DescentBB

What is it, why do we need it and can you eat it?

The most abundant type of matter in the universe; because if it was not there galaxies and other stellar structures would not have the mass needed to stay together; and no because it does not interact with normal matter in any discernible way.

Now when astronomers look carefully at a galaxy, they can measure how fast the stars within it are moving. The motions of the stars are the result of the gravitational forces from all the other matter in the galaxy. But here is the key problem: When astronomers add up all the matter in all the stars and gas and dust visible with all different kinds of telescopes, it doesn't total nearly enough to explain the motions they observe. The stars are moving around much faster than they should be! In other words, all the matter we can see is not enough to produce the gravity that is pulling things around. This problem shows up over and over again almost wherever we look in the universe. Not only do stars in galaxies move around faster than expected, but galaxies within groups of galaxies do too. In all cases, there must be something else there, something we can't see.

So it's there because it must be there, although we have no way to see it or detect it and really no way of even knowing that it exists. I propose another solution, electromagnetic waves or figuratively, the sound of the Universe. Music of the spheres. I even believe that it is observable on a much smaller and different scale, although the underlying principles and laws remain the same. The nodal and anti-nodal effects of wave energy on a grand scale.

The existence of dark energy, in whatever form, is needed to reconcile the measured geometry of space with the total amount of matter in the universe. Measurements of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies indicate that the universe is close to flat. For the shape of the universe to be flat, the mass/energy density of the universe must be equal to the critical density. The total amount of matter in the universe (including baryons and dark matter), as measured from the CMB spectrum, accounts for only about 30% of the critical density. This implies the existence of an additional form of energy to account for the remaining 70%.

Why can't this simply be wave energy? We can already physically observe how wave energy produces geometric shapes. Considering that every single structure in the Universe emits this wave energy, whose to say what the effect is in it's total sum? Maybe people are making things harder than they need to be and there really is no need for dark matter, if electromagnetic energy and gravity are working together to produce this effect.

We learn about things because energy gets emitted from matter. we call it dark matter because it doesn't emit energy, like a black hole doesn't emit light.

Yeah, I'm wondering if it's the energy emitted from the matter that is actually responsible for the structure. I'm not so sure we even need Dark Matter in the equation.

http://vimeo.com/66641648

Using this to visualize the scope of this conversation, I mean the push and pull effect that wave energy has on all these structures as a whole. Yes, I do realize this is your area of expertise, but if a dark force is essential, why can it not simply be the interaction of all these waves together with gravity?

flip wrote:Yeah, I'm wondering if it's the energy emitted from the matter that is actually responsible for the structure. I'm not so sure we even need Dark Matter in the equation.

http://vimeo.com/66641648

Using this to visualize the scope of this conversation, I mean the push and pull effect that wave energy has on all these structures as a whole. Yes, I do realize this is your area of expertise, but if a dark force is essential, why can it not simply be the interaction of all these waves together with gravity?

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know. I think the idea breaks down primarily on our knowledge of scale of wavelength: The spacing of the nodal and antinodal regions are wavelength-dependent. In order to create an appropriate distribution of these forces in space to apply to stars, galaxies you'd be looking at frequencies so incredibly low that they'd be essentially static - as in millions of years per cycle. Maxwell's equations break down at this point, so the coupling of electric fields and magnetic fields aren't the same as traditionally known in the RF spectrum. Also, energy in a wave decreases with frequency, so the amplitude of the variation would have to be massive....

Interesting, I'll have to do more research to have a valid answer. After reading your response I immediately thought of the Cosmic Background Radiation, which is very high in frequency. I need to see if I can find values for some of the biggest structures.

EDIT: This is immensely complicated, because at this point you are having to account for an innumerable amount of nodes and beat frequencies. With that much electromagnetic energy being dispersed into space, there has to be just as many innumerable phase shifts and frequency combining. Nothing more than a visualization really.

EDIT: I honestly think it would mean the frequencies would have to be high. Very high. Here is the spectrum just from our own Galaxy.
http://mwmw.gsfc.nasa.gov/mmw_sci.html

I guess the distance that these emissions can travel depends on the source, but surely on this scale there could be interaction.

LOL, it makes you wonder if Black Holes are the nodal and anti-nodal effect of these interactions. Just another crazy thought

flip wrote:After reading your response I immediately thought of the Cosmic Background Radiation, which is very high in frequency.

