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.

 

is dark matter just the result of an misconception about gravity?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
before i start i will state that i dont claim to know anything about physics and/or astronamy, this thread is simply one of many things that i think about when my mind is left to its own devices, so please, feel free to disagree, educate, ridicule and generally join in.


Dark matter is estimated to constitute 84% of the matter in the universe.

we've all heard of dark matter but heres a quick summary anyway.
In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly as it neither emits nor absorbs light or radiation at any significant level.
Instead, its existence and properties are only inferred by observing its gravitational effects on visible matter and radiation.

now, Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
this is working on the assumption that gravity is a constant through out the universe, we can indeed test Newton's law of universal gravitation in our own solar system but not outside of it.

my question is
what if the gravitational effects on visible matter and radiation are not due to undiscovered mass but are instead a result of differances in the way gravity is behaving in that particular area in the universe in comparison to our own part of the universe.

this could be an explanation, the graviton, a hypothetical subatomic particle (a boson, not a fermion) and Since bosons (unlike fermions) can occupy the same place in space, whos to say that these gravitons are equally dispersed throughout the universe. maybe there are parts of the universe were gravitons are more/less prevalent.

i think at this point that this is all going way above my head right now, and im just speaking jibberish, but hey at least im asking questions right lol




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DaveNorris
 


It's the Higgs Boson particle Cern are looking for and if they find it some people think that maybe it will open a black hole
And the Swiss will suck us all off
The planet crushed into infinity for one moment of pleasure

Cran



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I think dark matter is the glue that holds the universe together, because it was here before our universe started and it will be here when it ends.

IMHO I think our universe is encompassed by a membrane that separates all the matter from escaping into another dimension. Our universe formed when the membrane collided with another membrane universe and created equal parts of matter, or identical "big bangs" in each universe. We have been expanding ever since, on waves of dark energy. Eventually everything will slow down on its torrent separation and expansion will stop. Everything floats off in no particular order until the essence that allows matter to exist ends.

Dark matter will rule again until another universal collision to kick start the matter making again....and again....and again.
edit on 23-6-2012 by olliemc84 because: (no reason given)


I think of dark matter as blood plasma, dark energy as blood cells, and anything inside the bubbles of dark energy as hemoglobin. Our universe is alive. But will eventually perish.
edit on 23-6-2012 by olliemc84 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by cranspace
 


Actually it is not the Higgs, you are confusing two unrelated theories.

For the OP, good theory but our own part of the universe has the same matter/gravity problem. So while dark matter may not be the answer, something is.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
It could be that our ideas of dark matter are because of misconceptions about consciousness.

Star Consciousness: An Alternative to Dark Matter

ABSTRACT

The Dark Matter hypothesis has been invoked as an explanation for the fact that stars revolve around the centers of their galaxies faster than can be accounted for by observable matter. After decades of failed experimental searches, dark matter has remained elusive. As an alternative to the Dark Matter hypothesis, a idea first presented by author Olaf Stapledon is developed in this paper. Stars are considered to be conscious entities maintaining their galactic position by their volition. It is shown that directed stellar radiation pressure and stellar winds are insufficient to account for this anomalous stellar velocity.

Previous research rules out magnetism. A published theory of psychokinetic action that does not violate quantum mechanics is discussed, as is the suggestion that stellar consciousness could be produced by a Casimir effect operating on molecules in the stellar atmosphere. It is shown that a discontinuity in stellar velocities as a function of spectral class exists. Cooler red stars in the solar neighborhood move faster than hotter, blue stars, as would be expected if the presence of molecules in stars was a causative factor. Further research in experimentally validating the psychokinetic effect and demonstrating the role of the Casimir effect in consciousness is required to advance the concepts presented here beyond the hypothesis stage.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Can you show me anyone who has jumped onboard that theory who is credible?



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


just calling it 'star concousness' makes me think its hippy bs without even looking at it



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by DaveNorris
 

Your idea that the laws of motion may not be the same all over the universe is known as Modified Newtonian Dynamics or MOND. Some physicists liked to play with it for a while, but I don't think it's taken very seriously, mostly because we have plenty of evidence – albeit indirect – that Newton's laws are in fact applicable everywhere.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by DaveNorris
 

Your idea that the laws of motion may not be the same all over the universe is known as Modified Newtonian Dynamics or MOND. Some physicists liked to play with it for a while, but I don't think it's taken very seriously, mostly because we have plenty of evidence – albeit indirect – that Newton's laws are in fact applicable everywhere.


More specifically, for a while MOND did seem to be a reasonable alternative explanation but more recent astrophysical observations have apparently ruled it out. Some examples of collisions and dynamics have been observed which are not explainable with MOND, but are compatible with dark matter.

www.nasa.gov...

Evidence such as this leads me to believe that dark matter is real---however, "dark energy" may yet still turn out to be a flaw in our full understanding of large scale gravity. The observation of apparently space-orientation dependent fine structure constant (a totally unexplainable anomaly but which seems to persist with further investigation, i.e. it is real) may eventually tie in to the true answer.




top topics



 
3

log in

join