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. Waste material ?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Hello ATS.

I've got a question regarding Dark matter.
I must say I'm no expert what so ever. So please keep it simple please ?

Not so long ago I read an article where scientist said that from every 10 galaxies out there we are only seeing one.

You can read it here.Astronomers find 90% more universe
There was also a thread about it right here. www.abovetopsecret.com...

My first thought was well... we can throw dark matter through the window.

ATS member arbitrageur told me later that dark matter was not only made up because there seems to be 90% of matter missing to explain the universe gravitational behaviour, but within galaxies it's used to explain the rotational speed from the stars at the edge of galaxies. Normally you would say they slow down the further they get from the center. Gravity has less of an impact on the outside then it does within won't you say ?

Well, I've recently seen a video from a guy that explains gravity a little different.



For all you sceptics and experts out there. Please ignore everything what he says except for the gravity part. I recommend the entire video series by the way, I thought they were quite interesting.

My questions.
1. Is his explanation of gravity plausible ?
if it is.
2.Can this explenation be used to explain the rotational speed from stars at the edge of galaxies ?

If it can then along with the 90% of galaxies we can not see. Well... Dark matter could really can go out of the window.

Your thoughts please.

Yours truly

-SK




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


He's very very close to what's really happening.

I have become firmly convinced that matter is a standing wave function. The electron is a standing wave of energy.

A few key points that he mentions are that Maxwell's laws applied in a static universe are the correct interpretation of the universe. This is a correct statement. Nuclear chemistry based on these presumptions tends to be correct. Einstein's field equations are useless and wrong.

Gravity as a function of matter is entirely plausible, I am firmly convinced that gravity is a weak electromagnetic force arising from matter.

The bands planets revolve around in that he talks about is also a very close interpretation to what is happening.

The solar system maintains an electrical balance between large bodies. This is why the planets are spaced as they are. The planets are held in check by this electrical balance imposed on them by electric field of the sun and the inherent charge of the bodies themselves.

He's definitely close with what he's saying.

I believe it is entirely possible to create an anti-gravity "shield" if you like that could negate the effects of gravity. His mention of using an ionized plasma field to accomplish this seems plausible to me.






[edit on 7-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Thank you . Very much


There goes dark matter.
As for the rotational speed of the stars at the edge of galaxies.
Could I see it in the same manner.

Like the stars are balanced with the center cause of the electric balance. But they don't reduce in speed because there is less gravity to slow them down ? or is this another system altogether ?

Like the Earth is slowing down and because of that it looses gravity resulting the Moon to float away.
I would assume this is different in galaxies.

ps.
If I ask dumb questions it's because I've only recently became part of ATS. Sort of like my entrence to this kind of stuff.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Hey there!!!

I see what your talking about, yet not being the dark matter expert, the gravity thing, I believe is an effect, by causality, not the cause.

The 90% more universe: My theory states that, the universe might be something small and insignificant. with the sub-space and outside the normal relm is where the real deal is!

make sense?

s@f



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


Well it does... a little.

What do you mean with sub space ?

The only sub space I know is from scifi tv series.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Gravity as a function of matter is entirely plausible, I am firmly convinced that gravity is a weak electromagnetic force arising from matter.


I agree.

It was a good presentation and the guy made some good points.

I also believe gravity is actually a property of electromagnetism.

The poles of magnets can repel or attract.

To me all of it connects and it is all very plain and obvious.

This is a very interesting thread discussion and I need to go read some more of the posts here.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Ok, there was only 3 posts I hadn't read. Haha.

About the "cant see 90% of the universe" thing. I think that is exactly the problem.

They cannot see it yet.

It is sad they jump off the deep end and make up ridiculous theories and take them as gospel over it.

Just because we cannot see it, just means we cannot see it. It doesn't mean as much about the laws of physics, as it means about our primitive technology and primitive methods of sensing the universe.

I personally think the Universe is infinite in scale, and eternal in scope.

To me, this explains why they are "not seeing 90%" because its true, they are NOT seeing all of it yet.

They think the Universe is only a few trillion light years wide. They never answer the question "What is on the other side of the wall at the end of the Universe".

There is no wall it just keeps going. It's the simplest answer that requires the least amount of BS to back it up.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Well I'm a complete no go area to this subject and even I came to this conclusion with only some common sense.

I appreciate your oppinion I almost thought this was a no go area all together.


Boy I mentioned this once, that we actualy don't really know a thing about the universe on a site back home. The responses were the same as I've read on The all science is a lie thread.


[edit on 7-4-2010 by Sinter Klaas]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


[alittle philosophy of you OP]


The Dark Matter: I've read 'that' all science is a lie thread



awesome....






posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 




I really had to think about that one thanks.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Oh and the discussion of dark matter gets me thinking.

I know it's sort of unrelated but I felt like typing it here.


You know they say the "Universe is only so big" because "they cannot see anything further away than that".

Well, that means light did not reach us from further than they see.

But, historically, as new telescope technology is invented, we are able to see much further.

So in the future, we will have better telescopes that see even further into space than the best ones we have today.

Also, there may be problems. There may be so much stuff in between Earth and the ultra-distant currently non-visible areas of the universe, that the light from those areas could not have reached us anyways.

So there are really tons and tons of reasons why we do not see further than 5 trillion light years in ANY direction. Note, any direction. Indicating we are at the center of the Universe (False). Thus proving it is merely a mistake of perception rather than a law of the Universe.

Watch how "fast the universe" expands when new Telescope tech arrives.

It's funny they don't realize this usually.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I believe you are right.
This new thing Dark flow could then be a very easy to understand result of some kind.

It's a shame this thread atracts so little attention. Is it not a legit question or something ? Or do people really have tunnel vision if it comes to this ?



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


I mean areas that do not order in 3-D, either in sub-atomic or as in outside space completely!



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 




In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a form of matter that is undetectable by emitted or scattered electromagnetic radiation, but whose presence is inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation


en.wikipedia.org...


Subspace is theoretical, yet no one can ID the dark material. So then where does this stuff reside?



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


That's just what I'm trying to find out.

Because I believe the above two reasons in the OP are telling us that dark matter is not needed or nescessarry any more to explain the physics that where it filled the holes.


I mean areas that do not order in 3-D, either in sub-atomic or as in outside space completely!

Ha


After reading this I guess it didn't make sense at all. I had something else in mind that's for sure.

If what I think is true, there shouldn't be anything in hyperspace or outside space at all.

I've seen a cool video showing brown dwarfs in our surounding solar neighborhood. I've posted a link right Here.
(in the last post on page 1)



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 



If what I think is true, there shouldn't be anything in hyperspace or outside space at all.


Well then start on that hypothesis and rewrite physics as we know it!

We've been basically been using the old einstein theory of relativity for too long and need revision, that explains what we see and what we don't.




posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


Maybe we should.

Have you read this one All science is a lie.

I think there are indeed fundamental flaws in physics and that everything could use a new study with other alternative theories as basics and see how far they get with it.

The problem is all the money goes into the chosen parts and not the alternative.




top topics



 
3

log in

join