Dark matter may be just an illusion.

Is dark matter just an illusion?
so this article is pretty interesting.
this explains briefly how it could be an illusion, but feel free to read the rest of the article:

Hajdukovic suggests that a similar phenomenon happens with gravity. If virtual matter and antimatter particles have different gravitational charges, then randomly oriented gravitational dipoles would be generated in space.

If these gravitational dipoles form near a galaxy—a massive object that would have a strong gravitational field—the dipoles should become polarized.

This polarization would generate a secondary gravitational field that would combine with and strengthen the galaxy's gravitational field.

in case you dont know the purpose of dark matter its to add extra mass onto a galaxy; i think the article says something about "the extra mass helps keep the galaxies in galactic orbit."

Wasn't the empty void of space originally considered Dark Matter, by term since they knew originally knew force like gravity, etc be going on behind the scenes in the vacuum.

Since Einstein idea of a 2-d fabric of gravity. Cause only a planet or a star could be measured, while a black hole was just off the scale.

reply to post by golden23


From the article:

in 2006 astronomers unveiled a photo of two colliding galaxies known as the Bullet cluster that purportedly showed the separation of matter from dark matter.

A similar effect was observed in the Pandora cluster earlier this summer, said Evans, who was not involved in the study.

(Related: "Dark Matter Proof Found Over Antarctica?")

Hajdukovic said he is currently expanding his theory to account for these observations.

Currently expanding his theory to account for these observations?

My interpretation of that statement is that his theory has a big hole in it.

Still it's an interesting concept that anti-matter might have something like anti-gravity. That should be testable, however, accumulating enough anti-matter to test its gravity in a lab is easier said than done, because anti-matter is pretty hard to come by and you need a decent amount of it to make gravitational measurements, because gravity is so weak.

Until there's a solid explanation for dark matter, it pays to be fairly open-minded, just not so open minded the brain falls out. This idea isn't that far fetched, but if it can't explain bullet cluster observations, that's a problem.

Physicist David Evans called the new study a "very interesting theoretical exercise," but he said he isn't ready to abandon dark matter just yet.

"The evidence for dark matter is now very compelling," said Evans, of the University of Birmingham, who leads the U.K. team for the ALICE detector at CERN's Large Hadron Collider.

For example, in 2006 astronomers unveiled a photo of two colliding galaxies known as the Bullet cluster that purportedly showed the separation of matter from dark matter.

Evans is correct imo, this theory cannot explain how normal matter can separate from dark matter in these collision events. The general consensus is that anti-matter has a normal gravitational field. If anti-matter had a negative gravitational field that would mean anti-matter is actually negative matter with a negative mass. And if that was the case then a collision event between anti-matter and normal matter should not release energy, they should cancel each other out exactly and leave nothing in their place. The fact they do release energy indicates that anti-matter holds a positive mass and a normal gravitational field. One must also keep in mind that virtual particles always come in the form of particle/anti-particle pairs, so as far as I can tell any influence the antimatter has on the galaxy should be canceled out exactly by the normal matter.

Having said that though, I do think that dark matter is a gravitational illusion caused by particles with negative gravity, but the source is not anti-matter and the mechanism is quite different to the one proposed in this theory:

Negative Energy & Negative Space - A New Theoretical Model

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Currently expanding his theory to account for these observations?

My interpretation of that statement is that his theory has a big hole in it.

Exactly. There is no way he can expand his theory to account for those observations. He's just grasping at straws.

Just a postulate=
Dark matter is the name given by science to the observation of etheric matter. Beyond the three states of observable matter, (solid, liquid, gas), there may be a septenate of matter including four more states.

tetraether
Just a postulate=
Dark matter is the name given by science to the observation of etheric matter. Beyond the three states of observable matter, (solid, liquid, gas), there may be a septenate of matter including four more states.

"States" of matter must not be confused with "types" of matter. You have made a category error here. The solid, liquid and gaseous states refer to matter composed of the same atoms, nuclei, necleons and quarks. On the other hand, etheric matter - like dark matter - is a totally different kind of matter NOT composed of the atoms of the elements. Etheric matter is just ONE kind of dark matter, although it may dominate the mass of the universe if it is the shadow matter predicted by E8xE8' heterotic superstring theory (see below).

It was the Theosophists Annie Besant and Charles W. Leadbeater who propounded the false view that their four etheric states of matter were merely less complex aggregates of the fundamental constituents of atoms. In his four books:
Extra-sensory Perception of Quarks (1980);
Anima: Remote Vieewing of Subatomic Particles (1996);
ESP of Quarks and Superstrings (1999);
The Mathematical Connection between Religion and Science (2009)
smphillips.8m.com...

the theoretical physicist Stephen Phillips confirmed as objective their paranormal description of the subatomic particles revealed by their yogic siddhi called "anima". He rigorously proved that these particles were multi-quark and multi-subquark bound states generated by the psychokinetic forces accompanying their remote-viewing atomic nuclei. What they wrongly thought were particles of the four kinds of etheric matter required by their Theosophical teaching about the seven planes of consciousness were simply exotic bound states of quarks and subquarks, confined within bubbles of various phases of the superconducting Higgs vacuum.

