It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
This is the point of definition that you don't get. The brown dwarfs are ordinary matter, which if we can't see it when it's too far away, is considered a type of dark matter. I've given you sources for this but you're still in denial of this accepted definition.
originally posted by: Dolour
the ORDINARY brown dwarfs you keep refering to are NOT made of dark matter.
they are just large gas giants, on the treshold to ignite its nuclear fire.
So, you can debate about the existence of the new form of matter, but you really have no valid argument against brown dwarfs being another type of dark matter, which is ordinary matter that we can't see. How much more clear can a statement be than "White dwarfs, brown dwarfs, black holes and gas account for some of the dark matter."?
White dwarfs, brown dwarfs, black holes and gas account for some of the dark matter. The rest is presumably a new form of matter."
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So, you can debate about the existence of the new form of matter, but you really have no valid argument against brown dwarfs being another type of dark matter, which is ordinary matter that we can't see. How much more clear can a statement be than "White dwarfs, brown dwarfs, black holes and gas account for some of the dark matter."?
White dwarfs, brown dwarfs, black holes and gas account for some of the dark matter. The rest is presumably a new form of matter."
Some dark matter is ordinary matter. That much really isn't in dispute by anybody, except perhaps you may be the only person on the planet with other ideas about that accepted definition.
Regarding what the other dark matter is that's not ordinary matter, you're not the only person with other ideas about what's going on there, and the topic of this thread is in fact about a new idea.
originally posted by: Dolour
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Dolour
Yes ordinary matter is considered "dark matter" when it's too far away for us to detect the infrared radiation it emits with current technology. I'm not sure why you don't understand this, but NASA's website explained this pretty well.
mwhahahaha, brilliant! ill keep that for quotes.
thats the second most distrubring and seemingly illogical claim youve made(only the sun vs earth garbage was more amusing).
an object IS either radiating or it is NOT.
what part of that radiation is reaching earth and to what degree, doesent change anything about that bodies radiation.
its like claiming that stuff beyong the range of our visible usiverse would be another kind of weired matter, bc light from it doesent reach our area of space.
as usual you havbe brought rock solid evidence of your "understanding" of physical laws.
...or in your case "lawls".
originally posted by: KrzYma
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So, you can debate about the existence of the new form of matter, but you really have no valid argument against brown dwarfs being another type of dark matter, which is ordinary matter that we can't see. How much more clear can a statement be than "White dwarfs, brown dwarfs, black holes and gas account for some of the dark matter."?
White dwarfs, brown dwarfs, black holes and gas account for some of the dark matter. The rest is presumably a new form of matter."
Some dark matter is ordinary matter. That much really isn't in dispute by anybody, except perhaps you may be the only person on the planet with other ideas about that accepted definition.
Regarding what the other dark matter is that's not ordinary matter, you're not the only person with other ideas about what's going on there, and the topic of this thread is in fact about a new idea.
WOW !
so... atoms, is what we know as matter
but if we look into space and those atoms don't radiate enough to detect them, they become dark matter ??
originally posted by: Virg099
Hey guys, I saw a documentary and they mentioned that they didn't know where dark matter was, they didn't know whether or not it existed in our universe. So could dark matter actually exist not somewhere else, but rather sometime else? I'm learning physics in school so I looked at some rather high-level of physics so I'm just curious.
originally posted by: Virg099
Hey guys, I saw a documentary and they mentioned that they didn't know where dark matter was, they didn't know whether or not it existed in our universe. So could dark matter actually exist not somewhere else, but rather sometime else? I'm learning physics in school so I looked at some rather high-level of physics so I'm just curious.
originally posted by: Virg099
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Ok thanks guys! So dark matter is like something that has a strong gravitational force that can hold galaxies together right?
Wow you have a hard time with concepts dont you. The term dark matter is simple dark matter is any matter we canot detect doesnt matter in the least if it radiates anything if we cant detect it. Dark matter is a place holder nothing more we know somethings out there we just cant see it. But one thing we do know there is stuff out there we cant detect we see the interactions if you are against the term dark matter call it something else who cares.
originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: dragonridr
Wow you have a hard time with concepts dont you. The term dark matter is simple dark matter is any matter we canot detect doesnt matter in the least if it radiates anything if we cant detect it. Dark matter is a place holder nothing more we know somethings out there we just cant see it. But one thing we do know there is stuff out there we cant detect we see the interactions if you are against the term dark matter call it something else who cares.
