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.

 

The Un-Observable Universal medium & the Observable Universe(s)

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   


Consider there is an element you do not see, that would be comparable to a Universal medium. This universal medium would be a un-observable universe element. Or a element that cannot be fully perceived by beings related to or from the observable universe. This universal medium would be like or similar to what is understood as dark matter - dark energy or just energy that is not fully understood by many current observers within...
Its not dark matter-energy because of its color or consciousness frequency. Its dark because the minds of the OBSERVERS trying to understand it cannot understand it, so its like a blind or dark spot in the world of hypothesized theories, as far as what it is.

So this universal medium is moving (at what speed pace universally?) not sure, as to scale it requires the complete area-perimeter map data of THIS universe and the overall volume data of the universal medium / dark energy and the complete weight as well as volume of the observable universe materials & inhabitants-growth data...

This mediums movements is basically what is affecting the galaxy spins-rotations and falls and even drifts/gravity & electromagnetism.

Look at it like a swimming pool - tank OR SOME KIND OF ENCLOSED CONTAINMENT DEVICE full of jello like material - transparent jello cold-warm-hot plasma energized like material.
The transparent jello like material would be the un-observable universal medium.

Now add some more DENSE materials into the jello cold-hot plasma like material in various regions of the pool-tank. The more dense material would be Observable universe... As the dense material is added it falls - settles - slides collects in the jello like plasma at different paces, based on the material weight and types that gather and collect together as well as the density of the un-observable universal medium holding them in their particular regions.

These areas of collection would be Galaxies & Nebula and the more dense areas or observable universe interacting with less dense regions of the un-observable universe in the more falling like regions would be Black and hypothesized White hole regions...

The un-observable is moving fast remember its more material overall by volume then the observable universe. This then causes the observable universe to also be moving- spinning - falling - rising within the un-observable medium at various rates of speed...
So now you have dense material/Observable Universe, moving fast within a lesser dense material/Un-Observable Universe that is at more volume and so causes more driving force upon the observable as its moving.

It is like the Observable galaxy are sitting on the transparent jello like plasma but are also moving - sliding - drifting within the jello like Un-observable Universal medium.

As the galaxy clusters collect they push away or attract galaxy clusters with their electromagnetic fields generated from friction like processes going on between the dense / observable universe materials and the less dense un-observable universe medium.

To 1 subjectively this is the cause of galaxy movements, rotations possible gravity and electromagnetism...
Visualize the static going on between all the interactions discussed.

Thanks for your time. Any better challenging arguments to the OP are welcome, just explain why and your points.

NAMASTE*******




posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
Its not dark matter-energy because of its color or consciousness frequency. Its dark because the minds of the OBSERVERS trying to understand it cannot understand it


After all that I still can't help but wonder if you actually did just realize that it's called "dark matter" because it can't currently be observed directly.

You're making a ton of claims here, but presenting no actual evidence.

Citations please.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

no 1 has knew the observers could not understand it long ago and named it dark matter ? Did you misunderstand 1 wonders?

As far as citations 1 is a legitimate UFO driver and I thought those were paid with the MARS accounts



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
a reply to: Ghost147

no 1 has knew the observers could not understand it long ago and named it dark matter ? Did you misunderstand 1 wonders?

As far as citations 1 is a legitimate UFO driver and I thought those were paid with the MARS accounts


So... It's psychosis then? Thought as much



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
a reply to: Ghost147

no 1 has knew the observers could not understand it long ago and named it dark matter ? Did you misunderstand 1 wonders?

As far as citations 1 is a legitimate UFO driver and I thought those were paid with the MARS accounts


So... It's psychosis then? Thought as much


No, just checking on the scientific collective uploading data...



According to the Planck mission team, based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[2][3] Thus, dark matter constitutes 84.5%[note 1] of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of total mass–energy content.[4][5][6]


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
a reply to: Ghost147

no 1 has knew the observers could not understand it long ago and named it dark matter ? Did you misunderstand 1 wonders?

As far as citations 1 is a legitimate UFO driver and I thought those were paid with the MARS accounts


So... It's psychosis then? Thought as much


No, just checking on the scientific collective uploading data...



According to the Planck mission team, based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[2][3] Thus, dark matter constitutes 84.5%[note 1] of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of total mass–energy content.[4][5][6]


en.wikipedia.org...


The specific amount of dark matter in the universe isn't something you talked about in the OP.

You're posting this topic in the science and technology forums, and from what I can tell almost every single piece of information in your OP is personal opinion and does not even remotely reflect the scientific communities view on Dark Matter.

So... please post your citations. This isn't the "Gray Area" forum, I'd like to see some facts.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13



So this universal medium is moving (at what speed pace universally?) not sure, as to scale it requires the complete area-perimeter map data of THIS universe and the overall volume data of the universal medium / dark energy and the complete weight as well as volume of the observable universe materials & inhabitants-growth data...

