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.

 

Dark Energy - IT'S HYDROGEN!

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I think this belongs in the science forum, even though I'd much prefer to put it in General Chit Chat because I have NO idea what I'm talking about. Hopefully, my stupid theory will inspire the smart people here to at least come at this subject from a different direction. Here we go:

It's all about layers. Everywhere we look we can find materials settling and gathering in layers, from water and oil, to the make-up of the earth, to layers of soil, and even our atmosphere.



So tell me, why would the universe be any different? I propose that the materials in the universe are also gathered in layers. And seeing as we claim that the most common element in the universe is hydrogen, then we must be in a layer of hydrogen.



Here's the tricky part. When science tells us that some strange stuff is filling in the space between galaxies, where does that strange stuff come from? I have an idea.

In a school experiment 7 layers of liquids were placed in a glass, but something weird happened:


...some of our staff noticed that the vegetable oil and rubbing alcohol layers had switched places! - See more at: www.stevespangler.com...
Layer Experiment

It seems that the alcohol layer had evaporated, turning whatever was left into water that had seeped into the water layer (or something to that effect).

Seeing as helium is made of two hydrogen atoms, in the layered universe theory something must be causing the helium atoms to separate into hydrogen that is constantly seeping into our layer. This constant seepage is responsible for flooding in the spaces between the galaxies.



So, either I'm bloody brilliant or I'm bloody stupid. Which is it? Even if I have the elements wrong, would this process be out of the realm of possibility?

Thanks for reading!


edit on 7/15/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Only thing I can add is that the layers you are showing pictures of are driven by gravity and density

For whatever that is worth.
edit on 15-7-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Only thing I can add is that the layers you are showing pictures of are driven by gravity and density

For whatever that is worth.


I don't know the science behind how this works, but have a look at this clip. It shows that material gathers into itself even outside of Earth's gravity. I'm guessing that every particle has its own gravity. I dunno.





posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Hydrogen is the simplest lightest atom, it will rise to the top above any other atom in any medium (displacement) given time and is the first element in the universe and the first element to, through nuclear fusion, create another element, helium. Hydrogen is the most effected by gravity, drawing it toward any gravity field faster than any other element.

What you could be right about is saying that dark matter is dark hydrogen but dark matter actually being the hydrogen that we know, cant be right since it is whats powering our sun, turning all the lovely simple hydrogen in similarly simple helium - it would burn a heck of a lot faster if it had all the dark matter out there to stuck up.
edit on 15-7-2013 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
Seeing as helium is made of two hydrogen atoms, in the layered universe theory something must be causing the helium atoms to separate into hydrogen that is constantly seeping into our layer. This constant seepage is responsible for flooding in the spaces between the galaxies.

So, either I'm bloody brilliant or I'm bloody stupid. Which is it? Even if I have the elements wrong, would this process be out of the realm of possibility?
You're curious, which is good.

But dark matter is mostly not baryonic, meaning not made of baryons, as far as scientists think.

Hydrogen and helium are both made of baryons, so neither are thought to account for much dark matter, though they probably do account for some of it in some massive compact halo objects but that can't be much of the dark matter.

Dark matter

Large astronomical searches for gravitational microlensing, including the MACHO, EROS and OGLE projects, have shown that only a small fraction of the dark matter in the Milky Way can be hiding in dark compact objects; the excluded range covers objects above half the Earth's mass up to 30 solar masses, excluding nearly all the plausible candidates.

Detailed analysis of the small irregularities (anisotropies) in the cosmic microwave background observed by WMAP and Planck shows that around five-sixths of the total matter is in a form which does not interact significantly with ordinary matter or photons.

A small proportion of dark matter may be baryonic dark matter: astronomical bodies, such as massive compact halo objects, that are composed of ordinary matter but which emit little or no electromagnetic radiation.


