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.

 

My theory on Dark Matter

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   
It's just a guess, but what i think Dark Matter is, is the other planes of reality that we can't sense or see because they have a different vibration.




posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:54 AM
link   
This is something I've considered before, but the problem to me is that there seems to be a finite amount of anti-matter.. They claim to have measured it somehow.. This doesn't sit well the the idea of infinity.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   
we can't see it because it doesn't interact with light. I think they should call it invisible matter since that more accurately describes it



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   
What do you mean by different vibration?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
What do you mean by different vibration?


a lower or higher (generally lower) density and speed of the movement of the molecules/particles/waves that make up the realm. but still coexisting with the other vibrations.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by 19872012

Originally posted by -PLB-
What do you mean by different vibration?


a lower or higher (generally lower) density and speed of the movement of the molecules/particles/waves that make up the realm. but still coexisting with the other vibrations.


A low density of molecules means a low mass. For example, a vacuum has in fact a very low density of molecules. A low density is still detectable, and doesn't account for the amount of dark matter that has been predicted. As for the speed of movement of molecules, that is called temperature. When molecules are moving faster, it is hotter, when they are moving slower, it is colder.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




A low density of molecules means a low mass.


Density, not density.

The general idea is not "mass per volume" but rather, "stuff per space." For example, "population density" is not literally a measure of the amount of physical mass of the people in an area, but the number of people in an area.



As for the speed of movement of molecules, that is called temperature.
When molecules are moving faster, it is hotter, when they are moving slower, it is colder.


Ok. But speed is a measure of distance per time. Distance per time is conceptually similar to stuff per space. If matter is thought of as vibrating, then a measure of the number of vibrations per time is still a measure of "density" and "heat" can just as easily be thought of as "energy density."

It probably won't get you credit on your college exams, but the expression is in very common usage here.



[edit on 5-8-2010 by LordBucket]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket

The general idea is not "mass per volume" but rather, "stuff per space." For example, "population density" is not literally a measure of the amount of physical mass of the people in an area, but the number of people in an area.


Then you are not talking about "molecules/particles/waves that make up the realm" but about specific particles that have a low "density". So they become "transparent", but because of their large number do account for a lot of mass? That is very similar to the general idea of what dark matter is.


Ok. But speed is a measure of distance per time. Distance per time is conceptually similar to stuff per space. If matter is thought of as vibrating, then a measure of the number of vibrations per time is still a measure of "density" and "heat" can just as easily be thought of as "energy density."


I don't really follow this. You say that distance per time is conceptually similar to stuff per space, but it seems to me these are two different concepts. I also do not follow you when you say that if matter is thought of as vibrating, then the frequency is a measure of density. Why isn't for example the amplitude a measure of the density? Or the phase? To the last part, that faster moving particles mean a higher energy density, I can agree to some level. Although this would only be true as long as all particles remain in a constant state. When a reaction takes place, the movement of particles (or temperature) can change but the energy density would remain constant. It will just be "stored" differently in that region of space.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




you are not talking about "molecules/particles/waves that make
up the realm" but about specific particles that have a low
"density". So they become "transparent", but because of their
large number do account for a lot of mass?


Well, me personally...I was just trying to explain what I think the OP probably meant when he used the word "density" in what appeared to be a spiritual/channeling context rather a highschool physics context. When he comes back he can explain what he really intended, but in the meantime...

I am talking about the molecule/particles/waves that make up the realm, but "realm" in this context is pretty much defined as a range of vibrational rates of the things in it. We're using more words than we need to in order to describe a very simple thing.

In the original post, 19872012 stated he thinks dark matter is "the other planes of reality that we can't sense or see because they have a different vibration."

Think of the EM spectrum and an antenna. If you have an antenna tuned to a particular radio frequency, it will "pick up" radio waves of that frequency. Other frequencies will be "invisible" to it. Similarly, if we as human being are "tuned" to a particular frequency range, we'll "pick up" objects of similar frequency. I think the OP is simply proposing that dark matter is matter that exists outside our perceptual range. But...more than just "we can't see it." More like "can't meaningfully interact with it." Saying that it exists in "other planes of reality" is basically just a fancy way of saying so.



You say that distance per time is conceptually similar to
stuff per space, but it seems to me these are two different concepts.


In this context, I'm not intending "space" in the sense of "volume."

If there is one human being in a house, the population density in that house is one person per house. If there is one musical note on a bar, the note density on that bar is one note per bar. The fact that a note isn't a physical object is irrelevant, and even if you play the note audibly rather than draw it on a piece of paper, the concepts and the ratios remain the same.

If a ball is rolling at a rate of 1 kilometer per hour, then the travel density of the event of the ball rolling is 1 kilometer per hour.

Again, in its most general sense, "density" is just "stuff per space." What the stuff is, and the nature of the space containing that stuff isn't terribly important. Even if the "stuff" isn't physical matter or the "space" isn't physical volume.

