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.
Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
I think that the expanding universe is also a bad theory because then our solar system, our galaxy would be expanding as well. Since it is not, yet has dark matter making up its skeleton of sorts, and dark energy is everywhere, we should all be expanding as well. Gravity does not affect dark energy, and it is over 70% of the universe right? Then our solar system as well as all the galaxies should be tearing themselves apart. The expediential rate that the universe expands the farther out you go is also not adequately explained.
Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
Dark energy is said to be the force pushing everything apart. It is then not present within galaxies and interacts with dark matter, not regular matter.edit on 28-11-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
well if it did, then it would rip the galaxies apart. If it does not exist within them, I say ( no source sorry) that it would not be attracted to matter the way dark matter is. It would exist within galaxies and would be overcoming the gravity of all matter. It seems to me that if everything we know is true, that it has no effect on matter. It seems to just overcome the gravitational hold of dark matter, making the distance between each galaxies grow.
Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
it is not. It is projected to exist everywhere matter does not. Over 70+% of the available space.
Matter just bonds together, leaving no room for it.
Dark energy has not been found on earth. Not even dark matter has. If it is a particle, then we have yet to discover it in our realm.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
You want to understand how the mass of the Universe is distributed and accounted for... just watch the following lecture.
Originally posted by swan001
Originally posted by mbkennel
When you saw a disc face-on you would see a red and blueshift on the various faces, and this is independent of the rotation of the stars in that galaxy's disc, and hence irrelevant to the question of gravitation and mass-distribution in that galaxy.
Yes, that's my point exactly. But its relevance is very real, as all we know about "missing mass" inside other galaxy is due to this redshift anomalies. If these anomalies were generated by a flipping of the disc instead of a rotational velocity surplus, then all our searches for "missing mass" would be un-necessary (or, at least, less necessary). That's why ATT could be confirmed if redshift anomaly is still observed on face-on galaxies.
I know that we could assume astronomers included non-translation galactic movement in their model. But, on the other hand, we used to assume alot of things.
Before we discovered nuclear energy, we basically had no idea what fuel the Sun runs on. All we knew was chemical combustion. But chemical combustion meant that either the Sun has a very small lifespan, or else that some fuel was missing, or escaping, our observation. Here you see a great analogy with our current "missing mass" problem.
Of course, it seems obvious to you and me that this angle of movement has to be considered when building a model. But the question is, did it seemed obvious to these astronomers too, back in the 70's? That was only 20 years after Hubble discovered that the position of the galaxies weren't static. Did it seemed obvious, to the people in the 70's, that not only were the galaxies rushing away from us, undergoing orbital rotation, but also moving in a non-translational manner, upon a third axis which can be both 1) hard to discern from (assumed) orbital redshift and 2) inclined at random direction?
gravitational lensing due to dark matter
Originally posted by ImaFungi
why is that lecture so long?
should have taken 5 seconds at most... "universe came from nothing, universe is nothing"
Originally posted by swan001
How can you know if it's dark matter lensing it, if we never observed dark matter, just the lensing?edit on 29-11-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by wirehead
You can see the lensing, and you can see the galaxy clusters responsible for the lensing. There isn't enough visible matter to account for the degree of lensing. What, then, do you conclude?
The Frampton conclusion is that dark matter is made up of black holes with a mass of between 10^6 and 10^-8 solar masses that were created during two periods of inflation. The first led to the large scale structure of the universe that we see and has been measured by spacecraft such as WMAP. The second led to the lumping that created large numbers of medium-sized primordial black holes.
Originally posted by buddha
what if every thing is shrinking!
and not expanding.
could we tell the differences?