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.

 

I Present to You.. Dark Matter

page: 3
63
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter

You are still predicting, because no dark matter was detected yet. Right?

Duh! That's what I've been telling ya for all these posts.


That was the only thing I wanted to hear and you could have made that clear. Instead you feel attacked.

No, you badgered me and said since I had conjugated "to predict" to the past tense, then it meant I had "predicted zero".





posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   
S&F. Thank you for sharing your hypothesis and fascinating link. When I have more time, looking forward to digging more into your theory. I must admit, I probably cannot contribute much, but I do enjoy expanding on these possibilities.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

What you call badgering is me trying to get this over to you, in every single post.
However, not once did I get the impression you were telling me this.
I respect you for coming up with a theory and working it all out but not the way you present it.

SNIP
edit on 1/27/2016 by Blaine91555 because: Removed comment on Mod action against the TAC.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Devino

Why can't it just br empty space? What good does any of this do to advance science? Scientists have great imaginations, but it is so unimportant and it's outer space so whether this made up dark matter that you can't see did exist, what are you going to do with that information anyway?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: Devino

Why can't it just br empty space? What good does any of this do to advance science? Scientists have great imaginations, but it is so unimportant and it's outer space so whether this made up dark matter that you can't see did exist, what are you going to do with that information anyway?


Look at my post.

And that was just a couple of examples.

There's so many theories to what you could do with dark matter it's unreal. But it all boils down to it existing and being able to capture it and keep it.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79im more interested in carbon 7



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Devino
The only problem is that dark matter most likely doesn't exist...

I could hardly begin to argue against dark matter but I think there is a tremendous amount of information that could better explain many observed phenomena that originally gave rise to the theory of dark matter.
OK explain bullet cluster observations without dark matter and since when is saying "dark matter most likely doesn't exist" not arguing against it? I don't see how anything else you said explains away dark matter observations. The man in the article you mentioned, Moffat, is an outlier and moreover that article was from 2007 and if you read some of his more recent work he's softened his tone against dark matter a bit since apparently his models can't predict observations accurately as he once thought, at least that's my take from what I've read of his more recent work. Most of the scientific community didn't believe what he said about the bullet cluster being explainable without dark matter, as far as I can tell.


originally posted by: Devino
I think more of the problem is in the galactic rotation curve.
The way you phrased that makes it sound like you're talking about something else, but that's the same thing swanne was referring to, he just didn't call it that.

There are other observations besides galactic rotation curves though, like gravitational lensing observations, and the bullet cluster observations seem to prove the existence of dark matter over some kind of modified gravity theory.

As for the opening post, I was never quite sold on swanne's preon theory so if this is based on that then I guess I'm not sold on this either.

Marko Rodin says dark matter is the number 9, whatever that means, but of course I don't believe him either. Whoever says they have proof of what dark matter is will have to get the rest of the scientific community to acknowledge the proof for it to be accepted as a scientific accomplishment, and will likely receive a Nobel prize.

edit on 2016127 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Nice theory there mate, though I do have reason to believe that dark matter is nothing but electrons in the time domain.
a reply to: swanne



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Sounds good. but not true.

"This mighty gravitational pull from dark matter particles are
the only way dark matter can interact with the universe,"

Gravity!
if it has a higher gravitational pull than normal mater.
then all dark mater would pull normal mater to it.
so dark and normal mater would be together!

No clounds of just dark mater. just a mix.
they may have found some thing.
but Not dark mater. if it exists at all.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   
hydrogen is just two bits!
one positive and one negitive.
that is the first element.

But! what if the two bits seperate?
what are the just one bit?
maybe dark mater?
No! ok...

edit on 27-1-2016 by buddha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Is it just me, or does the explanation for what Dark Matter is, sounds similar to what Yoda is telling Luke about the force.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: buddha
Sounds good. but not true.

"This mighty gravitational pull from dark matter particles are
the only way dark matter can interact with the universe,"

Gravity!
if it has a higher gravitational pull than normal mater.
then all dark mater would pull normal mater to it.
so dark and normal mater would be together!

No clounds of just dark mater. just a mix.
they may have found some thing.
but Not dark mater. if it exists at all.


Where did you get the idea from that dark matter is not mixing with matter?

There are billions of dark matter particles passing through you each second (according to the dark matter model).



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: buddha
Gravity!
if it has a higher gravitational pull than normal mater.
then all dark mater would pull normal mater to it.
so dark and normal mater would be together!

I believe the OP is saying that dark matter does stick around galaxies to create dark matter halos. However the point you mention about gravity is valid and it brings up a deeper problem which plagues most dark matter theories, it's called the Cuspy Halo Problem. If dark matter experiences the force of gravity like normal matter then it must clump together and it should be denser near the center of the galaxy. However our observations show that dark matter halos do not get denser near the center, they are virtually the same density throughout the entire halo. I do not see how the OP's theory can explain this problem.
edit on 28/1/2016 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 03:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: buddha
Gravity!
if it has a higher gravitational pull than normal mater.
then all dark mater would pull normal mater to it.
so dark and normal mater would be together!

