Originally posted by Come Clean
reply to post by theAymen
I'm confused as usual but correct me if I'm wrong. Scientists claim 98% of matter can't even be seen. What we see makes up about 2% of all
matter. Not sure about the percentages but I know it's really lopsided. So my question would be this. Did they just discover something that has
already been discovered but not confirmed? Someone mentioned it before. Dark matter or dark energy. I would imagine one or both is not constant
throughout space. Maybe there was a high concentration of one or both of these that the probes went through.
I think you are mixing up TWO different things;
There is a lot of gas and dust between objects in the Universe -- obscuring things. When the dust is illuminated by charged particles -- it is called
a "Nebulae." These are considered the breading grounds of new stars. The mass of planets and "hard" or cold objects is minuscule compared to the
mass of stars.
>> The "invisible matter" is a theory used to try to explain why Galaxies don't just fly apart. Their speed of rotation and the "blue shift" of
the light from the stars, should give us an indication of about 98% of the mass of the Galaxy. But there isn't ENOUGH mass to keep them in such tight
orbits with such a fast spin. If there were NORMAL MATTER, that was NOT emitting light (like a star), then it would be occluding the light (like
lot's of little rocks). So the concept of most every galaxy having a large black hole in the middle came about. It still isn't enough mass,
So "Dark Matter" is a theory where we've got an invisible particle that only adds mass but does NOT absorb light or smack into planets (which would
cause solid objects to glow from collisions -- right?).
>> My own theory is that Gravity is about a thousand times stronger than current theory holds -- but it does not DIRECTLY interact with matter. It
both pushes objects away and in short range, pulls them together -- kind of like why all the atoms in the world don't just collapse into one huge
particle -- the FORCE pushing them apart is stronger than the "ionization" force attracting them together. Physics uses more than one force to
describe this -- but it's all theory because the forces cannot be SCENE -- only measured.
IN MY THEORY; there is only one force in physics; "space/time" and due to a 12-diminensional matrix and plane old geometry -- it appears as if there
are many forces opposing one another. So light is the inverse of gravity, and an electric charge is a difference of "time" of particles occupying
the same space. Nuclear forces are just the "parallax" of the same force creating gravity, electron shells are "acoustic domains" or resonances of
the 3 distinct dimensional "branes" that interface at a particle. Only one type of particle as well - - more of a "torus" that makes up these
things called quarks -- which make up the electrons and protons and neutrons but they are all the same except for geometry of how the same particle is
combined or it's "resonance" in space/time. The fundamental particle is MERELY a fold in space-time created at the misnomered "big/bang." So,
basically; 12 dimensions (upper and lower with "space/time" in-between), one particle, one force.
The Universe, according to me, will also NOT spread out to infinity or collapse into a singularity -- it will "invert" after resonating at one
frequency. Physics will also drastically change in stages as the universe ages. But each "age" is about a thousand times longer than the one before
in "time." But that's all relatively the same -- it's hard to make this easy to understand;
But basically, a galaxy has an upward limit on size because of LIGHT SPEED. When you are in a large gravity well, time slows down -- but LIGHT still
moves at light speed. As more mass collects, however, it takes more acceleration to escape the mass.
When the Universe was "young" time would be SLOWER internally, because there was more acceleration due to "hotter particles" and there was LESS
SPACE between objects. So if an object is vibrating at a very fast rate, BUT time is slower -- is it really hotter? If the Young Universe was so much
denser (less pace between particles), then it must have also experienced slowing of time for objects in that space. Hence, even if a certain stage
wold be clocked by us as being 10,000 seconds in length, or 100,000 years -- it might have "internally" lasted for the same length as our age.
Ah -- the confusion of Relativity.
