A good hypothesis being worked on is that the sub-atomic particles would be Strangelet or odly paired or dissasociated Quarks. Who's most stable combinations give Neutrons and Protons. Strangelet has been put up as a candidate for dark matter. Black holes and/or super massive black holes have also been hypothesised of being created from the same process that strangelet matter might be.
Let me know if I start to annoy you but a teacher once told me the only stupid question is the one not asked. Back to the "ebb and possible "flow" of 'charted dark matter. Is it dynamic or static - if not static how does it change, at what rate and are there any corresponding factors to attribute to it's deformation? I'm working backwards from the premise of "why" after asking "why not?" Hoping eventually to get to How.
You can figure out the mass of one object by figuring out the speed and path another object takes around it. The Stars move around the center of galaxies to fast to stay together. It's not a small number difference. That method gives you the "weight" of a universe. Now that much mass should produce a certain level of light. The galaxies light is way lower then the "weight" says. By Billions of stars. I hope that helped X)
What about a combination of all the factors of wimps, axions, free particles, etc... makes sense that it could be more broad spectrum than just 'either this or that'.
At 1:42 there are two single separated galaxies each with a tail below it. I suppose the tail is probably an indication that those galaxies are moving upward relatively quickly. IMO it's because gravity is more complicated than GR in two respects that all the galaxies appear to have dark matter "halos" around them, where the halo is round if the galaxy is isolated and it's extended in a surface-tension-like way if the galaxy is interacting with others.
If this new kind of particle is not protons or neutrons, is it then even touchable ? I mean, it has mass, but if I had a clump of Wimps, could I hold them in my hand ?
The velocity of the star. Is used to find out the weight of the universe. It only shows the weight as we can figure it. Not the actual weight. Hence either something radically changes at the galactic level. Or there is something else up there.
Thanks Shelly but I think your oversimplifying things. You can't use the center of the galaxy as the center of mass when using a star to determine the mass of the galaxy ( to much of the mass is distributed thru the galaxy) especially when you have already stated (not you) that the motion of the stars are not behaving the way they should. I know that was a little repetitious but I don't think you understood what I said the first time. One cosmologist questions its existence another makes a map?
In an earlier video it was explained that the stars in a galaxy maintain similar velocities going from inside out. That is not consistent with Newton's laws. It was then explained that this was caused by dark matter. He also calculated the mass of the galaxy erroneously. He makes two mistakes. He picks a star that he knows isn't behaving correctly and uses it's velocity to determine the mass of the galaxy. He treats the mass of the galaxy as a single point at it's center. That doesn't work . NMC
@uniflare umm yeah, that's the theory behind neutron stars which are hypothesized to be the origins of black holes before they acheive a state wherein they destroy light itself.
@MasterFPunkt That's my question after watching this too! my second question is, if there are that many of them, why do they not collapse on themselves. They've obviously got gravity, and are affected by gravity.
I could be mistaken, but Ive read that dark matter is some form of matter that doesnt interact with ordinary matter electromagnetically, but only gravitationally.That would mean that a chunk on the stuff would pass right through your hand, since matter is mostly empty space.So, its something you cant see, you cant touch, but is there anyway .. hmm .. it's beginning to sound about as real as the Easter Bunny.
I know this sounds crazy but what if the SMBH at the center of the galaxies is making the DM. Maybe all the matter falling in gets knocked out of phase just enough to still have a very small effect on this dimension. That is the reason we only detect it on very large scales. Just a thought.
Wait, I just thought about it... Damn, that was a dumb question! If angular velocity was constant (like the way vinyl records "turn" not "swirl"), then the stars-near-center would need to go fast enough to not collapse to center, which means the outer stars need to go at 8.7 KAJILLION km/h. So galaxy do "swirl"...? Near-center stars have shorter orbital periods than remote-from-center stars... but their "speedometer" would show roughly the same linear speed... Right??
@puncheex How can I convey this in such a short message? At the core of a star or planet is completely opposite to empty space in every aspect. The core is extremely hot, space is extremely cold. The core is under extreme pressure, space is under extreme vacuum. Like any natural force there is an equal & opposite reaction to every action. The action which produces this causes a flow of energy out & a flow of gravity in, like that of low & high pressure air, each rushing to equal out one another.
We're getting to where we can measure the gravitational interactions of synthetic antimatter; what we find in the next decade about those interactions will put a lot of constraints on the behavior of the mechanism behind gravity. I hope we find gravity to be a dipole force..
