jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 04:02 am
@jeeprs,
yes, the idea is pretty clear, what is intriguing is why 70 percent, or 90 percent, or something, of the universe is made of something you can't see, and what does this mean.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 04:19 am
@jeeprs,
I speculated its the gravitational experiences of other universes.I can imagine, like the magnet under the table moved my toy cars, as a child i might add, but you could not see the magnet.
Bones-O
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 06:05 pm
@jeeprs,
Dark matter in a nutshell: "Galaxies aren't behaving as per our mathematical formulation of their laws. Our laws cannot be wrong, thus the universe must be completely different."
0 Replies
 
Kielicious
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 06:21 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
I speculated its the gravitational experiences of other universes.I can imagine, like the magnet under the table moved my toy cars, as a child i might add, but you could not see the magnet.


Quite interesting and could very well be the case.
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 08:37 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
I speculated its the gravitational experiences of other universes.I can imagine, like the magnet under the table moved my toy cars, as a child i might add, but you could not see the magnet.


It is like that xris you cant see it, dark is not really the correct adjective for dark matter, a better word would be "invisible matter", invisible to our spectrum at that
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 09:36 pm
@jeeprs,
Yes but could you pick a piece of it up and throw it? Or make something out of it ('Dave, throw me the Dark Matter spanner)? Is it 'stuff', like these dense little balck hole things bobbing around in space? Or - this is the spooky bit - is it actually 'all around', present where we are, but not perceptible?

You see, I don't think many people realise how strange science has become, and how far from the Victorian world-picture that many of us still live in....
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 12:49 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs, great questions...

I have a few theories of my own, perhaps not derived solely by myself but derived by my research which gave me the ideas. Here are my ideas;

There are two ways to blow up a balloon. One way is to supply air internally which will allow the balloon to fill and expand. The other way is to place the balloon (tied closed) into a container and vacuum out the air surrounding it which will lower the pressure inside it and give the appearance of inflation.

So why did I give you this visual? Well perhaps dark matter isn't contained inside our universe but instead, outside it. So our universe isn't pushing the expansion but instead the expansion is a pull from dark matter outside the universe. This would be consistent with it not being observable nor consisting of atoms yet still impacting our universe.


0 Replies
 
validity
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 02:24 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:
Yes but could you pick a piece of it up and throw it? Or make something out of it ('Dave, throw me the Dark Matter spanner)? Is it 'stuff', like these dense little balck hole things bobbing around in space? Or - this is the spooky bit - is it actually 'all around', present where we are, but not perceptible?
Even though a dark matter spanner wont be that heavy (if it is some form of neutrino), Dave should not throw a dark matter spanner, as you wont be able to see it to catch it. Safety first.

jeeprs wrote:
You see, I don't think many people realise how strange science has become, and how far from the Victorian world-picture that many of us still live in....
Strange is that which is outside the ordinary and since the frontier of science is delving deeper and further then our ordinary experience, in this sense it is becoming strange Smile
0 Replies
 
Bones-O
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 05:11 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:
Yes but could you pick a piece of it up and throw it? Or make something out of it ('Dave, throw me the Dark Matter spanner)? Is it 'stuff', like these dense little balck hole things bobbing around in space? Or - this is the spooky bit - is it actually 'all around', present where we are, but not perceptible?

You see, I don't think many people realise how strange science has become, and how far from the Victorian world-picture that many of us still live in....


Whatever dark matter is or isn't, it does not interact electrically (if it did, it would build systems capable of EM radiation), so no: macroscopic structures cannot be made from dark matter. Axions may form small, neutral nuclei, but that neutrality means it cannot be used to build anything. You can think of it as waste material that is very, very occassionally interesting (when it interacts with an atomic nucleus, for instance).
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 08:03 am
@Bones-O,
Could we ever suspect multi universes enough to try and prove it? I can imagine communicating with these other universes and then vibrating at another level to enter these universes.I'm told by science there could 500 of these universes, amazing.I think we have to believe what the evidence is telling us.
0 Replies
 
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 11:41 am
@jeeprs,
Do you have a link or something please Xris to the evidence you mentioned in your last post thank you.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 05:28 am
@Caroline,
Caroline wrote:
Do you have a link or something please Xris to the evidence you mentioned in your last post thank you.
The current new scientist has an article on the new probe to discover more about the back ground microwave noise of the universe.They are attempting to look back even further in time to milliseconds after the BB.Its part of that article Caroline.
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 07:34 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
The current new scientist has an article on the new probe to discover more about the back ground microwave noise of the universe.They are attempting to look back even further in time to milliseconds after the BB.Its part of that article Caroline.

