Dark Matter - It is not dark matter

Gary_Peck · Feb 1, 2009

There lots of theory's about so called dark matter. I believe that this stuff is pure energy. It is released when things like collissions occur. Just like a fire gives off heat and when you look through it the light gets distorted. Man has for hundreds of years realised that the energy from a fire can be used for cooking, heating water and keeping warm without being burned.  Because of the conditions on Earth heat rises.This stuff called dark matter is a mass of pure energy and contains gravity. It just floats around space. Just because you cannot see it does not mean it is not there.  The Earth is so powerful. It's gravitational pull protects us from the Sun's harmful rays and energy blast. If the Earth blew up tomorrow where would all this energy go. Just like a cloud containg millions of of litres of water. It floats across the sky just waiting for the right conditions for it to be released. The same goes for all this energy. Thats why you get black holes. When the conditions are right they turn into black holes. All these are Pure energy releasing itself.

origin · Feb 1, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There lots of theory's about so called dark matter. I believe that this stuff is pure energy.</DIV>What do you mean 'pure energy'.  Photons can be termed pure enegy and they certainly are not dark matter. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is released when things like collissions occur.</DIV> When collisions of particles occur we can account for alll of the energy, what are you talking about? Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just like a fire gives off heat and when you look through it the light gets distorted.</DIV>That is due to the density fluctuations in the air giving different refractive indexes - it has nothing to do with pure energy or dark matter.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Man has for hundreds of years realised that the energy from a fire can be used for cooking, heating water and keeping warm without being burned.  Because of the conditions on Earth heat rises.</DIV>Heat rises because hot air is less dense.  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This stuff called dark matter is a mass of pure energy and contains gravity. </DIV>How can energy contain gravity - what does this mean, do you have an new theory of gravity too?Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It just floats around space. Just because you cannot see it does not mean it is not there.  The Earth is so powerful. It's gravitational pull protects us from the Sun's harmful rays and energy blast. </DIV>If you mean that the earths gravity is high enough that we have an atmosphere that attenuates the radiation from the sun, then I guess that makes sense but it sure is an odd way to put it.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the Earth blew up tomorrow where would all this energy go.</DIV>What energy?  Do you mean the gravity?  Gravity is a property of mass,  If the earth 'blew up' then the pieces would have gravity associated with them based on their mass.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just like a cloud containg millions of of litres of water. It floats across the sky just waiting for the right conditions for it to be released.</DIV>Do you really think that clouds are waiting to release their rain?Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The same goes for all this energy. Thats why you get black holes. When the conditions are right they turn into black holes. All these are Pure energy releasing itself. Posted by Gary_Peck</DIV>This is just gibberishIf you didn't come here with such an attitude you would have a much better discussion! edited for clarity <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Gary_Peck · Feb 1, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What do you mean 'pure energy'.  Photons can be termed pure enegy and they certainly are not dark matter.  When collisions of particles occur we can account for alll of the energy, what are you talking about? That is due to the density fluctuations in the air giving different refractive indexes - it has nothing to do with pure energy or dark matter.Heat rises because hot air is less dense.  How can energy contain gravity - what does this mean, do you have an new theory of gravity too?If you mean that the earths gravity is high enough that we have an atmosphere that attenuates the radiation from the sun, then I guess that makes sense but it sure is an odd way to put it.What energy?  Do you mean the gravity?  Gravity is a property of mass,  If the earth 'blew up' then the pieces would have gravity associated with them based on their mass.Do you really think that clouds are waiting to release their rain?This is just gibberishIf you didn't come here with such an attitude you would have a much better discussion! edited for clarity. Posted by origin</DIV> Things that happen on Earth are affected by Air,gravity and lots of other stuff. In Space things are different. Yet some things have the same principles. You are quite right gravity is a property of mass especially if a planets core mainly comprises of iron. What happens to this iron when the planet is smashed into dust and spread everywhere. Energy comes in all shapes and sizes on Earth. We get Earthques, Thunder, Lightning, Tornados, Hurricanes. These do not happen willy nilly. The energy builds up and when the time is right. All this energy gets released. mainly because it storage point fails. That is why you get flash floods, the cloud cannot contain any more water. The cloud will burst and the amount of water released ends up washing houses, hills and entire villages away. Well believe it or not this happens in space as well. Without the Earth having a iron core and causing a magnetic field. That is why we have the North & South pole. This magnetic field deflects and reduces the radiation we recieve from the Sun. Without this magnetic field Earth would not be able to sustain life. In Space there is pure energy floating about. It is invisible and you cannot see it. We can observe the affect it creates to light. Just like the heat off a fire distorts light when you look through it.Radiation released from the sun shoots out into space. This is energy in it's own right. Yet in Space just like on Earth we have different forms of energy. Some just naturally fade & some are quite entertaining. Black holes are pockets of pure energy just waiting to be released.

