Australian Student Uncovers the Universe’s Missing Mass

The beginning of the universe and what made it explode and what was it before the explosion.

reply to post by XPLodER


They discovered "filaments," of mass linking galaxies.

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion

 

But the Neural Connectors aren't an atom in size that is the smallest known particle! Other than quarks which are strings....

You are still misunderstanding... there are 6 possible direct connections between 4 particles. Expand this to 100 particles. The number of connections between them is still *more* than the number of particles. The number of connections between particles grows dramatically as the number of particles increases.

Atoms aren't the smallest known particle... and honestly at the end of the day there *are no* particles... only an infinite field of energy/force with different densities and strengths.

reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion


Again you're incorrect because Neurons are not the size of 1 Atom they are thousands of atoms.

Nice try Quoted from here Explains it well for you.

The neuron connections or synapses are composed of membrane, proteins, ions and transmitters, each of which are composed on many atoms. The number of connections can not be more than the number of atoms within the brain since each connections requires many atoms to set up the connection. At the same time, the whole neuron is not involved in connections, nor is anything within the neuron directly connected. Also all the water and any nonconducting cells, like blood, add more atoms to the brain's total. As a rough guess the number of neural connections might be something like 1/10,000 of the number of atoms in the brain. That is just a rough guess.

www.scienceforums.net...

This will also help explain why this assertion is wrong Read well.

The average number of connections in the human brain does not exceed the amount of atoms in the universe. If we assume that each connection is made of a dendrite/axon connection, then each connection requires many atoms. Therefore, if each connection requires many atoms, it is impossible that the connections could exceed the number of atoms in the universe. Furthermore, the amount of potential connections could not exceed the amount of atoms in the universe.

If each connection requires at least two atoms (they really require more) then the amount of connections in the brain could not possibly be more than 1/2 the amount of atoms in the universe. Obviously the brain could not have anywhere near this amount of connections because a human skull could not contain half the mass of the universe.

I'm guessing that when people use the term "potential connections" they are referring to the amount of possible different connections that could be made. If there are 10^11 neurons and each one can make 100 connections then the total possible number of different connections is 10^13 times 10^13, which is only 10^26 and much smaller than the estimated 10^80 or so atoms in the universe. Note that I don't know the average number of connections that each neuron makes, but it would have to be a very large number for the amount of possible connections to equal the amount of atoms in the universe.

The comparison of the the brain to the universe is very intresting. I'm no scholar but if im correct the strands in the brain send electrical signals which is how our brain works. what if the universe is similiar in this way and these clumps of galaxies are on some kind of strand and there is some kind of signal that passes through these strands. such as possible roads in the universe of which we could travel. just a thought. very intresting thread though S&F!

reply to post by Jman0329


as of writing i had not made the connection to the structure of the brain (pun intended)
but the more i look at it and the more people point out this fact the more i see it
lol
structures on the macro and micro look very similar

xploder

reply to post by warren3720

Largest cosmic structures 'too big' for theories

from
newscientist source

Space is festooned with vast "hyperclusters" of galaxies, a new cosmic map suggests. It could mean that gravity or dark energy – or perhaps something completely unknown – is behaving very strangely indeed.

We know that the universe was smooth just after its birth. Measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the light emitted 370,000 light years after the big bang, reveal only very slight variations in density from place to place. Gravity then took hold and amplified these variations into today's galaxies and galaxy clusters, which in turn are arranged into big strings and knots called superclusters, with relatively empty voids in between.

On even larger scales, though, cosmological models say that the expansion of the universe should trump the clumping effect of gravity. That means there should be very little structure on scales larger than a few hundred million light years across.

But the universe, it seems, did not get the memo.

from today 22/6/11
xp

Some Profound New Physical Phenomenon Rules the Vast 'Hyperclusters' of the Universe"
link

reply to post by squiz


I was taken by surprised by the quote you've provided below because this was exactly what we were discussing the in the "Creations and Origins" Forum. I'm so glad I found this thread as many of the posts are very enlightening but especially most all the explanations in the OP.

Now two new reports stand out in relation to Alfvén’s predictions so that ultimately he cannot be ignored. The first concerns the birth of stars and the second the electric circuit of the Sun....

