Idea for the explanation of dark matter

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Matter that exists in a state that does not reflect or emit any form of known energy signature over long distance.</font><br />just like the golden unicorns i saw yesterday grazing by the purple lake. <br /><br />

 

[enigma10]

guess you better park them next to the back holes that do exactly what i mentioned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

sure, we can steer this into a black hole thread if you'd like. i'm game for that fantasy. <br /><br />indeed, there may be black holes, but i don't believe they do what proponents of them assume they do. so we can meet 1/2 way if you'd like.

 

[enigma10]

First you indicate black holes as fantasy, then aknowledge a possibility, then set to detail properties of those fictisiously plausible black holes, then wish to meet half way?<br /><br /> Well. I think you've covered enough ground for yourself for one day. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Too early to say that there will not be that much brown dwarf.We are at starting point only.

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Too early to say that there will not be that much brown dwarf.We are at starting point only.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>your hopes are motivated on one hand by preservation of the 'old order' and or by rejection of proposed solutions as being false leads and nonsense - which latter view I would share with you (though not the former).<br /><br />Such classical solution to dark matter problem is bound to end in failure in the end, same as it did in past with most other problems that cropped up in science. <br />I grant you one must always check if the current science is not enough to solve the problems that crop up but here in this case to still pin hopes on classical solution is not warranted any more. <br /><br />The solution to the dark matter mystery when it is found will almost certainly involve some new physics. It just won't do to stick or revert to classic solution only because one sees the past and current proposed solutions as hairbrained and one can't think of anything new and better himself.<br /><br />Science has long history of efforts to preserve the old order and typically those efforts lost in the end and new vistas were opened before science, I believe the history in this respect will repeat itself this time also.<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />First you indicate black holes as fantasy, then aknowledge a possibility, then set to detail properties of those fictisiously plausible black holes, then wish to meet half way? <br /><br />Well. I think you've covered enough ground for yourself for one day.</font><br />i'll meet you 1/2 way that they may exist. but they are not doing what many believe they are doing.

 

[sekse]

First off, the matter of the universe was not created from the big bang, as somebody had said, the matter was already there, it simply exploded out into the universe. Secondly, it can not be proven that the mass of the universe remains constant, due to black wholes and wormholes which could theoretically allow time travel, allowing the universal mass at one point to be different from another. Matter can not be created or destroyed, true, but if wormholes allow time travel, it can couple, like if I send myself back in time 1 year, for 1 year there are 2 of me, and more matter in the universe than prior to that point. Or I could send myself forward one year and there would be no me at all for a year. So although I did not create nor destroy matter, there would be more at one point in time than another. Just wanted to get those 2 misconceptions out of the way.

 

[vipergtsr3g]

ViperGTSR3g: My take on dark matter is it doesnt exist at all...<br /><br />doubletruncation: What you say regarding gravity tending to slow the expansion of the universe down is true. Matter does decelarate the universe, and this is an effect that is definitely built into the equations that model the expansion of the universe. You can, in fact, attempt to measure the average mass density of the universe by measuring the distance-redshift relation and seeing how the slope of that relation changes over redshift. <br /><br />And does this "equation" also include the fact that the universe is exponentially larger because the farther away something is from us, the faster away it willl be moving, because the light that we are recieving from it had left the object closer to the time of the big bang, and so the object was travelling much faster back then than now?<br /><br />And as for the post above mine, If you sent yourself forward in time, and if I am following our theory, than there would be a "you" a year from now because there was no "you" until you got there. So the amount of matter in the universe wouldn't change. I think it can change all it wants. Why would there be a constant for the amount of matter in the universe? We don't even know how big it is. Trying to say how much matter we have is like saying we know how many stars were sucked into a black hole. have you seen a black hole before?

 

[search]

Hello MichaelIR<br />From an old thread but still aplicable:<br /><br />Dark matter: <br /><br />In 1930 a Dutch astronomer, Jan Oort (more known because of his work of comets), was studying stellar movement measuring relative velocities of the local group of stars that surround our solar system and found that at the measured speed this stars would not be able to stay together by gravity. Something else must account for the mass necessary (3x) for that to happen. Another astronomer the Bulgarian (working in Swisserland and later in California) Fritz Zwicky calculated that the individual velocity of the galaxies within the Coma Cluster was too high for them to be kept together. <br /><br />Jan Oort came up with the idea (for the solar system) that there should be a large ammount of debree beyond Pluto (the later found Oort Cloud) but that was not enough. <br /><br />Zwick proposed "dark matter" should exist within the galixies but his study of only one Cluster remained ignored and the idea also. <br /><br />During the 60's a woman astronomer Vera Rubin measured rotation rates of spiral galaxies and encountered same problem: velocity too high for stars to stay together unless the mass was considerably higher than calculated. Needed to say that it was then believed that the vast amount of mass was in the center of the galaxies. <br /><br />Galaxy mass calculation: <br />http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/program2.htm <br /><br />During the 70's she went further and observing Andromeda (using the dynamic of its motion instead of distribution of the stars as it was then normal) noticed that the galaxy had only 10% of the stars necessary to generate enough gravity to hold itself together (calculated via first process) and the extra 90% hidden mass had to be in the outer regions of the galaxy disk. This really prompted the astronomers to look for other examples and the result was consistent everywhere. This gave birth

 

[lukman]

(In Big Bang models, space expanded to the current size of the universe in less than 3 seconds)<br />The object that Hubble captured was 13.5bly away when universe is just 2billion years old, now the object is 75bly away beacuse of an expanding space in universe.<br /><br />13.5 billion years, moving to 75bly apart, i am confused, unless the 75bly distance is not significant to the size of the universe that created by 3 second bigbang. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>