We Didn't Find 90% of the Universe's Mass... Maybe Because It's Kinetic Energy?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by happykat39
 


You mustn't forget that nuclear force inside a proton is what raises its energy (and its mass) in the first place. Individual quarks are 3 and 6 MeV, yet the overall proton has a mass of 939 MeV.




posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


lol thanks!



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by happykat39

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by windlass34
 



Well, you still have not explained how kinetic energy keeps rotating galaxies in one piece...


How does a spinning ball keep from blowing apart? Or a spinning coin?


It doesn't keep from blowing apart if it spins fast enough. Look on YouTube and you will find plenty of videos of things rotating at high enough speed to be torn apart by the form of kinetic energy known as centrifugal force.

However, there is one more theory that postulates that the "dark matter" exists at least partially in another dimension where we cannot detect it but it's mass would still provide a gravitational effect. You can read about it HERE. It is a spin off article from THIS ONE.


Although I am sure we can "hide" mass in other dimensions, I would nevertheless favour an approach which would make sure we covered all possibilities in our 4-dimension universe. I feel it's too easy to just, like String theory, go ahead and "hide" the unusual properties in other invisible dimensions.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by happykat39
 


You mustn't forget that nuclear force inside a proton is what raises its energy (and its mass) in the first place. Individual quarks are 3 and 6 MeV, yet the overall proton has a mass of 939 MeV.


Regardless, you failed to explain how kinetic energy explains the missing mass.
There have been relevant comments here, pertaining to General Relativity, but looks like your hypothesis doesn't pan out.

Also note that most of the visible matter in galaxies travels at a fairly mundane pace, i.e. is not relativistic. It's pretty much by definition that it doesn't fall in the the realm of GR.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
As y'all know, we are still wondering why we can detect only 10% of the Universe's mass, and where the heck went the rest - a whopping 90%.
You didn't cite a source for those figures and I never saw those figures before, so no, "we" don't know that.

en.wikipedia.org...

Dark matter is estimated to constitute 84% of the matter in the universe and 23% of the mass-energy.
And as others have said, the velocities are too low to be "relativistic".


Originally posted by buddhasystem
Thanks for the post. But we need to be more precise here, as matter can exist in different forms. In some, like solid matter etc, electromagnetic interaction keeps the atoms together to form a solid. If we are talking about nuclear matter, it's indeed strong interaction. Then if we think of a star as a blob of matter, gravity in fact is of prime importance. I frankly can't think of an example of how weak interaction holds anything together. It's both weak and short range.
I'm still not quite sure if there are three fundamental forces, or four.

I have two physics video courses and one says 4 and the other says 3. And Wikipedia says this:

en.wikipedia.org...

In 1968, the electromagnetic force and the weak interaction were unified, when they were shown to be two aspects of a single force, now termed the electro-weak force.
Which suggests that three fundamental forces could be termed gravity, Electro-weak force, and strong nuclear force, but I still hear talk about four so I guess the Electro-weak force has never really caught on as a unification idea?


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

...my statements are well-founded.



Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by happykat39
 


So if you took away all gravity, this table I'm sitting at wouldn't disintegrate? Doesn't it seem a little odd that gravity causes planets to orbit, but according to you, the same orbiting pattern in subatomic particles is completely unrelated to gravitational influence?
Some of your statements are not well founded. No, the table wouldn't disintegrate without gravity. And no it doesn't seem odd at all to me that gravity causes planets to orbit, but doesn't hold the table together. If you could do the math, it wouldn't seem odd to you either.

Also, electrons don't really "orbit" the nucleus as far as we can now tell, though perhaps we once thought they did and are left with remnants of that misunderstanding since we still call them electron "orbitals".
edit on 13-11-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


That isn't hard to explain. If you have 20 baseballs flying around the room, bouncing off of stuff and leaving other signs of their existence but going too fast to be seen, you know that they are there but you can't isolate their precise nature because of their intense motion.

Likewise, if 90 percent of the universe is in a state of intense motion, you can discern the presence of the matter but not its nature because its active nature is precisely that: kinetic energy. The kinetic energy is the portion of nature of this matter that defines its existence in the universe, but it's been overlooked because we see the energy as a symptom instead of the cause.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Atoms are largely composed of air, yet maintain a fair degree of organization. Now, if you were to throw a handful of marbles into the air, would you expect them to attain some form of synchronization while in the air? Form some kind of stable pattern that doesn't change until an external force interrupts the stability?

I see this stability in the planets, in the atoms, in the way atoms interact with each other. I see it in the movements of animals, in the behavior of the weather, and in the structure of the elements in all of their variations. And there isn't a common variable here? There isn't a common principle involved, which is partially composed of laws concerning kinetic energy? I see a divinity in this, an ingenius design that uses a single principle to bind an infinitely large range of varying structures, to provide cohesion to a mad world.

