Why Dark Matter is Even Weirder Than You Thought

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord



Please do note that all things have dark matter in them including us, yes we are expanding with the universe FTW!

Dark energy causes space to expand, not dark matter.

Dark energy and matter are part of everything including us, we are expanding with the universe.

That is a common misconception which is entirely false. Space is expanding, atoms do not grow or shrink in the process. That's why galaxies around us seem to be moving away from us in all directions we look, the expansion of space is dragging them away from us. But objects such as galaxies stay together due to gravity, it's not like the center of the galaxy is getting further away from our solar system due to the expansion of space because gravity works against dark energy to hold the galaxy in place.

Your wrong, im right, the end period.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Your wrong, im right, the end period.

You're*
I'm*

End of lesson.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: dennisarends

Yes you would be crushed by the pressure at the center of the Earth, but pressure is a completely different thing from gravity. Your crushed lump of flesh would still be subject to the force of gravity which would pull you away from the center.

if we are on the surface... we dont get swept away into space... what makes you think we would be swept up to the surface once u get to the core? the inner core seems to be hot aswell.... so this would mean a pressure zone giving off heat would push is back if we floated that is... but not all the way up to the surface i imagine...

there might be a distance from the earths core..... where our mass get pulled in but the heats pressure ushed us up holding us in a place... this would explain a little to me why the earths outer crust can move seperatly from the inner core aswell...
like a antigravity distance...

a reply to: dennisarends

if we are on the surface... we dont get swept away into space... what makes you think we would be swept up to the surface once u get to the core?

Because of the two reasons I just mentioned. As you move towards the center of the Earth there is less mass between you and the center and more above/around you. You don't seem to grasp the link between mass and gravity. Assume you dig a hole right through the Earth and jump into it, gravity would get weaker and weaker as you move towards the center.

The traveler accelerates toward the center of the Earth and is momentarily weightless when passing through the geometric center at about 7900 m/s or almost 17,700 miles/hr. The traveler would pop up on the opposite side of the Earth after a little more than 42 minutes. But unless he or she grabs something to hold on, they will fall back for a return journey and continue to oscillate with a round-trip time of 84.5 minutes.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

If you could stop right in center you would experience no gravity, but such as state would be very unstable. If you were even slightly off center the mass surrounding you would pull you in some direction towards the surface. Imagine for a moment that the Earth is hollow. What do you think would happen if you could travel inside the hollow sphere?

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: dennisarends

if we are on the surface... we dont get swept away into space... what makes you think we would be swept up to the surface once u get to the core?

Because of the two reasons I just mentioned. As you move towards the center of the Earth there is less mass between you and the center and more above/around you. You don't seem to grasp the link between mass and gravity. Assume you dig a hole right through the Earth and jump into it, gravity would get weaker and weaker as you move towards the center.

The traveler accelerates toward the center of the Earth and is momentarily weightless when passing through the geometric center at about 7900 m/s or almost 17,700 miles/hr. The traveler would pop up on the opposite side of the Earth after a little more than 42 minutes. But unless he or she grabs something to hold on, they will fall back for a return journey and continue to oscillate with a round-trip time of 84.5 minutes.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

If you could stop right in center you would experience no gravity, but such as state would be very unstable. If you were even slightly off center the mass surrounding you would pull you in some direction towards the surface. Imagine for a moment that the Earth is hollow. What do you think would happen if you could travel inside the hollow sphere?

gravity would get weaker and weaker... but we remain in another bigger gravitational influence zone of the sun
(btw we could not fall further beacause of the core ofcoarse but even if we fall thrue the core we would never make it to the sruface on the other side... you would be shy of the surface... each trip u take back and forth.... until you remained in the centre)
wich encompassed our entire solar system.... what is the most dominant source of gravity i think you think it is the earth core... i think the sun still remains the most dominant gravity force.... even when u move down to the earths core..... so the sun would also push us into the earths core... like it pushes us onto earths surface...
if there was no surface we would get pushed further into the core...... like everything else gets pushed into the core... but sorry i dont want to anger you in any way i am very gratefull for this mind tangle with you

if the earth was hollow the earth would not have a super massive core... therefore no own inner gravitational pull.... pulling you to the centre... making it possible to climb out again once you hold on....


hmm a black hole... if it was a ex burnt out sun.... would loose alot of gravity push power.... the mass got ejected.... and the smaller core with less gravity push power would remain, e.a. if no sunrays eminate from a sun, e.g. a black hole...... it only would have the gravitational pull...... because of its mass still there...



this would require to accept the sun can push... with light rays... and pull at the same time because of its mass creating a gravity well...


i dont know if this completes einsteins unifying theory.... einstein was still looking for something... something was missing and he rejected several ideas from the quantum theorists himself... i think he was right about that... we overthought alot... and now we need to explain stuff along a thinking path wich assumes alot...

occam's razor comes to mind for me....

