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 detector detects nothing

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei

Yeah iv detected unicorns on Mars also they are horses in the bull domain
so you should get a nobel prize for your bull domain




posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: skunkape23

No, but what it does mean that proving the theory will not be achieved by expecting regular matter and dark matter to interact with one another in the form of an impact. That, as far as it has been explained to me, is a physical impossibility.
You are right impact is impossible.
Now if you get a current flow ( which is at right angles ) from the time domain, it will flow alongside regular current without interacting with the regular current flow. so in other words they co exist



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Maybe Erik Verlinde got rid of dark matter, the same way that Einstein got rid of the ‘aether’ (we suppose it’s there – well, it has to be there for our theories to function- but we can’t detect it)?

phys.org...

On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton

Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Agnost

I've always wondered about gravity as a thermodynamically emergent property, even as an undergraduate I thought it would explain a number of puzzling problems with gravity, but obviously I had no concrete theory how it would arise.

Gravity by its nature is really different---the coupling constants are mass-energy which are weird numbers---in the rest of Standard Model there are integers of charge ratios, not these weird numbers.

It's different by coupling to everything somehow, unlike Standard Model. Stuff interacts with EM if it's is charged and doesn't if not. Strong force (gluons) have a similar rule: either it interacts or not. But somehow gravity interacts with everything---summing it all up, but with weird coefficients.

And of course Dark Matter and now Dark Energy. Plus the theoretical inability to unify gravity. If it's so difficult, then perhaps General Relativity does not actually apply at the microscopic scale, and that's why the theoretical unification has broken down. String theory didn't help matters.

All point to a possibility that we do not yet have the true mechanistic theory of gravity: General Relativity is an amazingly good but classical approximation in the limit, just as fluid mechanics is the classical approximation to the microscopic kinetic theory of atoms in certain statistical/thermodynamic limits.

It's as if maybe gravity as we know it is akin to Van der Waals forces which are weak but really arise from strong underlying electromagnetism.

If Verlande is successful, he will be the next Einstein. Of course there is some strong and legitimate opposition: arxiv.org...

And if we don't yet know the true microscopic theory, when we figure it out---what if it is engineerable? The giant problem today with engineering gravity is that the coupling coefficient is so small, big "G". You need a huge amount of mass-energy to do anything.

But what if gravity was a Van der Waals force which is the small residual of a much more powerful but almost always cancelled microscopic effect? If we can reduce that cancellation somewhat then there would be a much more powerful thing to engineer gravity with.
edit on 14-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

You are much better educated in physics than I am, but my sentiment about gravity...it is not a force. At all. Gravity being a force is an illusion. For that reason it cannot be explained using some exotic force carriers or Standard Model. It cannot be unified with the rest of the forces because there is no need to...and because it is impossible..for that very same reason. There is no common ground in nature of matter and gravity, only relation in behavior when the two superimposed. With that said, 'unification' has already happened, only not acknowledged directly. Although that's just my own opinion.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
If dark matter were a plasma, it could be detected by its interaction with light and... wouldn't be dark. You could detect a cold plasma by its compton upscattering of light, or its absorption of light, or light given off when it recombined into cold atoms, or any number of ways.

Everyone that thinks the dark matter content in galaxy clusters is some sort of plasma is welcome to try detecting it through one of these means. The signal ought to be overwhelming, since dark matter is estimated to compose 9/10 of the mass of galaxy clusters.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agnost
Maybe Erik Verlinde got rid of dark matter, the same way that Einstein got rid of the ‘aether’ (we suppose it’s there – well, it has to be there for our theories to function- but we can’t detect it)?

phys.org...

On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton

Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe


Well we can detect it we see its effects on gravity. Problem is we don't know what's causing it. It's not a matter of if it exists it's a matter of what is it. Observations show us something is there we even found a galaxy that is 90 percent dark matter. If something wasn't there the stars we do see would just get slung out into the cosmos. But they aren't something is pulling then together. What we may discover is are guesses as to what it may be are entirely wrong. For example I just read a paper a while ago that suggest black holes may exist in quantities far exceeding our estimations. And even went so far as to say there may be several real close to us that we just can't see.

The theory of the paper is below a certain radius we would have difficulty spotting the distortions that occur. And they believed that smaller black holes were created at the big bang and not part of stars collapsing. I doubt they are right but who knows until we can prove otherwise.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: moebius
As with anything else, give it time.

How about reverse time?



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
More ... costly ... unscientific ... science.

I firmly believe programs like this should only receive funding through efforts like Kickstarter. I'm sick of my tax dollars going to waste.

Darkmatter - that's about the dumbest ...



I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
~Thomas A. Edison


www.brainyquote.com...


edit on 14/11/2016 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift


How about reverse time..



'Time reverse' is not possible, imo, as there is no 'anti space' ('reversed time' can be rephrased as 'anti-time'). Does 'anti time' make sense to you when it relates to the concept of 'volume"?




edit on 15-11-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)







 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join