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.

 

A controversial new gravity hypothesis has passed its first test

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Thank Christ!

I hate dark matter. Primarily because it is the stuff of unicorns and faeries.

Dark Matter = "We have no idea what the hell we're dealing with"

It is, was and ever shall be gravity.

Real gravity. Gravity as a primary cause - not the gravity we think we know which is simply an effect of mass distorting spacetime.

Progress is slow, but any progress in this field is good.


edit on 12/20/2016 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Experiment to detect dark matter using a gamma ray detector turned up nothing.. AT 1:30 in the video...also the video talks about the new gravity theory favorably...... Plus their earthquake predictions and software. youtu.be...



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

What is the eplanation of the inflationary period and matter distribution with this new theory?


Also dark matter is no where near being discredited and this theory is no where near a working theory. It's an interesting theory and people are testing it but it's years away from being a comprehensive working theory as the original author has said.
dark matter


edit on 20-12-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Maybe the black holes at center of all galaxies create some repulsive force outside of the bubble around the galaxies they are at the center of. Maybe antigravity is created out there at the edge of each black holes reach and they push against the others. Maybe "white" holes are really "white" bubble...
edit on 20-12-2016 by Xeven because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier




Also dark matter is no where near being discredited and this theory is no where near a working theory.


Well, it's hard/foolish to try and discredit something that was never "credited" in the first place.

Dark Matter is and always was a placeholder to try and account for the discrepancies in their measurements. It's a unicorn - totally mythical substance that no one has seen, detected or even begun to understand.

As I said in my previous post:

Dark Matter = We have no idea what is causing the discrepancies in measurements.

It shall go the way of the flat-earth theories soon enough. It's all about gravity.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: djz3ro
a reply to: 727Sky

Awesome topic, I love seeing space topics. I think like most of us it's fascinated me since childhood...

It has occurred to me in the past that perhaps dark matter is really the Science of the Gaps, much akin to a Scientific version of the God of the Gaps but pertaining only to measuring the vastness of space.
that's good #. Gaps are necessary to secure balance. Loss of detail when downscaling is a nice hiding spot.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: imjack
No need . I have known that gravity is mass acting on the space/time fabric since I was a kid. And I am old


that's older than I'm usually accustomed to buy I'm pretty old. I would love to tell but why.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

Right...

That isn't exactly true. Nor do we have nearly enough information to assume anything like your saying.

The measurements being taken now are certainly working for dark matters place in the theories. The Planck observatory for instance.

Also the equipment possible to make measurements is just coming on line.

You explanation doesn't currently fit or have a place in a cosmological model does it? Can you explain what replaces the inflationary period? What was before the photon epoch?

I am not sure you understand that when the "placeholder" is put into equations the models are ending up with as much acurracy as this theory.

How would you these results hold up to falsifiability?

About like unicorns.
edit on 20-12-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Riffrafter

Right...

That isn't exactly true. Nor do we have nearly enough information to assume anything like your saying.

The measurements being taken now are certainly working for dark matters place in the theories. The Planck observatory for instance.

Also the equipment possible to make measurements is just coming on line.

You explanation doesn't currently fit or have a place in a cosmological model does it? Can you explain what replaces the inflationary period? What was before the photon epoch?

I am not sure you understand that when the "placeholder" is put into equations the models are ending up with as much acurracy as this theory.

How would you these results hold up to falsifiability?

About like unicorns.


OK.

Can you please describe dark matter for me based on *any* empirical evidence of its existence?

I'll wait.

In the meantime, the new gravity theories on the other hand *are* directly detectable and measurable and also fit the model.

So I'd say gravity has a big cosmological leg up on whatever the hell "dark matter" actually might be should it even exist.

That's my point. I don't have a dog in this fight so to speak. But verifiable and measurable facts matter an awful lot.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Riffrafter

Right...

That isn't exactly true. Nor do we have nearly enough information to assume anything like your saying.

The measurements being taken now are certainly working for dark matters place in the theories. The Planck observatory for instance.

Also the equipment possible to make measurements is just coming on line.

You explanation doesn't currently fit or have a place in a cosmological model does it? Can you explain what replaces the inflationary period? What was before the photon epoch?

I am not sure you understand that when the "placeholder" is put into equations the models are ending up with as much acurracy as this theory.

How would you these results hold up to falsifiability?

About like unicorns.


OK.

Can you please describe dark matter for me based on *any* empirical evidence of its existence?

I'll wait.

In the meantime, the new gravity theories on the other hand *are* directly detectable and measurable and also fit the model.

So I'd say gravity has a big cosmological leg up on whatever the hell "dark matter" actually might be should it even exist.

That's my point. I don't have a dog in this fight so to speak. But verifiable and measurable facts matter an awful lot.


Uh there are several things dark matter can be you should read any links I provided.

Can you explain what measurement was taken in this expirment and how you would be able to falsify the theory as of right now?

Have you read the Planck observatory findings?

There is far more than just measuring here. Does a theory about the surface of Mars have to be false before a space telescope is invented? There aren't any other ways to predict this?



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier




There is far more than just measuring here. Does a theory about the surface of Mars have to be false before a space telescope is invented? There aren't any other ways to predict this?