Thanks for the thread. Interesting info on the nature of dark matter.

What is more interesting though is people trying to argue that it doesn't exist(which we know it does) for an unprovable or nonsense alternative. What they're implying of course is that we don't understand basic physics like at all.

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
Thanks for the thread. Interesting info on the nature of dark matter.

What is more interesting though is people trying to argue that it doesn't exist(which we know it does) for an unprovable or nonsense alternative. What they're implying of course is that we don't understand basic physics like at all.

we know it SHOULD exist, we dont know it DOES (its unfound so might not be in the form THEY expect to find it, and im merely suggesting a possibility where we COULD find it...)..... we know it SHOULD because we observe effects of its influence on its surrounding space.... i say... it might be a possibility...... if the darm matter was all crammed into a big sfere in the middle that it would explain why we dont see it, as it was the sun itself it also was the source of light wich enables us to see the matter...... a dark object... burnt sun... would no longer Push things away by lightrays or heat... BUT would still remain the object with the biggest influence on its surrounding space.... slowly very slowly tring to pull in the matter it ejected when the implosion/ explosion happend creating the black hole....

after a long time it attracts most matter in its surroundings again is my gues... then the pressure build up...
until heavier and heavier elements get formed in the core until the pressure wich creates heat gets so hot...
it re ignites into a new sun same location... making a blackhole... just another life phase of a sun/star...
im not saying dark matter does not exist... it does... every matter that does not reflect light... is dark matter...
all im saying is can it not be packed densely nicely in the middle of a solar system... or a galaxy.... or a universe...
we KNOW it must have enormous mass... we KNOW suns have enourmous masses aswell....

a reply to: dennisarends

Wouldn't the centered dark matter affect the way gravity interacts with it? That would make it obvious where all the dark matter is.

a reply to: dennisarends

what is the most dominant source of gravity i think you think it is the earth core... i think the sun still remains the most dominant gravity force.... even when u move down to the earths core..... so the sun would also push us into the earths core... like it pushes us onto earths surface...

I don't really know what point you're trying to make here but the force of the sun can be essentially ignored for the purposes of our discussion. For a start it depends which way the Earth is facing and where you are located on Earth. In any case the gravity of the sun would barely make any difference at all.

even if we fall thrue the core we would never make it to the sruface on the other side... you would be shy of the surface... each trip u take back and forth.... until you remained in the centre

Yes but you would never come to a complete stop, that state is far too unstable. The only reason it's 0 gravity right at the dead center is because there is an equal amount of matter pulling you in every direction.

if the earth was hollow the earth would not have a super massive core... therefore no own inner gravitational pull.... pulling you to the centre...

The point I was trying to convey is that if you were to travel into such a hollow sphere you would be pulled toward the surface of the sphere because that's where all the mass is.

originally posted by: Xeven

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
Seems like some misunderstanding is going on.

Let's take a different tact....

Sagittarius A does not have enough mass to anchor all the matter in our galaxy in place. If not for Dark Matter the galaxy should be a lot smaller in size. If the effects of dark matter could be suddenly turned off, the galaxy would be flinging stars away from it at crazy velocities.

Korg.

The Galaxy itself is a thing and it has mass and bends space just like Sag A even more so on a larger scale. It is the combined gravity of all the mass in a galaxy that holds it together not just the center black hole. The Galaxy itself creates a huge multidimensional hole in space. for all its stuff to reside in. Just like the hole our sun creates allows earth to remain in orbit.

I also would not be surprised if all large mass objects are not connected to each other in the Quantum maybe by worm holes.

I'm afraid it just doesn't work like this.

Please refer to orbital mechanics, to gain an understanding on why the galaxy needs more uniform mass to sustain itself than is visibly at present.

Korg.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord



Please do note that all things have dark matter in them including us, yes we are expanding with the universe FTW!

Dark energy causes space to expand, not dark matter.

Dark energy and matter are part of everything including us, we are expanding with the universe.

That is a common misconception which is entirely false. Space is expanding, atoms do not grow or shrink in the process. That's why galaxies around us seem to be moving away from us in all directions we look, the expansion of space is dragging them away from us. But objects such as galaxies stay together due to gravity, it's not like the center of the galaxy is getting further away from our solar system due to the expansion of space because gravity works against dark energy to hold the galaxy in place.

Your wrong, im right, the end period.

Atoms do not grow.... but the space between the nuclei and the electron shell does....

Korg.

For even the most hardcore physicists at this time, both dark matter and dark energy reside in the fuzzy world of speculation. The fact is we’re flat clueless. For all we think we know about nature, the truth is we’ve barely scratched the surface. Kinda like infants trying to understand an adult world; it just don’t make sense yet. But with time I have a feeling we’ll crack these nuts.