So, tying this in with the above, "density" here really means "vibrational density." For example, gamma rays have a shorter wavelength than radio waves. So if you absorb ten seconds worth of gamma rays and ten seconds worth of radio waves, over those ten seconds you will have absorbed more occilations of gamma waves than radio waves. More occiliations per measure of time means higher vibrational density.



if matter is thought of as vibrating, then
the frequency is a measure of density.


Exactly. If a chunk of matter is vibrating at 30 cycles per second, then it's vibrational density is 30 cycles per second.

Take a blank piece of paper and draw several dots in a row. Imagine those dots as atoms, and the piece of paper as a box. The more dots on the paper, the greater the mass density being depicted. Now take that exact same piece of paper, without changing anything, and imagine those dots as wavecrests, and the paper as a measure of time. The more dots on the paper, the greater the vibrational density is being depicted.

But you haven't changed the paper. It's the same concept. Only how we think about it is different.



So they become "transparent", but because of their
large number do account for a lot of mass?


If the nature of matter is that it itself is occilations, then the higher the vibrational rate of that matter, the greater its mass would be.


[edit on 5-8-2010 by LordBucket]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket

Well, me personally...I was just trying to explain what I think the OP probably meant when he used the word "density" in what appeared to be a spiritual/channeling context rather a highschool physics context. When he comes back he can explain what he really intended, but in the meantime...

I am talking about the molecule/particles/waves that make up the realm, but "realm" in this context is pretty much defined as a range of vibrational rates of the things in it. We're using more words than we need to in order to describe a very simple thing.

In the original post, 19872012 stated he thinks dark matter is "the other planes of reality that we can't sense or see because they have a different vibration."

Think of the EM spectrum and an antenna. If you have an antenna tuned to a particular radio frequency, it will "pick up" radio waves of that frequency. Other frequencies will be "invisible" to it. Similarly, if we as human being are "tuned" to a particular frequency range, we'll "pick up" objects of similar frequency. I think the OP is simply proposing that dark matter is matter that exists outside our perceptual range. But...more than just "we can't see it." More like "can't meaningfully interact with it." Saying that it exists in "other planes of reality" is basically just a fancy way of saying so.


The term vibration remains vague to me, it is not clear to me what exactly is vibrating. It seems to me that we can interact with dark matter by gravity. Although I am not sure if we can actually influence dark matter ourselves, maybe we are completely invisible to it. But I think dark matter itself probably also reacts to gravity.




In this context, I'm not intending "space" in the sense of "volume."

If there is one human being in a house, the population density in that house is one person per house. If there is one musical note on a bar, the note density on that bar is one note per bar. The fact that a note isn't a physical object is irrelevant, and even if you play the note audibly rather than draw it on a piece of paper, the concepts and the ratios remain the same.

If a ball is rolling at a rate of 1 kilometer per hour, then the travel density of the event of the ball rolling is 1 kilometer per hour.

Again, in its most general sense, "density" is just "stuff per space." What the stuff is, and the nature of the space containing that stuff isn't terribly important. Even if the "stuff" isn't physical matter or the "space" isn't physical volume.

So, tying this in with the above, "density" here really means "vibrational density." For example, gamma rays have a shorter wavelength than radio waves. So if you absorb ten seconds worth of gamma rays and ten seconds worth of radio waves, over those ten seconds you will have absorbed more occilations of gamma waves than radio waves. More occiliations per measure of time means higher vibrational density.


If space is not volume, then what is it? It seems to me that understanding what you mean by "stuff" and "space" is very relevant to understand what you mean by stuff per space.



Exactly. If a chunk of matter is vibrating at 30 cycles per second, then it's vibrational density is 30 cycles per second.

Take a blank piece of paper and draw several dots in a row. Imagine those dots as atoms, and the piece of paper as a box. The more dots on the paper, the greater the mass density being depicted. Now take that exact same piece of paper, without changing anything, and imagine those dots as wavecrests, and the paper as a measure of time. The more dots on the paper, the greater the vibrational density is being depicted.

But you haven't changed the paper. It's the same concept. Only how we think about it is different.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by LordBucket]


You can indeed look at frequency as the density of oscillation with respect to time, or "vibrational density", but its an odd way of describing it. Are you saying that the "stuff per space" density is equal to the "vibrational" density? Or are these two densities entirely different? Or in other words, the number of vibration per time unit determine how much "stuff" there is in a certain "space"?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I have a theory too.

Dark Matter = Concept created to fill in the holes of scientific ignorance.

That is to say that since the observation does not support calculations, and we are sure calculations are correct, then it must be some invisible thing out there that must account for the calculation errors.
Come on, is this the best our "great minds" can do?
Or is it just a cover story to keep us ignorant from the reality of reality.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProdigalSon
I have a theory too.

Dark Matter = Concept created to fill in the holes of scientific ignorance.

That is to say that since the observation does not support calculations, and we are sure calculations are correct, then it must be some invisible thing out there that must account for the calculation errors.
Come on, is this the best our "great minds" can do?
Or is it just a cover story to keep us ignorant from the reality of reality.



