I Present to You.. Dark Matter

a reply to: swanne

yea i jumped the gun too

i have a hard time getting my head around dark matter. i could use all the reading i can get

originally posted by: verschickter

So against what you wrote to me, nothing was discovered that you predicted? I see why I didn´t get an answer.

Um... What seems to be your problem??

I never told you I had discovered the particles, I told you I discovered that the model predicted the existence of five dark matter particles.

Big difference.

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: verschickter

So against what you wrote to me, nothing was discovered that you predicted? I see why I didn´t get an answer.

Um... What seems to be your problem??

I never told you I had discovered the particles, I told you I discovered that the model predicted the existence of five dark matter particles.

Big difference.

But not to be diminished.

Lest some of us forget, when general relativity was first published, the top physicists on earth went scrambling to show that foolish Einstein upstart that he couldn't be smarter than Newton!

An eclipse later.... And here we are.

Trying to find answers, while standing on the shoulders of giants!

Edit to add-swanne, you invented Surface Plasmon Polariton theory?

a reply to: vjr1113

It's actually very simple. Stars in the galaxy are orbiting way too fast. But our galaxy doesn't seem heavy enough - the stars should be flying out from orbit. So dark matter, invisible to our vision, would fill the galaxy and make heavy enough so that the high-speed stars don't go flying off.

I used to stand against the idea of dark matter, but when I saw it appear in my own model, I had to admit it all suddenly fit together.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: vjr1113

It's actually very simple. Stars in the galaxy are orbiting way too fast. But our galaxy doesn't seem heavy enough - the stars should be flying out from orbit. So dark matter, invisible to our vision, would fill the galaxy and make heavy enough so that the high-speed stars don't go flying off.

I used to stand against the idea of dark matter, but when I saw it appear in my own model, I had to admit it all suddenly fit together.

But can you answer the much more interesting question of why the stars at the rim are orbiting at the same speed as the stars at the center?

More like a solid disk than rice crispies circling the drain.

originally posted by: Sargeras


Edit to add-swanne, you invented Surface Plasmon Polariton theory?

No, I invented the Singular Primordial Preon Theory.

a reply to: swanne

sounds to me a bit like gravity or the properties of gravity, have you considered dark matter is actually a wave or wave/particle like light or even gravity?

also considering some particles come in and out of "existence", Krauss theory, maybe dark matter cant be detected? i have no clue, but incredibly interesting.

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: Sargeras


Edit to add-swanne, you invented Surface Plasmon Polariton theory?

No, I invented the Singular Primordial Preon Theory.

I actually read that around a year ago I believe on a physics blog I believe, maybe it was on here, I can't remember, I'm gonna give it another read now just to refresh myself.

originally posted by: swanne
It's actually very simple. Stars in the galaxy are orbiting way too fast. But our galaxy doesn't seem heavy enough - the stars should be flying out from orbit. So dark matter, invisible to our vision, would fill the galaxy and make heavy enough so that the high-speed stars don't go flying off.

I think more of the problem is in the galactic rotation curve.
A quickie-Wiki excerpt;

The measured rotation rates of those stars do not match the calculated rates, which calculation is based on well known laws of physics. A general feature of the galaxy rotation curves is that the orbital speed of stars and gas rises or is almost constant as far from the galactic centre as it can be measured: that is, stars are observed to revolve around the centre of the galaxy at increasing or the same speed over a large range of distances from the centre of the galaxy.

Galaxies rotate in a ridged fashion that does not follow the gravitational inverse square law. The outer stars in a galaxy should rotate slower causing the arms to twist up over time, i.e. inversely proportional to the square of their distance from the center.

A solution to this conundrum is to hypothesize the existence of dark matter and to assume its distribution from the galaxy's center out to its halo.

This is basically how I understand the origin of the theory for dark matter.

originally posted by: vjr1113
have you considered dark matter is actually a wave or wave/particle like light or even gravity?

I did, indeed. So far the dark matter particles I am seeing are more particles than waves, especially since they seem to have 1/2 spin (unlike photons and the still-not-observed gravitons). 1/2 spin is the mark of matter; photons have spin=1.

also considering some particles come in and out of "existence", Krauss theory, maybe dark matter cant be detected?

Well, virtual particles are not really there (hence the name "virtual"), so I doubt dark matter would exist under that form - the simple reason being that dark matter has to survive for its gravitational pull to modify stars orbits. Additionally, dark matter are way too massive - it would require tremendous amount of energy for them to be generated via quantum particle production mechanism.

Butt, It's funny you should mention virtual particles... I haven't written this in the op, because it's a wild speculation, but I stumbled upon the possibility that my dark matter particles could (very strong emphasis on could here) undergo what I call "dolphin jumps" - brief moments in which dark matter would interact with neutrinos and generate virtual electrons which would then dissapear. This also has implication in zero-point energy. The whole dolphin jumps thing is still very fuzzy though, I can't say I would make it into a sure statement for now.

a reply to: swanne

Dark Matter is simply matter that vibrates at a rate higher (or lower) than we are able to detect. There are many 'worlds' and they occupy the same 'space', but we are only tuned into the frequency of matter to which we vibrate in synchrony.

The Astral, Causal, Mental and other realms are all right 'here' all the time. It is our perception which is limited.

So if you discovered that the model predicted something. In order that your sentence makes sense for me, I have to asume you predicted something. This points towards that something has been discovered that you predicted.

You write you predicted the 5 forms. If those five forms were not discovered, you predicted zero (0).

That´s why I ask.

originally posted by: verschickter

You write you predicted the 5 forms. If those five forms were not discovered, you predicted zero (0).

That does not even begin to make sense.

definition of the word "Prediction" on Wikipedia

a reply to: swanne
Yeah, I was looking up the definition, too.

Predicted, past form.
Translates into my language "vorhergesagt".
This means, what you said would happen, happened.

Since no dark matter has been detected until now (my current point of view, educate me if otherwhise), you predicted zero.

Correct me if I´m wrong, you should have written "I predict that...".
This way, it does not imply it became true.