origin · Feb 1, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are quite right gravity is a property of mass especially if a planets core mainly comprises of iron. </DIV>Nope, it makes absolutely no difference what the elements are gravity is a property of mass only.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What happens to this iron when the planet is smashed into dust and spread everywhere. </DIV>Nothing, and as far as gravity goes, the gravity resulting from an iron atom in the core of the planet or floating around in space is exaclty the same.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Without the Earth having a iron core and causing a magnetic field. That is why we have the North & South pole. </DIV>If you mean this is why we have a magnetic north and south pole I agree.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This magnetic field deflects and reduces the radiation we recieve from the Sun. Without this magnetic field Earth would not be able to sustain life.</DIV>Quite right. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In Space there is pure energy floating about. It is invisible and you cannot see it. We can observe the affect it creates to light. Just like the heat off a fire distorts light when you look through it</DIV>Quite wrong.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Black holes are pockets of pure energy just waiting to be released. Posted by Gary_Peck</DIV> How so? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

xXTheOneRavenXx · Feb 1, 2009

If I might jump into this for one sec. The only thing about a planet having an iron core is it's magnetic field. Nothing to do with gravity. It's alway good to ask some of the basic questions first friend. I know even with knowing lots about space, and what I learned years ago in school... I still learned more from several of the "professional" folks here. These guys can really help ya out with that sort of thing. Just ask

Cerenkovman · Feb 2, 2009

What do you mean that gravity is a property of mass only?  What about inertia?

nimbus · Feb 2, 2009

How is inertia a problem with the idea of gravity affecting all mass regardless of chemical element, here? The elementary particles are the same. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

origin · Feb 2, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What do you mean that gravity is a property of mass only?  What about inertia? Posted by Cerenkovman</DIV> As nimbus point out I was adressing a specific question, I am not saying mass is not involved in inertia, forces or anything else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Gary_Peck · Feb 2, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nope, it makes absolutely no difference what the elements are gravity is a property of mass only.Nothing, and as far as gravity goes, the gravity resulting from an iron atom in the core of the planet or floating around in space is exaclty the same.If you mean this is why we have a magnetic north and south pole I agree.Quite right. Quite wrong.How so? Posted by origin</DIV> Then how do you explain that this stuff reffered to as dark matter which is invisible distorts and bends light. I believe all this mass of energy comprising of particles of iron posseses gravity which in turn keeps it together in a group.

Mee_n_Mac · Feb 2, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then how do you explain that this stuff reffered to as dark matter which is invisible distorts and bends light. I believe all this mass of energy comprising of particles of iron posseses gravity which in turn keeps it together in a group.  Posted by Gary_Peck</DIV>I'm confused.  You say the above but in post #1 you said..Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I believe that this stuff is pure energy. Posted by Gary_Peck</DIV> So is it "pure energy" (whatever that is) or is it iron particles ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------------------------------------------Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, STOP ! </div>

Cerenkovman · Feb 2, 2009

I see.  I was just not liking the tone I guess.  It makes me a bit uneasy when folks start talking like there are these absolutes that I am unaware of.   I was taking the original post as someones "Idea", and not a thesis.