However you twist it, there must be something out there we can not observe. If the force that keeps together the galaxies is not caused by dark matter, there must be something else that that is responsible for that force. So either way, we can't observe what is responsible for this force.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProdigalSon
Dark Matter = Concept created to fill in the holes of scientific ignorance.


This is an important distinction for someone who might believe that dark matter is some mysterious object we directly observe and don't understand.

However, you're taking it too far by challenging the legitimacy of this as a tool for theory and research. Many, many major discoveries were undertaken in just this way - a mysterious phenomenon is observed, and science sets out to look for the nature of the phenomenon. Just because it has a nice marketing term doesn't mean it's an invalid approach.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


sure there are things not seen and that are there, but is no justification to make up "Dark Matter".
They can't even give a decent definition of what it consists. What type of forces are involved. That means that if there is Dark matter there are also "dark forces" yet to be known. But they simply attribute mass to it so it can help their numbers and that's it.
Can't they just state "we don't know" and get over with it.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ProdigalSon
 


We use the term matter because the force that is observed is a gravitational force. And gravitational force is a property of matter. What this dark matter really is, or in other words what exactly is causing this gravitational force, is still completely open for debate.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProdigalSon
Can't they just state "we don't know" and get over with it.


I think the problem is that the scientists do say that "we don't know," but journalists really like the term "dark matter."

I suppose it's a bit of a leap to suggest that some unseen matter is the cause for observational discrepancies, but it's not as though every astronomer walks around pretending dark matter is certainly this or that. It's either one of two things really - either the current theories are valid and there's just some other player hanging about that we can't see, or the theories have some fundamental flaw which ignores a theoretical "player". It's logical to assume there's a physical unseen actor, because otherwise you'd be putting all these very useful current theories on shaky ground without anything to replace them.

Put another way, I doubt most astronomers would outright dismiss any theory that suggested dark matter wasn't matter at all until the issue is (relatively) settled.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I dont think so called dark matter exists at all, or is required to exist.

I think gravity is not well understood, neither is vacuum.

The vacuum is required to have a near infinite energy level - but then the same people will dismiss this energy and claim vacuum is 'empty'. They will also dismiss the idea that colliding positrons and electrons form particles, rather they will say they 'annihilate' each other. What is the precedent or observational basis for assuming an electron and positron vanish? In every other observable collision between particles - a new particle is created.

The answer to me is simple - they do create a new particle - it is from those particles that vacuum consists. I think it is a super dense fluid, composed of these particles which are plank length particles. They cant be measured, because they are the particle on which we base all measurements - it is this fluid that allows 'matter' to exist, by exerting pressure to keep the particles (waves) from collapsing in on each other (gravity).

The so called dark matter is simply different densities in the vacuum - causing changing gravitational conditions. Where the vacuum density is low - that infers more gaps between those particles - which we would interpret as regions of high gravity.

I should also explain that we cannot tell by observation what the vacuum density might be, however we could observe systems that seem to defy normal parameters - perhaps being too compact, or too diffuse to obey our gravity 'laws'. I think gravity mainly arises from buoyancy - where matter is buoyant and vacuum is the fluid. I also think there is an electromagnetic component to gravity as well.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Amagnon]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProdigalSon
I have a theory too.

Dark Matter = Concept created to fill in the holes of scientific ignorance.


You have zero understanding of scientific method.

Atomic nuclei were discovered when completely unexpected patter of scattering of alpha particles occurred. At first it was a hypothesis which was consistently found true, in due time, and it was not a "filler in the holes". Same occurred with fission, neutrinos and countless other phenomena that since have been explained.

Dark matter may or may not exist, but you looking down at scientists does seem a bit pathetic.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by 19872012

Originally posted by -PLB-
What do you mean by different vibration?


a lower or higher (generally lower) density and speed of the movement of the molecules/particles/waves that make up the realm. but still coexisting with the other vibrations.


Stop making a soup out of physical concepts, you won't get anywhere.

Vibration is not density and not speed and is not particle.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   


They will also dismiss the idea that colliding positrons and electrons form particles, rather they will say they 'annihilate' each other. What is the precedent or observational basis for assuming an electron and positron vanish? In every other observable collision between particles - a new particle is created.


Experimentally electrons and positrons annihilate in collisions producing photons which are themselves 'particles' (in the same sense that all particles are excitations of the underlying quantum fields). There is conservation of energy, momentum (linear & angular).

But photons don't act intuitively like other material particles so it's described as "annihilating".

Most of the stuff in our ordinary existence---excluding photons---operates with conservation laws. The number of electrons and protons & neutrons really don't change except in exotic circumstances outside the realm of common human experience---and this is one of them .

BTW, don't get the conceit that an amateur is going to have any useful ideas on "dark matter". In practice, the various theories for dark matter have to first pass theoretical sensibility and are then tested against detailed and complex astrophysical observations under various assumptions. Doing this right is not easy, it takes years to decades to be able to make progress.


[edit on 5-8-2010 by mbkennel]

[edit on 5-8-2010 by mbkennel]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join