That's where you're wrong. There were virtual particles popping in and out of existence, these particle formed a field of some sort, and due to the uncertainty principle, expanded exponentially.
dark matter is quite intriguing. Especially that 90% of every single galaxy in the universe is dark matter. Could it be possible for the dark matter to have some sort of role in the creation of galaxies?
The halo effect itself and the surface-tension-like dark-matter multiple-halo combining effect are, IMO, aspects of two different properties of gravity. Not all halos are the same, but as far as they all go, I suppose all gravity is expressed by quanta, each having some very low value of energy, and as the quanta are light-speed propagating they produce a very slow rotation of their original conventional gravitational potential force direction, rotating once per cycle length of ~60K l-y.
Surely from the "big bang" theory there would be 'pockets' of black holes? It couldn't of been completely uniform since the universe would of turned into a giant ring of matter. I would imagine a black hole as just normal matter where gravity has actually overcome the forces keeping the atoms so far apart, which would account for the extreme density. I wonder how dense black holes are to an object having all its space between its atoms removed (without electrons, nucleus to nucleus). Hmmm...
So supposedly, Dark matter does not get sucked up by blackholes. If it did, we would see blackholes increasing by more moass then what is visibly seen, which is not the case. What ever darkmatter is, it just got way more complicated.
@fieryelf - ...but then where did those original 2 universes come from? It's a good concept, but you need to reach a 'pin-point' in your theory for something to be considered possible and investigative, and "2 Universes coming together" isn't a pin-point, it just presents a deeper dilemma. A good thought though, plus you never reach the unknown without theorizing first anyway ;-)
Well, if it would be gas, a spectrogram would be imprinted into light thats passing through it (even when its colorless) and we could determine what atoms this gas is made of with this information from the light.
Cool, I'm good with that. Like finding the nucleus inside an electron cloud I'll just keep throwing out questions until I hit something. Is it true that time could be said to be a tsunami coming from the direction of the "big bang?" (There fore being "fluid?" (upstream - down stream beginning - end....?) Next, now that a "snapshot of "possible" dark matter has been taken has anyone gone back to see if it fluctuates? (..in .."time" space?) Or is it static?
.. I read that if there was not a balance between gravity & the solar wind the sun could not exist. There needs to be a balance between output of energy & input of gravity to sustain stars. At any moment if this balance were broken the star would either implode to a black hole or explode into a nebula depending upon the greater of the two actions. So seeing that for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction, I believe the same action creating the solar wind is also producing gravity.
Why isn't Dark Matter and Dark Energy just considered a force? If they have no particles that can be detected why are scientists looking for a physical thing?
All matter is dark when it's not excited by what i've defined as black energy. Black energy covers the highest conceivable values of frequency in the frequency spectrum. These energies combine with others of a lesser valur to weave the intrinsic lattices of matter as we know them.
Consider relativity phenomena. The equation for acceleration contains time as an element. Gravity affects time. So gravity affects affects gravity the same as gravity affects time. There is your dark matter. GR does not take relativity phenomena into account.
@gogogeedus no the naming is not science but semantics. they could name it after their favourite pet if they want to, or least favourite in schroedinger's case. if your talking about being a human-centric viewpoint of science based on what we see as what fits, works, wanting a beatiful equation, sure but we have to work with what we've got, and this method of finding the best reasoning with tools available(alternate consciousness is a tool pretty far along the line!) produces great things.
ok here's a crazy idea, perhaps all ready thought of or not, the matter we all see is actually dark matter in transition as it approaches the super massive black hole at galactic center...eehhh ? just a thought.
@comeau187 Neutron stars? They do not become black holes - When a star collapses 3 things can happen, depending on the size and physics going on in that star: White Dwarf/Neutron Star or Black Hole. Also, there is no evidence to show that anything gets "Destroyed" around or inside a black hole. In fact the huge gravity well caused by Black Holes is Hypothesized to slow time to almost a full stop, which is a great problem in physics since everything would "stop" on the Horizon (impossible).
So rare to see an Australian nerd. They are usually jocks and duuuuuudes. He's great. Don't let the other Australians bully you, Australian nerd! Be true to your Australian self!
@uniflare Not just time either. The entire laws of physics changes in relation to one another. Time seems to slow, space seems to shrink etc.. ..but these changes would only be observable from normal space. Information(light/matter/and the w & s forces) Inside the event horizon could not communicate with information in normal space, so in theory, beyond the event horizon should exist an entirely new expanding universe like our own where the physical laws parallel our own.
you're right! technically it is a 90 degree vortex in a pure energy field. that vortex is causing dark energy to go sub-light speed and coagulate and eppervese around the vortex. aka matter.