Not that it matters but I'm very surprised that you used this example. Remember all of the accepted theories about all of the real canals on Mars - with running water in them - and the cities and potential Martian beings (past or present at that time) that went along with it? And this was actually based on crude observations with early telescopes.

We all know how that theory worked out.

My point is that dark matter was never meant to be an actual substance/thing. It was used as a placeholder to explain the discrepancies of mass in the universe (there is far too little mass to explain so many other things), until such time that the *actual* thing could be detected, measured, and tested in the equations.

Some form of Gravity could very well be that "thing". In other words - dark matter the placeholder could potentially be some form of gravity. Or it could be something else entirely.

Somehow, people seem to have forgotten that...and have seized on this "dark matter is a real thing", based on *no* real evidence of any kind, whatsoever.

Either way - I hope it gets figured out in my lifetime.

Thanks for the interesting conversation.




posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

I don't think this theory does anything but explain lensing.

Dark matter has every bit as much measurement as this theory so far.

It in now way explains the cosmological model yet.

This theory in reality is far far less tested than any of dark matter.

It already has rebuttals.

No sir this is just an infant theory. One to watch as papers get tested. Which by the way hasn't happened yet by any means. This is the first test and it hasn't even had time to be scrutinized thoroughly.

That is what I am saying. Not that it isn't possibly very valid.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but did not dark matter become an issue when computer models showed that galaxies like ours could not form, if it were not compensated for by Dark Matter?

Verlinde's hypothesis of gravity is actually really interesting although it places a lot of influence (like in the case of inflation) upon dimensions.

Implying that inflation was inherent in nature given the conditions due to string theory technically.

And by "technically", I mean in so far as we understand.
edit on 21-12-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: luthier




There is far more than just measuring here. Does a theory about the surface of Mars have to be false before a space telescope is invented? There aren't any other ways to predict this?


Not that it matters but I'm very surprised that you used this example. Remember all of the accepted theories about all of the real canals on Mars - with running water in them - and the cities and potential Martian beings (past or present at that time) that went along with it? And this was actually based on crude observations with early telescopes.

We all know how that theory worked out.

My point is that dark matter was never meant to be an actual substance/thing. It was used as a placeholder to explain the discrepancies of mass in the universe (there is far too little mass to explain so many other things), until such time that the *actual* thing could be detected, measured, and tested in the equations.

Some form of Gravity could very well be that "thing". In other words - dark matter the placeholder could potentially be some form of gravity. Or it could be something else entirely.

Somehow, people seem to have forgotten that...and have seized on this "dark matter is a real thing", based on *no* real evidence of any kind, whatsoever.

Either way - I hope it gets figured out in my lifetime.

Thanks for the interesting conversation.

if you knew what it was it wouldn't be there. Feel free to measure it, I even encourage you to do so but I can assure you that the dark does the measuring, it always had and it always will which tells me to catch a measurement may very well mean your caught. All mysticism aside it's measurement is mine.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
There are more than one way to measure the mass and the mass distribution in a galaxy

www.lsst.org...

This is a great example of how a cluster of galaxies providing a lens effect bending light can be de-convolved in order to give you the 'lens shape' or in effect the distribution of mass within the cluster. While yeah resolution could be not so hot, BUT what is found in the image is that the sharp peaks represent most of the visible component of the galaxies in a geometric sense... the lobes... not much present what can be optically observed. The distributions do fit the theorised models and the simulated evolution in which a 'dark matter halo surrounds each of the galaxies.

There is also the issue of the bullet cluster...

You also speak as though you understand the field and what scientists think and thought of the theory like you where there... but at the same time you appear quite ignorant of the evidence and the theories surrounding the field itself... not a good show



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
There are more than one way to measure the mass and the mass distribution in a galaxy

www.lsst.org...

This is a great example of how a cluster of galaxies providing a lens effect bending light can be de-convolved in order to give you the 'lens shape' or in effect the distribution of mass within the cluster. While yeah resolution could be not so hot, BUT what is found in the image is that the sharp peaks represent most of the visible component of the galaxies in a geometric sense... the lobes... not much present what can be optically observed. The distributions do fit the theorised models and the simulated evolution in which a 'dark matter halo surrounds each of the galaxies.

There is also the issue of the bullet cluster...

You also speak as though you understand the field and what scientists think and thought of the theory like you where there... but at the same time you appear quite ignorant of the evidence and the theories surrounding the field itself... not a good show
you wanna get some work done or you wanna put on a show. Brandon Lee died because an actor couldn't tell between a prop and a tool.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Albert Einstein in all probability considered the idea of 26 dimensions absurd but if 16 of them where folded within ten dimensions, so that they were relevant to the structure of those ten dimensions?

Perhaps he would not have considered it so funny.
edit on 21-12-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
Albert Einstein in all probability considered the idea of 26 dimensions absurd but if 16 of them where folded within ten dimensions, so that they were relevant to the structure of those ten dimensions?

Perhaps he would not have considered it so funny.
cool so I work a little different than most, I'm wrong about everything and then you get it right. You study Einstein, I put 9 demensions on top of each other and kept the other one separate for now. If you really want to do some work let me know and we'll keep in touch. I am literally the guy that builds that #.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: spectranometron

Try and have some relevance to the thread please.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: spectranometron

Try and have some relevance to the thread please.
I'm fishing.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join