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.

 

Dark Matter Opinions

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Why does it exist? Is dark matter the literal meaning of "darkness" itself? Why is over 70% of our universe filled with it and why does it differ from a black hole?




posted on May, 21 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ExternalForces

I've done my research and documentaries. Astronermers say we don't know of a valid reason. Is this true?



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Dark Matter is nothing more than incomplete data in science. It's a best guess at making obscure math work to perpetuate current theory.

We are but infants peering over the crib. Dark matter, if it exists or not is yet foreign in it's nature, composition and scope to us.

Anything on topic at this point is purely conjecture.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Here is the answer...no bull#....www.youtube.com... But...I doubt you will watch it as I have posted in on reddit...voat 4chan even and all the Internet geniuses fail to see it.....there is magnetism...no gravity, no strong or weak nuclear forces, no DaRK matter....it is shown in the video how it acts at a microscopic level...atomic level....visible level with actual bowls and steel balls doing things live on camera that prove we were missing 2 things about magnets....like real bar magnets....and why we missed it and what it means.....I proved it myself by reproducing these bowl shaped magnets with a hole at the bottom..you can shoot a neodynium magnet 30 feet....it is so cool and proves the whole thing is right. there are only 3 videos for a reason so don't worry and yes he is very much alive (you will ask that at the end). I dare you to watch it....I've never said that before when posting but nothing has worked to date.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   
There's a simple explanation for dark matter. It's not reflecting enough light to be seen.

Scientists screwing around trying to develop research funds using a 'mysterious' term is all. Don't be gullible. All the 'scientists' I know are human and some leave me in a state of supreme disappointment.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Dark Matter is just the common name of variable X. "Wtf do we know", looks not so good published in scientific magazines.
And I have a feeling the dark energy portion is even bigger. Some of the dark matter is maybe just misunderstood/unknown forces.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 03:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
There's a simple explanation for dark matter. It's not reflecting enough light to be seen.

If you use infrared or radio telescopes, you can see EM radiation that is emitted rather than reflected. Practically all regular matter emitts some EM radiation due to it being warmer than the absolute zero. There is absolutely no emission from dark matter.

It could be that dark matter is indeed some form of currently unknown matter; and just like the universe ended up being composed almost entirely of matter as opposed to antimatter, it somehow also ended up with much more of dark matter than visible matter.

It also might be that there is no dark matter, and the gravitational influence scientists assign to it is due to virtual gravitons "visiting" our universe from a parallel dimension.
edit on 22-5-2015 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 03:10 AM
link   
What Wildespace said.

SOMETHING is there that acts gravitationally, in order to produce the shapes of galaxies and the like. But unlike normal matter, you can't pick it up with any observational device we have.

So you got on one hand, we see galaxies that look like THIS. On the other hand, there's not enough matter there for that to happen. We are pretty good with observing normal macroscopic matter. But there's nothing there. So AN answer to that is, maybe there's something that doesn't emit EM the way normal matter would, but it has gravitational mass.

Thus "dark" means it doesn't emit light, or absorb light, or deflect light, in ANY band we can measure. Something like a neutrino, for example. Not that it has anything to do with evil, or Satan, or black holes, or hell, or whatever. Just that it doesn't emit or interact with light. If you like, you could mentally do a s/dark /inviso-/ and get the same result, if you like vi.
edit on 22-5-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: joelight

If I can get past the fact that the video creator has spent much of the time in the first section telling us what to expect in the next how many other videos (I think hes up to eight parts now and I am about ready to magnetically pull my hair out) I will TRY to watch this. I will say that the dark matter/energy theory has always struck me as a `we dont have a clue so we added this stuff here to explain why we cant possibly be wrong` kind of a thing. Go science!!! So, if this guy can really explain where we are wrong then it would be big time important.
edit on 22-5-2015 by bluemooone2 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: bluemooone2
I will say that the dark matter/energy theory has always struck me as a `we dont have a clue so we added this stuff here to explain why we cant possibly be wrong` kind of a thing. Go science!!! So, if this guy can really explain where we are wrong then it would be big time important.