I got my theory about dark matter, and the creation of the universe. IMO, basically, the universe was created by 2 universe coming together, one Positive and one Negative if you want, for X reason Positive Matter Starting pouring in the Negative one and Negative in Positive, like Water leaving a bottle to let the air go in, to us, Negative matter would be all that is to create stars and planets and the opposite for the negative world. Dark matter would be unfilled space, void/positive matter.
IME MEASURES THE DEGREE OF DEFICIT IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. SHADOWS OF CONTAINED REST ENERGY EXPRESS ALL VARIABLES AND ISOLATE THE DIFFERENTIAL. TIME IS EQUAL TO THE REFRACTIVE POTENTIAL IN LIGHT. L2=EM if; [(cv) (hv) (1/2mv2)]=L2. All interactions are particle kinetics using DeBroglie waves; λ = h/mv, where λ is wavelength, h is Planck's constant, m is the mass of a particle, moving at a velocity v. de Broglie suggested that particles can exhibit properties of waves.
It's an electrical based universe not a gravitational one. A clue is the presence of magnetic fields around the sun. The magnetic field and it's influence on the universe is widely ignored.
@yellowhue30 This theory may explain how our universe came into being, and that parallel dimensions of space exist within black holes, and create an infinitely expanding structure of exponential dimensions of space.
Okay, this isn't a jackass question... I just didn't take this in school, so I'm sorry if I sound dumb. We're told that stars remote-from-center tend to go around the galactic center "too quickly." They don't go slow, like say, Pluto around our sun. But does the galaxy turn like a vinyl record?? I've not seen them animated that way. The distance-velocity graph shows velocity is nearly constant -- distance irrelevant. Angular velocity constant?? Momentary linear velocity constant??
A theory is the highest exultation of a hypothesis, a theory is near a fact, but a fact is 100% proven, and nothing can be proven to 100%, as there are gaps and missing pieces in almost everything, let alone the universe.
I don't agree with you that dark energy exists and neither do many others.There is also a school of thought that says our universe is filled with electricity and plasma,in fact,that could be the gravitational solution of how all the repelling and attracting is actually going on.
Yeah there is dark matter but I don't believe its as big a deal as they make it sound. The main problem is that they are comparing our solar system to an entire galaxy. Our solar system has one large sun, and a couple tiny objects orbiting it. The galaxy has thousands of suns all over the place, and the gravity is everywhere not just the center. I bet the gravity binds the entire structure together so it resists speed changes between the inner and outer edges, kinda like a viscous coupler.
it has to be dark matter because if it was a black hole it would suck the light in and if it is planets the light would be blocked and/or it will have light blocking it
la materia oscura no puede distorsionar la luz de esa manera porque dicha materia está formada de partículas neutras con interacción gravitatoria solamente. por esto precisamente no forman estructuras materiales compactas y no puede ni refractar ni reflejar los fotones y por ello la luz pasa por la materia oscura sin desviaciones propias de la materia electromagnética o la antimateria.esa materia oscura debería llamarse más propiamente transparente.
The greater the energy or mass the greater the locational spherical inward absorption density and outward emission density of electromagnetic waves thats forming all the forces of nature! And basically Everything!!! Now is the moment of emission or acceleration for that ref-frame as the inward absorption causes gravitational drag!
@Levon9404 I am happy to know I am not the only one out there with different theories,My theory incorporates evolution and would probably not go down to well with the intelligent design fraternity,in my opinion if you cant understand Darwin you will not be able to join all the dots,but don't get me wrong I am a spiritual person and I don't believe that humans are part of the animal kingdom. Human beings have incredible abilities and these need to be used carefully.
@gogogeedus because those words have come to mean something else in science.... i've heard scientists call the sun dark for example reffering to its albedo. or quantum physics give particles 'colours' they've just come to be the terms.
I like to consider, that perhaps our view of gravity in general, is wrong... but the old saying still holds, that... if you're a hammer, than all your problems look like nails... and I love universal constants, so adjusting them would be my choice :)
No semantics is not science and science needs to concentrate on practical outcomes that benefit man kind,there must be an objective for science as long as that objective is for the best then the beneficiaries should be satisfied. I don't know if you are aware of this but people with a view outside the scientific fraternity don't care about the beauty of an equation they want mechanisms that assist them in there ability to survive,and this has always been the main motivation for human progress.
@agoloshapov Gravity is one of the great unknowns, especially cause its so weak compared to the other forces in nature. If you ever understand it though please share :)
yes, I think that makes sense. In the past people would just insert God for the unknown, dark matter is the same thing until it is solved. I suspect the sentence "95% of the matter in the universe is missing" that is an error.
