dark matter

emperor_of_localgroup · Sep 25, 2007

I'm not comparing atoms with galaxies. I'm comparing a sold object with a galaxy. Formation of a solid object, and formation of a galaxy have some similarities. That's all I'm saying. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

yevaud · Sep 25, 2007

More like a probability density-cloud surrounding a point-particle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

MeteorWayne · Sep 25, 2007

I was going to mention that, but thought I'd stop with the shape of the clouds <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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>

alokmohan · Sep 25, 2007

Mass of all the stars and mass as per Newtons laws do not tally.If you think Newtons law is correct,dark matter exists.

emperor_of_localgroup · Sep 25, 2007

Ok, the word I should have used is 'chemical bonding' not molecular force. It is not quite Newton's gravity or more to Newton's gravity. Binary stars are abundant in a galaxy (except of course our Sun), resemblance between a binary star and Covalent bond is interesting. Atoms form molecules and molecules form solid, liquid, etc. What is the exact nature of this force between molecules? I need to polish my chemistry before I say something stupid about chemistry. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

MeteorWayne · Sep 25, 2007

The force between molecules is electromangnetic force. <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>

alokmohan · Sep 26, 2007

Empreror confuses me.Chemistry is new outlook.Any way there is a term MOND.gOOGLE AND GOD may say what it is.Modified Newtonian dynamics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia â€¢ Find out more about navigating Wikipedia and finding information â€¢Jump to: navigation, search In physics, Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) is a theory that proposes a modification of Newton's Second Law of Dynamics, to explain the galaxy rotation problem. When the uniform velocity of rotation of galaxies was first observed, it was unexpected because the Newtonian theory of gravity predicted that objects that are farther out will have lower velocities. For example, planets in the Solar System orbit with velocities that decrease as their distance from the Sun increases. The MOND theory explains the observed revolution curves, by suggesting that the acceleration of a particle is not linearly proportional to the force, at low values of acceleration. This theory does not have wide support among the scientific community, who currently prefer the alternative dark matter theory. This assumes that a halo of dark matter surrounds each galaxy, causing all the stars in the galaxy disc to orbit with the same velocity. MOND was proposed by Mordehai Milgrom in 1981 to model the observed uniform velocity data without the dark matter assumption. His key insight was that Newton's Second Law (F = ma) for gravitational force has only been verified when gravitational acceleration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

timejump · Sep 26, 2007

ok if this dark matter is a form of gravity why dont we just look for better ways of studying gravity

emperor_of_localgroup · Sep 26, 2007

Empreror confuses me.Chemistry is new outlook Sorry you got confused. I was merely comparing solid formation by chemical processes and 'solid' formation by 'gravity or other forces'. I was in no way saying galactic forces are same as chemical forces. MW has corrected my post saying chemical bonding occurs by electromagnetic forces. And they say EM forces are not strong. They can be very strong at close distances. Iwas pointing out some similarities between molecular structures and certain astronomical structures, although each are formed by completely different processes. I already found some differences, there are several types of chemical bonding, but there are no counter parts in astronomical realm, at least not known yet. I'm now trying to refesh my chemistry memory from books and online sources, I was never good at chemistry. My thought is a galaxy in some distant past was a rotating solid held together by gravity or by combinations of other forces. Currently what we are observing is breaking up of a galaxy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

