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: 7
63
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
STOP !

Everyone speak to the topic and leave the personalities out of it, Please.

Further sniping or Off topic posts will be removed.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

One thing occurred to me last night as I was pondering a good way of codifying a theory without the use of esoteric maths. You can use object-oriented analysis techniques.

Using OOA to encode your theory into a concrete model should be rather straightforward. The architecture of your theory in terms of particles and their interactions can be represented in standardized UML class diagrams. State diagrams can be used to predict experimental results. UML is quite flexible and you can use it in a variety of ways to model your theory in a way that is easy to understand for both scientists and laymen.

Another advantage of using UML to model your theory is that most UML tools provide the ability to generate computer source code that can be compiled into an executable program. With an executable program, you can run your model to simulate experiments.

While nothing short of the bizarre non-intuitive mathematical symbology of quantum physics will satisfy the CERN type scientists, being able to successfully represent your model in a standardized way would be a coup in itself. It certainly answers the criticism that your theory is not testable in its current form.

Something to think about.

-dex



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   
I think before we get into understanding this dark matter thing, or doing maths on it, understanding our visible universe should take priority.

And like I said I think Dark matter is really the wrong choice of wording to it. Sounds like something you would get when you turn off the lights, but in reality both this "dark matter" And oh lets say "light matter" are present at all time regardless if the light is on or not.

The only thing that exists are the physical manifestations of the energies in this universe, if you can see it or not? Well thats your problem, not the universes or anybody else, maybe its just because that you dont have the tools or have evolved the tools to see or understand it. But, I do agree with the OP, if you cant explain it so everybody gets it to there degree, well then your just wasting your time.

Just remember that only 4% of the visible universe is out there which you can see, 96% of the universe is supposedly just empty, or just there. And you cant see it not because its not there, but because we are creatures which evolved and adapted to only process around 4% of the things out there around us. The rest are outside our understanding, because its outside our both physical tools ie bodies brains, hand and feet and off course eyes and all, and metaphysical ie the software in our heads which allows us to process it all into a system and understanding of our surrounding which we like to call our physical world.

Not only that but we cant even see in all the known light spectrum's, even in that unless we use tools we can only see in a small fraction of that as well. Our eyes only register on the electromagnetic spectrum between the wavelength 380 nanometers and 750 nanometers in length, which again is only a fraction of the whole electromagnetic spectrum. As for dark matter and all that, we may want to stick to what we know for now before we tackle that on. Or we may be getting ahead of ourself's by far.

This seems like a good vid as any, have not watched it yet, but I will at some point.

And after we get the whole understanding of the visible universe down, how its all processed and interpreted to make our world what it is because its not only what we see, but what we processed it as seeing, and what we interpreted it as well.

And after that maybe we can have a better grasp of the things we cant see like dark matter. But I would not hold my breath till then.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: swanne

One thing occurred to me last night as I was pondering a good way of codifying a theory without the use of esoteric maths. You can use object-oriented analysis techniques.

That is actually a very good suggestion indeed!



Another advantage of using UML to model your theory is that most UML tools provide the ability to generate computer source code that can be compiled into an executable program. With an executable program, you can run your model to simulate experiments.

I am not familiar with UML tools, but I am quite good at scripting browser-executable programs. Perhaps a virtual model whose properties can be explored with any browsers could be as informing?



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
Our eyes only register on the electromagnetic spectrum between the wavelength 380 nanometers and 750 nanometers in length, which again is only a fraction of the whole electromagnetic spectrum.
True but not relevant. We have many methods of observing the electromagnetic spectrum in wavelengths that we can't see, from ground-based radio telescopes to the space-based Chandra X-ray observatory, so the limitations of our eyes to see only a small range of the electromagnetic spectrum isn't the problem here.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: galadofwarthethird

You are confusing definitions. We can't see dark matter not because it emits the wrong types of electromagnetic radiations - but actually because it emits no electromagnetic radiations at all.