WRONG .... watch ( Primer Fields Theory ) Watch ( Electric Sun ) Stuff to understand things like plasmoids ... there is a lot you would need to learn to understand gravity better , but we are far past dark matter in 2014 ... ( this was an ok upload for 2010 thou ) things are moving fast thou
Except there's substantial evidence pointing towards it, and at least people don't write a book about it and worship it for thousands of years without thinking of what they are doing.
@gogogeedus sure but whats that got to do with the choice of words used to name new discoveries? its just a name based on a property. its not so literal. dark meaning elusive, black just being perfect anyway, as if no light escapes it has the perfect lack of intensity, the perfect black. colour or frequency are too very important measurable property, whilst not only the visible light colours are relevant, so are invisible frequencies of the magnetic spectrum. this is semantics not science.
Sounds like someone who didn't originally speak English, but learned it from an Aussie, or he was born in Australia and spent time in a non-English-speaking country. It may just be me though. "Daaahk matter" is starting to get to me, lol.
Did everyone listen to what they had to say.. "Mysterious force"..."Something out there we can see".."We dont understand how things are working"..."Evidence always points to say place".. "Maybe we got the picture completely wrong and we should be open minded"... When you force the wrong puzzle pieces together the big picture is always wrong... Their model is leaving out the most fundamental pieces of the puzzle.. God... Whats your interpretation of the presupposition assumption of speculative presumable evidence???
The ol' god of the gaps. Those gaps are getting smaller and smaller. It will be a wondrous day when those gaps are completely filled and there's no room left for that insidious fairy tale
I don't think I've heard that one before. ^^ Did you hear that from elsewhere or did you come up with this on your own? I'll be honest, that scenario doesn't seem very likely to me, but hey, you never know... I do not have any way to back this up, but right now I imagine this membrane of 11 dimensions where thousands of universes pop into and fade out of existence. I just did an awful job at explaining that didn't I? Just search Michio Kaku and he'll do it better than me...
I'm not sue, to be honest. Both are possible, but we lack the data and the evidence to draw any rational, impartial conclusions. At the moment, all we can do is look up and see what we can see.
Yes the theory of gravity is wrong when even noting the universe's inflation. This is why Einstein did not theorize that the universe was inflating exponentially. If Relativity was right then it would have predicted observations. Gravity is a reaction to an action. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The action of the solar wind is equal and opposite to the force of gravity on the sun so it must be the action causing it.
Yes it made a map. But the map pointed to the existence of dark matter. Yea i simplified the subject though. I am a mere layman. I admit it. Seen another video where the math was explained. Seemed to make sense.
@gogogeedus I like the way you express your self about current scientists work it seems to me they more of dream chasers than realistic about true existence of universe. I'm amateur scientist it took me 32 years to comprehend how function our universe. I use simple physics & simple algebra to comprehend how things are functioning. I will tell you with confidence there is no anti matter or dark matter & light never bends. Things aren't that complicated the way scientists see it.
Nothing is as big as 5 percent of the universe (no one thing at least). This is because we don't yet know the exact size of the universe, so, wherever you got that information the people who gave it to you are wrong. I know that you said the "known universe" and we are still having trouble measuring that. You would be able to "see" a black hole because the light would bend around it, and you would notice before you got obliterated by it. You don't seem to have much "common sense."
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Absolutely. And his body language... Sends shivers down my spine.
Thats a nice argument you have there, i especially like your use of evidence to support your argument.
Good sceptics looking in both directions THAT's Sience :D
Great, looking forward to part 4.
Wow, the depth of detail in the universe is ridiculously amazing. We're still ignorant savages.
A good hypothesis being worked on is that the sub-atomic particles would be Strangelet or odly paired or dissasociated Quarks. Who's most stable combinations give Neutrons and Protons.
Strangelet has been put up as a candidate for dark matter. Black holes and/or super massive black holes have also been hypothesised of being created from the same process that strangelet matter might be.
Let me know if I start to annoy you but a teacher once told me the only stupid question is the one not asked. Back to the "ebb and possible "flow" of 'charted dark matter. Is it dynamic or static - if not static how does it change, at what rate and are there any corresponding factors to attribute to it's deformation? I'm working backwards from the premise of "why" after asking "why not?" Hoping eventually to get to How.
You can figure out the mass of one object by figuring out the speed and path another object takes around it. The Stars move around the center of galaxies to fast to stay together. It's not a small number difference. That method gives you the "weight" of a universe. Now that much mass should produce a certain level of light. The galaxies light is way lower then the "weight" says. By Billions of stars. I hope that helped X)
What about a combination of all the factors of wimps, axions, free particles, etc... makes sense that it could be more broad spectrum than just 'either this or that'.