I believe the OP is saying that dark matter does stick around galaxies to create dark matter halos. However the point you mention about gravity is valid and it brings up a deeper problem which plagues most dark matter theories, it's called the Cuspy Halo Problem. If dark matter experiences the force of gravity like normal matter then it must clump together and it should be denser near the center of the galaxy. However our observations show that dark matter halos do not get denser near the center, they are virtually the same density throughout the entire halo. I do not see how the OP's theory can explain this problem.


The cusp problem is probably an issue with the model/simulation being too simple, not taking gravitational interaction with normal matter into account.

See: arxiv.org...



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 04:41 AM
link   
So, are you saying that dark matter is the medium that light needs to propagate at all since it does not interact with it according to you.

Couldn't you also reverse the statement that dark matter centers on mass to create gravity to hold the universe (matter / galaxies) together? What if it is pressure from the dark matter void / space to expel 'impurities' or normal matter? Would explain expansion of universe as well. Just my two cents.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 04:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
the Cuspy Halo Problem. If dark matter experiences the force of gravity like normal matter then it must clump together and it should be denser near the center of the galaxy. However our observations show that dark matter halos do not get denser near the center, they are virtually the same density throughout the entire halo. I do not see how the OP's theory can explain this problem.

Actually I can. The dark matter particles in my model could in theory interact with one another via the weak force. Which would mean that they are a form of self-interacting dark matter, which is one of the proposed solutions to the cuspy halo problem as explained here:


Other works have shown that the core-cusp problem can be solved outside of the most widely accepted Cold Dark Matter (CDM) paradigm: simulations with warm or self-interacting dark matter also produce dark matter cores in low-mass galaxies.


en.m.wikipedia.org...

edit on 28-1-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 05:54 AM
link   
My point about charge is really that, as a fundamental particle, having to bond to form a charge-less configuration requires there to be (at least standard model wise) a method of bonding that does not require a force carrier.

The reason for this is that the force carrier may interact or would raise the interaction cross section with other objects.

If it was bonded purely electrostatic it would present possible interactions with its surroundings as the cancellation of charge externally would be fine but at closer range, not so much.

Again, an interesting thought, and the possibility of a large number, or multiple instances of dark matter particles is certainly a good one. It is quite hard to tell at this point.

All we know is within the standard model and the consequences thereof, we are already looking for signals related to self interaction, or specifically relic annihilation which would give a mono-energetic gamma signal which is higher at areas of increased density. Theoretically though depending on the mass of the particle, there would come a time by which there is a relative freeze out, and the interaction cross section and physical distance between particles almost halts that rate of interaction.


Difficult problem to solve... and with the current generation of Tonne scale dark matter detectors based in labs around the world at the cusp of coming online, it could be a rather exciting time.... alternatively... we might see nothing.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne
Well that's not dark matter. In fact dark is not really the word for it.

But I like those pictorials and there attempt to describe it. I most especially like there math concepts on at. Especially were they put in there equations the "i" for invisible, so basically they added a bunch of acronyms in there to better map all the things that they couldn't map or compute before.

Now they will have all kinds of equations that tell them that this spot right here, all that black stuff inbetween galaxies is full of O-obscure, L-lightless, I-Invisible particles? Or OLI for short. Wow! Never knew we got a bunch of oli's up in there them outer space place. Now ain't that something?

As silly as it sounds I do belie that is progress. Or meh! Good enough.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
If it was bonded purely electrostatic it would present possible interactions with its surroundings as the cancellation of charge externally would be fine but at closer range, not so much.

Naturally. But unlike any conventional particles, which are usually made of quarks and/or antiquarks not of the same flavour (otherwise they would undergo annihilation), dark matter "mesons" would be about always composed of dark matter / dark antimatter particles of the same flavour (for they can survive annihilation). Which means that they effectively share the exact same properties, except of course the charge which would be the same value but opposite sign. My point being, the pair of particles could virtually be cosidered the same and one, since only one quantum vawefunctions would apply for both. The "closer range" which you raise would have to be really, really close - and breaking the bond would require tremendous energy, an energy which in my opinion not much normal matter particles would be capable of.


Again, an interesting thought, and the possibility of a large number, or multiple instances of dark matter particles is certainly a good one. It is quite hard to tell at this point.

Indeed. We are really in the dark on that one, pardon me the pun.


All we know is within the standard model and the consequences thereof, we are already looking for signals related to self interaction, or specifically relic annihilation which would give a mono-energetic gamma signal which is higher at areas of increased density.

Well, I did calculate that if ever it somehow annihilated with one another, the mass of my dark matter particles would be converted to signals at about 3.2 x 10^24 Hz, that is, gamma rays. But then, since my proposed particles cannot annihilate, not even with one another (a feature which is the mechanism behind their coupling into WIMP pairs), I can only predict that they won't find dark matter / dark antimatter annihilation signatures. If they do find such signatures, it would mean that the particles are charged, for they would not already be combined into WIMPs.


Difficult problem to solve... and with the current generation of Tonne scale dark matter detectors based in labs around the world at the cusp of coming online, it could be a rather exciting time.... alternatively... we might see nothing.

Right you are. I wouldn't live in any other time though. I prefer risking to be disappointed than to venture nothing...




edit on 28-1-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join