Oak Ridge is not opening the Upside DOwn

THis article caught my attention. I have heard and read of similar matters at CERN. Had not heard a mention of Oak Ridge.
www.yahoo.com...

I did like the "Stranger things Season 4". In it the government opens a parallel universe which lets various nasties into out world. In the small town of Hawkins it is up to a handful of kids to save the world.

originally posted by: BlackProjects
THis article caught my attention. I have heard and read of similar matters at CERN. Had not heard a mention of Oak Ridge.
www.yahoo.com...

I did like the "Stranger things Season 4". In it the government opens a parallel universe which lets various nasties into out world. In the small town of Hawkins it is up to a handful of kids to save the world.

That was Doom , and it was on Mars

a reply to: Gothmog

Stranger things did one to,

On November 6, 1983, during an experiment hosted at Hawkins National Laboratory, a child test subject named Eleven made inter-dimensional contact with a Demogorgon and unintentionally opened a Gate into the Upside Down. Through this gateway, the Mind Flayer began using its dominion over the Upside Down to invade the town of Hawkins, spreading toxic biological matter, presumably with the goal to eventually invade the entire Earth. However, this plan was stopped when the Gate was closed, supposedly severing the dimension's connection to Earth's dimension.

The Upside Down

When I hear about alleged experiments that "inadvertently open up portals", the Montauk Project is the CT that comes to mind.

originally posted by: BlackProjects
I did like the "Stranger things Season 4". In it the government opens a parallel universe which lets various nasties into out world. In the small town of Hawkins it is up to a handful of kids to save the world.

Sounds like a remake of the movie 'The Mist' - loved it, especially the sick/twisted ending...

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

This was actually the inspiration for Stranger Things.

Over 85% of the mater in the universe is not visible? Does that mean there are seven parallel realities? That is assuming they are all the same size and mass.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

Only 5% of the universe is currently visible with our detection methods and comprises all the stars, planets, and galaxies that can be seen.

We may very well be the anomaly, for all we know the other 95% of the universe could be teeming with life that we simply cannot detect.

originally posted by: BlackProjects
THis article caught my attention. I have heard and read of similar matters at CERN. Had not heard a mention of Oak Ridge.
www.yahoo.com...

I'm impressed you didn't copy the click-baity title. Your choice of thread title suggests you actually may have read the article, good job!

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: beyondknowledge

Only 5% of the universe is currently visible with our detection methods and comprises all the stars, planets, and galaxies that can be seen.

We may very well be the anomaly, for all we know the other 95% of the universe could be teeming with life that we simply cannot detect.

Close but not exactly accurate.

5% is the percentage of the universe mass-energy content that can be seen, consisting of luminous matter like stars.
Since the earth is non-luminous, we actually would not be able to see the earth if it was in another galaxy, so the earth is a form of dark matter called "Baryonic Dark Matter". Since the earth contains virtually all life forms we know of, that means all life forms we know of exist on baryonic dark matter.

Baryonic dark matter may occur in non-luminous gas or in Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs) – condensed objects such as black holes, neutron stars, white dwarfs, very faint stars, or non-luminous objects like planets and brown dwarfs.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
Over 85% of the mater in the universe is not visible? Does that mean there are seven parallel realities? That is assuming they are all the same size and mass.

As just stated, the earth would not be visible if it was in another galaxy, so it technically is part of the 85% of "dark matter" called "baryonic dark matter" and is not in another dimension or parallel reality. But we just don't know what most of the 85% is (85% is approximately the dark matter portion of dark matter plus atoms, ignoring dark energy.)

Dark matter, dark energy pie chart


Here is a chart of some hypotheses on what may compose the dark matter and it could be (and probably is) more than one thing:

Breaking new ground in the search for dark matter

"The possible explanations for the nature of dark matter. (Image: G. Bertone and T. M. P. Tait)"

See the MaCHOs at the bottom? We know that such things exist (like the Earth), but there don't seem to be enough MaCHOs to account for all dark matter observations. Some of the other ideas are more speculative.

a reply to: Arbitrageur



Interesting.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I don't understand this. Is it because you would be viewing from another galaxy? We see exoplanets in this galaxy (not sure if we've ever seen an exoplanet in another galaxy). Are these exoplanets emitting radiation? Doesn't the Earth reflect radiation from the sun?
Please explain. Thanks.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: beyondknowledge

Only 5% of the universe is currently visible with our detection methods and comprises all the stars, planets, and galaxies that can be seen.

