It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I should have said "Direct dark matter detector", because we do have indirect dark matter detectors of sorts, called "gravitational lenses".
originally posted by: John333
we have a "dark matter" detector. its our eyes. wherever you see darkness there is dark matter lol
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I should have said "Direct dark matter detector", because we do have indirect dark matter detectors of sorts, called "gravitational lenses".
originally posted by: John333
we have a "dark matter" detector. its our eyes. wherever you see darkness there is dark matter lol
But if you see darkness with your eyes, how do you know if it's from dark matter or from the absence of any matter? Oh wait, I see the lol, you were joking, so no need to answer that. You're as bad as Alex Filippenko, who says "let me show you my favorite picture of a black hole" and puts up a slide that's completely black. Of course he's joking too.
originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: KrzYma
Why are you so determined to prove the EU theory right, when it's wrong?
Our current theories describe everything quite well, being capable of making predictions within incredible accuracy.
I have no idea what that means. A blob of plasma is a collection of particles, and plasma isn't "dark", it gives off radiation.
originally posted by: John333
well i kinda was joking. but what i was joking about was that i dont believe dark matter will be found as a particle. more like a blob of plasma in appearance.
Please give me the time index where he says the sun is electric. He seems to be arguing that the sun has some fluid-like properties. I dont' know where he got the idea that plasma under a strong gravitational influence like a star can't exhibit some fluid-like properties, nobody ever told me that. But I was taught that plasma isn't a liquid or a gas and the sun is made out of plasma even according to EU folks so why is he debating whether the sun is a liquid or a gas? It makes no sense.
originally posted by: KrzYma
The SM sun model is wrong...
There's a disaster all right, in Crother's understanding of math, and I've never seen someone's lacking math skills disparaged this politely where the author compares Crothers to Einstein, sort of:
Black Holes disaster..
the claim that the black hole “is not consistent at all with general relativity” is completely false.
General relativity is a difficult topic, which is grounded in advanced mathematics (indeed, Einstein himself is quoted as saying something along the lines of “Ever since the mathematicians took hold of relativity, I no longer understand it myself!”). A sound understanding of differential geometry is a prerequisite for understanding the theory in its modern form. Thus to paraphrase Lao Tzu [12] — beware of the half-enlightened master.
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
thermodynamic time runs backwards in blackholes
phys.org...
Also Dark matter didn't exist before it was invented?
by that very logic, i guess Johann Gottfried Galle invented Neptune... pretty powerful guy!
On bending of spacetime, id love to see a theory that can explain gravitational lensing how we have observed it... and explain the orbit of mercury too...
OK, but what led up to him finding it? Observations by Le Verrier indicated there should be some mass in that location, and Galle found it where Le Verrier predicted it:
originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ErosA433
haha.. no, he (Johann Gottfried Galle) was the first person to view the planet Neptune.
That's similar to the way we predict dark matter. We observe gravitational effects and predict something must be there. So Neptune was there all along and so was dark matter, the only thing we discovered were the gravitational effects in both cases.
Urbain Le Verrier had predicted the existence and position of Neptune, and sent the coordinates to Galle, asking him to verify. Galle found Neptune in the same night he received Le Verrier's letter, within 1° of the predicted position. The discovery of Neptune is widely regarded as a dramatic validation of celestial mechanics, and is one of the most remarkable moments of 19th century science.
I could imagine lots of things including that, however we are not constrained by our imagination but by observation which shows that electric fields don't propagate faster than c.
imagine the electric field propagating many billions time faster then C, and only the magnetic field, which "reconfigure" the EM field, propagating with C.
Assuming you're not joking anymore, do you know that while we still don't know what dark matter is exactly, we have identified certain properties of it? Have to familiarized yourself with the properties we know of and compared your hypothesis to those known properties?
originally posted by: John333
a reply to: Arbitrageur
only in appearance. fluid in behaviour. with multiple different currents to the flow. particles? no because it's a force. and a force doesnt have particles. it's like water but without the smaller molecules.
The only things I saw at work in the video affecting those were momentum and gravity, and when you see it going faster, that's because he gave it a little push but that's sometimes done outside the camera's view. Because it's floating there's not much friction to slow it down, but when you tilt the track at an angle, gravity can certainly make it reverse direction.
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: dragonridr
What controls the speed and direction? It seems to slow down and speed up. When the superconductor was hanging, it appeared to reverse course. Is that correct?
Dark matter is nothing but good ole electrons in the time domain. Hope that helps. Lol I am the only person in the world that knows this.
originally posted by: John333
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: stormbringer1701
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Why do I get the impression you already know the answer to your questions?
You know that neutrons have charged quarks and you probably know that we don't know of any such charged particles comprising neutrinos so why should we be able to do something similar to neutrinos? I don't know what I could add that you don't already know about that.
The evolution of particle detectors seems to show that they keep getting better over time. A lot of these changes are incremental rather than breakthroughs but I don't know of any breakthroughs on the horizon in neutrino detector technology. Maybe somebody else does. What we really need is a dark matter detector. At least we can detect neutrinos even if difficult and with detectors that are not compact.
we have a "dark matter" detector. its our eyes. wherever you see darkness there is dark matter lol
For example let's say I drop a book into a black hoke. I will see it fall then eventually stop at the event horizon. Where it it frozen for infinity. We would always see the image of the book.
That's similar to the way we predict dark matter. We observe gravitational effects and predict something must be there. So Neptune was there all along and so was dark matter, the only thing we discovered were the gravitational effects in both cases.
The black hole itself? No, you can't see that. The matter falling in? That depends on a lot of factors like whether it's "eating" a gas cloud or a star, as explained here:
originally posted by: KrzYma
but you can't see a black hole even if it "eats " all the mater surrounding it ?
It's true that when we looked where Neptune was supposed to be we saw the baryonic matter that was Neptune, reflecting sunlight. It's also true that when we look for baryonic matter to explain the gravitational influence attributed to dark matter, we don't think there can be enough of it. But this doesn't mean gravitational theory is wrong. For example, we know that neutrinos have mass and are not baryonic, so just because we don't see baryons doesn't mean there aren't neutrinos and perhaps other things which are difficult to detect.