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