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: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
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.

Well, technically speaking, brown dwarfs are not stars but sub-stellar objects. Yes, it is harder to see them than the proper stars, but astronomers (including even some amateurs) can see them. They were even able to find some rogue planets by their heat signature in infrared.




posted on May, 22 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: joelight

Dare accepted.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

How is it not obtaining enough light? Does it have problems absorbing it ? If so, why?



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
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.


So really it's "Dark" Gravity? Gravity without a known source?



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
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.

What if they got it wrong? What if ... galaxy formation has noting to do with material coalescing around the 'central object'? When I look at images of the largest 'known' 'objects' (galaxies), I don't necessarily buy coalescence as the cause. Considering the incredible speeds these objects are 'moving' through space, I think it would be worth taking a look at a blank drawing board and giving that idea another go. GIGO



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Give me until tomorrow.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   
If you are interested in dark matter you should research melanin. It is like organic dark matter



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Bedlam
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.

What if they got it wrong? What if ... galaxy formation has noting to do with material coalescing around the 'central object'? When I look at images of the largest 'known' 'objects' (galaxies), I don't necessarily buy coalescence as the cause. Considering the incredible speeds these objects are 'moving' through space, I think it would be worth taking a look at a blank drawing board and giving that idea another go. GIGO

There's no "central object" really (even if you consider the supermassive black hole at the centre); the galaxies themselves are very massive, and it's that mass that acts gravitationally on the galaxy itsef and any nearby galaxies. Stars in the galaxy orbit the common centre of mass (the barycenter). The galaxies may move at incredible speeds through space, but they are also immensely large, and it takes millions of years for the gravitational "dance" that interacting galaxies do with with each other. In fact, computer simulations have shown that the spiral arms form exactly as the result of such interactions.

www.youtube.com...

edit on 23-5-2015 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: joelight
this will all be made clear by Mr. Lapoint in a few short weeks....but get ready the world is going to change ....

Funny how it's always "about to be made clear" and never is. Nothing will change. David LaPoint is simply dead wrong.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: joelight

Magnetic fields bend the trajectory of ballistic electrons in a way that gravity does not.

That's all you need to know to understand that gravity is not magnetism. There are many other proofs but that one will do.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: joelight

Magnetic fields bend the trajectory of ballistic electrons in a way that gravity does not.

That's all you need to know to understand that gravity is not magnetism. There are many other proofs but that one will do.

I think gravity is a result of other things happening and magnetism is one of them. Magnetism brings extremely small things together, once enough 'stuff' gets together it then bends space which is gravity. Once space is bent, other 'stuff' falls in creating deep bends in space. Once enough small 'stuff' gathered together, enough to bend space, it is then what we call matter. So in my thoughts magnetism creates matter which bends space which then creates the effect we call gravity.

So I don't think we need to understand gravity. Its space we don't understand. It seems obvious to me that some particles 'stuff' is to small to effect space until enough of it gathers. Almost like space is a net, particles slip between the net rungs until magnetism brings enough particles together to get caught in the net. Once that happens the net twists providing a bend or path for other near matter to flow into.

If this is right then Einstein had the push force of space possibly wrong? Space would have to constantly be flowing into matter, rather than bent...I think matter just flows along the net that space is.

Would this not explain the spiral nature of stuff?



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xeven
I think gravity is a result of other things happening and magnetism is one of them. Magnetism brings extremely small things together, once enough 'stuff' gets together it then bends space which is gravity.


But in the case of "enough stuff getting together", you should see absolutely MASSIVE magnetic field effects, and you just don't.

Gravity doesn't act like magnetism. In a lot of ways. But that one's all you need.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xeven
Magnetism brings extremely small things together, once enough 'stuff' gets together it then bends space which is gravity.

Most sub-atomic particles have mass, therefore they have gravity and bend space too. Some particles, like neutrino, have no electric charge and therefore don't interact electromagnetically at all.

How comes magnetism has two poles, and the like poles push each other apart, while gravity is always attractive.
edit on 24-5-2015 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

this is not Dave himself...but I know him....this discovery and what is to come of it...will change the world...soon, and the Nobel is a foregone conclusion but so much is going to change so fast in the next few months....I cant wait



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

watch the primer field video...there is a containment field, a flip ring (area where the polarity in the magnet actually reverses
and you can see it in the video and try it at home.....we all missed it becuase we needed a bowl shaped magnet with a whole in the middle to find it....



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Here's what I think, and of course it's probably odd and likely may not be correct. I think gravity explains most things, but I still don't rule out some of the "Plasma Universe" stuff either. (I'm in the "why not both?" category.) Gravity isn't an electric or magnetic effect by itself. My suspicion is that it's a function of energy density. The falloff in terms of its attractive behavior is much like a point radiator, so it's like radio or EM-radiation falling on the light spectrum. I also think this relationship has something to do with the permitivity of a vacuum, space itself has a resistance of sorts to it, so you get a tension or pressure gradient in relationship to regions of high energy density. Given that mass is equal to energy, the rest should fall into place.

However all gravity theory that I'm aware of always assumes a neutrally charged mass. And I think that's where the boat is being missed. If your mass is charge-neutral, then the existing explanations work just fine. However if the energy that effects the energy gradient which is causing the gravitational phenomena is charge biased (either positive or negative), then I suspect there are some interesting electro and magneto gravitic phenomena that the charge neutral models don't show. However to really see such effects, it takes a significant charge bias in relation to the net energy of the object in such a field. You'd get some corkscrew and zig-zag stuff in the orbit trajectories, as well as being able to alter paths of objects by changing the amount of charge or the magnetic field in relation to that charge. And some of the other fun begins because any electromagnetic aspect has a cubed rather than squared fall-off and has polarity.

So gravity? Explains stuff like planets orbiting stars. Then what about electro/magneto gravity? That's likely to explain why planets rotate about their own axes, are formed at certain places in the accretion disk after a star stabilizes, and some of that other peculiar nuanced behavior.

The most basic test for this? I think something like a device using both supercapacitors and solenoid coils in a microgravity environment would be the easiest way to see whether such a thing is going on. Maybe somebody on the ISS has tested such a thing? If not, perhaps it's worth a try.

I'd also suspect there's more stuff out there like neutrinos that has a hard time interacting with other matter, that and some virtual pairing stuff. That also has a role in this "dark matter" phenomena. It might even be possible to capture dark matter under the right conditions and use it for stuff like propulsion.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Don't expect all answers at once!
edit on 5262015 by ExternalForces because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

If gravity were like a magnet our magnetosphere and everything inside of it would be ripped into pieces.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   
We believe dark matter is what causes galaxies to spin faster at the edges, right? What if time is just moving faster at the edges of galaxies due to time dilation, providing an illusion of uniform rotation? Has anyone ever looked into that?



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ajc5165

The rotational velocity of the disks is way too low (100-200km/s) for any relativistic effects.

Also dark matter is simply a placeholder used to make current model of gravity match what is observed.

Imho it is the model that fails here. And there are attempts to fix/extend it, like:
www.sciencedaily.com...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join