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.

 

Galactic collision creates mysterious 'dark core'

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Source: CS Monitor


Astronomers are left scratching their heads over a new observation of a “clump” of dark matter apparently left behind after a massive merger between galaxy clusters. What is so puzzling about the discovery is that the dark matter collected into a “dark core” which held far fewer galaxies than expected. The implications of this discovery present challenges to current understandings of how dark matter influences galaxies and galaxy clusters.


This leaves me wondering: I think dark matter is merely a theoretical construct, I mean it's not like someone created some in some laboratory. How can they "see" dark matter with hubble ?




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Hey thats a nice find, great little article!

I totally agree with you, im a bit confused as to how the picture was comprised from the two sources .....

The current theory on dark matter is that it sort of pushes matter togther by repelleing gravitationally, sort of like a lava lamps wax and oil flowing about.

More dark matter than matter, creates the "filiment" or web we see in galaxys distribution out there.


edit on 4-3-2012 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
well... they use what its called gravitational lensing. Big stuff creates a gravitational area that bends light (or deflects it)... and even time/space... so I'm guessing thats what they use to "see" dark matter.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
This leaves me wondering: I think dark matter is merely a theoretical construct, I mean it's not like someone created some in some laboratory. How can they "see" dark matter with hubble ?



Its more or less like you said...Dark matter was accounted for because a variable was missing in their equations. So came in ''dark matter'' to fill the gap



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by jesiaha
 


Has anyone ever wondered instead of "filling the gap" in their previous equations with dark matter, perhaps running under the assumption that maybe, just maybe the equation it self is wrong. Saying that "oh its there because it has to be but we can't see it" and believing that this works to make a true factual statement, is the same thing as saying faith in god is proof that god exists.

Nassim Haramein has some interesting things to say on this subject and there is another thread worth reading along side this one which has links to all sorts of videos and info on the subject:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

enjoy.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I can't remember where I've read it but it said that, in the beginning, when they were deciding between the big bang theory and one which said everything was in place at all times and there was no real big bang, they decided for the big bang theory because the other one needed something called "ether" in order to stand. So they went with big bang because they could mathematically put it into equations.

Ironic thing .. they soon reached a point where this theoretical and ominous "dark matter" had to be theoretically introduced to uphold the theory. You could call the ether then again lol
edit on 4-3-2012 by H1ght3chHippie because: typo



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
news.discovery.com...

An interesting piece about supposed mapping of dark matter.

I'm not 100% conviced however and will follow this thred closely



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
I can't remember where I've read it but it said that, in the beginning, when they were deciding between the big bang theory and one which said everything was in place at all times and there was no real big bang, they decided for the big bang theory because the other one needed something called "ether" in order to stand. So they went with big bang because they could mathematically put it into equations.

Ironic thing .. they soon reached a point where this theoretical and ominous "dark matter" had to be theoretically introduced to uphold the theory. You could call the ether then again lol
edit on 4-3-2012 by H1ght3chHippie because: typo


I like calling it the Cosmotic Aether ... .sounds way cooler



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Best way to visualise how dark matter and matter interact is to see them as Oil and water. they just dont mix together and one repels the other.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
I can't remember where I've read it but it said that, in the beginning, when they were deciding between the big bang theory and one which said everything was in place at all times and there was no real big bang, they decided for the big bang theory because the other one needed something called "ether" in order to stand. So they went with big bang because they could mathematically put it into equations.

Ironic thing .. they soon reached a point where this theoretical and ominous "dark matter" had to be theoretically introduced to uphold the theory. You could call the ether then again lol
edit on 4-3-2012 by H1ght3chHippie because: typo


Nothing about that is correct. Ether had nothing to do with cosmology, ever. It was a mid-1800s concept to try to understand electromagnetism in analogy to water waves, which was found to be incorrect when it was realized how the two types of waves experimentally differed. It's been known to be wrong since the early 1900s.

The big bang was realized to be correct by understanding the theory of general relativity, which was written down in the 1910s, and it is a requirement of that theory's version of high school physics's force-balancing.

Think about dark matter like this: you think you have $100 in your bank account, when you look at your bank statement, you see you have $150. So you laugh and say "that must have been dark money because I never saw it."