I care. The term dark matter has always been used to describe an exotic form of matter which is weakly interacting. If anything we need a new name for normal matter we can't see, calling it dark matter is stupid. It makes the topic much more complicated than it needs to be when you start using the same term for two completely different things.
Dark matter is nothing more than a better way than saying we dont know what it is, But if you like we can refer to as something that has a gravitational effect that we are unable to detect through observation.
We don't need a new name, these things have names already. People interested in the topic can learn them. They are called baryonic dark matter and non-baryonic dark matter.
originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
I care. The term dark matter has always been used to describe an exotic form of matter which is weakly interacting. If anything we need a new name for normal matter we can't see, calling it dark matter is stupid.
Note the comment: "is naive to assume that all the dark matter problems will have a single explanation".
Candidates for the dark matter may be grouped into nonbaryonic and baryonic types. These will be referred to these as "Inos" and "Population III", respectively, and the candidates are listed explicitly in Table 1 in order of increasing mass. Some of the ino candidates are elementary particles and - depending on their mass - these are usefully classified as "hot" or "cold" since this affects their clustering properties. The term Weakly Interacting Massive Particle or WIMP is often used to describe these particles, though some people restrict this term to particles that are massive enough to be cold. The other inos are more exotic relics from the Big Bang and, for present purposes, primordial black holes are included in this category. [For a comprehensive review of the ino candidates, see Turner (1991).] Table 1 illustrates that there are many forms of nonluminous matter, so it is naive to assume that all the dark matter problems will have a single explanation. Even though some of the candidates in Table 1 can probably be rejected, many viable ones remain.
It's much more complicated than two things, these are the ideas for the sources of non-baryonic dark matter, and similarly there are multiple possible sources for the baryonic dark matter listed in the source above along with sources for non-baryonic dark matter but not as many as shown below. We are trying to consider all possible sources.
It makes the topic much more complicated than it needs to be when you start using the same term for two completely different things.
originally posted by: ErosA433
As for what it is, there are as many theories as you can think of, and an interesting interplay between what the theories are and how they behave. There is a great image that shows this...
That is not my picture, I grabbed it from a blog after I saw it presented by a theorist in a conference.... To say that dark matter theory is closed minded is to deny that theory didn't put all its eggs in one basket but actually many baskets hehe
Candidates for the dark matter may be grouped into nonbaryonic and baryonic types.
I wouldn't say they've been ruled out, the opposite is true, we are nearly 100% certain that they account for some of the dark matter. Not the majority of it however.
originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Ok now I understand what you are saying. But the thing you need to realize is that baryonic types of dark matter (eg MACHOs and other non-luminous forms of normal matter) have all but been ruled out.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I wouldn't say they've been ruled out, the opposite is true, we are nearly 100% certain that they account for some of the dark matter. Not the majority of it however.
originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Ok now I understand what you are saying. But the thing you need to realize is that baryonic types of dark matter (eg MACHOs and other non-luminous forms of normal matter) have all but been ruled out.
That depends on how accurate our estimates are and how you define "fairly insignificant". If baryonic dark matter is 20% of total dark matter, that's significant, even if it's not the majority. One group has claimed this figure just for MACHOs, but it's not confirmed and other estimates have a fairly broad range:
originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
it's fairly insignificant compared to the total amount of dark matter.
That's just MACHOs, and wouldn't include other forms of baryonic dark matter which would make the total percentage of baryonic dark matter even higher. However even the most optimistic estimates wouldn't bring it to 50% so you're right there's definitely something else to account for the majority of the gravitational observations, but the data aren't conclusive enough yet to proclaim baryonic dark matter is "fairly insignificant" the way I define that term.
One group, the MACHO collaboration, claims to have found enough microlensing to predict the existence of many MACHOs with mass of about 0.5 solar masses, enough to make up perhaps 20% of the dark matter in the galaxy.