just wondering what peoples thoughts/opinions/possible explanations were about this stuff?
seems baffling to me that the vast majority of the universe is made up of energy and matter which we know absoloutly nothing about.
admitedly im not too up on cutting edge science so dont know if there are any recent theories to try and explain it, i just find it interesting that thers so much of our universe is made up of stuff we know nothing about?
cant remember what the exzact percentages are but its sumthin ridikulous like the vast vast majority of matter and especially energy is dark.
ive also heard it described as translucent matter as light passes through it, if it wer dark it wud block out all the light from stars etc etc...
also the reason that the universe is still accelerating is bcoz of the dark energy as really it shud b slowing down now or sumthing.
but yea any thoughts opinions wud b lovely.
cheers big ears.

ps. i know my spelling is atrocious......i dont care.

aparently it supposed to keep galxies together, like gravity or something, i think i'd seen a picture that proves dark matter exists. it is a confusing stuff.

Dark Matter is the Frogs DNA of Physics, kind of like the fill in the blanks solution to an enigma.


Dark matter was first proposed when scientists studying the roatation of a nearby galaxy and could not get their sums right. There was too little visible matter to explain its rotation, so instead of going back to the drawing board they theorised that there must be some matter that they couldnt see, the quantity of which they added to make their sums correct.

Dark energy is much the same, but explains how the universes expansion is still accelerating.

Pretty munday really, but the prefix 'dark' is to indicate it cannot be seen, only the effects can be observed.

Thats it in a nutshell, though if someone more knowledgeable than I can expand on my meagre explanation that would be great.

its not so much that the math is wrong to begin with.
it was discoverd that there was a missing part to the equasion in the first place.
ramping up the scale of the equasion just magnifies the missing part of it.
nothing new in science.
newtons laws hold true till we get to a very large scale, and even then most of them still hold true. but then gaps appear as you ramp up scale.

Here is some info to answer your question.

First of Dark Matter.

Basically Dark Matter is a scientific hypothesis that scientists created to explain why there astronomical calculations did not work out.

Dark Matter is what it says it is.It is everything in the universe keeps everything together just not planets suns and galaxies btw that is gravity's job, no what is ment by is the dark space between galaxies.Dark Matter is not as invisible as it seems to be because if you have a big enough explosion and you view the explosion through a infrared
telescope you can see the effect of dark matter here are some images to show you by what I mean.

Click to view attachment

The first image the luminescent blue is the dark matter.

Click to view attachment

This image to me is the best proof of dark matter which is the ghostly ring you see.

And last but not least the effect of dark matter throw a conventional telescope.

Click to view attachment

Dark Energy.

This is the interesting piece of the puzzle.

Dark Energy is exactly the opposite of dark matter.Basically Grey Area is right, dark energy is what accelerate ting the universe appart but it is not constant though.

This is a image of this phenomena.

Click to view attachment

The satellite you see at the end was the one scientists used to proof the acceleration theory.

Hope this satisfy your answer.

Good luck.

Sorry the upload space got a bit to full here is the image that did not show.
Ghostly ring is dark matter.

Click to view attachment

The thing that gets me about dark matter is that we don't know what it is yet. Apparently, a lot of people used to think that it was composed of heavy neutrinos, but now a lot of people are saying that it's made of some newfangled particle called WIMPS that I know nothing about.

Is it possible that there is no dark matter, but there is a problem in our conception of physics instead?

dark matter

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec16.html

I will just better explain myself on dark matter.Dark matter is just a term scientists use to explain unexplained masses like black holes and the chain if you who'd call it that holds the galaxies together and that surrounds us in the dark parts of space.Have to admit it is some truly weired stuff.But don't get me wrong dark matter exist.

cheers for the replies, the thing that gets me is that the universe conists mainly of dark matter and even more so dark energy, like all of the matter, particles, atoms, quarks, planets, galaxies etc
arnt even wot makes up most of the universe, the vast majority is actually made of this stuff we know basically nothing about.
i kind of like the fact tbh, adds a bit more mystery and just goes to show how limited our perception/understanding of the universe really is.




sory if this is really big dunno how to do that cool shrinky thing with images.

ha! b******s sorry bout that again

u get the picture tho.