I see this, and yet I'm told it's coincidence. That's what I'm getting from the "experts".



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Atoms are largely composed of air, yet maintain a fair degree of organization. Now, if you were to throw a handful of marbles into the air, would you expect them to attain some form of synchronization while in the air? Form some kind of stable pattern that doesn't change until an external force interrupts the stability?
Gravity is very weak compared to the other forces, like more than a billion billion billion times weaker, and then some.

Once you account for the difference in magnitude, there are some similarities between gravity and electromagnetic forces, like both follow the inverse-square law.

But I'm not sure what you expect to happen to the marbles after you throw them into the air. The gravitational force between them is pretty weak and would be overwhelmed by the Earth's gravity and slight differences in trajectory when you threw them.

It would be an interesting experiment to see if marbles would clump together in the international space station...I've seen smaller particles clump there, like salt or sugar granules, but I haven't seen the experiment tried with marbles.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
maybe it's because our technology is too inferior to detect more than we are able to



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I lol'ed at the poster that proposed his table would disintegrate had gravity ceased to exist


edit on 13-11-2012 by mr10k because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


you posted a quote that said dark matter constitutes 84% of the matter in the universe..
What is it thought that dark matter is?
edit on 13-11-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


"Also, electrons don't really "orbit" the nucleus as far as we can now tell, though perhaps we once thought they did and are left with remnants of that misunderstanding since we still call them electron "orbitals"."

What is it that electrons are? What is it that electrons do?

edit on 13-11-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arb, the photon and the carriers of weak force (W and Z) are considered parts of the same multiplet, with symmetry broken. Whether one terms them one and same force would depend on circumstance. Under normal conditions, there manifestation can be quite different, but the underlying Lagrangian is still the same.

In a very, very crude analogy, at the LHC energies the differences between EM and weak fields become less and less pronounced.
edit on 13-11-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
It's an interesting thought for sure....but I think you're wrong.

I was told by a prominent physicist that perhaps, just perhaps, our theory of gravitation is wrong. So there's not really any missing mass, it's just our equations aren't accurate.




you posted a quote that said dark matter constitutes 84% of the matter in the universe.. What is it thought that dark matter is?

There's not really any evidence for dark matter. Basically, our observations don't match with what we observed, so someone said, "Well let's just add in this dark matter stuff our observations and call it a day."

edit on 13-11-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-11-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I have a suspicion that electromagnetism, electricity and gravity are just vectors of the same force. I wouldn't be surprised if the atomic forces were also vectors of that force.

Now I understand dark energy is just an imaginary construct created to justify an effect for which we don't know the cause of. Has anyone considered something along the lines of a multiverse yet? Like 7 - 9 of them, all interpenetrated in the same physical space, but in different vibrational states? Has anyone tried to build a camera that "sees" different (higher) frequencies? I know there are radio telescopes, but as far as I know they're designed to receive one single source of electromagnetic waves at a time, they're not designed to translate those signals into images using multiple pixel sensors tuned to frequencies different from the visible spectrum. Just curious.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


First off what makes you think you can be insufferably rude and insulting to people when it's YOU that's wrong?

The orbital model of atoms has been known to be false since around the 1920's. It's kept because it's easy for people to envision, not because it has any basis in reality. If you knew much of anything about physics or chemistry you'd know that...

Gravity in fact does not hold your kitchen table together.... otherwise rockets would just randomly decohere when they reached the edge of the gravitational pull of the planet which they do not in fact do. This should have been your first clue that your "theory" of the way things work is not logically consistent with the observable world.

So maybe the next time you want to call someone a jerkoff maybe you should look in the mirror and fire away.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Atoms are largely composed of air


Wrong. I'll stop right here in the interest of decorum.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

There's not really any evidence for dark matter. Basically, our observations don't match with what we observed, so someone said, "Well let's just add in this dark matter stuff our observations and call it a day."


Precisely.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Regardless, you failed to explain how kinetic energy explains the missing mass.

So does Quantum Jitter, which yields only energy, just as my theory yields only energy.

Energy can be converted to mass using reversed De Broglie's equation or KE's equation. That's how simple quanta from the Sun can push solar sails.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Atoms are largely composed of air


Wrong. I'll stop right here in the interest of decorum.


Well, most of an atom is composed of nothing. There is a great distance between the nucleus and the cloud.


Therefore, the radius of an atom is more than 10,000 times the radius of its nucleus (1–10 fm),[2] and less than 1/1000 of the wavelength of visible light (400–700 nm).


en.wikipedia.org...

No, it's not air, but it's void.





new topics
 
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join