Anyone know how modified gravity theories explain gravitational lensing and the "odd" gravitational lensing effects we see?
At 1:42 there are two single separated galaxies each with a tail below it. I suppose the tail is probably an indication that those galaxies are moving upward relatively quickly. IMO it's because gravity is more complicated than GR in two respects that all the galaxies appear to have dark matter "halos" around them, where the halo is round if the galaxy is isolated and it's extended in a surface-tension-like way if the galaxy is interacting with others.
@jorgepeterbarton That is my point,are they new discoveries or is this just semantics?
If this new kind of particle is not protons or neutrons, is it then even touchable ? I mean, it has mass, but if I had a clump of Wimps, could I hold them in my hand ?
The velocity of the star. Is used to find out the weight of the universe. It only shows the weight as we can figure it. Not the actual weight. Hence either something radically changes at the galactic level. Or there is something else up there.
When you say the word dark matter, then the brain is engaged with this word
Thanks Shelly but I think your oversimplifying things. You can't use the center of the galaxy as the center of mass when using a star to determine the mass of the galaxy ( to much of the mass is distributed thru the galaxy) especially when you have already stated (not you) that the motion of the stars are not behaving the way they should. I know that was a little repetitious but I don't think you understood what I said the first time. One cosmologist questions its existence another makes a map?
In an earlier video it was explained that the stars in a galaxy maintain similar velocities going from inside out. That is not consistent with Newton's laws. It was then explained that this was caused by dark matter. He also calculated the mass of the galaxy erroneously. He makes two mistakes. He picks a star that he knows isn't behaving correctly and uses it's velocity to determine the mass of the galaxy. He treats the mass of the galaxy as a single point at it's center. That doesn't work . NMC
@uniflare umm yeah, that's the theory behind neutron stars which are hypothesized to be the origins of black holes before they acheive a state wherein they destroy light itself.
@MasterFPunkt That's my question after watching this too!
my second question is, if there are that many of them, why do they not collapse on themselves. They've obviously got gravity, and are affected by gravity.
I could be mistaken, but Ive read that dark matter is some form of matter that doesnt interact with ordinary matter electromagnetically, but only gravitationally.That would mean that a chunk on the stuff would pass right through your hand, since matter is mostly empty space.So, its something you cant see, you cant touch, but is there anyway .. hmm .. it's beginning to sound about as real as the Easter Bunny.
I know this sounds crazy but what if the SMBH at the center of the galaxies is making the DM. Maybe all the matter falling in gets knocked out of phase just enough to still have a very small effect on this dimension. That is the reason we only detect it on very large scales. Just a thought.
How do you know this and what do you mean by "absolutely nothing".
Wait, I just thought about it... Damn, that was a dumb question!
If angular velocity was constant (like the way vinyl records "turn" not "swirl"), then the stars-near-center would need to go fast enough to not collapse to center, which means the outer stars need to go at 8.7 KAJILLION km/h.
So galaxy do "swirl"...? Near-center stars have shorter orbital periods than remote-from-center stars... but their "speedometer" would show roughly the same linear speed... Right??
@puncheex How can I convey this in such a short message? At the core of a star or planet is completely opposite to empty space in every aspect. The core is extremely hot, space is extremely cold. The core is under extreme pressure, space is under extreme vacuum. Like any natural force there is an equal & opposite reaction to every action. The action which produces this causes a flow of energy out & a flow of gravity in, like that of low & high pressure air, each rushing to equal out one another.
We're getting to where we can measure the gravitational interactions of synthetic antimatter; what we find in the next decade about those interactions will put a lot of constraints on the behavior of the mechanism behind gravity. I hope we find gravity to be a dipole force..
04:45 This is where it starts to get interesting!
So, dark matter might be like a protective shell of sorts for galaxies.
That's where you're wrong.
There were virtual particles popping in and out of existence, these particle formed a field of some sort, and due to the uncertainty principle, expanded exponentially.
great video. thanks
dark matter is quite intriguing. Especially that 90% of every single galaxy in the universe is dark matter. Could it be possible for the dark matter to have some sort of role in the creation of galaxies?
@warlord1981nl you're quite wrong. The hypothesis of its existence popped up only to explain observations, it was never predicted before.
The halo effect itself and the surface-tension-like dark-matter multiple-halo combining effect are, IMO, aspects of two different properties of gravity. Not all halos are the same, but as far as they all go, I suppose all gravity is expressed by quanta, each having some very low value of energy, and as the quanta are light-speed propagating they produce a very slow rotation of their original conventional gravitational potential force direction, rotating once per cycle length of ~60K l-y.