I’m afraid I don’t have any “theories” or pearls of wisdom to impart, but I do find it all fascinating as hell. Personally, the thought has crossed my mind more than once that considering dark matter through the lens of particle physics may be barking up the wrong tree. But then, I guess the possibility it might be some exotic form of matter is as good a place to start as any, and so must be explored. I’m aware that other avenues are also being pursued, but nothing solid has transpired yet. It may well turn out to be an as-of-yet unknown force to be included with the other 4. I dunno. I majored in math in school, not physics, and so my ignorance precedes me.

I think history has shown us that science, as anything else, evolves over time. Nothing is set in stone. Falsifiability is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Actually, if an assertion, hypothesis or theory isn’t falsifiable then it’s not considered scientific. We used to think the world was flat, but later changed it to a sphere. Even so, we still believed it to be at the center of the universe. That is until Copernicus came along. Then, of course, Newton showed up to make his mark by giving us his Laws of Motion, the branch of mathematics called Calculus (honor shared by Gottfried Leibniz) and his Law of Universal Gravitation, etc. Later on Einstein entered the picture with numerous game changing ideas, including the Photo Electric Effect (light quanta, got the Nobel Prize for this one), SR (e=mc2, mass/energy equivalence), GR (which replaced Newton’s gravity on the cosmic scale). Now here we are; It’s getting about time for another paradigm shift. And discovering the nature of dark matter and/or dark energy may just qualify for the job.

Sorry to get so long-winded. I guess I just wanted to get the point across that this thread includes numerous posts expressing intelligent ideas and arguments deserving of merit. It’s been fun to read. There are both pros and cons to the argument of building on the existing scientific framework; although it makes logical sense to build upon established principles, some of the most enlightening discoveries have come from thinking outside the box. To propose a solution to a challenging riddle demands a little bit of a juggling act, and a lot of guts (in case you scew up and look like a fool! ).

Anyway, Great thread! Remember, any scientific proposal garnering too much support should be approached with great caution...

PS: Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Some of you might find THIS LINK half-way interesting, It involves a study of the fine-structure constant, and brings some of our assumptions about it into question.

originally posted by: Mastronaut

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Mastronaut

I assume you haven't read the first part of this thread yet. There are many good reasons we believe that some type of invisible mass is surrounding most or all galaxies. The MOND theory simply cannot explain the range of observations which support the existence of this invisible mass. The question is not whether dark matter exists, the question is what exactly is dark matter, is it some type of particle or something even stranger.

I read these kind of articles since 20 years despite I'm not a scientist and it took me a lot more to understand the "hows" and "whys". My reply wasn't sensible sorry, I didn't intend to troll, but the so called "range of observations" are additional features we found just because our theories failed in the past. If convenience is the only reason to believe a theory then inflation MUST have existed despite is the most controversial part of the BB theory.

My comment has more to do with the lack of revision of scientific theories in light of new discoveries. Dark matter came up in 30s because gravitational laws were failing to explain the observations of galaxy rotation curves and other gravitational effects. However we always forget to say we don't know what gravity is and we can't effectively test it in a laboratory free of outside gravitational fields. In the FRW equations it appears as a parameter, a convenient number to make theory work.

All this enormous work that has been done on exotic physics in astronomy is built on top of other mathematical models that include unverifiable postulates. We know GR can't explain everything, and we don't have a working GUT theory, but we can't accept that they aren't "right" or we would taint the history of physics.

So I didn't want to insult you or the scientists working in this field, I'm mostly angered towards the ridicule that any other alternative theory is and will get because of career threats and how the academic and scientific world works.
Dark matter is a puzzle because it MAY NOT EXIST after all, we know there are some observations, we didn't find any dark matter btw.

MOND is just a general therm to define theories that modify Newton's laws, many of them explain galaxy rotation curves quite well, but where is it stated that the same theory must also account for gravitational lensing? Also, is this lensing really "gravitational" given that we can't see any matter where we find these distortions? It could simply be a totally different effect, maybe something much simpler than invisible uninteracting things. But how much research time has been devoted to DM and how much to MOND-like theories? Probably we need more time spent on alternatives that mines the foundation of our way of understand the cosmos, since we failed every prediction and we only find the scapegoats.

I take everything about mainstream astronomy with a big grain of salt because it's all built on top of speculative exotic theories with unprovable assumptions and tautological reasoning (cosmological redshift is my biggest culprit). My stance is that while we can't be sure if some fringe theory is closer to the truth, we can be sure that current theories are kinda "wrong" and will be surpassed by new theories in the future, not necessarily based on new observation, but on consensus about interpretation of data.