carbon_14 · Dec 12, 2008

There is much debate on the issue of dark matter. And I've been thinking about this whole problem for quit a long time. Mind you, this is a very compact version of this hypothesis. According to Cosmic mass measurements, the Cosmos is missing roughly 85-90% of the mass required to keep galaxies intact. Physicists are continually throwing some missing particle to solve the insurrection of the missing mass. And to add to this problem, gravity is the weakest force of the four known forces in the Cosmos. Its as if gravity is leaking from our dimension, or perhaps leaking in from another dimension. The force of a weak magnet is on the order of magnitudes stronger than gravity. Gravity doesn't make sense from a known force standpoint. It's also stated we live in a three dimensional space with a 4th dimension of time. Ok, but when matter is accelerated to relativistic speeds, time ceases to exist as we understand it and becomes some sort of odd spatial dimension, such as the theories of black holes would suggest. Time is not a constant and this would again suggest it is actually a spatial dimension. This time dilation aspect of the Cosmos is a very well known phenomenon and makes technology such a GPS possible. Time might be more accurately described as a spatial dimension of movement as apposed to our perception of "time". Now, in order to understand what I'm about to suggest here, one must delve into the realm of a two dimensional reality. Imagine if we existed in a two dimensional reality. How would the 3rd dimension appear to us? Well, if our perception was on the lines of X and Y, there would be virtually no height, so our perception of the 3rd dimension would be that of an infinitely thin slice of a given 3rd dimension object as it passed by our range of perception - some peculiar changing line within our line of vision. Although the 3rd dimension object would be complete and whole, to the two dimensional observer, it would only appear as a very thin slice of it's totality. Take this concept one step further into our 3rd dimension perception, plus the time* dimension. What if "matter" is our three dimensional perception of what matter actually is as it exists in a higher dimension. And when matter is subject to certain conditions such as a black hole, time then regains its spatial dimension characteristics. But time from our perceptional standpoint is movement. So if our perception of matter is only a slice of what it actually is in reality, then this could very well explain many things. Take an electron. It is said that an electron when it's not being measured, exists in a state of probability. And once measured, it's then quantified into a physical state of existence that we can detect. But if we attempt to predict what energy state any given electron will be in at a given point in time, we can then only predict a probability of this phenomenon. Let's take an electron and put its true reality into a higher spatial dimension. In this reality, the electron would appear to us as the 3rd dimensional object would appear to a two dimensional observer - only a slice of what it actually is. The electron would be much more than what we could perceive or measure at any given moment. So from this stand point, an electron would appear to jump from state to state within the confines of probability given the passage of time, when in fact, the electron is moving within higher spatial dimensions that are, for all intent and purpose, impossible for us to interpret from our 3rd dimensional perception. Now, in an attempt to visualize what is I'm speaking about. Let's simplify this into a line, and the line is matter in its various spatial dimensional existences. Try to imagine the below line as an encapsulation of matter in its totality. |-- far negative dimensions -- negative dimension spaces -- 1st dimension -- 2nd dimension - us, the 3rd dimension -- 4th dimension -- 5th spatial dimension -- positive dimensions -- far positive dimensions --| From our standpoint, we experience other dimensions that are at or very near to our 3rd dimension reality, but beyond these limited perceptions, our observational and perceptual abilities greatly diminish. From our standpoint, gravity would then appear to be a weak force as we are capable of measuring the effects of what we can perceive. The other known forces could be just as weak but appear to be very strong when compared to gravity. It all depends on how the various properties of matter interact within the confines of our perceptual reality. If in fact dark matter is roughly 85-90% of the physical matter of the Cosmos, then this might give us some clue on how much of the missing dimensional space we are not able to perceive. Dark energy could be placed into this equation as well, in the form of negative dimensional space(s) of matter. These negative dimensional spaces would exhibit properties that are counter intuitive of our perception in the positive dimensional realms. Additionally, this hypothesis could be applied to multi-verse concept, in that multiple parallel Universes could be part of our physical Universe but exist in a different phase of energy from ours. What appears to be empty space* could in fact be our tiny fraction of perception of what actually exist. Parallel Universes would not be separate from ours but rather lie within another range of perception of the very same physical matter we are comprised. Perhaps string theory is completely off. Instead of continually attempting to reduce particles to their smallest constituent parts, maybe entertain the idea that our current understanding of matter is very poorly understood in that we may only perceive a small fraction of what matter actually is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><div>[netstat -n]</div> </div>