Regarding splitting helium, the energy we get from the sun occurs when hydrogen is fused into helium. To reverse that process and split the helium back into hydrogen would require energy, meaning it won't split spontaneously, like unstable elements such as uranium can split spontaneously.

But yes gravity can layer objects. Even stars are thought to have layers like an onion with regions of different composition and density.
edit on 15-7-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Biigs
What you could be right about is saying that dark matter is dark hydrogen but dark matter actually being the hydrogen that we know, cant be right since it is whats powering our sun, turning all the lovely simple hydrogen in similarly simple helium - it would burn a heck of a lot faster if it had all the dark matter out there to stuck up.

Good point. Which means baryonic (not WIMP) dark matter can't form hydrogen. Helium, perhaps?
edit on 15-7-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I wonder if the Fermi bubbles (www.solstation.com...) have some clue to give us.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Dark matter is a mixture of:
1. non-baryonic matter, all ultimately composed of E8xE8' heterotic superstrings of ordinary matter whose unified forces have the symmetry of E8, and
2. superstrings of shadow matter whose forces have the invariance group E8' and whose spin-1 gauge bosons constitute the dark energy responsible for acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

Nothing more.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Sorry, but hydrogen can in no way produce the late-time Integrated Sachs Wolfe effect. And how could hydrogen produce the observed Cosmic Background Microwave Energy anisotropies which have been regularly observed and documented? And hydrogen has mass, to the extent in its diatomic H2 form, of 2 grams per mole. That mass produces an effect totally opposite to that of cosmological inflation. Hydrogen contracts gravitationally- it doesn't expand to cause the universe to expand. And where is the confirming math for your theory. Given the mass of hydrogen, how can you possibly fit your theory into the original field equation of general relativity? To produce a lambda of 10^-52 m^-2, how much hydrogen would you need? A real theory needs to answer such questions. Otherwise, it is exactly the same as saying, "I know what dark energy is. It's copulating bunny rabbits knocking spacetime apart."



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
Dark matter is a mixture of:
1. non-baryonic matter, all ultimately composed of E8xE8' heterotic superstrings of ordinary matter whose unified forces have the symmetry of E8, and
2. superstrings of shadow matter whose forces have the invariance group E8' and whose spin-1 gauge bosons constitute the dark energy responsible for acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

Nothing more.

Not bad. For those who want to read more:

From Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org...(mathematics)#Applications):


The E8 Lie group has applications in theoretical physics, in particular in string theory and supergravity. E8×E8 is the gauge group of one of the two types of heterotic string and is one of two anomaly-free gauge groups that can be coupled to the N = 1 supergravity in 10 dimensions. E8 is the U-duality group of supergravity on an eight-torus (in its split form).
One way to incorporate the standard model of particle physics into heterotic string theory is the symmetry breaking of E8 to its maximal subalgebra SU(3)×E6.
In 1982, Michael Freedman used the E8 lattice to construct an example of a topological 4-manifold, the E8 manifold, which has no smooth structure.
R. Coldea, D. A. Tennant, and E. M. Wheeler et al. (2010) reported that in an experiment with a cobalt-niobium crystal, under certain physical conditions the electron spins in it exhibited two of the 8 peaks related to E8 predicted by Zamolodchikov (1989) .[6] [7]



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by F4guy
"I know what dark energy is. It's copulating bunny rabbits knocking spacetime apart."


Another interesting possibility.

Oh, wait you were joking. My mistake.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
I don't know the science behind how this works, but have a look at this clip. It shows that material gathers into itself even outside of Earth's gravity. I'm guessing that every particle has its own gravity. I dunno.




Actually, thats not quite accurate. It is more accurate to say, that aside from some pretty exotic particles, most particles have some kind of mass. The more mass an object (collection of particles) or a single particle has, the more it warps the space time around itself. The bigger the mass, the more gravity it exerts on things around it.