...no it's not. The peak spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation is somewhere around 200 GHz, depending on what criteria you're using as a measurement, which is in the radio range. That's the low-frequency side of the electromagnetic spectrum.

flip wrote:LOL, it makes you wonder if Black Holes are the nodal and anti-nodal effect of these interactions. Just another crazy thought

The formation of black holes has absolutely nothing to do with electromagnetic waves.

There is also background radiation in the infrared, x-rays, etc., with different causes, and they can sometimes be resolved into an individual source. See cosmic infrared background and X-ray background. See also cosmic neutrino background and extragalactic background light.

This will never be a discussion of simple answers, it's more of a concept. Not something that can be nitpicked to death unless you are really trying. I am just wondering how all these electromagnetic waves across the whole spectrum affect the formation and structure of matter. How the whole spectrum in the void of Space interacts with each other. I think it's a very simple-minded answer to say that electromagnetic energy has nothing to do with the formation of Black Holes. With that much electromagnetic energy being emitted into the melting pot of space, it almost certainly has to. Of course, not directly on it's own, because we already know how big a part gravity plays in the process, but the fact that they can move and even evaporate has to be taken into account to. Besides, the Black Hole comment was just a fun diversion

I saw some dark matter the other day.


Had to flush twice

What a coincidence!

Physics... phyyysics... physicssssss....
I don't know as much about physics as some of the physics-people here flip, but I know plenty of psychology... I see here and in your other thread, you coming up with an unconventional theory which could be perfectly fine but isn't necessarily. And I see you rejecting all criticism or skepticism that comes towards it, refusing to even think about it and personally attacking whoever dares to criticize you.

Stop and think about that for a second. I don't know if your theory is right or wrong but what you're doing isn't anywhere near science. It's not helping your theory and definitely not helping your case for it. What you're doing is pure confirmation bias. And the personal attacks are completely uncalled for.

That's not entirely true Alter-fox. Fliptw, Avder, Snoopy, TC and Spidey and Cuda all responded. I listened to their responses and actually investigated their leads. If you will notice, I have only responded to Vision and TopGun in the manner that I have. That is because of the many past responses of theirs. Your assessment is not a fair one. Everyone else gave me the benefit of the doubt, over the years, those 2 have been nothing but offensive and condescending. Here's a good way to judge your reaction Alter-fox. You should go through these 2 threads and read their responses again. See if you can find even one instance where they said anything but "your wrong and these things are way over your head." As if I don't even have the right to speculate. You will not find one instance of an open mind from either of them. Time and time again I have experienced the very same spirit in their responses and I find both of them utterly useless. Fact is, neither Dark Matter or Dark energy has been defined by anyone, ever. The only thing is that there is a necessity of both and the things I'm considering offers some type of explanation, personally. I may end up wrong, but that does not mean I don't have the right to discuss it and consider it either. In fact, I think it's very plausible that the image that flashed in my head was the combination of zero-point energy, electromagnetic energy and Gravitational radiation all working together somehow. I just havn't got that far yet. See how nice I am to you . So your statement is inaccurate and a mischaracterization.

I'll add fuel to Flip's fire.

I'm thinking in terms of magnets and magnetic fields:

Imagine that you have a bunch of magnets laid out in a plate in a square grid, with alternating polarities. Now, imagine that you have another set set up in exactly the same manner, and you set to the on top of each other. If you try to slide your plates, it will tend to "jump" from one spot to the next - because it will try to align the poles in a certain way. The size of each individual magnet doesn't really matter - what matters is that they be identically distributed so that all of the poles can work together.

Now imagine the same for the nodal and anti-nodal array in space. Even if the wavelength is a fraction of an inch, and the density of the array is many many times smaller than a star, if two stars create the same characteristic array, maybe they could "lock" into a certain alignment?

Alter-Fox wrote:I don't know as much about physics as some of the physics-people here flip, but I know plenty of psychology... I see here and in your other thread, you coming up with an unconventional theory which could be perfectly fine but isn't necessarily. And I see you rejecting all criticism or skepticism that comes towards it, refusing to even think about it and personally attacking whoever dares to criticize you.

Stop and think about that for a second. I don't know if your theory is right or wrong but what you're doing isn't anywhere near science. It's not helping your theory and definitely not helping your case for it. What you're doing is pure confirmation bias. And the personal attacks are completely uncalled for.

