http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110414104213.htm "Ordinary matter, which makes up the stars, planets, gas and dust in our galaxy, emits or reflects light that can be observed using telescopes on Earth or in space. However, the effect of dark matter, according to several theories, can be observed only indirectly by the gravitational force exerted on the more visible portions of the galaxy around us, Cline said" can see it, but the effects are what they look for. Is it possible the effects are from the energy (light) exchanging between the surrounding mass? The entanglement? ie..... see casimir See van der waals.............. the energy IS causing the effect!
Here's a hypothesis...it's all mine of course so it will be easily debunked. Say that the Big Bang (in some form) was an accurate theory. The universe is expanding or exploding outwards. (question) outwards into what exactly? What lies beyond the edge of the universe, that apparently was there prior to the Big Bang? That empty 'nothingness' that the universe is displacing as it expands. Could it be made up of 'dark matter? dark energy? Could it be the causation of gravity?
what is dark energy/matter? what is gravity? start there before trying the unknown speculation. That is what i did; start with what is, before trying to speculate 'then' (in the beginning; BB). We can observe the now. we are in 'the process'. It is easier to understand based on reality versus the before and after time constraints. The problem with physicist is at this level, each are trying to describe what can NEVER be known as none of us are 'there'. Kind of like, there is no 'nothing' between any points of mass so 'we' will never see the edge of the universe, anytime. I often claim to anyone who is really looking for answers, begin with comprehending the life of mass (the process) before going nuts on speculations. learn what you are first!
radio to gamma ; all light you just cant see it! ie...... no place in the whole of the universe without light (electromagnetic energy; light), except to the narrow minded someone
Typically speaking, electromagnetic signals outside the near visual spectrum are not called "light". It might explain why so many people have trouble understanding what you're talking about, and people might be able to have more meaningful conversations with you if you would use the customary terminology. While theory predicts this is true, that has yet to be confirmed. For example, what lies outside of the visual edge of the universe? We have no idea. The very nature of how we observe the universe (by observing electromagnetic signals) would bias us towards a belief that things which do not interact with the electromagnetic spectrum do not exist. If dark matter exists as theory describes, it would definitely suggest that electromagnetic forces were not, in fact, "everywhere"--or even particularly meaningful to the majority of the universe.
i am using the customary terminology, you are perhaps just not up to date and why the terms are throwing you off. ie.... see the threads i opened, they are the currrent while your education maybe a bit obsolete. quite the opposite; nature proves it true and not as of yet never anywhere ever has a PERFECT vacuum been confirmed without em (light; all wavelength of the spectrum) A perfect vacuum has never been identified. Again, perhaps you are at the recyling stage. no one on the earth has ever seen or been there. The old timers like to speculate but not one iota of data (as oooosual) i know that is 2 sentences that are good quality line items (attaboy) no place anywhere within the universe between any 2 points of mass without em (light) (ie... the suns magnetosphere is hugenormous so no where on this planet is there a void without em) Dark matter in the original speculation is about mass within the universe that is not observable but the monkeys that believe DM/DE is what is causing the 'mass curve' of the galaxy rotations (per hubble) to be inconsistant with newtonian physics are idiots that DO NOT comprehend what energy entangling mass is. (em; all cases) ie.... them stars in close proximity are associating just the like moon and earth and just like the energy that combines the mass of nebula. Perhaps when you read what is occuring RIGHT NOW within the scientific community, you could catch up beyond carl sagan's TV series.
neutrinos aren't dark matter. they're a particle about the size of a electron with no electrical charge.
Well yeah...it would be found inside the universe. The universe would be expanding into it.(merging) not displacing it. Like pouring die into water. The die virtually becomes one with the water. The analogy; the die is the universe merging with what lies 'outside' the universe (the water)...expanding into it. Making the portion expanded into a part of the mass of the universe. Dark matter.
thats an interesting concept... dark matter might just be an area of emptiness that has yet to be filled.
Neutrinos have been postulated to be a component of dark matter, but dark matter hasn't been proven to exist and is only one possible explanation for observed inconsistancies of the current theories of gravity with observations.