That's what dark matter is, it's very definitely there and is just like normal matter, we can measure it, it's just that we did not notice it before. There is nothing special or weird about it.

edit:
And as to the article in the OP, this kind of behavior is expected because dark matter only (strongly) interacts gravitationally with normal matter, any other interactions are either absent or very weak, so for the most part dark matter just goes through normal matter like it's not there. This means you expect a distribution that looks like two different matter distributions on top of each other.
edit on 5-3-2012 by Moduli because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whatsreal
reply to post by jesiaha
 


Has anyone ever wondered instead of "filling the gap" in their previous equations with dark matter, perhaps running under the assumption that maybe, just maybe the equation it self is wrong. Saying that "oh its there because it has to be but we can't see it" and believing that this works to make a true factual statement, is the same thing as saying faith in god is proof that god exists.

Nassim Haramein has some interesting things to say on this subject and there is another thread worth reading along side this one which has links to all sorts of videos and info on the subject:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

enjoy.


Yep, watched a few of his talks

I like the guy, how his mind weaves around these subjects, great thinker!



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
I can't remember where I've read it but it said that, in the beginning, when they were deciding between the big bang theory and one which said everything was in place at all times and there was no real big bang, they decided for the big bang theory because the other one needed something called "ether" in order to stand. So they went with big bang because they could mathematically put it into equations.

Ironic thing .. they soon reached a point where this theoretical and ominous "dark matter" had to be theoretically introduced to uphold the theory. You could call the ether then again lol
edit on 4-3-2012 by H1ght3chHippie because: typo


Nothing about that is correct. Ether had nothing to do with cosmology, ever. It was a mid-1800s concept to try to understand electromagnetism in analogy to water waves, which was found to be incorrect when it was realized how the two types of waves experimentally differed. It's been known to be wrong since the early 1900s.

The big bang was realized to be correct by understanding the theory of general relativity, which was written down in the 1910s, and it is a requirement of that theory's version of high school physics's force-balancing.

Think about dark matter like this: you think you have $100 in your bank account, when you look at your bank statement, you see you have $150. So you laugh and say "that must have been dark money because I never saw it."

That's what dark matter is, it's very definitely there and is just like normal matter, we can measure it, it's just that we did not notice it before. There is nothing special or weird about it.

edit:
And as to the article in the OP, this kind of behavior is expected because dark matter only (strongly) interacts gravitationally with normal matter, any other interactions are either absent or very weak, so for the most part dark matter just goes through normal matter like it's not there. This means you expect a distribution that looks like two different matter distributions on top of each other.
edit on 5-3-2012 by Moduli because: (no reason given)


No actually you are wrong.

First of all aether(ether) is actually a concept that goes back way before the 1800s. The term actually comes from the greeks and even plato saw it as a fifth element and they considered it to be like the medium of air above the terrestrial realm. So, to say that aether never had a cosmological component is premature. It actually did.

Now you can argue that there is a difference between the 1800 and later principles of ether, but then the term aether(ether) isn't dependent on them, and actually does predate them by a few thousand years.

Of course I would argue that the many sources that try to make there seem to be a big difference between the ancient idea of aether and the ether of later scientists, are wrong as well, because the base of the idea; that there is an invisible, unmeasurable medium that allows the transference and transformation of types of energy, actually is the same.

source




According to ancient and medieval science aether (Greek αἰθήρ aithēr[1]), also spelled æther or ether, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere.


In Plato's Timaeus (St-55c) Plato described aether as "that which God used in the delineation of the universe." Aristotle (Plato's student at the Akademia) included aether in the system of the classical elements of Ionian philosophy as the "fifth element" (the quintessence), on the principle that the four terrestrial elements were subject to change and moved naturally in straight lines while no change had been observed in the celestial regions and the heavenly bodies moved in circles. In Aristotle's system aether had no qualities (was neither hot, cold, wet, or dry), was incapable of change (with the exception of change of place), and by its nature moved in circles, and had no contrary, or unnatural, motion.[3] Medieval scholastic philosophers granted aether changes of density, in which the bodies of the planets were considered to be more dense than the medium which filled the rest of the universe.[4] Robert Fludd stated that the aether was of the character that it was "subtler than light". Fludd cites the 3rd century view of Plotinus, concerning the aether as penetrative and non-material.[5] See also Arche.


Edit*
Sorry, not trying to bash you or derail the thread, it's just, people not giving the full source of terms and concepts is a pet peeve of mine. It actually saddens me the that the majority of the masses today think concepts like "the matrix" is an invention of Hollywood and etc.

Anyway, carry on.


edit on 7-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typos

edit on 7-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo

edit on 7-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: addition



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join