Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
UM-Bot

Is there dark matter around the Earth ?

62 posts in this topic

New research suggests that the Earth may be heavier than believed due to the presence of dark matter.

Dark matter is a theoretical type of matter that is believed to make up a large percentage of the mass of the universe. It can\'t be observed directly and there is no guarantee that it actually exists at all, but nonetheless this enigmatic material has been a staple of cosmological science for years.

Read More: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/260256/is-there-dark-matter-around-the-earth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this explains why my butt is heavier than it should be?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is dark matter in your butt, that's for sure.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact dark matter is what keeps and regulates planets and galaxies staying together and stable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Dark matter is a theoretical type of matter that is believed to make up a large percentage of the mass of the universe. It can't be observed directly and there is no guarantee that it actually exists at all, but nonetheless this enigmatic material has been a staple of cosmological science for years.

Translation: We made it up.

Edited by Eluus
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Translation: We made it up.

I would repudiate that. It's there and can be measured. It's just that we don't know what it is.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I would repudiate that. It's there and can be measured. It's just that we don't know what it is.

Would you be so kind to provide a link that shows how it can be measured?

Other than something like "well gravity of known matter only explains a small percentage of it so the rest must be Dark Matter".

Edited by Eluus
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No; this is well known and cynicism uncalled for. Do your own research and don't come here expecting people to prove that stupid statements are wrong.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No; this is well known and cynicism uncalled for. Do your own research and don't come here expecting people to prove that stupid statements are wrong.

If you have anything to back your assertion please do provide. If not, please try to refrain from personal attacks and making pointless posts.

It's not well known that "it's there and can be measured". Quite the opposite, it's well known that it's not proven and it can't be measured in any way.

Edited by Eluus
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is outrageous; you expressed the cynicism; you have the burden of proof. I did not make a personal remark; I just said that your cynicism is stupid.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is outrageous; you expressed the cynicism; you have the burden of proof.

Just like how one can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist, it can't be proven that Dark Matter doesn't exist. Burden of proof doesn't work that way. Since you're the one who claimed that "It's there and can be measured", the burden of proof is on you to prove that. I'll save you the trouble though, there's no proof that Dark Matter exists.

You'd have saved yourself the emberrasment even if you would just read the above article.

Dark matter is a theoretical type of matter that is believed to make up a large percentage of the mass of the universe. It can\'t be observed directly and there is no guarantee that it actually exists at all, but nonetheless this enigmatic material has been a staple of cosmological science for years.

The only thing that backs Dark Matter is belief.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can do the research to show that dark matter is real enough, so you are playing the fool. All power to you.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can do the research to show that dark matter is real enough, so you are playing the fool. All power to you.

Real enough? :w00t:

You made my day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eluus, before you post further, may I suggest you do at least a tiny bit of research (gee, even the Wiki will get you started) on the concept of dark matter? Here, let me quote from that erudite source to help you:

..the existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe...

...Astrophysicists hypothesized dark matter due to discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects and the mass calculated from the "luminous matter" they contain: stars, gas, and dust...

...It was first postulated by Jan Oort in 1932 to account for the orbital velocities of stars in the Milky Way and by Fritz Zwicky in 1933 to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters. Subsequently, many other observations have indicated the presence of dark matter in the universe, including...

- rotational speeds of galaxies by Vera Rubin, in the 1960s–1970s..

- gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters..

- temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies..

- the pattern of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background...

According to consensus among cosmologists, dark matter is composed primarily of a not yet characterized type of subatomic particle.

Now, Eluus, which of those observations are you disputing? All/any of them? Please give details. Do you have another theory for ..er .. gravity and everythin'.. that's better and explains all these observations?

Sure, it's just a hypothesis at this stage, but it's fair to say that it is the simplest solution to explain the observations, so far. There are some weird and wonderful alternative ideas have been postulated that do not involve extra matter, and mainstream science is always open to better ideas as long as they better explain the observations.. To date, dark matter wins..

Unless you dispute the observations I've quoted from Wiki above, then you need to accept something as the answer, otherwise you are being a bit of a King Canute - you're gunna get wet feet...

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eluus, before you post further, may I suggest you do at least a tiny bit of research (gee, even the Wiki will get you started) on the concept of dark matter? Here, let me quote from that erudite source to help you:

I wish you didn't assume I haven't made any research regarding Dark Matter but hey, at least you didn't make any (obvious) insults.

Now, Eluus, which of those observations are you disputing? All/any of them? Please give details. Do you have another theory for ..er .. gravity and everythin'.. that's better and explains all these observations?

Dark matter is made up by mainstream science so that Gravity could remain the dominant force to explain how the universe works. The wiki article and pretty much everything else on Dark Matter are only technical ways of doing that. But please, if there's any evidence regarding the existence of Dark Matter (or the flying spaghetti monster for that matter) feel free to prodive. It would be much appreciated.

