I Present to You.. Dark Matter

originally posted by: LostThePlot
I remember having to find dark matter to defeat Omega Weapon.

However if you farm Ultima on the island closest to heaven then Dark matter is rendered pointless.

a reply to: swanne

Kudos for the thread.

The problem is with the 'dark forces' is they are not tangible- we can detect Dark matter through indirect methods however we cannot determine its mass or it's properties. Dark energy is the same-we know it exists but to this day we do not know what governs dark energy and astrophysicists are still 'in the dark' so to speak.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Yes. Just remember that dark energy and dark matter are two different things though. Plus we already have a few leads for dark energy - I for one favour the energy-from-quantum-foam candidate. And I am saying this as someone who isn't a big fan of the quantum model.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
since when is saying "dark matter most likely doesn't exist" not arguing against it?

I think in order to be able to successfully argue against dark matter one should have a clear understanding of all observed evidence in favor of it. This I don’t have yet I still feel the theory is unnecessary.

I don't see how anything else you said explains away dark matter observations.
...bullet cluster observations seem to prove the existence of dark matter

Dark matter is a theory that has yet to be proven and has not been “observed” so no need to try to explain it away. However there is a possible alternate explanation for the flat galactic rotation curve.

The problem;

Most galaxies have rotation curves that show solid body rotation in the very center, following by a slowly rising or constant velocity rotation in the outer parts. Very few galaxies show any evidence for Keplerian decline. A flat rotation curve implies that the mass continues to increase linearly with radius.

cornell.edu
Just the right amount of dark matter in just the right proportions that increases linearly to the square of the distance that offsets the inverse square law? I find this very hard to believe.

In the early 1980s Anthony L. Peratt, a student of Alfvén's, used supercomputer facilities at Maxwell Laboratories and later at Los Alamos National Laboratory to simulate Alfvén and Fälthammar's concept of galaxies being formed by primordial clouds of plasma spinning in a magnetic filament

Peratt’s computer simulations were based on concepts by Alfvén and Fälthammar and work done by Winston H. Bostick. Hannes Alfven theorized plasma can be scaled to 27 orders of magnitude making laboratory experiments and, in some cases, computer modeling very useful. Peratt has proven 14 orders of magnitude.

Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve, but no hypothetical dark matter is needed, as required by the conventional model of galaxy formation.

Plasma Universe

More information can be found here;
Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The formation of Systems of Galaxies

Evolution of Colliding Plasmas

The role of particle beams and electrical current in the plasma universe

Experiments with the PK-3 Plus (Plasmakristall-3 Plus) dusty/complex plasmas laboratory on the International Space Station, has shown dusty plasmas in a weightless environment that seem to show "vortices in the plasma resembling a galaxy"

Plasma Universe
If English subtitles don't appear click on the bottom just right of center.

a reply to: verschickter

Why do you come into threads and disagree with posters and tell them exactly what they really meant and argue semantic( you have done this to me in other threads) and also when you admit that English isn't your first language? I find it trivial, and just extremely poor form, we deny ingorance here bud.

.....

As to the OP - swanne, I enjoyed the read and find the discussion of dark matter facinating, well done and I have to read more and wrap my head around this so that one day I can offer more, however I am optimistically learning . Cheers brother

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: buddha
Sounds good. but not true.

"This mighty gravitational pull from dark matter particles are
the only way dark matter can interact with the universe,"

Gravity!
if it has a higher gravitational pull than normal mater.
then all dark mater would pull normal mater to it.
so dark and normal mater would be together!

No clounds of just dark mater. just a mix.
they may have found some thing.
but Not dark mater. if it exists at all.

Where did you get the idea from that dark matter is not mixing with matter?

There are billions of dark matter particles passing through you each second (according to the dark matter model).

I have read thay think that there is big gas clouds of this stuff.
how can this be true?
with its higher than normal mater gravity
it would All be in stars and planets!

"This mighty gravitational pull from dark matter particles are
the only way dark matter can interact with the universe,"

the univers only clumpt together later, after the big bang.
stars go nover. the debery and dust gets pulled back to gether.
dark mater with a higher gravity would pull the most.
so it would be the core of the stars and planets.

hmm! I wounder if this is what makes gravity?

a reply to: swanne

Very interesting reading material. And the graphics are nothing short of extraordinary. Quantum physics is not my area of expertise though. So, I'll take your word for it.


Also some would ask if you have all of the maths for this theory documented somewhere? Another question might be what discoveries would you expect from CERN to provide experimental proof of your theory?

It looks like you have a series of very interesting articles about your theories. Have you considered submitting them to the ATS sister site: disnfo.com? It could mean a few dollars from advertising revenue for you. And it would add some high quality science research to their catalogue.

-dex

a reply to: TechniXcality

A writer is nothing without good readers. Thanks mate!


a reply to: DexterRiley

Another question might be what discoveries would you expect from CERN to provide experimental proof of your theory?

The CERN is busy smashing nortmal matter into some more normal matter... No, if a search for dark matter is to be, it must be carried out by experiments such as the XENON. I think a way to confirm the existence of o/l/i dark matter particles would be to search for events with a mass energy of around 13,400 MeV, for one. This basically means I am expecting a dark matter particle to show interaction depths consistent with a particle about 26,800 times more heavy than an electron.

Have you considered submitting them to the ATS sister site: disnfo.com? It could mean a few dollars from advertising revenue for you. And it would add some high quality science research to their catalogue.

I am indeed considering it. However, I wouldn't want to get revenues for it - I'd prefer ATS to get the (albeit modest) benefits instead.

