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 -PLB-
What do you mean by different vibration?
Originally posted by 19872012
Originally posted by -PLB-
What do you mean by different vibration?
a lower or higher (generally lower) density and speed of the movement of the molecules/particles/waves that make up the realm. but still coexisting with the other vibrations.
A low density of molecules means a low mass.
As for the speed of movement of molecules, that is called temperature.
When molecules are moving faster, it is hotter, when they are moving slower, it is colder.
Originally posted by LordBucket
The general idea is not "mass per volume" but rather, "stuff per space." For example, "population density" is not literally a measure of the amount of physical mass of the people in an area, but the number of people in an area.
Ok. But speed is a measure of distance per time. Distance per time is conceptually similar to stuff per space. If matter is thought of as vibrating, then a measure of the number of vibrations per time is still a measure of "density" and "heat" can just as easily be thought of as "energy density."
you are not talking about "molecules/particles/waves that make
up the realm" but about specific particles that have a low
"density". So they become "transparent", but because of their
large number do account for a lot of mass?
You say that distance per time is conceptually similar to
stuff per space, but it seems to me these are two different concepts.
if matter is thought of as vibrating, then
the frequency is a measure of density.
So they become "transparent", but because of their
large number do account for a lot of mass?
Originally posted by LordBucket
Well, me personally...I was just trying to explain what I think the OP probably meant when he used the word "density" in what appeared to be a spiritual/channeling context rather a highschool physics context. When he comes back he can explain what he really intended, but in the meantime...
I am talking about the molecule/particles/waves that make up the realm, but "realm" in this context is pretty much defined as a range of vibrational rates of the things in it. We're using more words than we need to in order to describe a very simple thing.
In the original post, 19872012 stated he thinks dark matter is "the other planes of reality that we can't sense or see because they have a different vibration."
Think of the EM spectrum and an antenna. If you have an antenna tuned to a particular radio frequency, it will "pick up" radio waves of that frequency. Other frequencies will be "invisible" to it. Similarly, if we as human being are "tuned" to a particular frequency range, we'll "pick up" objects of similar frequency. I think the OP is simply proposing that dark matter is matter that exists outside our perceptual range. But...more than just "we can't see it." More like "can't meaningfully interact with it." Saying that it exists in "other planes of reality" is basically just a fancy way of saying so.
In this context, I'm not intending "space" in the sense of "volume."
If there is one human being in a house, the population density in that house is one person per house. If there is one musical note on a bar, the note density on that bar is one note per bar. The fact that a note isn't a physical object is irrelevant, and even if you play the note audibly rather than draw it on a piece of paper, the concepts and the ratios remain the same.
If a ball is rolling at a rate of 1 kilometer per hour, then the travel density of the event of the ball rolling is 1 kilometer per hour.
Again, in its most general sense, "density" is just "stuff per space." What the stuff is, and the nature of the space containing that stuff isn't terribly important. Even if the "stuff" isn't physical matter or the "space" isn't physical volume.
So, tying this in with the above, "density" here really means "vibrational density." For example, gamma rays have a shorter wavelength than radio waves. So if you absorb ten seconds worth of gamma rays and ten seconds worth of radio waves, over those ten seconds you will have absorbed more occilations of gamma waves than radio waves. More occiliations per measure of time means higher vibrational density.
Exactly. If a chunk of matter is vibrating at 30 cycles per second, then it's vibrational density is 30 cycles per second.
Take a blank piece of paper and draw several dots in a row. Imagine those dots as atoms, and the piece of paper as a box. The more dots on the paper, the greater the mass density being depicted. Now take that exact same piece of paper, without changing anything, and imagine those dots as wavecrests, and the paper as a measure of time. The more dots on the paper, the greater the vibrational density is being depicted.
But you haven't changed the paper. It's the same concept. Only how we think about it is different.
[edit on 5-8-2010 by LordBucket]
Originally posted by ProdigalSon
I have a theory too.
Dark Matter = Concept created to fill in the holes of scientific ignorance.
That is to say that since the observation does not support calculations, and we are sure calculations are correct, then it must be some invisible thing out there that must account for the calculation errors.
Come on, is this the best our "great minds" can do?
Or is it just a cover story to keep us ignorant from the reality of reality.
Originally posted by ProdigalSon
Dark Matter = Concept created to fill in the holes of scientific ignorance.
Originally posted by ProdigalSon
Can't they just state "we don't know" and get over with it.
Originally posted by ProdigalSon
I have a theory too.
Dark Matter = Concept created to fill in the holes of scientific ignorance.
Originally posted by 19872012
Originally posted by -PLB-
What do you mean by different vibration?
a lower or higher (generally lower) density and speed of the movement of the molecules/particles/waves that make up the realm. but still coexisting with the other vibrations.
They will also dismiss the idea that colliding positrons and electrons form particles, rather they will say they 'annihilate' each other. What is the precedent or observational basis for assuming an electron and positron vanish? In every other observable collision between particles - a new particle is created.