So for instance, the Earth is pretty big, and exerts a pull on the moon, but the Sun is huge, and holds all the planets and floating space rock, and man made junk, and God only knows what else, that makes up the whole solar system, in its mighty grip. The Sun has more mass than the Earth, and therefore exerts greater gravitational pull. Now, do not be fooled by the size comparison however. Sometimes objects in space have HUGE amounts of mass, packed into very small amounts of physical volume. There are many different examples of this, but the most famous would be black holes, which have long been thought to contain a quantum singularity ( a location where virtually infinite mass is concentrated into a physical space no larger than an atom, or at least, that is how I once heard it described).

The thing is, you are making these suggestions at a very interesting time for the field of physics. Many things once considered cannon are being seriously questioned, concepts like the idea of a black hole containing a quantum singularity. I recently read a comment made by a fairly distinguished expert on such matters (I forget where I read it) which said that saying quantum singularities are regions in space time where all the physical laws which govern the universe simply break down ( the old/current description) is basically like saying " a region where we have no idea what happens, or indeed why it does" .

Obviously, such a scenario cannot last, and investigations into these matters are being launched as we speak, to peek behind the energy curtain that hides the silky drawers of truth from our gaze. I realise I am going on a bit here, but the reason it is interesting that you ask these questions now, at a time where many of the central pillars of physics are being dug up to check for woodworm, is that answers one way or another, will be difficult to gain in any great detail. It is either the best time to ask, or the very worst.
edit on 15-7-2013 by TrueBrit because: grammar edit.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I don't have the proof but I personally like the EU theory of plasma and electrical systems holding the galaxies in their forms. They can reproduce the shapes and behaviors of complex galaxy forms (like barred) in the lab with plasma and electrical fields.

Anyway, I think just calling something mystery matter and mystery energy and then treating it like a real hypothesis is scientific heresy. It's a house of cards.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I have seen a post on ATS
that hot space gas is moving towards earth.
could this be burning HYDROGEN?



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddha
I have seen a post on ATS
that hot space gas is moving towards earth.
could this be burning HYDROGEN?


Well if its a cloud of reacting hydrogen and oxygen then i say GRAB A SURF BOARD MAN, KILLER WAAAAAVE DUUDE.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by F4guy
 





Sorry, but hydrogen can in no way produce


LOL I knew I was only going to get feedback for naming specific elements (instead of just calling them unknown) when I was more excited about the layering. My bad.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddha
I have seen a post on ATS
that hot space gas is moving towards earth.
could this be burning HYDROGEN?


Hydrogen only burns in the presence of an oxydizing agent, like oxygen. Burning is just another name for oxidation. There is almost no oxygen in interstellar space. So, no it can't be.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by F4guy

Originally posted by buddha
I have seen a post on ATS
that hot space gas is moving towards earth.
could this be burning HYDROGEN?


Hydrogen only burns in the presence of an oxydizing agent, like oxygen. Burning is just another name for oxidation. There is almost no oxygen in interstellar space. So, no it can't be.


Where does the sun get all the oxygen from then?



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
Where does the sun get all the oxygen from then?
There's some sloppy language related to stellar fusion which calls it "burning hydrogen" but that's inaccurate though pretty common from what I've seen. Stellar fusion requires no oxygen to fuse two hydrogen atoms together.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by F4guy

Originally posted by buddha
I have seen a post on ATS
that hot space gas is moving towards earth.
could this be burning HYDROGEN?


Hydrogen only burns in the presence of an oxydizing agent, like oxygen. Burning is just another name for oxidation. There is almost no oxygen in interstellar space. So, no it can't be.


Where does the sun get all the oxygen from then?


That is fusion, a nuclear reaction, which is totally different than oxidation. In a star about the size of our sun, or smaller, there is almost no oxygen involved. It is a proton-proton reaction synthesizing helium from hydrogen. There is some oxygen involved in more massive stars, where neutrons are involved. "Burning" of hydrogen, like in the Hindenburg sisaster, is a chemical oxidation reaction, involving electrons.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join