Sounds like you both eaten the same black hole. Dm supposed to be mass with a gravity now you calling it "interesting" that is may be the nothing. Wow maaaaan
Shhh....don't tell Bishadi...he thinks I'm smokin' dope. I'm really just thinking out of the box. ( out where the dark matter lives )
Didn't call it 'nothing' I don't even know what 'nothing' is. I wouldn't know what to call it. Put your structured thinking aside tonight when you go to bed. Think about that 'dye and water analogy'. The water being what the universe is expanding into, the dye being the expanding universe. Not displacing the water, but merging with the water. It may even account for that elusive gravity somehow.
Nothing in science is considered proven, ever. The hope was that neutrinos would be able to explain away most of dark matter, but upon investigation it only removed a small amount of dark matter from the equation. This means that while some dark matter has been found, as in the energy and mass of neutrinos, most is still a mystery.
if yu believe the universe is expanding into 'nothing' then either you dont comprehend the science, math or the opinions of the people who are writing it........... either way.......... you're just ranting ron....flat wrong ron apparently my structure is of integrity and actual research and work maintaining the honest approach and when discounted by folks who dont comprehend, i will react. like it or not......... if you wish to learn, ask questions but the globe over, when you read on the changes and 'paradigm shift' ............. it is I that has been turning over the old with the methodology and science of the future. no one gets the math until the right time that is like the old aether analogy which is over 100 yrs old, dooood!
Whihc means that maybe that large missing component of dark matter doesn't really exist and it my just be gavity behaving in unexpected ways.
Just to comment on the Big Bang. Did you know there is a photo image of the Big Bang, taken in recent years, over a period. You can still see the afterglow of the Big Bang and it is very clear that's what it is. Google for it and you'll see. Of course we are still moving away from the origin of the Big Bang, as is everything else.. You call what was where we are now and beyond "empty nothingness" and your writing indicates you are still thinking of a limit as far as space goes. There are many universes, we are but one and as all our planets are still moving things will change over time. SUch as the length of what we now call a day. As things move that will become a 12 hour period and so on. We are also gradually moving away from the Sun, and in time we will lose any benefits from it, light and heat. So far away it matters not to us today but sometime in the future it will be an issue providing we survive that long as a planet. Black holes are so numerous now you can't count them and they may our fate. Try reading "Death by black hole", a recent scientific book. Neil De Grasse I think was the author. I got a copy but it's well beyond my knowledge. He's a very amusing speaker, but a very dry writer.
Lighten up. I'm just throwing out ideas. No need to get your feathers riled up. I'm sure tha back in the day, when some guy brought up the notion of the Big Bang to his contemporaries that were certain that the universe was unquestionably 'steady state', their reply was "you're just ranting ....flat wrong". Then when the theory gained some ground...all the 'reference books', like the ones you quote and depend on, were thrown into the trash. Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.[1] A common species of reductio ad absurdum is proof by contradiction (also called indirect proof) where a proposition is proved true by proving that it is impossible for it to be false. For example, if A is false, then B is also false; but B is true, therefore A cannot be false and therefore A is true. In practice (outside of mathematics) such arguments are frequently premised on a false dichotomy making the ostensible proof a logical fallacy. The ontological argument for the existence of God, as it was originally stated by Anselm of Canterbury, is an example of reductio ad absurdum.[2] Another example concerns the following statement, attributed to physicist Niels Bohr: "The opposite of every great idea is another great idea." Carl Sagan used a reductio ad absurdum argument to counter this claim. If this statement is true, he argued, then it would certainly qualify as a great idea - it would automatically lead to a corresponding great idea for every great idea already in existence. But if the statement itself is a great idea, its opposite ("It is not true that the opposite of every great idea is another great idea", provided "opposite" is a synonym of "negation" in Bohr's aphorism) must also be a great idea. The original statement is disproven because it leads to an absurd conclusion: that an idea can be great regardless of whether it is true or false... etc.
