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.

 

First dark matter galaxy discovered

page: 2
47
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Probably not very good evidence of dark matter. I decided to look into this a little more and didn't really like what I found.


If the high velocity-profile width of VIRGOHI21 is interpreted as rotation, it is far too fast to be consistent with the gravity of the detected hydrogen. Rather, it implies the presence of a dark matter halo with tens of billions of solar masses.
source

So if they just arbitrarily claim it's rotation, then it would mean dark matter? Arrogant bastards huh? How about first learning if it is indeed rotation or not before *claiming* it is rotation and thus dark matter? Wouldn't really hurt would it?


Sensitive maps covering a much wider area, obtained at Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT) and at Arecibo Observatory revealed VIRGOHI21 is embedded within a much more extensive tail originating in NGC 4254.[5][6] Both the distribution of the HI gas and its velocity field can be reproduced by a model involving NGC 4254 in a high-speed collision with another galaxy (probably NGC 4192), which is now somewhat distant.[7] Other debris tails of this magnitude have been found to be common features in the Virgo cluster, where the high density of galaxies makes interactions frequent.[8][9] These results suggest that VIRGOHI21 is not an unusual object, given its location at the edge of the densest region of the Virgo cluster.
same source

This seems more probable to me considering this same formation appears to be the norm for that region of space. Looks more like wishful thinking than actual dark matter.




posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by daniel_g
 


Yikes, missed that before I replied to the OP. I'm still a little disenchanted with their choice of words. What do they mean by 'appears to be rotating'? It either is or is not rotating, or am I wrong on how the universe works?



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deny Arrogance
I wasn't aware that anybody has actually discovered "dark matter" itself.
And here they find a whole galaxy of it?

Thats what I was thinking..
I was under the impression that Dark Matter is more of a theory based on scientific results. I thought it wasn't proven.
...... Boom!!!!! A whole galaxy of it?!
What's next? Water on the moon?!



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
This whole "dark matter" thing is bunk.

All it is, is "Shaded matter", it is in the shade.
Shadow, silhouette, whatever you want to call it.

It is normal matter simply not reflecting light back to us in this particular direction. From another vantage point I am sure you would see light reflect off of it, thus it would be visible in the light.


What are you going to try to convince me that dark matter absorbs ALL light rather than reflecting it? You gotta be kidding me.

The galaxy may exist, but its a normal average one, simply having it's light blocked by dust/rocks/clouds/etc.

Dark Matter is a joke. It's just in the shade.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by muzzleflash]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
theresonanceproject.org...
theresonanceproject.org...
theresonanceproject.org...
theresonanceproject.org...
theresonanceproject.org...

this you check out. most people won't understand most of the stuff. but the even the introductions are important. most of you guys already know Nassim Haramein. But in my eyes. Some of his theories make a lot of sense. And he nicely debunks Dark Matter / Energy over here.

If there are any theoretical physicists here. Seriously got to take a look.

Appreciated



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
blog.ted.com...

Enjoy

Hope it helps



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Anything that exerts a gravitational force can be considered matter. In other words, matter is a quantifiable amount of energy that also exerts a force. In order for us to see this matter with ordinary light, IMO, this energy has to coalesce to a wavelength of more than 350 nm(or vibrating at less than 1 "petahertz", or 1 million billion cycles per second, at least that is my new theory.)



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by np6888
Anything that exerts a gravitational force can be considered matter. In other words, matter is a quantifiable amount of energy that also exerts a force. In order for us to see this matter with ordinary light, IMO, this energy has to coalesce to a wavelength of more than 350 nm(or vibrating at less than 1 "petahertz", or 1 million billion cycles per second, at least that is my new theory.)


OK, so if energy is not a property or function of matter, then what is energy itself? Try as hard as I might, I can never find any source of energy that is not explicitly a property or function of matter itself.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Well, from what I've gathered, energy is something required to do work or to change speed or states. In other words, energy can simply be think of as a force, and indeed if F = ma and E = mc'2, then F = Ea/c'2(all "intangibles").