I think maybe you project a bit too much of your psychology theory upon members of the board. My 2c: you take your conclusions too far.

I'm thinking in terms of magnets and magnetic fields:

Imagine that you have a bunch of magnets laid out in a plate in a square grid, with alternating polarities. Now, imagine that you have another set set up in exactly the same manner, and you set to the on top of each other. If you try to slide your plates, it will tend to "jump" from one spot to the next - because it will try to align the poles in a certain way. The size of each individual magnet doesn't really matter - what matters is that they be identically distributed so that all of the poles can work together.

Now imagine the same for the nodal and anti-nodal array in space. Even if the wavelength is a fraction of an inch, and the density of the array is many many times smaller than a star, if two stars create the same characteristic array, maybe they could "lock" into a certain alignment?

I'm not sure, but I think that is one underlying principle to gravitational radiation. 2 Objects locked together and rotating on an axis. It's hard to think of the Universe with such uniformity. You have to account for spin. That's why I'm leaning towards a spinning, spiraled shaped Universe around a preferred axis. If that's the case, then it would produce very strong gravitational radiation, which is not subject to the same laws as electromagnetic energy. It would probably be a uniform effect throughout the Universe. Of course there would be interaction with gravitational radiation on smaller scales.

I'm real curious as to how this research here pans out, because if the Universe did begin spinning, it most likely does have a center to it. Then we could refine this idea within a definite, spiraled shape. I'm still reaching for straws right now.

The researchers found evidence that galaxies tend to rotate in a preferred direction. They uncovered an excess of left-handed, or counter-clockwise rotating, spirals in the part of the sky toward the north pole of the Milky Way. The effect extended beyond 600 million light years away.

"The excess is small, about 7 percent, but the chance that it could be a cosmic accident is something like one in a million," Longo said. "These results are extremely important because they appear to contradict the almost universally accepted notion that on sufficiently large scales the universe is isotropic, with no special direction."

The work provides new insights about the shape of the Big Bang. A symmetric and isotropic universe would have begun with a spherically symmetric explosion shaped like a basketball. If the universe was born rotating, like a spinning basketball, Longo said, it would have a preferred axis, and galaxies would have retained that initial motion.

"It could be," Longo said. "I think this result suggests that it is."

Source

This result might just be a statistical fluke. Or is it somehow biased because we are only looking at the local universe?

What is very curious to me is that the Milky Way’s own spin axis roughly aligns to the universe’s purported spin axis within just a few degrees, as deduced from the two galaxy surveys. That seems very anti-Copernican too.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not willing to jump right in front of the bus that is called science, but it would be extraordinary to find that the Universe does in fact have a center, and we are in it. Now, this is another fun diversion of course, but the only reason I say anything is because they have also found the oldest star, the "Methusalah star", right here in our very own Milky Way galaxy.

Methusalah Star

[youtube]Otm4RusESNU[/youtube]

@flip apologies, I can see what you mean.
@snoopy I've got no idea what you mean, but I think I might be insulted . What's wrong with taking psychology as far as I'd take any other science?

flip wrote:What is it, why do we need it and can you eat it?

Heh, it was an "unknown variable" initially that solved a math problem when trying to calculate the mass of the universe. There was no evidence of such a thing.
Over time, it's been redefined and actually made into something.

Now we know that there is an unprecedented amount of dust and gas and rogue bodies (planets and such) interstellarly and intergalactically compared to what was believed to exist in the 1930's.

^_^

And that's what Christmas is all about Charley Brown.

I understand what we consider as dark matter these days has radically departed from its original definition.

just sayin.

Oh don't forget "baryonic and nonbaryonic dark matter".

flip wrote: Now, don't get me wrong. I am not willing to jump right in front of the bus that is called science, but it would be extraordinary to find that the Universe does in fact have a center, and we are in it. Now, this is another fun diversion of course, but the only reason I say anything is because they have also found the oldest star, the "Methusalah star", right here in our very own Milky Way galaxy.

Methusalah Star

LMAO.. Flip... read the comments to that article. One poster said there was not center to the universe. They made me smile.

If there is, it would take a revolution to get people to back up and reconsider . I honestly the next 10-15 years is going to be the most exciting period of Physics period. I can't help but think most of the data is already here, with a few wrong assumptions mixed in. It's gonna take years for someone to sift through all of it and make sense of it all.