MeteorWayne · Feb 2, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I see.  I was just not liking the tone I guess.  It makes me a bit uneasy when folks start talking like there are these absolutes that I am unaware of.   I was taking the original post as someones "Idea", and not a thesis. Posted by Cerenkovman</DIV> Yes, but this is a science forum. So if you post here, you are expected to back up your ideas with some real scientific data or theories, not just pure speculation. We have "The Unexplained" for that.Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Cerenkovman · Feb 2, 2009

Well taken. Ideas not welcome here.

BoJangles · Feb 3, 2009

That’s simply not true!There is a difference in proposing a new theory (hypothesis), and demanding your theory (hypothesis) is right. That’s to say the former refers to someone that may seek clarification into current understanding. The later refers to someone who just wants an audience for their nonsense pseudoscience. Additionally the later (usually) does’nt take current understanding and physics for an answer and refuses to educate them self to a level of science which can be debated.There is no point arguing maths to someone who doesn’t believe 1 + 1 = 2.You might make the argument that nothing is set in stone, theories are just theories. However this is just not true, scientific theories have HUGE bodies of experimental data to back them up. I'm talking about properly controlled and documented experiments. It’s funny, every time I think of a new hypothesis and/or experiment; I find that it’s already been done, sometimes hundreds of years ago. I often find my hypothesis are just reinventing the wheel (badly), or covering work that someone did a lot better a long time ago.The main point here is, if every crackpot came and demanded and audience with their own hypothesis in these (hard science) threads, the legitimate posters who are knowledgeable in hard science, and who go out of their way (in their own time) to answer legitimate questions of people who want to learn, would simply disappear due to a constant bombardment of crapola. The fix here is, not be ignorant to the millions of experiments and hard work of your peers. You may think you know the answer and have the right to express it, but the fact is you don’t. The burden is for you the poster ( of rouge theories ) to educate yourself as much as possible, at least to a level where you can partake in conversations that are based on solid knowledge, and as such be debated intellectually.If you don’t have the level of understanding I describe above, that’s to say you are relatively new to science, then should be open minded and take people’s opinions here VERY seriously (not gospel).Now as for the not welcome part, of course ALL your hypothesis are welcomed. But a lot of the hairy-fairy stuff belongs in the Unexplained thread, unless of course you are trying to get clarification of what the faults and merits of the logic propose really are. This is a great time to plug for a new thread category called “Alternative Theories” it would give people like the original poster and alike, a place to discuss (without ridicule) the merits of your arguments. Which inturn leaves the hard science related categories to people who actually want to learn the accepted sciences.Points :-<ul><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm">If you have a new idea and you want it taken seriously; be very open minded and except people’s opinions; if you disagree, research those opinions, your ideas and components thereof, so you can at least debate them in an empirical and intellectual way.</div></li><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm">If you are demanding an audience and rewriting physics and science as we know it, please post in the unexplained thread.</div></li><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm">If you don’t like the Unexplained thread, petition your local moderator for an “Alternative Theory” thread</div></li></ul> Thanks for your time, and i hope i this clarifies the less than positive responses you’ve been getting.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

Gary_Peck · Feb 3, 2009

Well the evidence is out there. They have video of it. How do you explain something that you know is out there but cannot see it. It a mass of pure energy made up of the debris left over from a collision. How do you explain its ability to appear invisible yet be able to bend light. This mass of pure energy must contain gravity, but pockets of gravity strong enough to bend light in different directions. Here is the link.http://www.space.com/common/media/video/player.php?videoRef=150407Dark_matter I posted a comment. Please do the same.Judging by some of the comments you have made, if you have watched the video you must agree I do have a valid point. Is it possible that Energy just like gravity exists without being visible. Energy needs to be stored. Is it possible for energy to be stored in its own entity? A new type of energy. Not Kinetic, potential, thermal and all the others we know of. A bit like a child getting seperated from it's mother and not being able to find her again.