I understand the point you make about subjective coulour perception (I know, for I myself am coulour-blind), but dark matter is not a problem of perception, it is more of a problem of non-existent emission.




posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Neato



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne


I am not familiar with UML tools, but I am quite good at scripting browser-executable programs. Perhaps a virtual model whose properties can be explored with any browsers could be as informing?
That would be perfect. Especially since you are familiar with that programming language and environment. By being acquainted with scripting, you can create program code that describes the maths in an intuitively understandable format. Although I would suggest self describing code, which may entail using longer variable and function names.

I do think you'll want to use some basic UML diagrams though. Since it's a standardized way of representing models, using something at that level at least answers some of the criticism of not having a testable theory. The model need only represent the types of particles, the matrix in which their interactions occur, and any external objects or forces that are necessary to explain the theory. Basically all the necessary maths will be encoded, as script code, in the operations of the classes/objects.

No doubt, like many of the high end contributors here on ATS, you are an autodidactic polymath. Out-of-the-box free thinkers usually are. So, you will have no problems adapting to a slightly different paradigm. However, I will humbly offer whatever assistance I can in helping you with the UML modeling.


Good Luck!!

-dex



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Have the Academia accepted it?



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Actually it is. When you cant even understand what you see and have seen, I would say that is a big hurdle understanding anything else. Its like a kid on his trikey who just hoped his first curb, and now wants to try the grand canyon. You got to understand, that all you maths and all those fancy thing, are merely just a representation of yourselfs not even of the observable merely of what you can grasp as observable.

Dark matter and Light matter is like pouring oil in water.

It is a interesting mental exercise, but little else. However these exercises are important in moving things forward.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne
Well that's just it. How do you know it has none existent emissions? I mean its 96% of the stuff out there. Do you imagine that in nature or even in a vacuum were your surrounded by 96% of something that is just there that somehow has no effect on you or no existent emissions?

A fish in the ocean is 96% surrounded by other elements then itself and body, and yet it has no idea whatsoever why or how its all there it merely goes along its life day in and out for what now, millions of years. Countless number of fish have lived and died without knowing there in a big pool spinning on a bowl in a corner of an even bigger sea of star. And they will all die knowing that only, this whole planet and everything on it may go extinct knowing only that.

And none of it will matter. Because there just a fraction of something bigger, in fact not even a drop of water in the ocean.




I understand the point you make about subjective coulour perception (I know, for I myself am coulour-blind), but dark matter is not a problem of perception, it is more of a problem of non-existent emission.

So as you can see perception and existence are linked. I mean you may be a bit color blind, does that mean those colors that you don't see don't exist. Or how about a blind or deaf person, does light or sound exist for them? You could go on and on, in fact till the sun and seas dry up.

But what I am trying to say is. Generally when something is on such a mass level of immersion as to produce a 96% to 4% ratio. Who is most likely to influence who here? It may just be like I said a case of something that has influenced everything on so many levels that it could be like a fish questioning the water around it and what is that water made off.



You are confusing definitions. We can't see dark matter not because it emits the wrong types of electromagnetic radiations - but actually because it emits no electromagnetic radiations at all.

Well off course. After all even in all your pasts or believes, everything came from darkness. If this were a religious argument I would start with "In the beginning there was nothing, and god said let there be light" But since this is a more sciencey argument I think it would go like this "In the beginning there was nothing and darkness, and the big bang went BOOM and matter and light was created"

Eh? Who knows right? Maybe the whole of the electromagnetic vibration of matter was a byproduct of oh maybe the 96% of the stuff around it. Out of darkness comes light, and out of chaos comes order...Its all merely a different vibration pattern or frequency on the thing you call matter ie the building blocks of the universe that we the sun, that grass and that cow are all made off, and the things in that or that specific vibration are tuned to it, because they are a product of it as a whole.

But, If you cant sense anything outside of your predestined order out of the chaos of the universe that's out there. That's just your problem. Who knows it may just may not exist.

:lol
epends on how you look at it. Or how you don't look at it. Order out of Chaos right? Now here can tell me just what "understanding" something is? What is the core of it? Why does the mind and by the way everything else in our observable universe function on order in some shape or form to achieve a function, and anything it does not understand the order of it considers it chaos ie not the order it understands? Don't you all raise your hands up all at once now.

Hey I like your little glasses emoticon guy.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: swanne
Well that's just it. How do you know it has none existent emissions? I mean its 96% of the stuff out there.
Try 27%.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: swanne
Well that's just it. How do you know it has none existent emissions? I mean its 96% of the stuff out there.