Surely from the "big bang" theory there would be 'pockets' of black holes?
It couldn't of been completely uniform since the universe would of turned into a giant ring of matter.
I would imagine a black hole as just normal matter where gravity has actually overcome the forces keeping the atoms so far apart, which would account for the extreme density.
I wonder how dense black holes are to an object having all its space between its atoms removed (without electrons, nucleus to nucleus).
Hmmm...
thanks for posting -
So supposedly, Dark matter does not get sucked up by blackholes. If it did, we would see blackholes increasing by more moass then what is visibly seen, which is not the case.
What ever darkmatter is, it just got way more complicated.
@fieryelf - ...but then where did those original 2 universes come from? It's a good concept, but you need to reach a 'pin-point' in your theory for something to be considered possible and investigative, and "2 Universes coming together" isn't a pin-point, it just presents a deeper dilemma. A good thought though, plus you never reach the unknown without theorizing first anyway ;-)
Well, if it would be gas, a spectrogram would be imprinted into light thats passing through it (even when its colorless) and we could determine what atoms this gas is made of with this information from the light.
Cool, I'm good with that. Like finding the nucleus inside an electron cloud I'll just keep throwing out questions until I hit something. Is it true that time could be said to be a tsunami coming from the direction of the "big bang?" (There fore being "fluid?" (upstream - down stream beginning - end....?)
Next, now that a "snapshot of "possible" dark matter has been taken has anyone gone back to see if it fluctuates? (..in .."time" space?) Or is it static?
.. I read that if there was not a balance between gravity & the solar wind the sun could not exist. There needs to be a balance between output of energy & input of gravity to sustain stars. At any moment if this balance were broken the star would either implode to a black hole or explode into a nebula depending upon the greater of the two actions. So seeing that for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction, I believe the same action creating the solar wind is also producing gravity.
Why isn't Dark Matter and Dark Energy just considered a force? If they have no particles that can be detected why are scientists looking for a physical thing?
May I ask how?
All matter is dark when it's not excited by what i've defined as black energy. Black energy covers the highest conceivable values of frequency in the frequency spectrum. These energies combine with others of a lesser valur to weave the intrinsic lattices of matter as we know them.
Consider relativity phenomena. The equation for acceleration contains time as an element. Gravity affects time. So gravity affects affects gravity the same as gravity affects time. There is your dark matter. GR does not take relativity phenomena into account.
@gogogeedus no the naming is not science but semantics. they could name it after their favourite pet if they want to, or least favourite in schroedinger's case. if your talking about being a human-centric viewpoint of science based on what we see as what fits, works, wanting a beatiful equation, sure but we have to work with what we've got, and this method of finding the best reasoning with tools available(alternate consciousness is a tool pretty far along the line!) produces great things.
ok here's a crazy idea, perhaps all ready thought of or not, the matter we all see is actually dark matter in transition as it approaches the super massive black hole at galactic center...eehhh ? just a thought.
electrons have mass ?
@comeau187 Neutron stars? They do not become black holes - When a star collapses 3 things can happen, depending on the size and physics going on in that star: White Dwarf/Neutron Star or Black Hole. Also, there is no evidence to show that anything gets "Destroyed" around or inside a black hole. In fact the huge gravity well caused by Black Holes is Hypothesized to slow time to almost a full stop, which is a great problem in physics since everything would "stop" on the Horizon (impossible).
So rare to see an Australian nerd. They are usually jocks and duuuuuudes. He's great. Don't let the other Australians bully you, Australian nerd! Be true to your Australian self!
weehee! Part 3!!!
@uniflare Not just time either. The entire laws of physics changes in relation to one another. Time seems to slow, space seems to shrink etc.. ..but these changes would only be observable from normal space. Information(light/matter/and the w & s forces) Inside the event horizon could not communicate with information in normal space, so in theory, beyond the event horizon should exist an entirely new expanding universe like our own where the physical laws parallel our own.
you're right! technically it is a 90 degree vortex in a pure energy field. that vortex is causing dark energy to go sub-light speed and coagulate and eppervese around the vortex. aka matter.
I got my theory about dark matter, and the creation of the universe. IMO, basically, the universe was created by 2 universe coming together, one Positive and one Negative if you want, for X reason Positive Matter Starting pouring in the Negative one and Negative in Positive, like Water leaving a bottle to let the air go in, to us, Negative matter would be all that is to create stars and planets and the opposite for the negative world.
Dark matter would be unfilled space, void/positive matter.