BoJangles · Feb 3, 2009

The notion of dark matter (as far I can tell) is fairly well accepted by science at this stage, the matter of what Dark Matter actually is (pardon the pun) however is a battle ground of intense debate.As for dark matter being pure energy, it’s probably best if you start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy<ul><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;margin-right:0cm">There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law; it is exact, so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy; it states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.</div></li></ul>--- What confuses me about Dark Matter is as follows:-<ul><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;margin-right:0cm">Dark Matter obviously moves through space, as the bullet cluster is a prime example of this.</div></li><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;margin-right:0cm">Dark Matter obviously interacts gravitationally with normal matter, that's how we discovered it (rotation curves).</div></li></ul> Q1) Does Baryonic Matter also interacts gravitationally with dark matter, or is this a one way affair? Q2) If Baryonic matter does interact gravitationally with Dark Matter, why hasn’t Dark Matter formed a disk like everything else in a spiral galaxy?Q3) Why doesn’t Dark Matter collapse into the centre of a galaxy in higher concentrations? That's to say why hasn't it condense?--- If dark matter was a particle (Baryonic or not) and wasn't gravitationally affected by Baryonic Matter, and its size was 1000 times more massive than the largest atomic radius of any element we know (Cesium (Cs)), it still wouldn't be enough to stop it collapsing into a smaller space given enough time.Additionally given that there's a disk in a spiral galaxy, why hasn't the interaction with the gravity inherent with Baryonic matter caused it to form a disk as well? I.e. Given enough time, any normal particle in the halo couldn't hold such a shape without collapsing, furthermore, even if it was the case that dark matter is in orbit around the galaxy (assuming Baryonic matter does affect it gravitationally), the interaction with the disk alone should help it form a disk.It seems (and I speculate due to lack of understanding) that the only way you could keep dark matter in a halo, is if the dark the matter particle (or what not) has a huge radius many millions of times bigger than any element we know (given its gravitational effects). This may explain why it doesn’t interact with the electromagnetic force and it dosnt form black holes, can it not?Does anyone have thoughts on this, or can show me the errors in my ways?   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

origin · Feb 3, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well the evidence is out there. They have video of it. How do you explain something that you know is out there but cannot see it.</DIV>That is the mystery.  As stated in the video there appears to be matter that does not reflect or emit light.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It a mass of pure energy made up of the debris left over from a collision.</DIV>This makes no sense what so ever.  How can pure energy be made up of debris?Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This mass of pure energy must contain gravity, but pockets of gravity strong enough to bend light in different directions.</DIV>How can energy contain gravity?  What does that even mean?  There are no 'pockets' of graviity, as the video stated there appears to be a ring of dark matter around the galaxy cluster.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>if you have watched the video you must agree I do have a valid point. </DIV>No your point is not valid - what you are proposing is an unsubstantiated conjecture that goes against physics.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Energy needs to be stored. Is it possible for energy to be stored in its own entity? A new type of energy. Not Kinetic, potential, thermal and all the others we know of. A bit like a child getting seperated from it's mother and not being able to find her again. Posted by Gary_Peck</DIV>Energy does not need to be stored.  What does "stored in it's own entity" mean?  This is all just conjecture with no evidence to back it up.  You need to have much more than this to keep this out of the unexplained in my opinion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Gary_Peck · Feb 3, 2009

There are many out there who share the same opinion that the big bang as happened before. In effect everything has been created out of nothing. Where has all this energy come from to form stars and everything else. There has to be some kind of energy powerful enough to create all this. Somewhere out there new stars, planets & solar systems are being created. What is causing this? Can anyone shed any light on this.