This thread has a value of a psychological experiment for me. The reactions were typical. "They've found it, math I don't understand, greek symbols on it... oh yeah, it's science. Sciencce good. Science true.

Do people have posters of Hawking over their bed these days? What a scientism. A scientology. Believers always ready to eat whatever theory coming out of crazy nerds' mouths.
Like this must see science scam:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
It's ignorance I'm telling you. A false religion.

a reply to: buddha

Normal matter clumps together because it has a way to cool off, radiate heat away. If it wasn't for this cooling there wouldn't be any stars, just gas clouds.

Dark matter doesn't radiate, so it can not clump together like normal matter does. What you get are clouds/areas of dark matter with varying density, but not dark matter stars.

a reply to: TechniXcality
semantics != grammar
That´s your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, as you know, I have to translate sometimes. Like I did with the "predicted". Because I saw it and was not sure. If you ignore such grammar errors because you know what´s meant, that´s your thing.
However, if you translate it into another language (any) and I used four different translators and every single on gave me the same result: That it reads like his prediction came true.

I then asked the question and the OP did not reply. Instead of saying "yeah, I predict" he argues around the table.
Instead he could have said in one sentence: No, it´s just a preditcion until now.

That was everything.

Edit: I don´t know if it was deleted by the mods but I made clear:
I respect him for coming up with a theory and presenting it here but not the way he does.
I have no idea how you can link this to ignorance.
And If you mean the AI threads. Boy if not in the AI threads, where else is semantic important?

a reply to: swanne
Dark matter is assumed to have no charge. Do your proposed 1/3, 2/3 charge particles exist, if so why haven't we observed them yet?

Or are they not observable as such, are components of dark matter particles? Which mechanism binds them together?

Why 4 preons per "dark matter particle" instead of 8? This way you wouldn't need any composite structures.

When you calculate the energy of dark matter, shouldn't it be the energy of the composite particles?

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: swanne
Dark matter is assumed to have no charge. Do your proposed 1/3, 2/3 charge particles exist, if so why haven't we observed them yet?

Or are they not observable as such, are components of dark matter particles? Which mechanism binds them together?

As I have already explained: during the Photon Epoch, -1/3 particles have combined with +1/3 particles (the result of which is a pair whose charge is zero), and -2/3 particles have combined with +2/3 particles (the result of which is a pair whose charge is zero).

An analogy is the quarks in a neutron: the up quark is +2/3, and the two down quarks are -1/3 each - the result is a neutron whose charge is zero.

Why 4 preons per "dark matter particle" instead of 8?

Because of a principle called the Mass Paradox. Maths show that preons are more massive than the particles they compose. Thus, the more a particle has preons, the more lighter it will get. Particles with 8 preons would simply be way to light to be dark matterr particles. Additionally, they would be able to interact with normal matter by forming photons (they would now have sufficient preons to do so) - another property which would be incompatible with dark matter.

When you calculate the energy of dark matter, shouldn't it be the energy of the composite particles?

The composite particles - which are made of 4 preons , and which are forming dark matter - have a mass of about 13,400 MeV.

originally posted by: swanne
But unlike any conventional particles, which are usually made of quarks and/or antiquarks not of the same flavour (otherwise they would undergo annihilation)

The second half of this statement is not true... mesons can totally exist as same flavour quarks, and be quark anti-quark pairs that bond via gluon exchange and do not annihilate, but decay instead.

I understand where you are going but, the reasoning is not fully consistent with the standard model as it stands, and still, the bonding or neutralization as you state would still require a force carrier or field interaction... which would bring about a relatively 'un-weak' interaction with regular matter, or provide a channel for it.

Dark matter interaction with normal matter is not guaranteed either... and if they are to bond with out a carrier, there needs to be a new mechanism

originally posted by: ErosA433
mesons can totally exist as same flavour quarks, and be quark anti-quark pairs that bond via gluon exchange and do not annihilate, but decay instead.

Quite right you are; I stand erected corrected.

the bonding or neutralization as you state would still require a force carrier or field interaction...

Well, it could always be an electrostatic interaction. One single interaction, in all of the dark matter history - they electrically attract each other during the photon epoch, and since then they sayed cimented with one another, forming a "meson" with zero charge.

And thus now, in present times, they are effectively WIMPs.

a reply to: swanne

Amazing science, I don't know if I can comprehend al of this and want to learn more about this ,but anyway as some other members stated before that dark matter seems to block radio waves or at least had this theory that it did in some way.

I wonder about the rare spherical sightings around our sun that some think might be a huge object feeding off the sun.

But is it possible that what we see are dark matter bubbles that are effecting our sun's surface?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Marko Rodin says dark matter is the number 9, whatever that means

Maybe he was referring to the fact that any number always ends up as a 9.....

take any number, add the digits to form a new number which you then subtract from the original number and you always end up with 9.

e.g. 43 (random number)

4 + 3 = 7

43 - 7 = 36

3 + 6 = 9

it works for any number!!!!! always ends with 9..... I still dont know exactly how or why!

So in which peer-reviewed scientific journals may we read into the full depth of this theory/model?

a reply to: combatmaster

Try:

32
3-2 = 1
32+1 = 33
3-3 = 0

only works when adding.

19
1-9 = -8
19 + (-8) = 11
1-1 = 0

a reply to: verschickter

No you wish to argue the philosophy of laungage, when English is not your first language. If this was just once I wouldn't say anything(but this seems to be a recurring theme in your experience on ATS) but often you find yourself arguing what no one else is arguing (in regards to language) so the question becomes does every native English speaker not know how to speak and understand English, or is it you who doesn't? Surely you can understand the logic here? Regardless, perhaps you can offer a retort to his theory or an applause either would be appropriate.