We may very well be the anomaly, for all we know the other 95% of the universe could be teeming with life that we simply cannot detect.

The other 95% may very well not exist at all. Dark matter/energy is a theory that allows our equations to work outside our solar system. Imagine if you were 2,000% wrong on an answer, so you made up 20x more matter in the universe to make it right. We've been looking for almost 100 years and still haven't found it.

a reply to: Phantom423

the 1/r2 relation is unfortunately a cruel mistress and the point is that when we look at another star, we simply don't detect enough light reflecting off of a planet to really see it above the background that is the host star. Now there are special circumstances when a planet passes in front of its host star creating a shadow and the luminosity will appear to dip but thats not what we are talking about.

Basically in the context of dark matter, any normal matter, is predominantly considered luminous matter that is everything we know, and in an astronomical context means stars... since stars are so much heavier than the rest of their planets.

In the model there will be a correction for non luminous material such as gas clouds, planets, blackholes etc, but it is not enough to explain so called dark matter

originally posted by: cooperton

The other 95% may very well not exist at all. Dark matter/energy is a theory that allows our equations to work outside our solar system. Imagine if you were 2,000% wrong on an answer, so you made up 20x more matter in the universe to make it right. We've been looking for almost 100 years and still haven't found it.

What we have been doing in realty is checking our models against newer observations with better tools and technology, allowing us to view the universe through out all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and we have found more and more compelling evidence that our understanding of gravity via GR is correct. What we haven't found yet is exactly what dark matter is in a manner than lets us fit it into the standard model of particle physics.

We have in a manner of speaking simply got more and more compelling evidence that dark matter exists, is particulate in nature and only interacts gravitationally and only via the weak force coupling to matter...

I wish people would stop with the throw away comment that its just made up or a fudge factor... its quite an ignorant examination of what is a lot of very compelling, cross comparable and logically constant findings in a lot of data.

originally posted by: ErosA433


What we have been doing in realty is checking our models against newer observations with better tools and technology, allowing us to view the universe through out all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and we have found more and more compelling evidence that our understanding of gravity via GR is correct.

But Dark matter is called dark because it doesn't show up on the electromagnetic spectrum...

We have in a manner of speaking simply got more and more compelling evidence that dark matter exists, is particulate in nature and only interacts gravitationally and only via the weak force coupling to matter...

What's an observable example? One that doesn't involve a lot of assumptions.

I wish people would stop with the throw away comment that its just made up or a fudge factor... its quite an ignorant examination of what is a lot of very compelling, cross comparable and logically constant findings in a lot of data.

What did I say that was wrong? We literally had to assume that there is 20x more matter/energy that is hidden in the universe in order to accomodate for a theory that applies here on earth.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Phantom423

the 1/r2 relation is unfortunately a cruel mistress and the point is that when we look at another star, we simply don't detect enough light reflecting off of a planet to really see it above the background that is the host star. Now there are special circumstances when a planet passes in front of its host star creating a shadow and the luminosity will appear to dip but thats not what we are talking about.

Basically in the context of dark matter, any normal matter, is predominantly considered luminous matter that is everything we know, and in an astronomical context means stars... since stars are so much heavier than the rest of their planets.

In the model there will be a correction for non luminous material such as gas clouds, planets, blackholes etc, but it is not enough to explain so called dark matter

Thanks for your explanation. I guess I just don't understand why it's called "baryonic dark matter". A baryon is some type of subatomic particle. Seems like a strange description. Can you explain that? Thanks again.

a reply to: cooperton

Coop, this link is a good explanation for the existence of dark matter/energy:


Is There Proof of Dark Matter?

owlcation.com...

Of course, not everything is known otherwise it wouldn't be "dark". But the evidence, when understood for what it is, speaks for itself.