It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Dwarf Galaxies Call Standard Model Into Question

page: 2
7
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 11:31 PM
I think part of the problem stems from when general relativity was pushed aside for special relativity. Yes special relativity simplifies a lot of stuff, making equations more compact etc. (Paid off with quantum theory and the basis for developing atomic power.) However the things that cancel out can be used to adjust for space-time expansion or contraction. When you look at relativity with those factored in, things get more weird but are also much more flexible.

Some of the math in this stuff seems funny too. Consider something like a very basic equation, y=3x+1, you either solve for y or x depending on how you factor it.

So why is it when E=mc^2, too many people seem to treat E or m as separate things and build equations that try to keep them separate? My thinking is that equations should be written for either one or the other and go from there. I'd suggest converting all your masses to E, then work out as vectors/tensors. Doing it that way seems to make gravity apparent as a phenomea of energy density. When energy per unit volume is past a certain point (essentially what mass is), it stretches or contracts space-time.

It's also kinda electric and it kinda isn't. It works like a charge in regards to how much energy space can hold vs a given period of time, but it can also be charge-neutral. (Like photons or neutrons.) So although it follows inverse squrare and is related to things that can carry charge (various particles), it's not exactly something that always has a charge and follows EM field force rules.

Yet not all electric things should be ruled out. Gravitational structures intertwine with EM/plasma ones. Maybe somebody should come up with a "mesh" theory for how various charged particles bend space due to their energetic properties and cause gravitational phenomena which in turn affects particle behavior. Perhaps conflicting theories could be refactored with compatible aspects combined in a way that works out like chocolate and peanut butter?

It's hilarious that I'll think of stuff like this after reading about various theories and trying to comprehend them, but while lacking the math skills to show what makes sense after mashing it all together in my head. (Its a visual thing with gradients imagined, and various curves and arrows. Tensions, pressures, knotting, vorticity, etc. But I suck with the numbers and exact equations those would represent.) Yet it would be neat if somebody with a stronger background and experience can get the gist of that idea and make it work.

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 12:48 AM

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
If I said an invisible man in the sky holds galaxies together, how is that any different than claiming dark matter does the same thing?

A stealth bomber makes an attack.

The scientist says the plane was there and launched a missile, but we can't detect the plane.

You are suggesting an invisible plane is religious nonsense and instead electrical effects caused an explosion.

One of those sounds like religious nonsense at least ....

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 02:49 AM
Fail

You cannot say a stealth made the attack

Yiu can only say A detonation occoured

If you knew it was a plane then it is know

Dark matter/energy and god for that matter

Is not known

If it cant be observed or experimented on then it is not science

You saw stealth

Now show me darkmatter/energy

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 03:09 AM
Gravity is a constant pressure wave, and requires no unification into any theory. The universe is nothing but electric considering the potential. Dark matter and dark energy are just new ways of saying "I don't know." The sun is a capacitor, and energy is created by causing space to inflate at a much greater rate than the universal constant.

Water is wet, the sky is blue, women have secrets...

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 03:43 AM

originally posted by: Another_Nut
Fail

You cannot say a stealth made the attack

Yiu can only say A detonation occoured

If you knew it was a plane then it is know

Dark matter/energy and god for that matter

Is not known

If it cant be observed or experimented on then it is not science

You saw stealth

Now show me darkmatter/energy

That's my point. You say fail .. there was no plane. Therefor you will constantly destroyed by stealth bomber attacks that you refuse to acknowledge.

Others are smarter and realize a plane is there ... they just can't detect it. So they work until they do.

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 04:08 AM

How do those smart people know there is a plane when all they have is an explosion

You really did fail in your attempt

A smart person wouldnt rule out any possibilities when there is no proof

And without seeing that stealth there is no proof

The explosion could be from hundred s of different things

Its the ignorant who would assume it was a plane

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 04:24 AM

originally posted by: Another_Nut

How do those smart people know there is a plane when all they have is an explosion

You really did fail in your attempt

A smart person wouldnt rule out any possibilities when there is no proof

And without seeing that stealth there is no proof

The explosion could be from hundred s of different things

Its the ignorant who would assume it was a plane

Because of various effects they see. It's hilarious that we HAVE stealth planes and you think that if you can't see the plane it doesn't exist. Just hilarious.