Came up with it, will check that Michio guy out Ty :)
IME MEASURES THE DEGREE OF DEFICIT IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. SHADOWS OF CONTAINED REST ENERGY EXPRESS ALL VARIABLES AND ISOLATE THE DIFFERENTIAL. TIME IS EQUAL TO THE REFRACTIVE POTENTIAL IN LIGHT. L2=EM if; [(cv) (hv) (1/2mv2)]=L2. All interactions are particle kinetics using DeBroglie waves; λ = h/mv,
where λ is wavelength, h is Planck's constant, m is the mass of a particle, moving at a velocity v.
de Broglie suggested that particles can exhibit properties of waves.
It's an electrical based universe not a gravitational one. A clue is the presence of magnetic fields around the sun. The magnetic field and it's influence on the universe is widely ignored.
@yellowhue30 This theory may explain how our universe came into being, and that parallel dimensions of space exist within black holes, and create an infinitely expanding structure of exponential dimensions of space.
Okay, this isn't a jackass question... I just didn't take this in school, so I'm sorry if I sound dumb.
We're told that stars remote-from-center tend to go around the galactic center "too quickly." They don't go slow, like say, Pluto around our sun.
But does the galaxy turn like a vinyl record?? I've not seen them animated that way.
The distance-velocity graph shows velocity is nearly constant -- distance irrelevant.
Angular velocity constant?? Momentary linear velocity constant??
A theory is the highest exultation of a hypothesis, a theory is near a fact, but a fact is 100% proven, and nothing can be proven to 100%, as there are gaps and missing pieces in almost everything, let alone the universe.
I don't agree with you that dark energy exists and neither do many others.There is also a school of thought that says our universe is filled with electricity and plasma,in fact,that could be the gravitational solution of how all the repelling and attracting is actually going on.
Yeah there is dark matter but I don't believe its as big a deal as they make it sound. The main problem is that they are comparing our solar system to an entire galaxy. Our solar system has one large sun, and a couple tiny objects orbiting it. The galaxy has thousands of suns all over the place, and the gravity is everywhere not just the center. I bet the gravity binds the entire structure together so it resists speed changes between the inner and outer edges, kinda like a viscous coupler.
it has to be dark matter because if it was a black hole it would suck the light in and if it is planets the light would be blocked and/or it will have light blocking it
i always hate how the background music makes astronomy videos become scary.
la materia oscura no puede distorsionar la luz de esa manera porque dicha materia está formada de partículas neutras con interacción gravitatoria solamente. por esto precisamente no forman estructuras materiales compactas y no puede ni refractar ni reflejar los fotones y por ello la luz pasa por la materia oscura sin desviaciones propias de la materia electromagnética o la antimateria.esa materia oscura debería llamarse más propiamente transparente.
What about dust?
The greater the energy or mass the greater the locational spherical inward absorption density and outward emission density of electromagnetic waves thats forming all the forces of nature! And basically Everything!!!
Now is the moment of emission or acceleration for that ref-frame as the inward absorption causes gravitational drag!
Okay i agree but if our universe gets faster than the speed of light, it would go even quicker due to that when something does: it 'stretches'
i wanna know more about dark matter!!!!
For the first time in history, astronomers caught dark matter at work.
"These results prove that dark matter exists," declared Clowe.
Nonsense.
@Levon9404 I am happy to know I am not the only one out there with different theories,My theory incorporates evolution and would probably not go down to well with the intelligent design fraternity,in my opinion if you cant understand Darwin you will not be able to join all the dots,but don't get me wrong I am a spiritual person and I don't believe that humans are part of the animal kingdom.
Human beings have incredible abilities and these need to be used carefully.
@gogogeedus because those words have come to mean something else in science.... i've heard scientists call the sun dark for example reffering to its albedo. or quantum physics give particles 'colours' they've just come to be the terms.
I like to consider, that perhaps our view of gravity in general, is wrong...
but the old saying still holds, that...
if you're a hammer, than all your problems look like nails... and I love universal constants, so adjusting them would be my choice :)
No semantics is not science and science needs to concentrate on practical outcomes that benefit man kind,there must be an objective for science as long as that objective is for the best then the beneficiaries should be satisfied.
I don't know if you are aware of this but people with a view outside the scientific fraternity don't care about the beauty of an equation they want mechanisms that assist them in there ability to survive,and this has always been the main motivation for human progress.
Sorry, I didn't mean YOU had a bad british accent, I meant it sounded like Sheldon doing an accent. I love aussies, oi, oi, oi!
