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.

 

The first picture that really shows dark matter.

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


LOL

Here comes the camera..

LOL
I think I confused dark matter with anti-matter lol



The NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) is funding a team of researchers working on a new design for an antimatter-powered spaceship that avoids this nasty side effect by producing gamma rays with much lower energy.

www.nasa.gov...

The most obvious difference between matter and anti-matter is probably mass, that anti-matter has negative mass, what ever the F- that means lol



antimatter has negative mass, it could not emit or reflect light, ...


The fact could be, that Dark matter and Anti-matter = the same//

We just don't know, we don't have dark matter, we don't know much at all about them.

I think those galaxies of supposed dark matter, could be actually galaxies created from anti-matter.



Because the properties of matter and antimatter parallel each other, we believe that the physics and chemistry of a galaxy made entirely from antimatter would closely parallel that of our our matter galaxy. Thus, is is conceivable that life built on antimatter could have evolved at other places in the Universe, just as life based on matter has evolved here. (But if your antimatter twin should show up some day, I would advise against shaking hands---remember that matter and antimatter annihilate each other!) However, we have no evidence thus far for large concentrations of antimatter anywhere in the Universe. Everything that we see so far seems to be matter. If true, this is something of a mystery, because naively there are reasons from fundamental physics to believe that the Universe should have produced about as much matter as antimatter.


I think they are lying to us for what ever reason, they are claiming that there are no galaxies of anti-Matter, but there is something else we don't know crap about, hence dark matter.

While fundamental science predicts the exact same amount of anti-matter, as matter.

In the end I don't know..

[edit on 26-8-2010 by oozyism]




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


LOL

Here comes the camera..

LOL
I think I confused dark matter with anti-matter lol


Yeah. That makes alot more sense!


antimatter has negative mass, it could not emit or reflect light, ...


Incorrect. Antimatter has mass and can emit and reflect light, not negative mass, but opposite charge from it's regular counterpart.

One example:
Electron: Negative charge
Positron: Postive charge

Photos are their own antiparticles.


We just don't know, we don't have dark matter, we don't know much at all about them.


But antimatter is produced in even radioactive decay, B+ decay, which produces positrons. There was even something I recall about lightning producing small amounts.


While fundamental science predicts the exact same amount of anti-matter, as matter.


Well, something to chew on:
Fermilab Finds New Mechanism for Matter's Dominance over Antimatter

Obviously scientific investigation isn't over-and-done. If the model doesn't fit all the observed facts, the model will be changed.

[edit on 8/26/2010 by EnlightenUp]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Well I found this:


Yes, light does reflect off of antimatter.

Antimatter would behave the same way that matter does. Assuming the same physical laws, an antimatter universe would be indistinguishable from a matter universe. We would see antimatter stars, antimatter galaxies, and maybe even antimatter water or "antiwater." Antiwater molecules would each be made up of two antihydrogen atoms and one antioxygen atom, and in sufficient quantities it would flow like normal water and appear transparent. If antimatter life exists in such a universe they probably thrive on antiwater.

Stars in an antimatter universe would produce photons in the same way that matter in our own stars do, and since photons have a zero charge (and contain no charged sub-particles) there would be no difference between light produced in an antimatter universe and a matter universe.


Yahoo answers


Thanks for not having a go at me for confusing anti-matter and dark-matter lol.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


The blue-purple colour was not in the original image, it has been superimposed to show where dark matter should be to produce that effect on the galaxies. See this Planetarium Blog

Dark matter cannot be seen or imaged in anyway.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Ha! Looks like today is my day for shedding like on confusing cosmological puzzles here on ATS. I've just finished clearing things up on this thread, and now here I am.

The present confusion is a lot more easily explained, thank goodness. Dark matter is invisible. So is dark energy. That purple glow isn't something Hubble photographed; it has been artificially added to the photo. The purple patch shows the distribution of dark matter around a cluster of galaxies called Abell 1869. That's the cluster of galaxies visible inside the purple glow--well, some of them at least.