DrRocket · Dec 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is much debate on the issue of dark matter. And I've been thinking about this whole problem for quit a long time. Mind you, this is a very compact version of this hypothesis. According to Cosmic mass measurements, the Cosmos is missing roughly 85-90% of the mass required to keep galaxies intact. Physicists are continually throwing some missing particle to solve the insurrection of the missing mass. And to add to this problem, gravity is the weakest force of the four known forces in the Cosmos. Its as if gravity is leaking from our dimension, or perhaps leaking in from another dimension.Speaking of gravity as being weaker or stronger than the electromagnetic force is a bit naive.  You need to quantify that statement and put it in perspective.  Gravity is always attractive and is dependent only on mass.  So at some distance from most objects, which are on the whole electrically neutral gravity is the only force that it felt.  That makes it the strongest force in that context.  But very close to the electron cloud in the atoms that comprise ordinary matter, the repulsive effect overcomes gravity -- and that is a good thing or you would be falling through the floor right now.Your notion regarding dimension needs some refinement.  You might want to take a look at the thread on the meaning of "dimension".  http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3ac7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum%3ab1675c48-7c2d-4e4d-b6eb-8790beb68f8bDiscussion%3aa1ec83d2-eaa1-4597-8a0d-f9f0c84c9d93&plckCategoryCurrentPage=0  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The force of a weak magnet is on the order of magnitudes stronger than gravity. Gravity doesn't make sense from a known force standpoint. </DIV>Gravity makes as much sense as any known force, perhaps more.  General relativity provides a very accurate prediction of gravitational phenomena.  It is true that we do not understand how to formulate a theory that is consistent with both general relativity and quantum field theories.  Most physicists think that a theory of quantum gravity is needed.  There are a few who think that perhaps general relativity is the more robust theory and that quantum theory needs to be revised.  Nobody know how to formulate a valid theory using either approach.  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's also stated we live in a three dimensional space with a 4th dimension of time. Ok, but when matter is accelerated to relativistic speeds, time ceases to exist as we understand it and becomes some sort of odd spatial dimension, such as the theories of black holes would suggest. Time is not a constant and this would again suggest it is actually a spatial dimension.</DIV>No, what is actually postulated according to general relativity is that the universe is a 4-dimensional manifold, called space-time.  That manifold has curvature.  It is not possible to globally separate the time coordinate from the spatial coordinates and there is no clear distinction between time and spatial dimensions except locally.  Time and space are inherently intertwined and neither time nor space has clear independent meaning.For the sort of things that you are trying to address it is very important that you begin to understand the concept of a manifold.  Manifolds can be much more complex topologically and geometrically than simple flat Euclidean space.  It is the curvature of space-time that adds a great deal of complexity to the discussion and that prevents a clear separation of the notions of time and space.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This time dilation aspect of the Cosmos is a very well known phenomenon and makes technology such a GPS possible. Time might be more accurately described as a spatial dimension of movement as apposed to our perception of "time".</DIV>Not quite. You need to become a bit more familiar with the concept of space-time as unified entity in the form of a semi-Riemannian manifold with curvature.  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, in order to understand what I'm about to suggest here, one must delve into the realm of a two dimensional reality. Imagine if we existed in a two dimensional reality. How would the 3rd dimension appear to us? Well, if our perception was on the lines of X and Y, there would be virtually no height, so our perception of the 3rd dimension would be that of an infinitely thin slice of a given 3rd dimension object as it passed by our range of perception - some peculiar changing line within our line of vision. Although the 3rd dimension object would be complete and whole, to the two dimensional observer, it would only appear as a very thin slice of it's totality. Take this concept one step further into our 3rd dimension perception, plus the time* dimension.</DIV>Again you need some familiarity with the concept of a manifold.  In particular you need to understand the notion of an intrinsic manifold as opposed to an imbedded manifold.  The notion of space-time from general relativity is as an intrinsic manifold, it is not contained in anything, but simply exists on its own.Your analogy of a someone on a 2-manifold in a 3-dimensional universe applies to an imbedded manifold -- a 2-manifold realized as a surface in a 3-dimensional space.  It does not work if the 2-manifold is considered as an intrinsic manifold. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> What if "matter" is our three dimensional perception of what matter actually is as it exists in a higher dimension. And when matter is subject to certain conditions such as a black hole, time then regains its spatial dimension characteristics. </DIV>This is not consistent with a proper definition of "dimension".Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But time from our perceptional standpoint is movement. So if our perception of matter is only a slice of what it actually is in reality, then this could very well explain many things. Take an electron. It is said that an electron when it's not being measured, exists in a state of probability. And once measured, it's then quantified into a physical state of existence that we can detect. But if we attempt to predict what energy state any given electron will be in at a given point in time, we can then only predict a probability of this phenomenon. Let's take an electron and put its true reality into a higher spatial dimension.</DIV>Again you are asksing things of "dimension" that it simply cannot supply.  A dimension is not a cubby hole in which something can hide.  It is basically an available degree of freedom, but an object will have some parameter that describes it with respect to that degree of freedom.  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In this reality, the electron would appear to us as the 3rd dimensional object would appear to a two dimensional observer - only a slice of what it actually is. The electron would be much more than what we could perceive or measure at any given moment. So from this stand point, an electron would appear to jump from state to state within the confines of probability given the passage of time, when in fact, the electron is moving within higher spatial dimensions that are, for all intent and purpose, impossible for us to interpret from our 3rd dimensional perception.</DIV>It is not possible to move is 4 dimensions in a continuos manner in such a way that the projection of the movement onto a 3-dimensional subspace is discontinuous.  That is because the projection map is itself continuous.  To convince yourself of this think of trying to draw a curve on a 2-dimensional price of paper so that if you project that movement onto a line, the projection jumps around.  You cannot do that, because the projection function is continuous.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, in an attempt to visualize what is I'm speaking about. Let's simplify this into a line, and the line is matter in its various spatial dimensional existences. Try to imagine the below line as an encapsulation of matter in its totality. |-- far negative dimensions -- negative dimension spaces -- 1st dimension -- 2nd dimension - us, the 3rd dimension -- 4th dimension -- 5th spatial dimension -- positive dimensions -- far positive dimensions --| From our standpoint, we experience other dimensions that are at or very near to our 3rd dimension reality, but beyond these limited perceptions, our observational and perceptual abilities greatly diminish. From our standpoint, gravity would then appear to be a weak force as we are capable of measuring the effects of what we can perceive. The other known forces could be just as weak but appear to be very strong when compared to gravity. It all depends on how the various properties of matter interact within the confines of our perceptual reality.</DIV>That won't work.  To prove this to your self try to formulate your idea very precisely and express it mathematically.  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If in fact dark matter is roughly 85-90% of the physical matter of the Cosmos, then this might give us some clue on how much of the missing dimensional space we are not able to perceive. Dark energy could be placed into this equation as well, in the form of negative dimensional space(s) of matter. These negative dimensional spaces would exhibit properties that are counter intuitive of our perception in the positive dimensional realms. Additionally, this hypothesis could be applied to multi-verse concept,</DIV>There is no such thing as a negative dimension.  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>in that multiple parallel Universes could be part of our physical Universe but exist in a different phase of energy from ours. What appears to be empty space* could in fact be our tiny fraction of perception of what actually exist. Parallel Universes would not be separate from ours but rather lie within another range of perception of the very same physical matter we are comprised. Perhaps string theory is completely off. Instead of continually attempting to reduce particles to their smallest constituent parts, maybe entertain the idea that our current understanding of matter is very poorly understood in that we may only perceive a small fraction of what matter actually is. Posted by carbon_14</DIV>You are again confused with regard to the notion of dimension.  The multiverse concept really has nothing to do with dimensional separation.String theory may indeed be completely off.  But if you are looking for an application of speculative theory with regard to higher-dimensional versions of space-time then string theory is the place to look.  Unfortunately string theory has difficulty making predictions that are supported by experiments. Unfortunately I cannot offer you any very good idea as to what dark matter really is.  Nobody knows.  That is why it is dark.  Here are some thoughts on the matter from the world of mainstream serious physics.  http://web.mit.edu/~redingtn/www/netadv/specr/012/012.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jdweston · Dec 18, 2008