Finding why things act this way will likely net the discoverer a Nobel.

But this is how science advances. We knew in 1899 that something was most definitely wrong with thermodynamics. Not that we couldn't calculate all sorts of useful things with the model we had, but no one could explain why blackbody radiators acted the way they did, and that spilled over into all sorts of other problems.

And that's where you got quantum theory from, and all the nice toys you're using now, when Planck said "Hey, if you use a series you can explain this...but you have to accept that energy comes in nice packetses", and guess what? It does! But who'd have thought that prior?

Same here. Astrophysicists and cosmologists aren't idiots. But there's things they see that don't work. This means there's something basic we're missing. And A solution, but not necessarily THE solution, is if you posit a non-EM emitting gravitationally active entity. So they're trying to find it. If it doesn't exist, then we'll have to look elsewhere.

eta: And you're categorically incorrect with 'we dont have a clue so we added this stuff here to explain why we cant possibly be wrong`, which I'm sure you'd realize if you thought about it a bit. Hypothesizing dark matter is an attempt to find WHY the observation doesn't match the theory at very large scales. You're seeing the search for "why IS this wrong" in action. The next step is to find out why, not to say "we don't know, therefore, magic".
edit on 22-5-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Perhaps the upcoming technology that allows us to detect gravitational waves will allow us to finally "see" dark matter as it interacts with itself and visible matter. www.astronomy.com...



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Thank you for the fast reply, and you are right of course. Its like you all are scraping off layers and finding more things underneath. Still my advice is to study the parts that don't seem to fit the most because the truth should be evident and the puzzle is connected. Does the guy in that video make any sense at all to you? Just asking and gawd please do not waste your time if you think hes just blowing smoke.

eta



Hypothesizing dark matter is an attempt to find WHY the observation doesn't match the theory at very large scales.


Yes I realize that one. And hence my statement but I understand I guess and you could be right. Perhaps even fine matter that we cannot detect at a guess still.... I really need to go back to school someday.
edit on 22-5-2015 by bluemooone2 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: bluemooone2
a reply to: Bedlam

Thank you for the fast reply, and you are right of course. Its like you all are scraping off layers and finding more things underneath. Still my advice is to study the parts that don't seem to fit the most because the truth should be evident and the puzzle is connected. Does the guy in that video make any sense at all to you? Just asking and gawd please do not waste your time if you think hes just blowing smoke.


Having read Joelight's synopsis, I gave it a pass. The "there is no gravity only magnetism" thing is child's play to dispense with, and anyone espousing it is unworthy of wasting my time on.

On the DM/DE thing, I personally hope they don't find ANYTHING, and the answer is much weirder than they think.

My favorite of the moment, and sadly mbkennel is right that I'm wasting my time hoping for it, is that supersymmetry will win out (I like symmetric patterns...) even though it's most likely not. In which case, Cramer's conjecture that we're seeing "gravity shadows" from other universes would be possible.

But the weirder the answer is, the more likely something really wonderful and unique will emerge from the resulting knowledge.
edit on 22-5-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 04:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: bluemooone2
Yes I realize that one. And hence my statement but I understand I guess and you could be right. Perhaps even fine matter that we cannot detect at a guess still.... I really need to go back to school someday.


I can't speak for most scientists...I'm actually an engineer...but I am pretty sure most of them would cut off a part of their genitalia to find a big issue with the status quo AND find a solution for it.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 04:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

LOLS nods and yes I feel like I need to start at square one one this stuff and have jumped ahead to like square 82 or something. I do love this topic though.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

"Star" for your response (and Bedlam too). Not here to argue, just present an opinion.