Not sure about your jello analogy. But for that, quote. Ya exactly! How are we supposed to actually know were a thing is when by the time we get there would be billions of years at were it once was? Not likely to get any good data thats for sure. Besides, have we even sent any satellites outside our galaxy yet? Don't think so right.

But voyager 1 according to this site will reach a star in 40,000 years. Which is great, the communications by then may be not working so great, or not at all, and we may go extinct by then as a species. But still, only a few more years to go till there right? I for one will be waiting patiently for more data on this whole thing, and especially on this whole dark matter thing. I would say the data so far is inconclusive and insufficient.

At least on this little space ride its not far to go. Only 40,000 more years to go...What joy!
Link to site



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

The specific amount of dark matter in the universe isn't something you talked about in the OP.


This is Space and Exploration forum?


Consider there is an element you do not see, that would be comparable to a Universal medium. This universal medium would be a un-observable universe element.


I DID discuss space ?



originally posted by: Ghost147
You're posting this topic in the science and technology forums, and from what I can tell almost every single piece of information in your OP is personal opinion and does not even remotely reflect the scientific communities view on Dark Matter.

So... please post your citations. This isn't the "Gray Area" forum, I'd like to see some facts.


Sorry Ghost 147, 1 cannot agree with your comments posted

edit on 2/6/16 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: galadofwarthethird

We actually already have the technology capable of reach the nearest star system in 100 years. Voyager 1 will be long dead before it ever reaches anything else.

Technology is exponential in both it's advancement and it's speed of advancement. Even if we send a ship that can make it there in 100 years, new technology will be made before it reaches it's destination that will be able to pass it on it's journey, just like we can do with Voyager 1



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13

This is Space and Exploration forum?

I DID discuss space ?


With your unconventional terminology, I thought you were refering to dark matter in the entirety of your OP. You did compare Dark Matter/Energy to what you call the 'unobservable universal medium'.

Please elaborate, injecting your own terminology makes your OP and points excessively confusing.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

you can try to clean it up... Its understood thats how some play the boards to appear highly intelligent and more relevant. So I will allow you to smear the board OP with your mistake of mis observation on the topic. ANd hopefully others who are not so stuck on themselves and their beliefs will elaborate on the topic.

Continue to share how my topic is irrelevant to YOUR scientific community

edit on 2/6/16 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13
I think its the way you spell things. Substituting 1, for one, is just likely to confuse people, not to mention they would not know what your talking about.

Besides, like I said before, scientists or whoever. The data is pretty much up in the air, quite literally, in fact past the stratosphere, ie inconclusive...Pun intended that there about it being in the air. Its anybody's theory right now. But theories they all are.

Or to put it differently. What 1 sees another one may not, and if you take them into account. Then 1 and one they would both equal 2 inconclusive perspectives.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird

Or to put it differently. What 1 sees another one may not, and if you take them into account. Then 1 and one they would both equal 2 inconclusive perspectives.


Understood
thanks for your input galadofwarthethird. Correct all theories yet some attempt to defend them as Objective truth and when another theory is presented they shoot it down because it is TRUTH they were not taught and it makes then envious or they just dont like to know new things "they"...

1 is me, at times its just how I communicate and is not to deliberately upset or confuse any.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
Continue to share how my topic is irrelevant to YOUR scientific community


I can't tell if it is or isn't relevant because you don't write coherently or cite your claims.



originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13
Its anybody's theory right now. But theories they all are.


Scientific Theories and the conventional use of the term 'theory' are not the same thing.

A scientific theory has an excessive amount of evidence, and has already gone through an extraordinary amount of scrutiny to become a scientific theory.

Concentional "theory" simply describes speculation and contomplation.

The two are not interchangeable terms.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

therefore you win



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147


So... please post your citations. This isn't the "Gray Area" forum, I'd like to see some facts.

No you wouldn't!

Because the only way you would see any of that is if we put you in a spacecan and ship you to space. How does a 10,000 year round trip sound to you? Maybe 50 years though should be good. I think observable theory's on current data is all we got to go on. And even that is...Well, a bit prone to interpretation's. Hence all the debates, which by my count changes each and every time anything new or any new data is thrown into the mix.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
a reply to: Ghost147

therefore you win


Psychosis it is...



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
a reply to: Ghost147

therefore you win


Psychosis it is...


as least its not debris on the camera



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147


We actually already have the technology capable of reach the nearest star system in 100 years. Voyager 1 will be long dead before it ever reaches anything else.

Do you now?

Well I suggest they get it up and out there like pronto. Would be a bit more faster they the whole 40,000 year thing.


Technology is exponential in both it's advancement and it's speed of advancement. Even if we send a ship that can make it there in 100 years, new technology will be made before it reaches it's destination that will be able to pass it on it's journey, just like we can do with Voyager 1

I doubt that. Not in space flight it seems. We still have not sent anybody back to the moon yet, or whatever. Maybe in other areas ya, but in some. Nah not so much. Last I checked if it was not for a communication satellite, it was just as likely to come crashing down, then up. But hey we got to stick to whats important first right? Cant get much anywere if nobody is on the same bandwidth.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join