How do we know? Simple - we exist. Dark matter permeates not just distant galaxies - it also permeates our Milky Way, hell, our whole solar system is swimming in it, even our very atoms. If dark matter could interact with light, it would glow (because it could then reflect the light of the sun), and it would haze out the sun's Earth-bound light (because dark matter could absorb light), inducing a perpetual ice age on Earth. But that's not all - if dark matter emitted light, this means its photons could kick electrons out of our atoms - ionizing all life on Earth and making our planet sterile.



Generally when something is on such a mass level of immersion as to produce a 96% to 4% ratio. Who is most likely to influence who here?

Water electromagnetically interacts with the fish, enabling repulsion fields between atoms and allowing the fish to swim. Dark matter does no do so - but that doesn't mean that dark matter doesn't influence normal matter! Quite the opposite in fact - dark matter has so much weight, it holds our glaxy in one piece via gravitational interaction.





Order out of Chaos right? Now here can tell me just what "understanding" something is? What is the core of it? Why does the mind and by the way everything else in our observable universe function on order in some shape or form to achieve a function, and anything it does not understand the order of it considers it chaos ie not the order it understands?

Good questions. I like to think chaos is simply an order so complex that it fits none of our primitive definitions of "order".



Hey I like your little glasses emoticon guy.

Hehe I know, right? They're catchy.


edit on 5-2-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Exactly, there is a difference between energy density and matter

Just appears to be making arguments for the sake of... well i don't really want to call it ignorance but it is from a position ignorant of the motivation for dark matter.

To not understand the problem is often a big issue in research, however to accuse science of wild stabbing in the dark and saying "We don't know anything" quite clearly is not a true assessment of the situation.

We are getting better and better at figuring out what dark matter isn't... and in 100 years, we have gathered more evidence than just looking out into the night sky with a telescope and saying ooooooooooooooh!



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If you say so, or that site says so, not to sure on that. But in time we will see.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne



How do we know? Simple - we exist. Dark matter permeates not just distant galaxies - it also permeates our Milky Way, hell, our whole solar system is swimming in it, even our very atoms. If dark matter could interact with light, it would glow (because it could then reflect the light of the sun), and it would haze out the sun's Earth-bound light (because dark matter could absorb light), inducing a perpetual ice age on Earth. But that's not all - if dark matter emitted light, this means its photons could kick electrons out of our atoms - ionizing all life on Earth and making our planet sterile.

Not sure what your trying to say here but the so called Dark matter and Light matter are just two different states of matter. Not only down to the atom, but wavelength as well.



Water electromagnetically interacts with the fish, enabling repulsion fields between atoms and allowing the fish to swim. Dark matter does no do so - but that doesn't mean that dark matter doesn't influence normal matter! Quite the opposite in fact - dark matter has so much weight, it holds our glaxy in one piece via gravitational interaction.

So what are you trying to say dark matter is gravity. Or that it is in some way inexplicably intertwined with gravity...Well its all groovy and gravy I suppose.



Good questions. I like to think chaos is simply an order so complex that it fits none of our primitive definitions of "order".

Chaos is order that you do not understand or comprehend, you could say its even a different dimension or even wavelength. Does it matter? Not in the least, chances are the seas will dry and the sun go out before we would not only do something about it, but grasp it or understand it fully. Like I said while its a cool mental exercise it may be better to stick to what we know for now before going into far out depths. Oh lets send a spaceship to the ends of the universe, then maybe we will see whats holding it all together and what may or may not be beyond it all.

Theories are merely theories after all.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Dark matter is nothing like normal matter. Unlike normal matter, dark matter cannot interact with the electromagnetic force - which is actually a big deal. It also can't interact with the Strong Force. The two factors combined means that dark matter cannot even form different phases, and it certainly cannot form atoms.

The only thing which dark matter could have in common with normal matter would be preons. Less preons = more massive particles, and since DM would have only 4 preons (unlike 6 for normal matter), this would explain why DM is so more massive (and also explain why DM cannot interact with Light, and also why it fails to form compatible colour charges).


edit on 6-5-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join