Here's NASA's... and we're talking about stars ... not just dead hulks of rock or gas clouds or dust or even clusters of loose/unbound atoms. They™ have trouble 'seeing' stars. Can't imagine the difficulty in resolving something that's not emanating heat/light.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
There's a simple explanation for dark matter. It's not reflecting enough light to be seen.

Scientists screwing around trying to develop research funds using a 'mysterious' term is all. Don't be gullible. All the 'scientists' I know are human and some leave me in a state of supreme disappointment.


yes but can the material so small as found in space material itself "ever" hold enough temperature, or be exited enough to radiate light itself?, yes the sun can but once it leaves the sun this mobile temperature in matter ejected from it (visible solid enough for human scale measurement, say nano scale today), it can only decrease in energy or temperature over time. i think light can not move endlessly thrue space, hence background radiation, the limit of distance light can travel AND return information to us (if not sent directly but reflected it would be a much shorter distance)... if a photon could slow down and slow down further it would lose its energy, or its brightness slowly until it came to a halt as just another particle or spacegrain withouout energy to give of light it would be weightless and become space material or dark matter itself.... unlit.... if a particle is so small can it even ever hold enough energy or temperature to ignite to a level or temperature we can dissearn? only a sun could light up space itself it seems, what happens at the edge of a solar flare? enormous heat in matter from the sun and it borders with space, -270 degrees celcius. normally that would produce steam? steam is invisible aswell almost, only seen in air.
ah well... i think its invisible matter traveling to us, and once it meets relative solidness like an atmopshere where there is atmospheric pressure forming oxygen, needed for a human scale burn, and matter and temperature enough for matter to burn in. i think light becomes light locally here seen as the blue glow on the space pictures, light exiting local matter.
the thermosfere is also local temperature or heat created high above us, by light, incomming Always on matter beam comming from everywhere in a mix of coloured signals from the universe. as soon as we detect a difference to the background we need to colour it with the use of an artist and his atis rendering of how it would look if we could see.

we can not physically bring a device to the sun and see when a certain photon leaves a gate and enters our measuring device here on earth and synchrosnise this with all parts of the experiment being in space. theres Always a short tube or short distance we measure on as vacuums are hard to create over long distances. and the experiments are Always partly on earth under atmospheric pressure. in an thick speed limiting by friction atmosphere) we can only see wind by its effects on surrounding matter. Cern has already measured particles faster than light but are scared to proof enstein wrong out of respect... we impose the limiting speed of light... on ALL matter in the entire universe....
i think humans are great at finding ways to accelerate things, also in space will we be able to keep an accelleration goin, and this is not the case with natural light. if we keep an accelleration goin by using natures laws very harmoniously as we will probably learn someday, then we can accel matter or a ship faster than light, light that you are in front of can not catch you and therefore a steady observer would see you vanish... there is no information on that position of the matter to reflect back where you were looking, the object was gone before you were able to realise this and follow it with your eyes...

when the craft slows to under the speed of light, it can catch up, fall on you and then in turn reflect back taking up some time to reach observer, depending on how fast the matter or light slams onto the subject or ship in the first place AND in which medium this happens.
when a pilot releases the throttle or ever continued doubling or accelleration provided you have unlimited fuel, you must know where to look because space in this regard, at these speeds is pretty big....
edit on 22-5-2015 by dennisarends because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   
WATCH IT!!! no one ever will even look at it...this will blow your mind and you can prove it in your own garage....there are other videos which were never released because of the potential danger if used incorrectly.....this will all be made clear by Mr. Lapoint in a few short weeks....but get ready the world is going to change ....



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

watch that video...I am not an engineer but 3 of my closest friends are ( 2 are prof. eng) and I MADE them watch this ...and all of them are blown away....I am not an engineer but I do have 10 years of post grad education so although I am no authourity on anything in this field...I am smart enough to figure this out....it truly is a unified field



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
It's dark energy you are talking about. There is a difference between dark energy and dark matter.




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join