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 04:38 AM

You are now trying to change the subject

So if an explosion occurs anywhere smart people will automatically believe a stealth dropped it?

No

another fail.

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 05:19 AM

originally posted by: Another_Nut

You are now trying to change the subject

So if an explosion occurs anywhere smart people will automatically believe a stealth dropped it?

No

another fail.

My last reply to you. They will follow the evidence to determine the cause of the explosion. The evidence will lead them to suspect it was dropped by a plane, but they never detected one.

If you wish to ignore the evidence and decide it was a random explosion go ahead. The evidence does not support that, but since you could not see the plane you decide it never existed.

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 08:41 AM

originally posted by: Another_Nut
A smart person wouldnt rule out any possibilities when there is no proof
This paper claims some proof:

A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter
I don't think it's as good as finding the WIMPS, but it is written by a smart person and explains why possibilities like modified gravity theory can be ruled out.

I'm not sure how helpful the explosion analogy is, but if you want to carry on with that, I suppose this paper is like finding traces from the air that whatever exploded came from above and wasn't just a bomb set off on the ground.

It narrows down the possibilities by eliminating some. I can cite other papers talking about eliminating other possibilities with actual proof. So when you eliminate all the things it can't be, you're left with a fairly narrow range of possibilities of what it can be. However it's not settled, I'll grant you that, but scientists are not as clueless about other possibilities as your line of reasoning implied.
edit on 13-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 08:47 AM

Well science is working on it, from a standpoint of using many different technologies and methods.

We have a limit, the lowest limit being the neutrino coherent scattering cross-section. This would be the limit where the experimental searches get swamped by supernova neutrinos, galactic neutrinos and primordials. If dark matter searches get down to that limit, science would likely give up and declare the model invalid. Some would hang on yes, but I think most would determine that if WIMPs exist, then they simply don't couple with the standard model particles we know of, and only couple gravitationally.

This would be disappointing, but entirely possible. Yes we would not know, but then the search will look at and move to experimenting elsewhere and pick up any small scale experiments etc that have a chance at proving another model. Of course what actually happens in reality is that it all occurs in parallel.

Also for direct dark matter searches... the DAMA and CREST signals are highly questionable if you understand how they performed their measurement, also CDMS never said they saw dark matter, just that they have some events in the signal region, though they are likely backgrounds due to a fundamental part of their detector design. Simply saying FAIL is so intensely arrogant and ignorant.

Also LUX is a current generation detector with a total mass of about 370kg, the fiducial volume being smaller than that. This sets a very strong null detection limit, but the true search and push into regions that theories predict will come with the next generation of experiments that hit the 1 tonne scale fiducial. If these detectors present a null detection, there will most likely become an international effort similar to say ATLAS at the LHC to fund a kiloton scale detector.

For all the arguments of expense of these experiments, I seriously believe that to be a null also. Seriously want to fun an LHC somewhere? Get everyone in the US to drink 20% less beer and donate that money... you will get all the funding you need in 1 year.

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:11 AM

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
If I said an invisible man in the sky holds galaxies together, how is that any different than claiming dark matter does the same thing?

A stealth bomber makes an attack.

The scientist says the plane was there and launched a missile, but we can't detect the plane.

You are suggesting an invisible plane is religious nonsense and instead electrical effects caused an explosion.

One of those sounds like religious nonsense at least ....

Cute, but a poor analogy.

It's more like this:

A stealth bomber makes an attack.

I show you a bomber was there and launched a missile, but we can't detect the bomber with radar.

I find the bomber and HAND YOU THE KEYS.

You can actually test the bomber in a lab, fly it around, kick the tires, see how it operates.

Then, after being handed this bomber, you refuse to believe it was a bomber that made the attack.

Instead, you believe it was an alien spaceship with a cloaking field.

However, this cloaking field is super-special! You can't see it electromagnetically, you can't see it thermally, you can't see it optically, it makes no noise, and it passes right through things without disturbing them!

Even after I SHOW YOU THE BOMBER - You continue to insist that it's actually an alien spaceship!

That's a better analogy.
edit on 6/13/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 05:03 PM
And then we are told a bomber made the Grand Canyon, and we realize this source probably isn't all that trustworthy since we don't think the Grand Canyon was made by a bomber.

www.thunderbolts.info...