It was recomended to me to post this over here. T’was the night before EverythingBy Daniel Weston T’was the night before, (as if night mattered) and all through the universe, not a fermion was stirring, not a quark or it’s inverse.Everything was nothing yet in a moment later, the size of a dot, something - an energy radiator.Then a phase transition, caused a cosmic inflation, that grew exponentially towards, quark-gluon plasmatiation.An excess of quarks as it cooled In the first seconds, by the time down to a billion K, an annihilation dance beckons.Time not to rest still way too hot, just not as hot as before, particle energies drop, now the physics we can’t ignore.379,000 light years later the electrons and then nuclei combine, Still 11,000 plus degrees C, now into atoms it finally sublimes. Then slowly gravitationally attracted, to nearby each others and more, two, four, eight, a million, soon sextillions and decillions galore. Then speckles and sparkles, like first falling snow, gives a depth to space, and a pattern to the glow. When out on the edge, a shutter, and chatter, from the swirls and the collapses, out-shed matter. When, what to the deep and the deeper should show, But a star that lasts more then a fleeting you know. With a force super lively and light way too bright, They shine, fade, expand, and explode with the might. More and more the elements by orbital came, And they spun in layers, and periodic by name! "Take Hydrogen first! and now Helium! too, make Lithium and Carbon to name just a few!Now, Nitrogen!, Now Oxygen! Now Beryllium and Boron!, Now more and more and more they flew on!To the column of the group and rows of little balls, Now fusion away! Fusion away! Fusion away all!"And then, in a twinkling of stars, and a swill of dust danced, Galactic arms twist to a center, that disappeared into blackness.Pulled towards the hole, with one last drift around, Down the chimney the light went with only a slight sound. Gravity wins or does it really a few great minds must ponder, Does something leak out and flatten the warp, they now all wonder.Space-time bends and it twists, but does it break or falter. Can we ever know just one everything equation or another. With all this and that when you add all the parts, the mass not enough to hold the whole thing should fall apart.The numbers not-exact but checked time and time again by the add-ers, There’s only one answer (maybe), it's full of Dark matter! Will it grow forever, until it’s runs out and lapses, Just can’t stay the same, must at least relapses!But what is the mass balance and how will we know, whether times runs forever, or someday backwards to no. We measured the shift rates and much to our surprise, not only just away they all flew but still accelerating, we weren't very wise.So we heard it exclaim, I go ‘perpetually out of sight, "Happy forever to all, and to all a very slowly dimming night!" ---30—