According to Phillips, etheric matter is the shadow matter sector of E8xE8' heterotic superstring theory. Superstrings of ordinary matter are various representations of certain subgroups of E8 and superstrings of shadow matter have forces governed solely by the second exceptional Lie group E8'. This is consistent with shadow matter being invisible and interacting only gravitationally with ordinary matter. It turns out (private communication) that the UPA, or anu, described by Besant & Leadbeater as the basic unit of physical matter, is the spin-1/2 subquark state of the E8xE8' heterotic superstring belonging to E6, an exceptional subgroup of E8. It consists of 10 closed curves, whilst the unit of etheric matter is a spin-1/2 superstring that belongs to a certain subgroup of E8', consisting of five closed curves. For details, see:
smphillips.8m.com...
smphillips.8m.com...

reply to post by Specimen


i think thats dark energy

reply to post by golden23


True in some way, yes. However, Dark Energy is supposedly much more vast then Dark Matter. I guess better explanation from what I'm thinking is Dark Matter is active parts of space, like a galaxie, while Dark Energy is every where, mainly in Deep Space, where not even a star could shine in such darkness. Its just barren space.

hetdex.org...

reply to post by Specimen


oh. cool. never knew that

reply to post by Arbitrageur


thats why i put a question mark in the link. his theory does seem accurate and provable. but theres is holes in the theory that dispove some of his statements

ChaoticOrder

Physicist David Evans called the new study a "very interesting theoretical exercise," but he said he isn't ready to abandon dark matter just yet.

"The evidence for dark matter is now very compelling," said Evans, of the University of Birmingham, who leads the U.K. team for the ALICE detector at CERN's Large Hadron Collider.

For example, in 2006 astronomers unveiled a photo of two colliding galaxies known as the Bullet cluster that purportedly showed the separation of matter from dark matter.

Evans is correct imo, this theory cannot explain how normal matter can separate from dark matter in these collision events. The general consensus is that anti-matter has a normal gravitational field. If anti-matter had a negative gravitational field that would mean anti-matter is actually negative matter with a negative mass. And if that was the case then a collision event between anti-matter and normal matter should not release energy, they should cancel each other out exactly and leave nothing in their place. The fact they do release energy indicates that anti-matter holds a positive mass and a normal gravitational field. One must also keep in mind that virtual particles always come in the form of particle/anti-particle pairs, so as far as I can tell any influence the antimatter has on the galaxy should be canceled out exactly by the normal matter.

Having said that though, I do think that dark matter is a gravitational illusion caused by particles with negative gravity, but the source is not anti-matter and the mechanism is quite different to the one proposed in this theory:

Negative Energy & Negative Space - A New Theoretical Model

edit on 14/1/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

"purportedly showed matter separating from dark matter". They obviously didnt not garner this on direct evidence, but by proxy of numerical data. They have the theory dark matter exists, because data received about the mass of galaxy and its rotational velocity, then they see 2 galaxies collide, and the data they see is changed, and so then they say oh look at how this data changed, it must mean the dark matter separated from the matter because our data is showing weird changes in velocity and of course collisions means the matter is changing there for the gravity is changing, and now you deny what someone else says because you think that 'dark matter separating from matter in a galaxy collision' is a real thing, and the persons offered theory didnt corroborate with this evens persons theory of a theory.

Specimen
Wasn't the empty void of space originally considered Dark Matter

Well, there must be something filling the 'space' between everything. It if was literally 'nothing' there would not be a 'space' at all....it needs a 'something' to make the gap actually have physicality which light etc passes through.

Inkyfingers

Specimen
Wasn't the empty void of space originally considered Dark Matter

Well, there must be something filling the 'space' between everything. It if was literally 'nothing' there would not be a 'space' at all....it needs a 'something' to make the gap actually have physicality which light etc passes through.

In theory if nothing exists, somewhere, and something exists, there could exist a system 'over/on top of/within' nothing, but it is thought this is not the case with the universe because of things like gravity (the way massive bodies can affect one another at a distance without touching, so it is thought they are touching but by way of there forceful affects on the medium all things reside in, suggesting that space itself is a medium which can be contoured and curved). Also (I personally am skeptical on interpretations and truth of this theory) it is thought that the universe is expanding. When first coming across these ideas my first response was to ask the smart people telling me these things ' how do you know the stuff, the galaxies, arent just separating from one another, you know how if you had 50 people standing in a dense area touching one another then asked them to separate from one another we can say they are expanding, and they said no. They said, in the analogy if the people represent galaxies, and our data tells us that the galaxies we measure are increasing distance in relation to one another over time (not only that, but at an exponential rate), its not that the galaxies are just moving away from each other as their own vocal points, but the space that they exist in, is expanding, growing larger incrementally exponentially and the galaxies are a long for the ride. This is what they say, not me. And then from these postulates they get things like inflation theory and stuff, and that expansion of space is what dark energy is referred to.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Jeez im not an athiest to dark matter. i said that the article is interesting. I never once stated that i actually believe that dark matter doesnt exist.

golden23
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Jeez im not an athiest to dark matter. i said that the article is interesting. I never once stated that i actually believe that dark matter doesnt exist.

