Jump to content
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  
UM-Bot

New clue found in the hunt for dark matter

Recommended Posts

 
zep73

It's more a new suggestion than a clue or a determination. They're still clueless and undetermined.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WanderingFool0
Posted (edited)

Hard to pin down that mysterious dark matter that probably is all around as the invisible fabric, field or membrane of what we call space time.

Edited by WanderingFool0
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
3 minutes ago, WanderingFool0 said:

Hard to pin down that mysterious dark matter that probably is all around as the invisible fabric, field or membrane of what we call space time.

Yeah, or we need to re-think gravity.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SpaceBumZaphod

You can find concentrated dark matter in Nibbler's litter box. Anyways, cool theory. Now, if they can prove it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quiXilver
7 minutes ago, SpaceBumZaphod said:

You can find concentrated dark matter in Nibbler's litter box. Anyways, cool theory. Now, if they can prove it.

wait... i thought that...

but then, those aren't  tootsie rolls?!?! 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seti42
Posted (edited)

I still think 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are essentially placeholders for stuff we just don't understand and cannot detect, but (according to our math) should exist.

Our math could be wrong, and/or our fundamental grasp of the universe could be wrong too. The further we try to explore and explain things outside our scale, the more F-ed up it always seems to get. Going down past the sub-atomic scale or going up into the scale of astrophysics just seems to create more questions and problems (and guesses) than answers.

Edited by Seti42
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WanderingFool0
8 minutes ago, Tuco's Gas said:

I like this new hypothesis. Even though it now appears my old favorite one for the explanation of Dark Matter--residue from Black Hole implosions--has been pretty much refuted. The "condensate from Big Bang heat, composed of hexaquarks, makes sense. When we think about regular condensation of gases after they cool, we can imagine how the molecular  contraction taking place could serve as a "pulling gravitational force"--which is basically what DM seems to be.

Either that or these physicists and cosmologists are just making stuff up as they go along in order to justify grant monies. LOL 

A lot of time to me the advanced theoretical physicists seem like they are just playing the old philosophers game thinking up explanations. Some of the various theories I have read even remind me of ideas I have read from older philosophers just with new names and new vocabulary. At least in a lot of the still unproven theoretical stuff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73

I never liked the concept of dark matter. "Theories don't work, so we add an ingredient to make it work."
I'm more into slightly changing, what we know is there, to make it work.

So we know that two black holes can make a wormhole. But what if less can do it also? What if common stars can make them too?
If so, then a galaxy could be a network of wormholes, making dark matter obsolete.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
3 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

I never liked the concept of dark matter. "Theories don't work, so we add an ingredient to make it work."
I'm more into slightly changing, what we know is there, to make it work.

So we know that two black holes can make a wormhole. But what if less can do it also? What if common stars can make them too?
If so, then a galaxy could be a network of wormholes, making dark matter obsolete.

Well, you just lost me! lol

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
5 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

So we know that two black holes can make a wormhole. But what if less can do it also? What if common stars can make them too?

No we don't know that, it's just as hypothetical as a dark matter, more so in fact. The presence of dark matter can, and has been, measured. No worm hole between two black holes has ever been detected. 

You have spent this thread accusing scientists of the following:

5 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

"Theories don't work, so we add an ingredient to make it work."

But apparently it's okay for you to do it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
10 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

So we know that two black holes can make a wormhole. But what if less can do it also? What if common stars can make them too?

I just consider "black holes" to be super dense objects that gathers everything around it and either grows, or if it takes in too much mass too quickly, tosses it out.

The whole "wormhole" concept doesn't work for me. 

.....Although now I think about it....Some sort of portal might exist between Earth and the Volgosphere, where Harte gets his poetry. :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
zep73
7 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

No we don't know that, it's just as hypothetical as a dark matter, more so in fact. The presence of dark matter can, and has been, measured. No worm hole between two black holes has ever been detected. 

You have spent this thread accusing scientists of the following:

But apparently it's okay for you to do it.

I'm just trying to simplify nature, Occam's razor style.
Instead of multiplying the amount of matter by 20 (which is a bit radical), I increase the potential of gravity slightly.
Wormholes are predicted by general relativity. Dark matter is not. So I have a very successful theory on my side in this :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sojo
On 3/5/2020 at 10:10 AM, sci-nerd said:

I'm just trying to simplify nature, Occam's razor style.
Instead of multiplying the amount of matter by 20 (which is a bit radical), I increase the potential of gravity slightly.
Wormholes are predicted by general relativity. Dark matter is not. So I have a very successful theory on my side in this :)

Just saw this post about dark matter and I like the Occam's razor path rather than making up some other undetectable answer.

I'm no physicist and do not understand all the calculations, but my understanding on the concept of why dark matter was contrived was due to observations of stars near the outer regions of galaxies seen to be traveling much faster than they should be compared with the speed of stars closer to the galaxy center. I wonder if the differential in time passage between the inner areas and the outer areas of the observed galaxy(ies) is taken into consideration when being observed from a completely different frame of reference from which the observations are being made. That is, time nearer the center portions of the galaxy is passing more slowly than time passage at the outer regions due to the difference in gravitational influence. The effects of gravity near the center cause time to pass more slowly there. Time is passing more rapidly at the outer regions. Could this skew our detected rate of speed as being measured from our fixed frame of reference in our own galactic position?

Perhaps I'm completely out in left field on this, but I just wondered if it was considered and accounted for, or if time passage in those regions there would still appear the same to us here regardless of our calculations made using our own rate of time passage.

Then again, I'm ignorant enough on the subject to just be spouting complete gibberish.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.