Curious_one · Jan 7, 2009

I do have a questions about dark matter and gravity as well as posted previously. I am not a scientist and I do not have the background and resources to fully present my Idea/ question. Please feel free to ignore if it is complete off the wall. Two things I wanted to say which has already probably been discarded by all, but since I am a novice I am curious. First:Everyone says that gravity is weak and I have observed and even tested this theory in person and in my college course work many moons ago. If I may go out on a limb, what if Gravity is not as weak as it would seem to be. The reason for this is what if the entire Galaxy is in a giant gravity well so that all matter in this giant well is equally exerted upon, basically cancelling out the overall force on all the other matter except what is close by the individual gravity wells. As a visual, since my wording is probably confusing, think of plastic wrap tied around the circumference. The middle of the plastic wrap holds marbles, i.e. stars. Now the plastic wrap would be depressed overall, but have smaller impressions in the plastic wrap where these marbles rest.  Granted the Marbles would all clump at the center, but assume that they are geometrically spaced across the plastic wrap. I know this is a stretch, but it does seem to be reasonable.Second: In regard to dark matter itself, a recent scientific publication mentioned that the dark matter had to have no gravitational pull, and 100 times more energy or Mass than light. You have all seen the little example of a wheel turning with one light side and one dark side showing that light has mass and can move objects. Well why can't this help to explain dark matter. I understand that light is not strong enough to push galaxies, but if think of the light still shining from the big bag on then that light is just hitting the newer galaxies, plus the light from closer galaxies. Adding no friction to space, then it seems plausible that the light from Billions to Trillions of sources could push objects in space. And since other Galaxies are generating light, they would constantly be pushing each other apart, explaining why the galaxies continue to expand and accelerate.  Hope some of this makes sense. I am sure that someone has thought of this, but if not, it seems to be logical instead of some partical all over that can't be seen, doesn't interact with anything and can not be detected. Let me know if I am way off base or should seek medical help

SHU · Jan 7, 2009

[IQUOTE]I do have a questions about dark matter and gravity as well as posted previously. I am not a scientist and I do not have the background and resources to fully present my Idea/ question. Please feel free to ignore if it is complete off the wall. Two things I wanted to say which has already probably been discarded by all, but since I am a novice I am curious. First:Everyone says that gravity is weak and I have observed and even tested this theory in person and in my college course work many moons ago. If I may go out on a limb, what if Gravity is not as weak as it would seem to be. The reason for this is what if the entire Galaxy is in a giant gravity well so that all matter in this giant well is equally exerted upon, basically cancelling out the overall force on all the other matter except what is close by the individual gravity wells. As a visual, since my wording is probably confusing, think of plastic wrap tied around the circumference. The middle of the plastic wrap holds marbles, i.e. stars. Now the plastic wrap would be depressed overall, but have smaller impressions in the plastic wrap where these marbles rest.  Granted the Marbles would all clump at the center, but assume that they are geometrically spaced across the plastic wrap. I know this is a stretch, but it does seem to be reasonable.Second: In regard to dark matter itself, a recent scientific publication mentioned that the dark matter had to have no gravitational pull, and 100 times more energy or Mass than light. You have all seen the little example of a wheel turning with one light side and one dark side showing that light has mass and can move objects. Well why can't this help to explain dark matter. I understand that light is not strong enough to push galaxies, but if think of the light still shining from the big bag on then that light is just hitting the newer galaxies, plus the light from closer galaxies. Adding no friction to space, then it seems plausible that the light from Billions to Trillions of sources could push objects in space. And since other Galaxies are generating light, they would constantly be pushing each other apart, explaining why the galaxies continue to expand and accelerate.  Hope some of this makes sense. I am sure that someone has thought of this, but if not, it seems to be logical instead of some partical all over that can't be seen, doesn't interact with anything and can not be detected. Let me know if I am way off base or should seek medical help