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by np6888
 


Engery is momentum of any moving object

Small or large.

and i know people will get confused and say objects dont move "rocks" well in fact they do on sub atomic and atomic levels

you just cant see it moving is the problem

that is why matter and engergy can not be destory they are both one of the same thing.

we can no detect it because its the opisit to what we understand yet we know its there as a "force'' as you put it

we just cant see this force "as a physical partical" or a wave for that matter.. "yet"




posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Wait, the frequency of visible light(or what we perceive as color) is from 400-700 TeraHertz, which is very close to what I just wrote(I got the above estimated frequency by dividing the speed of light by the wavelength). Wow, so this means that I must be pretty close with my theory on how light and the universe works.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by np6888
 


only problem is its not "light" that is our problem.. its detection of gravity "kinda"

light is not used when locating dark matter or dark energy "gravity is"




posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I'm not sure galaxy is the good word.
cause galaxy have stars.

They detect dark matter in the ellipse. OK.
But the shape or content of the dark matter cloud is not identified.

So dark galaxy or dark star are still speculative.
Dark cloud less.

correct me if I'm wrong.


[edit on 28-12-2009 by mixmix]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Basically, "raising our vibration"(or frequency) would mean that we would evolve toward becoming less "unseen." And...that's all I have for now.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by np6888
 


in aspect of light yes. in aspect of dark matter nope


You see its gravity that us allows us to detect it not light as show in the TED vid i posted.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Matthew Dark
 


The phenomenon you are inferring to is gravitational lensing , intense gravitational fields bend light, we use it to gauge distance and determine mass. This picture shows nothing. I am going to read the article to see whats going on

well interesting read seems its not massive enough to bend light they only detected the galaxy because some "light" is being emitted, enough to detect the hydrogen atoms anyway. interesting.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by oatie]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mixmix
 


Yes, dark clouds is the force around the elipse we are detecting "not via light" but via gravity and our understanding of it.

Dark energy on the other hand is even more bizzar its like a force inbetween atoms and other things that gives them there mometum or "axis" and spin around the nuculi of atoms them self

this is what the LHC is trying to find.. kinda or at least parts of the puzzle

Tho they will not find the god partical they could in fact detect dark matter and energy.

and i dont see why they wouldnt!



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by oatie
 


It does indeed show something, the patch of space the gravity was indeed detected and given mass



May not look like anything but then again can you see gravity? ; )



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 


actually you can see gravity, or at least its effect on light. like i said earlier they detected the hydrogen atoms so some light was detected



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by np6888
Well, from what I've gathered, energy is something required to do work or to change speed or states. In other words, energy can simply be think of as a force, and indeed if F = ma and E = mc'2, then F = Ea/c'2(all "intangibles").




Here is what I've been able to gather in respect to what you've just posted.


In physics, energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια - energeia, "activity, operation", from ἐνεργός - energos, "active, working"[1]) is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law. Different forms of energy include kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound, light, elastic, and electromagnetic energy. The forms of energy are often named after a related force.


OK, so in physics, energy is nothing more than an attribute of objects. The amount of 'work' they are able to do. So I looked up force and got this:


In physics, the concept of force is used to describe how a massive body is affected by acceleration or mechanical stress.[1] Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or pull that can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate, or which can cause a flexible object to deform. Related concepts to accelerating forces include thrust - any force which increases the velocity of the object, drag - any force which decreases the velocity of any object, and torque - the tendency of a force to cause changes in rotational speed about an axis. Alternatively, mechanical stress is a technical term for the efforts which cause deformation of matter, be it solid, liquid, or gaseous. While mechanical stress can remain embedded in a solid object, gradually deforming it, mechanical stress in a fluid determines changes in its pressure and volume.[2][3]


OK, so we're still stuck with energy/force being described by physics as dealing with only material objects made of matter. Then I got a bit curious as to how this ties into Einsteins famous equation.


In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. The mass of a body as measured on a scale is always equal to the total energy inside, divided by a constant c2 that changes the units appropriately:


OK, so this famous equation does nothing more than tell us how much energy/force matter will exert if converted into usable 'energy', which when we take energy and force into account as defined by physics, it still is just matter.


So I'm still left perplexed and confused with this concept of energy as a separate aspect that is not related to matter. It get's even more damning when I look up all the various forces and their force carriers and the various forms of energy and how they are propagated.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join