..... The telescope (Herschel) has been giving astronomers an unprecedented look inside the cosmic womb of stars, known as molecular clouds, to find (surprise, surprise) that stars are formed in “an incredible network of filamentary structures, and features indicating a chain of near-simultaneous star-formation events, glittering like strings of pearls deep in our Galaxy.” Although described as “incredible” by astronomers, this description precisely matches the decades-old expectations of plasma cosmologists!



.....In an ESA report last month the high-resolution of the Herschel space observatory produced another surprise, “The filaments are huge, stretching for tens of light years through space and Herschel has shown that newly-born stars are often found in the densest parts of them... Such filaments in interstellar clouds have been glimpsed before by other infrared satellites, but they have never been seen clearly enough to have their widths measured. Now, Herschel has shown that, regardless of the length or density of a filament, the width is always roughly the same. “This is a very big surprise,” says Doris Arzoumanian, Laboratoire AIM Paris-Saclay, CEA/IRFU

Specifically this line:

“The filaments are huge, stretching for tens of light years through space..."

In relation to this line from Isaiah 40:22:

"the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze,"

- indicating a "fine gauzelike" connectivity of the heavenly bodies (galaxies, stars, planets, etc)


Now my question is - where is this electric energy that is flowing through the Birkeland filaments coming from?

What or who's generating this enormous amount of energy that's powering the universe - visible and the invisible?

Is there a way to trace these flows of (plasma) energy/electric current?

It would be very interesting to know if the source is coming from the outside the known boundary of the universe or within the very center of the universe (like a plasma bulb).

Any thoughts?

ty

Originally posted by edmc^2
Now my question is - where is this electric energy that is flowing through the Birkeland filaments coming from?

What or who's generating this enormous amount of energy that's powering the universe - visible and the invisible?

Is there a way to trace these flows of (plasma) energy/electric current?

It would be very interesting to know if the source is coming from the outside the known boundary of the universe or within the very center of the universe (like a plasma bulb).

Any thoughts?

ty

Actually no, no one knows the ultimate power source. Vast currents are said to powering galaxies with galactic currents powering stars and so on. A recent article stated...

Arp raises the possibility that the visible Universe is one braided filament extending from the Virgo supercluster to the Fornax supercluster across billions of light years. This power line carries electric currents beyond anything we can imagine.

Yes there are ways of tracing galactic currents, as was done in this study. The new era of radio telescopes will further allow us to map the galactic magnetic fields with more detail. In a plasma universe the particles shine in all the various wavelengths because they are being accelated in magnetic and electric feilds. Not because of gravitational effects. So energetic sources can also be taken into account.

Just to note as well, Alfvien actually predicted the intergalactic fillaments back in the 30's! Incredible.

As for God, I don't know what god is. But I believe consciousness is kind of built into the fabric of reality if you like. I've often found it curious that the universe could be discribed as interconnected nodes conducting electricty much like the brain. Just a thought.

reply to post by squiz


This is really a mind blowing concept and yet very elegant and complex yet simple to understand. Alfvén was on to something from which the present cosmological community should pay close attention to. This reminds me of another great man - Tesla.

As for the plasma - similar to human blood plasma, what were the main components of the galactic plasma?

Can it be broken down into parts and analyze it's function?

Just wondering if the main component of this plasma - is the "dark matter".

Thoughts?

ty,

reply to post by squiz

The universe may have been born spinning, according to new findings on the symmetry of the cosmos

A new study found an excess of counter-clockwise rotating or "left-handed" spiral galaxies like this one, compared to their right-handed counterparts. This provides evidence that the universe does not have mirror symmetry. Credit: NASA, ESA

source

are the "contents" of the universe "spinning" around an axual center? and this is where angular momentium comes from to impart energy into galaxies "from the outside".

is there a filimentary structure inducing the galaxies to align?
is this just the medium between the galaxies that is moving or are the galaxies "moving" with the "flow" of energy ?

xploder

Interesting stuff and some good questions.

Originally posted by XPLodER
are the "contents" of the universe "spinning" around an axual center? and this is where angular momentium comes from to impart energy into galaxies "from the outside".

The idea of a universal centre implies a finite universe I would say but I get where you are coming from.
I'd say yes, but perhaps more locally than a universal centre. I'd suggest looking at Peratt's work on galaxy formation for a PC perspective.