@agoloshapov
Gravity is one of the great unknowns, especially cause its so weak compared to the other forces in nature. If you ever understand it though please share :)
yes, I think that makes sense. In the past people would just insert God for the unknown, dark matter is the same thing until it is solved.
I suspect the sentence
"95% of the matter in the universe is missing"
that is an error.
WRONG ....
watch ( Primer Fields Theory )
Watch ( Electric Sun ) Stuff to understand things like plasmoids ...
there is a lot you would need to learn to understand gravity better , but we are far past dark matter in 2014 ... ( this was an ok upload for 2010 thou ) things are moving fast thou
Except there's substantial evidence pointing towards it, and at least people don't write a book about it and worship it for thousands of years without thinking of what they are doing.
Very cool! Too bad that this is part 3/4 in the series... That means the series is almost over... =(
At least when it comes to the dark matter topic.
@gogogeedus sure but whats that got to do with the choice of words used to name new discoveries? its just a name based on a property. its not so literal. dark meaning elusive, black just being perfect anyway, as if no light escapes it has the perfect lack of intensity, the perfect black. colour or frequency are too very important measurable property, whilst not only the visible light colours are relevant, so are invisible frequencies of the magnetic spectrum. this is semantics not science.
This question doesn't really make sense. That's like imagining if existence was non-existence.
Gravitational, ElectroMagnet, Weak and Strong Nuclear ?
Sounds like someone who didn't originally speak English, but learned it from an Aussie, or he was born in Australia and spent time in a non-English-speaking country. It may just be me though. "Daaahk matter" is starting to get to me, lol.
Did everyone listen to what they had to say.. "Mysterious force"..."Something out there we can see".."We dont understand how things are working"..."Evidence always points to say place".. "Maybe we got the picture completely wrong and we should be open minded"... When you force the wrong puzzle pieces together the big picture is always wrong... Their model is leaving out the most fundamental pieces of the puzzle.. God... Whats your interpretation of the presupposition assumption of speculative presumable evidence???
The ol' god of the gaps. Those gaps are getting smaller and smaller. It will be a wondrous day when those gaps are completely filled and there's no room left for that insidious fairy tale
I don't think I've heard that one before. ^^ Did you hear that from elsewhere or did you come up with this on your own? I'll be honest, that scenario doesn't seem very likely to me, but hey, you never know...
I do not have any way to back this up, but right now I imagine this membrane of 11 dimensions where thousands of universes pop into and fade out of existence. I just did an awful job at explaining that didn't I? Just search Michio Kaku and he'll do it better than me...
So, 10% of all mass is wimps?
Where is this guy from? He has a somewhat odd inflection in his voice.
I'm not sue, to be honest.
Both are possible, but we lack the data and the evidence to draw any rational, impartial conclusions. At the moment, all we can do is look up and see what we can see.
Yes the theory of gravity is wrong when even noting the universe's inflation. This is why Einstein did not theorize that the universe was inflating exponentially. If Relativity was right then it would have predicted observations. Gravity is a reaction to an action. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The action of the solar wind is equal and opposite to the force of gravity on the sun so it must be the action causing it.
Yes it made a map. But the map pointed to the existence of dark matter. Yea i simplified the subject though. I am a mere layman. I admit it. Seen another video where the math was explained. Seemed to make sense.
@OCNXenthos
Agreed.
Wimps are non-interacting matter , look for non-rendering time frames.
Basically the universe is a gigantic atom building board game.
That narrators got his own dark matter coming. just looking how hes body moves and his speech is weird.
@gogogeedus I like the way you express your self about current scientists work it seems to me they more of dream chasers than realistic about true existence of universe. I'm amateur scientist it took me 32 years to comprehend how function our universe. I use simple physics & simple algebra to comprehend how things are functioning. I will tell you with confidence there is no anti matter or dark matter & light never bends. Things aren't that complicated the way scientists see it.
Nothing is as big as 5 percent of the universe (no one thing at least). This is because we don't yet know the exact size of the universe, so, wherever you got that information the people who gave it to you are wrong. I know that you said the "known universe" and we are still having trouble measuring that.
You would be able to "see" a black hole because the light would bend around it, and you would notice before you got obliterated by it.
You don't seem to have much "common sense."
There was no space,time ,energy or matter to transfer,there was absolutely nothing.
LOL DAHK MATTAH! xD
The guy reminds me of Jim Carreys impression of E.T.!
@PlanetBongoSan
I DO find him annoying. :P
But the video is fascinating nonetheless. I tend to ignore the minor details and focus on the content.
"black holes have so much mass that light can not escape from them" ? totally unscientific :)
So basically it's the same principle as fire and heat manipulating light