origin · Feb 3, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are many out there who share the same opinion that the big bang as happened before. In effect everything has been created out of nothing. Where has all this energy come from to form stars and everything else. There has to be some kind of energy powerful enough to create all this. Somewhere out there new stars, planets & solar systems are being created. What is causing this? Can anyone shed any light on this. Posted by Gary_Peck</DIV> It does not matter if other people share your opinion, science deals with evidence and facts not feelings.Where did all of the energy come from or where did the universe come from?  No one has any idea - only conjecture.What is causing the formation of stars and planets?  Primarily gravity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Mee_n_Mac · Feb 3, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are many out there who share the same opinion that the big bang as happened before. In effect everything has been created out of nothing. Where has all this energy come from to form stars and everything else. There has to be some kind of energy powerful enough to create all this. Somewhere out there new stars, planets & solar systems are being created. What is causing this? Can anyone shed any light on this. Posted by Gary_Peck</DIV> I can shed a little light I hope.  First as to whether the Big Bang (BB) has happened before ... or not ... nobody can say.  Nobody knows what happened before the BB and the theory doesn't address this question.  It was popular (until about 15 years ago) to think that the Universe was cyclical, BB to be followed by a Big Crunch (as gravity drew the Universe back into a singularity) which in turn caused another BB.  With the data showing the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, not slowing, I don't think the BC is viable anymore.  The BB theory doesn't even address where all the "Stuff" that made up the proto-universe came from ... we simply don't know.As to where the "energy" to make stars came from ... it's right there, now, in the gravitational attraction of matter itself and the strong nuclear force that binds the nucleus of atoms together.  When enough hydrogen gas gets together, it's mutual gravitation attraction can confine the H atoms so fusion can occur.  Fusing hydrogen into helium releases energy because it takes less energy to bind together the helium nucleus that it did for the constituent hydrogen nuclei. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------------------------------------------Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, STOP ! </div>

MeteorWayne · Feb 3, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It does not matter if other people share your opinion, science deals with evidence and facts not feelings.Where did all of the energy come from or where did the universe come from?  No one has any idea - only conjecture.What is causing the formation of stars and planets?  Primarily gravity. Posted by origin</DIV> Despite BoJangles superb posts, this thread is careening out of control so I will move it to The Unexplained.Bojangles, feel free to copy your posts over to the new thread you created if you feel it is useful. I'm not sure it would be, since they adress ignorance in this thread, but you have an OK to do so.Meteor Wayne, with Mod Hat on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Gary_Peck · Feb 4, 2009

Now they have evidence of dark matter ( I think it is energy left over from a collision) they can tell from light being bent and distorted that that it is being affected by gravity. To have multiple images of the same object suggests to me that it is possible for more than one gravity is at work. If you look at your TV and it is in front of you and then you see multiple images. above, left, right, and underneath your TV. you are not seeing 1 but several images being distorted at different places.Does this make any sense or am I wrong?

MeteorWayne · Feb 4, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now they have evidence of dark matter ( I think it is energy left over from a collision) they can tell from light being bent and distorted that that it is being affected by gravity. To have multiple images of the same object suggests to me that it is possible for more than one gravity is at work. If you look at your TV and it is in front of you and then you see multiple images. above, left, right, and underneath your TV. you are not seeing 1 but several images being distorted at different places.Does this make any sense or am I wrong? Posted by Gary_Peck</DIV> It makes so little sense, we can't even tell if you are wrong or not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Gary_Peck · Feb 4, 2009

Now they have evidence of dark matter ( I think it is energy left over from a collision) they can tell from light being bent and distorted that that it is being affected by gravity. To have multiple images of the same object suggests to me that it is possible for more than one gravity is at work. If you look at your TV and it is in front of you and then you see multiple images. above, left, right, and underneath your TV. you are not seeing 1 but several images being distorted at different places.Does this make any sense or am I wrong?

SpeedFreek · Feb 4, 2009

To have multiple images of a distant galaxy all you need is a source of gravity directly in between the distant galaxy and the observer. This is known as a gravitational lens.I am afraid I don't understand what you are trying to say with your TV analogy.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

Dark Matter - It is not dark matter

Gary_Peck

Guest

origin

Guest

Gary_Peck

Guest

origin

Guest

xXTheOneRavenXx

Guest

Cerenkovman

Guest

nimbus

Guest

origin

Guest

Gary_Peck

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

Cerenkovman

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Cerenkovman

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

Gary_Peck

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

origin

Guest

Gary_Peck

Guest

origin

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Gary_Peck

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Gary_Peck

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page