Sorry but I dont think I was replying to any of your posts

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


What bothers me about this positive - negative reality notion is that there's no proof at all that such a reality balance exists, short of inventing its existence as an inductive reasoning response to the existence of the positive and negative charge properties that electromagnetism possesses. The truth is that inductive logic only works to a limited extent, and no one can honestly determine to what extent (the problem of demarcation) it works when examining macro systems.

This guy is stating that antimatter has a negative gravity charge, and yet there's no evidence that gravity has any charge whatsoever. In fact, no one knows anything about gravity and how it works. All they know is the impact of gravity on specific systems, and within specific systems. Other than that, they're completely in the dark.

By the way, if antimatter does end up having a negative charge of any kind (if antimatter is ever proven to actually exist, of course) then it'll have to be renamed smatter, since all oppositely charged "superpartners" (squarks, selectrons) are labeled by taking the established partner (in this case matter) and adding an "S" to it (smatter).

Yes, the whole matter-antimatter things is the exact same thing as the Super-symmetry thing. Just blackboard physicists trying to balance out their equations. One balancing act involves charge while the other involves spin or other properties. Whatever. It's still just inventing "virtual particles" in order to balance math equations that still refuse to add up, even after inventing new stuff that will never be verified as existent.

Specimen
reply to post by golden23

 

True in some way, yes. However, Dark Energy is supposedly much more vast then Dark Matter. I guess better explanation from what I'm thinking is Dark Matter is active parts of space, like a galaxie, while Dark Energy is every where, mainly in Deep Space, where not even a star could shine in such darkness. Its just barren space.

hetdex.org...

edit on 14-1-2014 by Specimen because: (no reason given)

If Dark Matter and Dark Energy are what they're being presented as being, then Dark Matter and Dark Energy are the same thing, only one (Dark Matter) is the evolving impact on the macro-system while the other (Dark Energy) is impacting the macro-system in an ongoing manner. Matter (mass) is what's left when kinetic energy has exhausted its potential.

NorEaster

Specimen
reply to post by golden23

 

True in some way, yes. However, Dark Energy is supposedly much more vast then Dark Matter. I guess better explanation from what I'm thinking is Dark Matter is active parts of space, like a galaxie, while Dark Energy is every where, mainly in Deep Space, where not even a star could shine in such darkness. Its just barren space.

hetdex.org...

edit on 14-1-2014 by Specimen because: (no reason given)

If Dark Matter and Dark Energy are what they're being presented as being, then Dark Matter and Dark Energy are the same thing, only one (Dark Matter) is the evolving impact on the macro-system while the other (Dark Energy) is impacting the macro-system in an ongoing manner. Matter (mass) is what's left when kinetic energy has exhausted its potential.

I was going to say you are wrong about your suggestion of the equality of dark matter and dark energy like any 'knowing' physicist on this site would tell you, but I think there is a small chance (unless all the physicists who know about this stuff thought about this) there could be something to the notion. It could be that inside galaxies there is dark energy reaction which causes the extra gravity, but I dont think people will like that because there are certain agreed upon values of dark energy or cosmological constant for the rate at which outer galactic space expands, and I dont know if there is a reason why they dont mention intergalactic space expanding, but I dont know if that would not give credence to the theory because you consider the space in a galaxy expanding, the same process that claims to separate galaxies from one another, you would suppose inside the galaxy it would separate and accelerate star systems from one another which would cause the galaxy to be urged apart, which is exactly the opposite of what galaxies do which is exactly why dark matter was invoking in the first place. Dark energy is expansive, gravity is contractive (but because of a mechanism of energy density displacement), which is why chaotic whatever brings up negative energy, because this is the difference between push and pull, he is viewing it like the number line how there is -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 and he is saying if an object is going in the direction of positive because and energetic reaction that is positive, but if while that happens something causes that object to move in the opposite direction that was a source of negative energy. It is nothing other then the relative arbitrary (in terms of making a name and thinking it has value besides direction in space) naming of the word negative, to say negative energy exists and that is a case of it, when this event causes this particle to move backwards or forwards.

reply to post by Inkyfingers


True, light does need something to travel on, since it is a physical chemical reaction.

Im aware that space is not empty, empty. But I do think there is a difference where gravity, light, heat, electromagnetic,etc... affect an area of space, and where an area such as deep space is inactive. Even thought light can still be seen in deep space, it just there hardly any action going on deep space.