Here's how the astronomers added the purple patch, and why. Galaxies are generally lens-shaped. However, dark matter distorts light passing through it, so if you look at a galaxy through some dark matter (which is invisible and transparent) it doesn't look like a lens but like an arc or crescent.

You can't see any arcs or crescents in the picture, though, however much you zoom in. They've all been taken out to make the picture look less confusing. In place of all those distorted galaxies, the astronomers have painted in a purple patch that shows exactly how the dark matter contained in Abell 1869 is distributed.

That purple, heart-shaped patch shows where the (invisible) dark matter is.

No dark energy (also invisible) is shown in the picture. The distribution of dark matter (the purple heart) is supposed to help astronomers figure out how the dark energy acts and how it is distributed. Don't ask me how that works. I don't know.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


It's not over yet over there. Go shred some more and I'll continue practicing Flight of the Bumblebee on guitar.

The purpose of the purple patch was clearly-enough indicated above.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 

Do you mean your earlier post or Voyager IX's?

Voyager IXposted while I was writing and previewing my own post. As for yours, it's a little, er... gnomic, isn't it?

Bless.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Dark Matter is by no means proven. It's still a theory. I hate it when I read articles that speak about it as though it is not in any doubt whatsoever.

IRM



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 

Do you mean your earlier post or Voyager IX's?

Voyager IXposted while I was writing and previewing my own post. As for yours, it's a little, er... gnomic, isn't it?

Bless.


Yes, I meant mine. I was speculated it had the same purpose and explanation as that of the dark matter article I quoted, before I figured out what was the deal with the blog post conflating dark matter and dark energy (it was before the great deconflation? I don't remember. Several hours is far too long to remember anything). Well it's all there in the thread, whatever happened to happen.

Apologies for the anti-gnomic garrulousness-- when gnomes and anti-gnomes collide-- travelocity at the speed of light.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
pardon my ignorance but this looks like a drawing, or at least some sort of computer generated picture not a photo. i could draw a picture and claim it's dark matter too. i could draw a picture of a man and claim it is a picture of god, but that wouldn't make it true. this picture looks like it was made on microsoft paint.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
This is just an observation but did anyone else notice the apparent lensing effect caused by this purple blob?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
What if it DOES mean love?


Hey? Who's to say it does not!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
This is just an observation but did anyone else notice the apparent lensing effect caused by this purple blob?





Er... you are being sarcastic, aren't you?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


An example of gravitational lensing.....



Why would that be sarcasm.. You can see it plain as day...



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
You can see it plain as day...

Yeah, that's what I mean. It's the lensing effect that shows the dark matter. The purple is just an FX addition showing the extent and distribution of it. Sorry, man.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Oozii
 


Dark energy, science's biggest mystery
By Meg Urry,
Special to CNN
updated 1:55 PM EST, Sun October 9, 2011



www.cnn.com...


Like all astronomers, they expected the expansion to be slowing due to the pull of gravity between galaxies and other matter.



Imagine the shock when the data indicated the expansion was speeding up. Supernovae appeared to be more distant -- fainter -- than if the expansion speed were unchanging. What?! The accelerating rate of expansion signaled that gravity, a force we have known about and loved since the first apple fell from a tree, is a paltry thing compared to some new, utterly unknown, energy field that pushes galaxies apart. We call this new thing "dark energy" -- signifying the energy that appears to push outward, with the adjective "dark" signifying that we know nothing whatsoever about its nature. Moreover, in 2003, NASA's WMAP cosmology satellite showed convincingly that dark energy is the dominant constituent of the universe. This stuff wasn't predicted by any physics theory and was completely unknown until the Nobel prize-winning teams of astronomers and physicists made their measurements -- yet there is more of it than anything else in the universe. More than the atoms that make up you and me and our Earth, more than the hydrogen and helium that pervades the universe, more than the unknown dark matter particles that cause attractive gravity and allow galaxies to form in the first place. Whatever it is, it's teaching us something utterly new about how matter and space and time behave. A fundamentally new physics theory is needed.


I thought this was pretty interesting and thread worthy although I think I will just add it here to your already fascinating thread on the topic of dark energy.
edit on 9-10-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join