Possibly. On the other hand, this dark matter and energy may very well not exist at all either.



Umm... what?



What are you talking about?



*sigh* no no no, Dark matter can NOT be seen. We have no idea what it is, or even if it exists. Right now it is purely theoretical.



It is very well possible thats what it is. Its possible that Newtons laws fall appart/change when we enter the galactic scale similarily to how they change as we approach relativistic speeds, but we havent figure out how they change yet. Those are basically thr two thoughts... either our understanding of gravity is less than we believe, or there is some sort of dark matter and dark energy in existence that accounts for these phenomena.



What? No it isnt... And Ive never even heard a black hole referred to as an "unexplained mass" either!



Maybe.

i always used to wonder about atoms - what was in the 'space' between the nucleus and the electrons

and what was in the 'space' between the sun and the planets


since there can be no such thing as ' empty space '( if you think deeply about it)

then this must be what they are now calling the dark stuff !

Actually, the space between a nucleus and the electron shell is empty space. Most of matter is just empty space. Most of you is empty space. Neat, huh?

And in a way, that gigantic proportion of empty space is mirrored by our universe. A friend of mine always goes on about the macrocosm mirroring the microcosm and all that junk.

At last some one with a bit more intellect on this subject.Why dont you explain to us the truth about dark matter and energy if mine is so degraded.IN DETAIL O WISE ONE!.

Well, quite simplyy as was mentionned, the idea of dark energy and dark matter originate from discrepancies between theoretical expectations and experimental data. For example, the radial velocities of the suns in galaxies are greater at the exterior than they should be for all the mass that was measured in the galaxy. Same with the expansion of the universe, it seems to be accelerating for some reason, and they attribute this to some undiscovered energy they call dark energy.

Both dark matter and dark energy are purely theoretical. We can not see it, we can not observe it, we can not even observe its "effects" yet. They are completely misterious things which rely right now on the descrepancy I mentionned. The discrepancie, however, can also be due to incomplete knowledge on gravity. Perhaps there is more to gravity than we think right now which changes the whole equation, and thus there is infact no dark energy or dark matter, but the galaxies behave exactly as they should with the amount of baryonic matter they contain.

if i may,,

then how can electrons remain in 'orbit' :if it were 'empty space' the electron wouldn't know where the nucleus was(and vice versa) , since there would be no medium thru which it could remain attached..
there would be no force between them , since there would be 'nothing' (i assumed by empty space you mean 'nothing')


i think your friend is wiser than you give them credit for .

? Why must there be a medium for it to remain in orbit?



They are gravitationally linked. Gravity is independant of any medium as we define it.



The presence of a force does not constitute a medium. A force is not a medium.

It's actually an electrostatic force, but you're right. The force isn't matter or a substance. And electrons aren't always in "orbit." They kinda blink in and out of a given area surrounding the nucleus. Sometimes they disappear completely and reappear and nobody knows where they go.

Gravity, strangely enough, has no effect on the subatomic realm, and nobody can figure out why. That's what Einstein spent the rest of his life working on. A "Unifying Field Theory" that would bring together the mechanics of large-body classical phsyics (gravity), and the world of quantum physics (strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic force). String theory is a big deal because it provides a sort of unifying field theory, though it's a hotly disputed theory (theories, actually).

I definitely give my friend a lot of credit, because he's the only reason I know any of this.

Yes, sorry.. I was going to relate it to the orbit of planets so I was thinking gravity.

i read books on quantum mechanics many years ago -and i still couldn't understand.
things have changed a bit now, but my mind still boggles.

i read better occult books on the subject written a hundred years ago , described by yogi philosphers thousands of years ago. and what it said in those books made more sense
about the relation between matter , energy and mind, than any quantum book i had tried, and what it predicted is what science is only now coming to understand.

Yeah, a lot of philosophers have hit on the idea of a quantum reality throughout history. there's even a good book relating eastern spiritualism with physics called The Tao of Physics. But, in all honesty, they never explored the field with anything nearing the depth and accuracy that today's scientists are working with. And as far as understanding the subject, even the top minds in the world, Hawking, Peebles, Guth...etc. have admitted to not really grasping the subject matter.