Anyway, this crazy perspective of twisting dimensions and such seems to come naturally to me. I seem to have no problem with some of the esoteric
"physical" understandings of Quantum or string theory. And once you get beyond the math that makes them so very complicated -- there seems to be a
lot of fundamental problems. Like I understand the "split light" experiment where a photon interferes with itself -- but it DOES NOT, prove to me
that light is both a particle and a wave -- it proves to me that light is a wave riding on "a thing called SPACE" and that it can only transfer as a
DISCRETE PACKET of energy. Quantum physics is all about "discrete packets" and it's much easier for me to understand that it's ALL WAVE FORMS that
can only exchange energy at acoustic points. I.e.; if everything is a wave -- it will look like everything is particles because ONLY at discrete
boundaries can things interfere with each other. If everything however were made of particles, the sub-atomic world would behave in an analog fashion,
because the ANGLE of incidence of the particles would influence the energy output.
Quantum (or Particle physics) does NOT explain why everything is in exact and discrete packets -- except by adding in many more special particles and
things like "not being able to test for speed and location" of a particle -- it just APPEARS in one place or another -- never between, which flies
in the face of Light Speed. Hence -- a Universal theory that combines Newtonian, Special Relativity and Quantum Physics cannot be found, because they
are looking at it the wrong way. Relativity is broken all the time -- but things that don't "mesh" don't exist and things that do "fit" the laws
of physics remain. The Quantum Effect is a byproduct of resonance. So, we've got a consistent, ordered universe and Quantum Probability (all things
possible create a new Universe) coexisting. The Universe is ordered and rational and appears to behave the laws of physics because all the un-ordered
events annihilate each other. Subspace is infinitely energized, and what we think of as "reality" is the eye in the storm. We are motes of
"nothingness" that separates absolute chaos.
Think about this; the size of an electron compared to an atomic nucleus and the "space" taken up by an atom, is pretty similar to the size of
Jupiter and it's orbit around the Sun. An atom, is MOSTLY vacant space.
What stops one solid object from moving through another? Well, solid objects have ionic of covalent bonds -- links between charges in their atoms.
Liquids are nearly as dense as solids but do NOT have charged atomic bonds. However -- why do the charges of one atom prevent another atom moving
through it? Two rocks, might INTERNALLY have ionic bonds -- but how do those bonds prevent the two rocks from overlapping?
That's where we get all these "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces that are supposed to solve these conundrums of very, very tiny particles. But I
contend that "space" itself, is what is being influenced by the atoms, and that the SPACE of both rocks is out of sync -- resonating for each and
every atom inside -- and THAT is what prevents objects from occupying the same space. So yes; I predict "force fields" are possible. That we can
eventually make SPACE itself solid.
Space itself is the discrete OBJECT (better know as the aether), and what we think of as particles, are merely folds in the Universe that spew out
space/time. When they form lower-energy structures with other particles, they influence that space internally. When an atomic field contracts, it
throws off what we call "photons" -- but internally, these "photons" are resonating all the time, effecting space itself. We ONLY see the
contraction. We DO NOT see the expansion of space -- and that's what I call "gravity." Anyway, I've tried to describe this a lot of ways, and
that's about the simplest I can come up with. I'm not throwing out things that are arbitrary -- any theory should be able to be disproven or to
predict what we see in an experiment. The Universe did not always have these "solid" structures -- it was too energetic right after the big bang. It
did not have "light" at first, because there was no contraction of "space/time" yet. All these changes in physics are fundamentally a GEOMETRIC
relationship between the 3 groups of "branes" that create the underlying structure of the Universe. As one grows and another shrinks -- the
proportions and rate of change influence the laws of physics. Until it reaches a critical "state change" -- much like when a gas becomes a liquid,
or water becomes ice, the forces seem to be very consistent. I speculate, however, that all these "state changes" happen everywhere at once; NOT
starting in one area and spreading to another.
I could make a LOT of predictions and experiments to prove or disprove that -- but I'm NOT in any way a person that gets listened to, nor am I in
any position to spend my life doing science. I have all the insight and none of the practical skills to actually accomplish much of anything.