Unless you dispute the observations I've quoted from Wiki above, then you need to accept something as the answer, otherwise you are being a bit of a King Canute - you're gunna get wet feet...

Gravity ("of the observable matter") only accounts for 4%. That, we know. There's the 96% (and the observations) that can't be explained by Gravity ("of the observable matter"). Mainstream science "believes" it's Dark Matter because of the dogma that gravity must be the dominant force. Even though it may sound simple, it's not a good answer. I'll remain skeptical until there's evidence for the existence of this "belief".

Edited by Eluus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ellus, i'm curious please... do you have an alternate explanation/idea for the (perceived) unexplained mass in the universe?

I keep thinking that "gravity" is never given credit for holding our bodies together ? Only larger bodies ..like planets ?

I'm confused... what forces hold a baseball's (for instance) atoms/molecules together? I would think the same force/forces would be at work on/in any and all objects no matter how small or large?

And if there is 'dark" matter in space... it would also exist in the space in the atoms that make up our bodies. Space is space and is exactly the same.. everywhere?

I'd sincerely appreciate any info or insights you'd care to share. I don't mind sounding ignorant on the topic... just asking out of curiosity .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, it's just a hypothesis at this stage, but it's fair to say that it is the simplest solution to explain the observations, so far. There are some weird and wonderful alternative ideas have been postulated that do not involve extra matter, and mainstream science is always open to better ideas as long as they better explain the observations.. To date, dark matter wins..

My reaction to what you say in the part I quote is that most of the alternative ideas fall into the "weird" category. Now that the point has been reached where the distribution of dark matter can actually be mapped, what alternatives could there be? Of course there is always the possibility of something outside the collective imagination of the specialists, but really now.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused... what forces hold a baseball's (for instance) atoms/molecules together? I would think the same force/forces would be at work on/in any and all objects no matter how small or large?

Yes, you are confused <grin>. What holds a baseball together is electromagnetism, a much stronger force than gravity (it takes masses on the order of the size of the earth to hold us down, but electromagnetism holds the baseball together in spite of all that gravity).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Frank. (grin) ... i have to make breakfast now... i'll be back with more dum questions on this later :w00t:

Your reply helped for now though ....

Edited by lightly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ellus, i'm curious please... do you have an alternate explanation/idea for the (perceived) unexplained mass in the universe?

Hi there :)

Yes, you are confused <grin>. What holds a baseball together is electromagnetism, a much stronger force than gravity (it takes masses on the order of the size of the earth to hold us down, but electromagnetism holds the baseball together in spite of all that gravity).

Funny you should say that. I was just about to suggest lightly to check Plasma Universe Model of Hannes Alfven which uses electromagnetic fields to explain how universe works. It's very interesting.

Edited by Eluus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Eluss . I 'll read those soon . I have read some things about "Plasma Universe" .. i aways wonder if "gravity" could really be some sort of cumulative electromagnetic effect. But, i've got in trouble before for thinking and saying that.. without any real knowledge on the subject .

From my ignorant viewpoint, whenever someone says 'attraction' or 'repulsion' i think magnetism .

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We made it up..

..it can't be measured in any way

Eluus, I listed ALL of the observations that need to be explained - you even acknowledge them when you agreed that *something* is needed. So I take it that you now withdraw those flippant and incorrect statements..

Even though it may sound simple, it's not a good answer.

I'm sorry, but that is a meaningless handwave and you know it. WHY isn't it a good answer? You admit it is simple, and that's a good thing, surely.. - so what is your reasoning (supported by observations) that dismisses it?

at least you didn't make any (obvious) insults

????

Seems very strange that you would bring it up, then.. Do you *want* insults so that you can then go off in a huff and avoid actually putting up a case?

Then you said you liked the plasma stuff because.. 'it is interesting'. In your own words, WHY? What observations does it explain better? What observations support the 'theory'? What peer-reviewed stuff can I read that shows it being supported and tested/testable. As far as I can see (and mainstream scientists, most of whom know a little more than me) the possibility of extra matter, possibly in the form of sub atomic articles that are simply not luminous, is a far simpler solution than introducing more unknowns or yet-undiscovered forces or other unsupported/untested/untestable theories that simply have cooler sounding names.

So, please elaborate on why introducing the plasma hypothesis is better than simply assuming that we aren't able to see stuff - after all, we already know that there is LOTS of dark stuff out there by the observations we have done (and you could do - eg the Coal Sack, the fact that we can't see the centre of our own Galaxy, let alone other dust obscured objects)... Are you better trained than astrophysicists or cosmologists on this topic... or did you just like the sound of that Plasma website?

If you can't supply the reasoning and science behind what you find 'interesting', then I'd suspect the latter.

Edited by ChrLzs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eluus, I listed ALL of the observations that need to be explained - you even acknowledge them when you agreed that *something* is needed. So I take it that you now withdraw those flippant and incorrect statements..

That doesn't make any sense. I never claimed I could explain all the universe. Not that Dark Matter is any better in explaining it.