Excellent, thank you Xris.
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 08:38 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:
Yes but could you pick a piece of it up and throw it? Or make something out of it ('Dave, throw me the Dark Matter spanner)? Is it 'stuff', like these dense little balck hole things bobbing around in space? Or - this is the spooky bit - is it actually 'all around', present where we are, but not perceptible?

You see, I don't think many people realise how strange science has become, and how far from the Victorian world-picture that many of us still live in....


Astrophysicists separate Dark Energy from Dark Matter, so if they are correct, yes you can reach out and grab some of it

Previously I said a better word for dark matter would be invisible matter, on a rethink I propose:

Transparent Matter, the reason dark matter acts like colossal lenses for astronomical telescopes Dark Matter is see through
0 Replies
 
Lost phil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 04:41 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:
Hi All

I note an earlier thread on this topic here. I too have puzzled over this idea and would like to put it up again for any responses.

I am not scientifically trained, nor with any expertise in physics. I am a writer who reads about such topics in New Scientist and so on. So these are all the wonderings of a layman - they are certainly more poetic than technical, but here goes.

The current 'model of the universe' holds that dark matter 'accounts for the vast majority of the mass in the observable universe.' (Wikipedia.) Furthermore, we are told that Dark Matter is 'not directly observable'. Its existence is inferred from measurements of the rate of expansion of the observable universe. It is described as 'non-baryonic' meaning in layman's terms 'not consisting of atoms'.

Well pardon me, but I can't help having the feeling that this opens a can of worms of cosmic proportions. If in fact a large percentage of the Universe consists of something we can't even detect or see but only infer, then I would have thought that the 'scientific materialist' picture of the universe is in pretty dire straights. After all, the very ground of scientific materialism is that what we can detect and measure with our senses and instruments IS the sole reality. Now we are told that he existence of most of the stuff around us, by weight, can't even be detected. So doesn't this leave room for other kinds of beings or entities or intelligences that might originate or dwell in the same unknowable and un-measurable dimension? (I won't even hazard a guess what these might be.)

There is an expression called the God of the Gaps, referring to 'the role of God as being confined to the "gaps" in scientific explanations of nature.' Of course we are told that with the triumphal march of science, etc, the gaps are nowadays pretty small. However it would seem to me that with the current state of cosmology - dark matter being only one of several very mystifying developments - the gaps have suddenly gotten an awful lot bigger. Big enough to contain entire other dimensions of reality, one would think. (I am not looking for a definite answer. I think "We don't know" is actually OK in this context, but would be interested in any thoughts.)


That can of worms was cracked open a long time ago. Smile

Those "gaps" have never been bigger. We are not closer to understanding our nature because we are looking in the dark. No pun intended.
We spend far too much time and energy on looking to the stars than looking in ourselves. I believe the answers to mans questions lies in something so miniscule we won't have the technology to see it for a very very long time. A telescope let's you see something far away close up. We need to stop thinking a microscope does any different.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 07:54 pm
@jeeprs,
I'm with you bro':bigsmile:
0 Replies
 
validity
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 May, 2009 02:56 am
@Lost phil,
Lost wrote:
We spend far too much time and energy on looking to the stars than looking in ourselves.
I would be interested in seeing the data that draws this conclusion, that is of course if the statement reflects reality and is not only your perception.

Lost wrote:
I believe the answers to mans questions lies in something so miniscule we won't have the technology to see it for a very very long time.
Perhaps. However, the very small behaves in a very differenet manner than that of the large. This being the case, investigating only either the small or large can not provide all the answers.

Lost wrote:
A telescope let's you see something far away close up.
Telescopes also allow us the see the universe as it was billions of years ago. Microscopes do not allow us to do this.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 01:26 am
@jeeprs,
My bet is that dark matter will go the way of 'luminiferous ether' - but it will take the next Einstein to work it out.
0 Replies
 
Bones-O
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 04:16 am
@jeeprs,
Me too. Not to say there aren't other particles and that the void isn't filled with them, but 90% of the universe being invisible so as to account for some galaxy rotations tastes very much like fudge to me.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Dark Matter
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/03/2021 at 05:06:22