist that something invisible and undetectable exists and can be blamed for everything they can't explain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod is dark matter, and there's really no reason either need to exist for our universe to be in existence. We just don't fully understand it yet, I think it's a travesty that we, from one tiny spec in the universe, once again feel the need to insist something is out there doing everything we can't figure out. IT'S FREAKING DEPRESSING.
EM Radiation provides a medium for itself, it doesn't just push something around like a hand creating ripples in water. If dark matter existed and filled the space as the medium, and you think that explains why EM radiation being transmitted through regular matter has trouble, consider this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-You are saying dark matter cannot pass through regular matter
-Which means if you created a vacuum inside of dense material EM radiation could not travel through that vacuum
-Because dark matter would not be able to get in and fill the space as the medium
And that just isn't true, even in a very controlled vacuum like one created by pulling apart a malleable metal, EM radiation can be transmitted, and that's without present dark matter since as stated earlier, solid matter and dark matter cannot occupy the same space, else it would not disruption EMR transfer (and believe me, lead does).
"Id have hoped some competent mathematicians would have examined these estimation methods several decades ago"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have made that mistake, thinking, "Of course such-and-such MUST have been addressed and properly dismissed, and 'tis but my ignorance allows me to even suggest it" Sometimes, not so!
I think (new to forum) my last post was replying to a 2 year old post, gad the wrong end o' the forum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, while I'm here.. I,ve glanced at a few gravitational anomalies, but the info I get is vague, a hydrogen cloud "larger" than it should be, but I don't see any quantitative stuff, and I wonder if the various anomalies point to similar quantities of deviation from grav theory, or what the range of logical deviations are suggested. Does anyone know where I could find abstracts of such things online?
good analogy between the faiths!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a matter of fact, the dark matter unlikely exists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that the dark matter is an unjustifiable item (thick, dark, transparent, heavy and invisible!!!). Moreover, it has been never directly detected. The ether was less pretentious, but gave up anyway.
The explanation for the fast rotation speeds, in my opinion, is based on the tidal effect of all the surrounding universe, on every single galaxy. The tidal force is the one by which the Earth is forcing the Moon to rotate in a way that it shows to the Earth always the same side.
More about this can be found, for instance, at the following link (page 11):
http://vixra.org/pdf/1112.0082v1.pdf
Regards.
Leonardo Rubino.
leonrubino@yahoo.it