TB condemns my pointing out that a similarity in appearance of certain objects might indicate they have a common cause, e.g., the Grand Canyon and Lichtenberg patterns formed in grass by lightning strokes.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 12:59 PM
Direct empirical proof of dark matter.

"... mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the majority of the matter in the system is unseen."

Proves the majority of the matter in the system is unseen... Direct proof!!! You can't see it, so it must be there!!!

Has anyone given any consideration to the possibility that the disciplines of science have been deliberately misled for decades when they quote this drivel?

It really rings my bell when scientists follow phrases like "Direct empirical evidence" with phrases like "cannot be explained" and "unseen."

edit on 777 by Mon1k3r because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 01:08 PM

We have been mislead, and the editors of the journals have been the gatekeepers.

The internet is changing all of that though. It is impossible to deny the practical results that alternative cosmological theories bring to the table.

Blacklight just released another video, again demonstrating they can achieve 100 billion watts per liter power production from a water based fuel.

The nay-sayers can scream it's a scam all day long, but the results speak for themselves.

The standard model of cosmology is wrong.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 04:05 PM

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: grey580
So the question then begs.

What is gravity really?

Given that gravity obeys an inverse square law, it's most likely an electrical property of matter. That also means there is probably some way to manipulate the field.

If it were so, then gravity would be related to electrical & isotopic properties of matter, but it doesn't appear so, it is determined by mass and mass alone as far as anybody can find.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 04:06 PM

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

Blacklight just released another video, again demonstrating they can achieve 100 billion watts per liter power production from a water based fuel.

The nay-sayers can scream it's a scam all day long, but the results speak for themselves.

Yeah. Blacklight is releasing another video, and not a product for purchase. That does speak for itself.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 04:24 PM

originally posted by: mbkennel
If it were so, then gravity would be related to electrical & isotopic properties of matter, but it doesn't appear so, it is determined by mass and mass alone as far as anybody can find.

There is no reason for space to bend in accordance with an inverse square law. In fact, there is no reason for space to bend at all. The standard model does not have a good explanation for gravity's existence in the first place, particularly at the subatomic level. "Spacetime" itself is an abstract mathematical concept that only exists on paper. Special and General relativity have not been unified.

Super-conducting experiments demonstrate anti-gravity properties, which is something that doesn't make sense if gravity is a function of "bending spacetime" - whatever that means.

Further, measurments of gravity show that it changes over time, even using the same experimental equipment. This should not be possible according to the standard model.

Also, the le Grand K is losing mass. Another impossibility according to the standard model.

www.holoscience.com...

edit on 6/20/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 04:35 PM

originally posted by: mbkennel

Yeah. Blacklight is releasing another video, and not a product for purchase. That does speak for itself.

They are already powering banks of lights. All they need to do is complete the fuel feed and recycling systems. I don't anticipate that taking too long. As the video demonstrates, they are finished with the hard stuff.

Given the talent they have working for them, and the millions of investment dollars they have at their disposal, it shouldn't be too much longer before their generator hits the market.

Besides, it doesn't matter if they never go to market. Their experiments have proven beyond any doubt that the standard model is wrong. Going to market with a free energy generator is merely a side-benefit of their alternative cosmological theory, which they have already conclusively proven is superior to the standard model.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 04:48 PM

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
it shouldn't be too much longer before their generator hits the market.
Haven't they been saying that for decades? HydroCatalysis Inc., the original incarnation of Blacklight Power, was founded in 1991, which was 23 years ago.

The physicists were pretty sure right away they haven't missed such a big hole in their observations of most intensely studied atom ever.
The non-physicists might not be sure what to believe at first, but then after a few years of no actual product tend to get skeptical.

To not be skeptical after decades of refutations by mainstream science and no actual products, must take something along the lines of some kind of religious belief, meaning believing in something which lacks evidence.

Even the death of Randall Mills won't cause the most religious to give up their faith, as demonstrated by people still talking about the Keely Motor 115 years after his death. Keely never delivered a working product either, but the fact he died 115 years ago doesn't stop some people from talking about how great his motor was.
edit on 20-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

new topics

top topics

7