I'm sorry, but that is a meaningless handwave and you know it. WHY isn't it a good answer? You admit it is simple, and that's a good thing, surely.. - so what is your reasoning (supported by observations) that dismisses it?

It sounds simple but it's made up. It's a band aid solution to the problem that gravitation only accounts for 4% of what the Gravitation Model requires to work.

"The gravitation of the matter we know of is not enough? Let's invent something called "Dark Matter" so that the calculations hold. Wait! Now that the mass is too much and with this much mass the universe should be contracting. So let's make up something called "Dark Energy" and say that it prevents the universe from contracting. And let's say we can't see or detect these Dark Matter or Dark Energy in any way and claim they are responsible for what we can't explain."

In reality there's no evidence that supports the existence of dark matter or that gravity is the dominant force in the universe. It's only backed by belief, hence "not good".

Do you *want* insults so that you can then go off in a huff and avoid actually putting up a case?

What are you talking about?

Then you said you liked the plasma stuff because.. 'it is interesting'. In your own words, WHY?

Because it offers good explanations to many observations the standard model can not explain.

What observations does it explain better? What observations support the 'theory'?

Like this one:

[media=]

[/media]

What peer-reviewed stuff can I read that shows it being supported and tested/testable. As far as I can see (and mainstream scientists, most of whom know a little more than me) the possibility of extra matter, possibly in the form of sub atomic articles that are simply not luminous, is a far simpler solution than introducing more unknowns or yet-undiscovered forces or other unsupported/untested/untestable theories that simply have cooler sounding names.

You haven't provided any evidence regarding the existence of Dark Matter, let alone being tested/testable. The burden of proof is on mainstream science and you to prove that Dark Matter exists.

So, please elaborate on why introducing the plasma hypothesis is better than simply assuming that we aren't able to see stuff - after all, we already know that there is LOTS of dark stuff out there by the observations we have done (and you could do - eg the Coal Sack, the fact that we can't see the centre of our own Galaxy, let alone other dust obscured objects)... Are you better trained than astrophysicists or cosmologists on this topic... or did you just like the sound of that Plasma website?

How do you know there is LOTS of dark stuff out there when even one of the mainstream scientists does not know such thing? You seem to know more than all of the mainstream scientists after all. :rolleyes:

If you could just share the knowledge (not the dogma please), that'd be great.

Edited by Eluus
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't make any sense. I never claimed I could explain all the universe. Not that Dark Matter is any better in explaining it.

Not that Plasma is any better, as it is unsupported and currently untestable. We do, however, have evidence of things being dark, and things made up of matter. Nothing new required for dark matter...

It sounds simple

.. there's a reason for that....

but it's made up.

It's LESS made up than Plasma Theory.

It's a band aid the best and simplest and most currently accepted solution to the problem..

Fixed that for you.

Let's invent something called "Dark Matter"

Or let's invent something much more complicated and untestable!

In reality there's no evidence that supports the existence of dark matter

There is reams of evidence that there is an issue we need to address. Funnily enough, scientists who know what they are talking about generally prefer the simpler hypotheses/theories until they are overturned by ones that better explain what is observed. That's called -- science.

Because it offers good explanations to many observations the standard model can not explain.

When will you stop handwaving? Tell us which ones are better explained and how (keeping in mind that if you introduce new concepts or forces, you really need to provide testable, falsifiable, properly peer reviewed support. That's how science works - only one step from the known to the unknown...

{youtube link ignored - if you can't use your own words, well.. there's an obvious conclusion.} Just FTR and a little tip - Youtube is NOT where you go to research stuff...

The burden of proof is on mainstream science and you to prove that Dark Matter exists.

That is truly hilarious... The Burden of Proof rests with the mainstream, huh? :D Thing is, science is merely proposing Dark Matter as one possible solution to the anomalies - the simplest and best currently. Mainstream science hasn't accepted it as the answer and won't until we can in some way improve our knowledge. But thanks for giving aweay your true appraoch. For you, Plasma theory has no such burden. Why? Because it sounds really cool, of course...

How do you know there is LOTS of dark stuff out there when even one of the mainstream scientists does not know such thing? You seem to know more than all of the mainstream scientists after all.

:rolleyes: backatcha - replace Dark Matter with Plasma Theory and ask all the same questions of yourself. See if you can detect the hypocrisy...

If you could just share the knowledge (not the dogma please), that'd be great.

The 'dogma' that has created all scientific knowledge to date..? That's a very old and obvious tinfoilhat tactic - it's not a good look.. Personally I think it's just the Universe's Overlord (who happens to be a giant pinkish unicorn) messing with our heads. Coz that's about as likely and well-supported as Plasma theory... But when you or your Plasma followers come up with that testable/ observable stuff, you let us all know, won't you.. I'll be waiting to see the peer-reviewed publications.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not hard to wave one's hat around and invent forces and kinds of stuff that do this and that to "explain" things, and I get the feeling some people have the idea, not knowing much science, that this is what scientists do, and they may as well join in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.