Posted by Curious_one[/QUOTE] If you're referring to that windmill is a bottle thing, that's just the difference in heat generated by different surfaces.Going back to you're first post, I saw a documentary about Hawking a few days ago (something about "everything" in the title) and it touched on some similar qualities about dimension and gravity but involved the "rolled up donut" dimensions of string theory and Mike Green(e?).  Naturally, it provided no evidence either.  Anyway,  it also hinted that gravity is weakened by transfer through dimensions but that was not quoted from either Hawking or Green.  There must be something fascinating about this concept because it keeps popping up, but I've yet to see any qualified theory.Going the other way, there's Maldacena's "holographic universe" but it's also very specific.

SHU · Jan 7, 2009

[IQUOTE]I do have a questions about dark matter and gravity as well as posted previously. I am not a scientist and I do not have the background and resources to fully present my Idea/ question. Please feel free to ignore if it is complete off the wall. Two things I wanted to say which has already probably been discarded by all, but since I am a novice I am curious. First:Everyone says that gravity is weak and I have observed and even tested this theory in person and in my college course work many moons ago. If I may go out on a limb, what if Gravity is not as weak as it would seem to be. The reason for this is what if the entire Galaxy is in a giant gravity well so that all matter in this giant well is equally exerted upon, basically cancelling out the overall force on all the other matter except what is close by the individual gravity wells. As a visual, since my wording is probably confusing, think of plastic wrap tied around the circumference. The middle of the plastic wrap holds marbles, i.e. stars. Now the plastic wrap would be depressed overall, but have smaller impressions in the plastic wrap where these marbles rest.  Granted the Marbles would all clump at the center, but assume that they are geometrically spaced across the plastic wrap. I know this is a stretch, but it does seem to be reasonable.Second: In regard to dark matter itself, a recent scientific publication mentioned that the dark matter had to have no gravitational pull, and 100 times more energy or Mass than light. You have all seen the little example of a wheel turning with one light side and one dark side showing that light has mass and can move objects. Well why can't this help to explain dark matter. I understand that light is not strong enough to push galaxies, but if think of the light still shining from the big bag on then that light is just hitting the newer galaxies, plus the light from closer galaxies. Adding no friction to space, then it seems plausible that the light from Billions to Trillions of sources could push objects in space. And since other Galaxies are generating light, they would constantly be pushing each other apart, explaining why the galaxies continue to expand and accelerate.  Hope some of this makes sense. I am sure that someone has thought of this, but if not, it seems to be logical instead of some partical all over that can't be seen, doesn't interact with anything and can not be detected. Let me know if I am way off base or should seek medical help

Posted by Curious_one[/QUOTE] If you're referring to that windmill is a bottle thing, that's just the difference in heat generated by different surfaces.Going back to you're first post, I saw a documentary about Hawking a few days ago (something about "everything" in the title) and it touched on some similar qualities about dimension and gravity but involved the "rolled up donut" dimensions of string theory and Mike Green(e?).  Naturally, it provided no evidence either.  Anyway,  it also hinted that gravity is weakened by transfer through dimensions but that was not quoted from either Hawking or Green.  There must be something fascinating about this concept because it keeps popping up, but I've yet to see any qualified theory.Going the other way, there's Maldacena's "holographic universe" but it's also very specific.

Search

dark matter

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

yevaud

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

timejump

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

carbon_14

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

jdweston

Guest

Curious_one

Guest

SHU

Guest

SHU

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page