PC suggests a fractal network of helical twisting fillaments naturally resulting in orbital systems. Galaxies have now been observed forming at the interesections of these filments as have stars, just as was predicted.
The large structures appear to flow as larger currents. I'm thinking of the great river of galaxies and the great attracter that gives idea to the dark flow concept.

is there a filimentary structure inducing the galaxies to align?
is this just the medium between the galaxies that is moving or are the galaxies "moving" with the "flow" of energy ?

xploder

Very interestng question regarding the spin alignment, couldn't say aything other than a guess, worth looking into. I'd have to say yes the galaxy would be moving with the large scale structure. So both would be my answer since one is the pinch effect of the other.

The common theme with PC an EU is plasma pinch effects and double layers. Galaxies can be thought of as pinch effects of large intergalactic fillaments, stars are pinches within smaller scale fillaments etc...
Unlike mainstream cosmology that like to hide the assumed mechanism within, Plasma focus effects are powered externally.

Originally posted by Helious
Great post, but this isn't something that is completely new.

heres some new info..

Enlarge

Visualization of DM distribution 800 milions years after the Big Bang. (Credit: The Marenostrum Numerical Cosmology Project)

One of the most important conclusions emerging from the performed simulations is the confirmation of the self-similarity of the process of evolution of the structure of dark and normal matter on large cosmic scales. Which means that if we examine a cube four billion years after the Big Bang and later compare it with a ten-billion-year-old cube, then, after matching the dimensions of both cubes, it turns out that the structures inside them made up of dark and normal matter look virtually the same.

link to source


xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


I don't see why this would produce a problem for the Big Bang. It might be that it is a direct product of the Big Bang. If we equate the ZPF with space-time as opposed to in it, we might find it natural that things like this should emerge. The universe simply becomes a giant spirograph of 3-d sine waves that cluster up in noticeable waves in places to produce these filaments.

Originally posted by Cryptonomicon
Once they understand that light naturally "red shifts" as it ages/crosses space, then they'll realize that the universe is neither inflating nor contracting; it's basically static.

...huh? So you're saying light will doppler, or increase in wavelength, as it travels through space?
Is this just an idea of yours, or is there any work done on the subject? I'd be interested to see it. It has been demonstrated that light emitted from a source with a velocity/acceleration vector pointing away from the observer will show a red shift.

Originally posted by daddio
My question has always been....why does there NEED to be missing mass?

The primary argument for missing mass is that we see a lot more gravitational effects out there than there is mass to account for. On a "supercluster" scale, galaxies and galaxy clusters are exhibiting behavior that indicates the presence of many times the amount of gravity than should be present, given the mass we can see. "Dark matter" just means "any matter that is out there but emitting no radiation of any kind", i.e. Space Dust.

On the other hand, on a "macro" or "universe" scale, objects and structures are exhibiting behavior that indicates the presence of a repulsive force. Something is accelerating everything away from everything else, all the time. This is the primary argument for "dark energy". The concept of dark energy is not strange at all....in fact we know of several forces we cannot "see" at all, we can only observe their effects. Gravity, Weak Nuclear and Strong Nuclear are all "dark" energy. The dark energy referred to in the OP is a completely new dark energy, or a different spectra.

Originally posted by Toecutter.
The whole Big Bang theory falls flat on it's face when one considers that for there to be a bang there must be something to go bang. Nothing cannot explode, in fact nothing does not exist. Time is immortal. So is energy.

Whether the universe is electric or follows the Standard Model or whatever I don't know. But I wish you guys would stop trying to use logic arguments like the one above to prove your point. It's annoying because you're talking about stuff that can only be properly communicated using math. Language logic is so far away from even being able to begin dealing with concepts on the quantum level, and that's what you're talking about here. A Big Bang event, at T=0, occurs on the quantum level. You guys are smart, so I know you know that, which is why it annoys me when you do the logic thing.

Excuse my ignorance but, why does the article concentrate so much around the timing of the big bang?
That's like finding a 10 thousand yr old 747 and only wondering about were the material came from to create it....... who cares.

Why are stars located on the filament? does this energy "crystallise" to form the stars? does the extreme temperatures contribute to how energy behaves and forms, what generates the energy, or directs it and sets it in motion?....... there are a lot of questions that derive from this discovery..... the timing of the big bang shouldn't be on top of that list.

reply to post by Village Idiot


I think the idea of figuring out the beginning, down to the smallest detail, will give us a clear picture from which we can then extrapolate the progression of things systematically until, eventually, we are answering the questions you just posed.