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 Detected? - miraculous Signature Found in Quasar Jets

page: 2
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Nochzwei

Tosh.

You, my dear sir, are talking about the Higgs boson. That's the Mass dispenser.
Higgs boson does not exist and never will




posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: swanne

good thread mate.
but imo negative on detection of dark matter.
dark matter is what gives mass to particles without reacting in anyway with the particle.
its only a matter of time when it will be accepted that dark matter is only electrons coupled with time residing in the time domain

Dark matter is dark matter. It is not time or time coupled with anything else. Time may be a particle in and of itself, though. It's behavior at the event horizon of a black hole may be they way to find it. That is why I find this thread so interesting. I am interested in what it actually found, as the number is close but not quite there.

Dark matter cannot give mass to anything that is not dark matter.
I invite you to read the thread in my signature. There are many things the university will not teach you



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax

Who, apart from you, is claiming this as a possible explanation?


No one. Why is that? Because I am the first to discover the link between the two.

This is why BTW I refer to the discovery as "my" discovery ever since the beginning of the thread.

Why do you ask? Do you have something against independent discoveries?




posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Actually the failure of the LUX at detecting dark matter simply means that the LUX's method of detection was either inefficient or incorrectly designed. The failure of your eyes at detecting infrared doesn't mean that infrareds don't exist.

Black holes however are much more powerful than anything humankind has ever built, and their principle is completely different than that of the LUX (and more efficient, too). They have the power to directly convert the mass of surrounding dark matter into energy peak. This is why I am not surprised at seeing that black holes have been much more successful than the LUX.


edit on 29-7-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Nochzwei

Tosh.

You, my dear sir, are talking about the Higgs boson. That's the Mass dispenser.
Higgs boson does not exist and never will


That's a shame. Some time ago,.CERN scientists manage to prove the existence of a particle at the energy levels expected for the Higgs Boson.



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Nochzwei

Tosh.

You, my dear sir, are talking about the Higgs boson. That's the Mass dispenser.
Higgs boson does not exist and never will


That's a shame. Some time ago,.CERN scientists manage to prove the existence of a particle at the energy levels expected for the Higgs Boson.

Its not proven to be higgs, whatever they found



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Science always hates the "Looks like a duck, Quacks like a duck...". It really does look good but there has to more quantitative hard evidence. Great Thread... thanks.



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne


No one. Why is that? Because I am the first to discover the link between the two.

Thank you. I suspected as much.


Why do you ask? Do you have something against independent discoveries?

Not at all. But I only believe in those made by people competent in the relevant fields of knowledge.



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: swanne

I only believe in those made by people competent in the relevant fields of knowledge.

You are being very insulting, you know that?

So you're going to ignore my discovery just because I don't have a PhD?

Scientific discoveries dont come only to people from universities, you know. And even though I may not have a PhD myself, I have friends who do and we constantly discuss and brainstorm. So far they've been more supportive than yourself.

Now, I have supported the discovery with plenty of scientific evidences, and these evidences have been repeatedly observed all over the cosmos, by different instruments, from all over the world. Not sure what your problem is, except prejudice.


edit on 30-7-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Science denial from pseudoscientists?

Great Scott! I thought the was enough of that drivel coming out of the conservative right! Apparently I was mistaken.



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Nochzwei

Science denial from pseudoscientists?

Great Scott! I thought the was enough of that drivel coming out of the conservative right! Apparently I was mistaken.
Ive been talking cutting edge science mate, supported by experimental evidence



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

a reply to: swanne


You are being very insulting

A statement of fact is not an insult. You are not a physicist and your OP is meaningless word salad. No doubt impressive to the ignorant. Won't fly with anyone who has any knowledge of the subject.


So you're going to ignore my discovery just because I don't have a PhD?

It's not a Ph.D you lack, it's modesty and a sense of the limits of your own knowledge.

Yor OP reminds me of when I was six years old and tried to build a jet engine out of junk I found around the house. I didn't know enough to know the million ways I was wrong. You're the same -- but you're evidently more than six years old. If you want to be a physicist, learn physics.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Ad Hominem attack is your best counter-argument? Wow.

Of course, it is easy for you to put bash my theory and claim that it doesn't "mean salad". But so far you've presented no real scientifically valid counter-arguments whatsoever. I fail to see how your behaviour here is any different than trolling?

You claim that I am "ignorant" of a subject which I have pursued for twenty years. Of course, if the Great Astyanax has a better theory to propose, then please, do share with us all.


edit on 3-8-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)


(post by Astyanax removed for a manners violation)

posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 04:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
(SNIP)

Oh really?


Could scientists have finally spotted a signal from dark matter—the elusive, theoretical substance that’s thought to make up much of the universe? After laboriously scouring through X-ray data collected from one of the European Space Agency’s telescopes, astronomers spotted a weird spike in emissions that can’t be explained by any known particle or atom, leading the team to believe that it may have come from dark matter.


Seems I am on the right track

arxiv.org...

You should tell the guys of Instituut-Lorentz for Theoretical Physics, the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, the Bogolyubov Institute of Theoretical Physics, and the Leiden University that their research is "meaningless babble".


edit on 4-8-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne


Oh really?

Yes, really, and the removal of my post by an officious moderator won’t change the truth.


Seems I am on the right track

The link is to a web page that produces clickbait used to generate likes for people on social media. ‘IFL Science’, for crying out loud. Do you know what ‘IFL’ stands for? Other articles on the site are about ‘what Bronze Age women looked like’ and ‘weak gravity can be explained by 10 million billion particles’. All peer reviewed, no doubt!


arxiv.org

This is from the abstract of the linked paper. Emphases mine.


An unidentified line in X-ray spectra of the Andromeda galaxy and Perseus galaxy cluster

We identify a weak line at E ∼ 3.5 keV in X-ray spectra of the Andromeda galaxy and the Perseus galaxy cluster – two dark matter-dominated objects... Although for individual objects it is hard to exclude the possibility that the feature is due to an instrumental effect or an atomic line of anomalous brightness, it is consistent with the behaviour of a line originating from the decay of dark matter particles. Future detections or non-detections of this line in multiple astrophysical targets may help to reveal its nature.

Swans, it seems, rush in where physicists fear to tread.


You should tell the guys of Instituut-Lorentz for Theoretical Physics, the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, the Bogolyubov Institute of Theoretical Physics, and the Leiden University that their research is "meaningless babble".

Theirs isn’t.

Weren’t you were claiming all this as your own ideas?


edit on 5/8/16 by Astyanax because: emphasis was needed.



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax


Theirs isn’t.

Weren’t you were claiming all this as your own ideas?

If you read the paper more carefully, you can see that their idea and mine are very similar.

However we have some important differences. The frequency of the peak in the spectrum, for one (they are looking at a peak in the X-rays region, whereas I am looking at a peak in the gamma region). Furthermore, in my case my targets (for spectral analysis) are black hole jets exclusively. Also, the peaks I have presented are not caused by potential instrumental glitch (multiple observation of different jets with different instruments always show the same peak).


edit on 5-8-2016 by swanne because: a beer mug was needed



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

In other words, their work bears no relation to your hypothesis, except possibly as inspiration.

I'm done here.


edit on 5/8/16 by Astyanax because: of phone dumbness



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Sure. Whatever.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 04:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: swanne

yes but the electron compression in the time domain is enormous imo


Normal electrons already exist in the time domain. All normal particles already have a velocity, which is a four-dimensional vector (3 space + 1 time). Otherwise particles would have zero existence in Time.

There is one particle which might exist in zero time, the tachyon, but its existence is highly contreversial and it has never been observed.





top topics



 
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join