Dark matter is something needed in the FRW GR equations for the BB theory and until we find a real candidate particle or a way for this darm matter to be generated, it will remain an artifact to close a gap in a theory and not something that "exists".
Dark matter may be a mechanism more than "something", in any case it exposes fallacies in our cosmological theories and it isn't something a lot of academics are willing to discuss.
Evidence is that we can't explain movements of objects with Newtonian's mechanics at larger scales. The hypotesis is that there is a lot more mass. Is it possible that mass is separate from matter? Maybe, maybe not. However stating that DM exist and it's just a matter of what is it made of is like putting faith in a religion, so I am very prudent in not taking that stance.

I may be wrong or may be right, but I have no reason to self-censor my opinion because I don't do scientific publishing as a job nor I want an academical career. But it's very hard to prove the existence of dark matter from any scientifical point of view, and as long as we can't have a reasonable theory I'm not gonna be satisfied by current mainstream explaination. It's not a matter of having read this or that article, because most are only based on authorities and not facts. Falsifiability is the basis of scientific method, but it's something we lost far back in past regarding "accepted theories".

No requirement of science exists that requires it be studied in a lab.. this is a misunderstanding I couldn't get past.

The problem with modern cosmology is it entirely ignores the evidence coming from solid state physics that implies that the photon (and indeed other particles) are quasiparticles created in the underlying medium.
That means that space-time could be a solid crystal or even a superfluid.
Now what if this underlying fluid has mass? or is in motion?
I really feel that this would account for any dark matter effects that are missing in the current physics.
The reason it is so elusive is because we cannot measure it.

originally posted by: Dr X
The problem with modern cosmology is it entirely ignores the evidence coming from solid state physics that implies that the photon (and indeed other particles) are quasiparticles created in the underlying medium.
That means that space-time could be a solid crystal or even a superfluid.
Now what if this underlying fluid has mass? or is in motion?
I really feel that this would account for any dark matter effects that are missing in the current physics.
The reason it is so elusive is because we cannot measure it.

Almost.... The fundamental level of reality is more like a fluid than perhaps you are aware. Though this fluid does not move or flow in the way perhaps you are accustomed. It can be more thought of as a sea of pure potentiality.

Where particles arise as a result of probability waves as opposed to waves caused by an outside force. Though just like a fluid where the waves interact they either strengthen or weaken themselves, which is like saying the probability is increased or decreased accordingly.

Korg.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Making stuff up isn't a way to solve problems.

dark matter/energy?blackholes?bing bang?E=mc2?

Sigh... how can you possibly group E=mc2 with the rest of those things? The fact that energy is interchangeable with mass has been demonstrated in countless different ways and is absolutely indisputable.

Furthermore scientists didn't just make up dark matter, they made observations which simply didn't make sense without the inclusion of dark matter, they were forced to include it in their models.

One of the reasons I made this thread is because I'm so sick of uniformed armchair skeptics screaming about how scientists just invented this magical thing that doesn't really exist when it clearly does exist.

Maybe it doesn't exist as invisible particles but the data clearly shows there is some type of hidden mass in most galaxies and we need a way to explain that. Weakly interacting particles is the best candidate so far.

So short, yes they made stuff up, just so that the model would still be correct.
Did they ever had in mind that maybe the model is wrong?
How can we miss 95% of the universe.

It only exist in the theory. Nothing has been measured or physically observed saying DM exist as a fact.

It's not about being skeptical, it's about being rational.

a reply to: mbkennel

So if you can describe what a car does, you can also understand how it works?
Remembering the epic talk of Feynman in his chair

You are saying the earth isn't acting like a giant charged particle?

Everything is a charged particle, even "uncharged particles"if you want, the only difference is the strength in polarity or radiation.
It certainly isn't a mystery but the explanation of attraction and repulsion sounds a lot like fantasy to me.
Just like dark matter and dark energy, kinda exotic almost erotic tone to it.

originally posted by: dr1234No requirement of science exists that requires it be studied in a lab.. this is a misunderstanding I couldn't get past.

Sure I agree, however you understand that being able to replicate results is a rather big feature of the scientific method. There is no way to falsify something in most cases and there is always only one context in which you can explain things because no alternative has been taken seriously and developed academically.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Nice post chaotic order. I've long believed 'dark matter' to be the living mesh of the universe. The universe is an electrical organism and it like the earth and the trees and the people, are alive. When people think of the universe they think of a cold dark inhospitable place. They couldn't be further from the truth. Just because we, with our EXTREMELY limited visual perceptions can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is also a belief that altering your perception by use of dymenthyltryptamine can make the invisible visible. See Alex Grey's Net of Being for an example....
alexgrey.com...

Look closely for the galaxies...

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: dennisarends



If you could travel inside that hollow sphere? My guess is that you would float. Well that depends on whether that sphere is rotating or not.
Remember the '2001 a space odyssey' spaceship