I may have solved 'Dark Matter' Check theory plz..

[Odezy]

I was reading the post about peering into the past when it hit me.....<br />We may NOT be at the center of THE universe but regardless we ARE at the center of the OBSERVABLE universe. What does that have to do with the price of rice in china? Well if you think about it, 'Dark Matter' could easily be solved as gas, Nebulae, Planets, Stars, Galaxies, Etc etc etc that we simply cant observe... Why? Because relative to us, It's all moving at or faster than C. Which would render 'Dark Matter' unobservable yet explained would it not?<br /><br />Could that explain why galaxies dont fly apart and all other problems which 'Dark Matter' Defines? Could it be simply regular matter moving at or faster than C relative to us?<br /><br />*Crosses fingers and waits for replies*

 

[alokmohan]

It is possibly brown dwarf.

 

[Odezy]

Brown dwarves couldnt possibly account for ALL the missing matter could they???

 

[alokmohan]

Nutrinos?

 

[slinted]

Take the Andromeda Galaxy (2 million light years away) as an example. You can see its stars, and record their rotation, and calculate that there isn't enough mass/gravity in that galaxy to sustain its rotation. Why would there be matter in or around Andromeda that adds gravity to the system, but is traveling > c relative to us? <br /><br />I think i can understand what you're saying in regards to objects at the very edge of our observational capacity, but not for ones closeup. And its the closeup ones that brought about the mystery in the first place.<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

The reason for dark matter is the rotation rates of stars around the outer parts of galaxies, they’re moving too fast. Therefore the mass distribution of galaxies is different to the mass distribution of the stars we can see in the galaxies. So this extra matter was labelled dark matter.<br /><br />Interestingly it was discovered in 1998 at JPL that the pioneer probes that are travelling away from the sun are also not where they should be. It seems that the suns gravity is stronger that it should be at that distance.<br /><br />There is also an effect on pendulums during solar eclipses that remains unexplained. A pendulum will slowly process during the day in a set direction, however during a solar eclipse at Paris in the 1950s a pendulum was seen to reverse the direction of this precession and increased the magnitude of it (NewScientist No2475 27/11/04 p28). <br /><br />All these effects are still controversial and there needs to be more verification of them, especially the last two, but perhaps our understand of gravity is not as complete as we hoped.<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

That's not a stupid question, that is the principal line of enquiry behind astronomy. The physics thus far observed by remote sensing has to match the physics we understand and model. Any exotic object goes to the top of the list for investigation and validation of existing theory.

 

[nacnud]

Thats just what I was going to say <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[alkalin]

That’s the ideal. We have a ways to go yet. One step forward, two steps back. At this rate we may end up drillling for oil on the sun.<br /><br />But more seriously, I think there are no two galaxies alike. But locals do either rotate much faster than they should, or the stars in them are mostly oil after all. Just think of them as well lubricated.<br />

 

[alokmohan]

Research on dark matters dates from 1980s.So many suggestions are there.

 

[chmee]

Could the explaination for the observed speed of the stars around galaxies be accounted for by assuming that gravity over very long distances, is a touch *stronger* than current (Newtonian) gravitational theory?<br /><br />Thus when billions of stars are grouped together in a galaxy this slightly larger gravitational effect adds up. This seems to me at least as probable as assuming gigantic unseen "dark matter" causes this.

 

[nacnud]

Yup, there is a theory that tries this approach, its called MOND for MOdified Newtonian Dynamics and it was proposed in 1983 by Mordehai Milgrom. The thing is that because general relatively has been so successful that is it hard to justify giving it up it was easier to use dark matter as a solution.<br /><br />Here is a link to the wikipedia pages on MOND.<br />

 

[nexium]

I can't make any claims about understanding the current ideas on dark matter, but it seems all the alternate suggestions have some merit.<br /> If there is an average of one brown dwarf per cubic light year of our galaxy, their mass averages 0.03 solar mass, then they total several times the mass of the of the visable stars. The cubic light year our solar system is in may be one of the few that does not have a brown dwarf. If the surface temperature is very low, I suspect we would not detect a brown dwarf at a distance of one light year.<br /> It is also possible that many trillions of very cold objects averaging 0.001 solar mass are in galactic orbit, but none of them have passed though the inner solar system the last two centuries. Older reports are typically debunked. Neil

 

[nexium]

There has been a lively debate reguarding the speed of gravity. Experiments indicate almost the speed of light to much faster than light, but the test methods, and conclusions have been challanged.<br /> Clearly the much larger portion beyond the visable Universe affects local (and not so local) gravity fields at least slightly, if the effect of gravity propagates much faster than light; otherwise the effect has not arrived yet. Since gravity decreases as the square of the distance, local effects are likely to be very small or zero from gravity sources more than 15 billion light years away. I don't see how even strong gravity from a far can hold over fast galaxies together, but then I can't grasp how dark matter could cause the same angular velocity near the core as at the outer edge, so my opinon is worth little.<br /> Apparently the transparency of the medium between the galaxys, puts an upper limit on the amount of unlighted ordinary matter (Nebula, planets not orbiting a star, solar systens without a light source, compact stars ect, etc) that can be there. In the case of compact stars with negligible accreation disk, I think these could exceed the mass of the visable stars by 1000 times with little effect on the transparency, so perhaps there is no need for a mysterious dark matter, but a need to explain such a huge number of dead compact stars. Neil

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">There is also an effect on pendulums during solar eclipses that remains unexplained. A pendulum will slowly process during the day in a set direction, however during a solar eclipse at Paris in the 1950s a pendulum was seen to reverse the direction of this precession and increased the magnitude of it (NewScientist No2475 27/11/04 p28).</font><br /><br />That's interesting!!!

 

[nexium]

I think much of general relativity will eventually be replaced by new theorys, so I see little harm in considering that gravity might weaken less after a few thousand light years.<br /> Can someone explain, in laymen's terms why Neptune would orbit faster if there was a shell of several solar mass, a billion miles beyond Neptune's orbit or anywhere else near Neptune? Intuitively, it seems it would slow Neptune's orbit. Is it possible, that the dark matter hypothesis is a cover up for something the rich and powerful don't want us to know or that dark matter has magical powers? Neil

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

I like CHMEE's collective gravitational field idea. But here is 1 cent of my 2 cents on dark matter. <br /><br />We know the deep space so cold even Kelvin temperature scale will refuse to go there. What if water get trapped in deep space and turn into transparent ice.<br />Refraction through ice will always give us a relative positions of stars. Any descrepancies in star positions may shine some light on this theory. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[tamski]

I just came up with an idea (silly one perhaps): Could it be possible that gravitons are being affected by interference? What I mean that when gravitons with the same phase overlap each other, then the effect would be amplified. Just a thought, nothing more.