Dark Matter

[S. Bilderback]

Seeing how this subject was brought up:

well, in its basics, antigravity is that thing phisicians invented, to rely upon every time they have nothing else to rely upon. for one example, Einstein once brought antigravity in, when gravity itself seemed to be not enough to explain universe expansion; it's not the case now, but people have got long used to it, and still insist on using it. for another example, you are trying to invent it, when your theories are not enough to allow for superluminar speed It's like a magic stick - when you "wand" around with it, everything becomes possible.

I have my own opinions on this subject, but first, I would like see if any other members have thoughts, opinions, or questions about Dark Matter.

[Empeda2]

I think it depends what you mean by dark matter - do you mean normal baryonic matter that is too dark to detect or what most people mean by it - the unknown matter that supposedly makes up most of the matter in the universe?

[S. Bilderback]

The answer is:

B

The matter invented by scienetist to make the math work.

[Orca]

The matter invented by scienetist to make the math work.

I like that. 8)

[S. Bilderback]

OK, let me throw this out there and see who swings at it.

Could the perceived expansion force of the universe be a variation in the rate of time? So the expansion of the universe is not really accelerating but is actually slowing, but because "Earth Time" is slowing at a faster rate it’s making the universe look like it is expanding.

Think of this as a workout for the logical part of your brain.

[harry]

Hello Bilderback

The expansion of the universe was born from data and ideas such as the Big Bang.

Look at the observations and the movements of the smaller clusters compared to the super clusters. There is no evidence to show that the part of the visible universe is expanding.

Not only that, The universe is "all" and "all" cannot expand only parts within the universe may go through the motions of expansion and contraction.

[starryknight]

My 1st post.
Ahemmm. Being only a home cosmologist with no idea as to what the 'learned' take in to account with their equations, can somebody tell me, in relation to dark matter, whether all the energy expended since the dawn of the universe is taken in to account. Do they guestimate the energy that passes us by and that which is yet to reach us.
Since we cannot yet explain why light acts like a particle and like a wave, can i jump to the conclusion that all the energy out there has some of the characteristics of matter?
They tell us that before the big bang the matter of the 'universe' was the size of a pin-head, yet they don't say that it was surrounded by an 'almost infinite' amount of energy. From Einstein's E=MC2, don't we have a conservation of the sum total of mass and energy in the universe!
There seems to be a repetive theme, whether it is electrons spinning around atoms like a mini solar system or black holes in the centre of galaxies perhaps similar to when 'everything' was together prior to the big bang.
I apologise for rambling on after a few beers, but this all enthralls me and isn't a topic you bring up around others.
If we study the way atom bombs explode, do we expect that the expansion will be constant? Making conclusions based on a snippet of time is fraught with danger in relationship to our perspective of the expanding universe. It's hard for me to comprehend that the universe is on its first expansion. There is never a first occurrence when it comes to physics. I don't expect that a collapsing universe waits for the last piece of 'incoming' matter before it expands again. Is it possible to find pockets of our expanding universe that were actually contracting when the majority of it was expanding?
It is our own errors in our observations that lead us down the wrong path.
Go easy on me with your replies, i'm only an interested spectator. I remember sitting in my classroom when i was 11, thinking why am i here while comprehending the size of our wonderful universe.

[Empeda2]

Didn't we all! Welcome sir knight . There are no silly questions or ideas - all these breed is discussion and evolution.....

I think what you're talking about in the early part of your post is wave-particle duality. All this states basically is that everything is a wave and a particle. Though is something is considerably bigger that a it's 'certain' wavelength (de Broglie wavelength) then it is more particle-like, whereas the other way around it is more wave-like, but it would still exhibt properties of the other....

I do agree that currently the Big Bang model does appear to be developing into a repeat of the old ether debate, with bits and bobs being bolted on in order to make it work. Dark matter and dark energy appear to be like that.

We must also remember though that like all good theories, the BB model did make predictions that appear to be correct ( as correct as observation will allow) such as the relative abundance of elements, and the CMB (although of course, it didn't predict the fluctuations very well..). All I'm saying is that before we dump it, lets not forget the reasons it was proposed to start with

Though, saying that, it does seem sometimes that the whole dark matter thing does get silly. However, the way that galaxies rotate does suggest that there may be a dark extention to them.

I like Bilder's idea - relativity throws up for too many variables to comprehend, and if we start to wonder about the possiblilty of 11 dimensions, it gets even worse.

Atleast it'll keep us busy until we expire..... 8)

[S. Bilderback]

And another warm welcome to starryknight.

There are a lot of postings to answer some of your posed questions, if you can find the time read them all. We like answering questions here, it's a way to get new ideas, concepts and links to new information.

Salute!

[BMAONE23]

I know that the expanding universe theory is based upon the fact that some galaxies are red shifted in the spectrum (doppler effect) causing us to perceive them as moving away from us, while those shifting into the blue end of the spectrum are percieved as moving towards us.

The further we see into the distant universe, the more red shifted (even red) galaxies we tend to see. Is this what makes us think that the expansion is speeding up?

Could these distant red galaxies in fact be full of huge red stars being first generation stars giving them their red color?

After all, If the expansion is increasing in speed, then wouldn't the younger (farther away, 1 billion year old, closer to the moment of the big bang) galaxies appear to be moving away slower than the closer, more evolved, 14 billion year old galaxies?

[craterchains]

Just a hunch based on some other information most don't want to hear about. But the idea is this.

We know that to get the galaxies to where they are today means that they had to exceed the speed of light many times over for a time.
We know that there seems to be a point where they all came from.
We know that there are many groups and types of galaxies and super cell galaxies.
We know that galaxies within galaxy groups are going away from each
other from a central point also, while going away from the central point of the universe.

Seems to me a mighty well engineered hyper-velocity burst of highly condensed mater into trajectories that then, at a predetermined time and distance to again explode into what we call galaxy groups. Then with a final flash the galaxies themselves unfold into their shapes.

Now that is what I call a really big fire works display.

Norval

Oh, about the dark mater? No opinion as yet.

[BMAONE23]

What if the "BIG BANG" didn't eject matter at or beyond the speed of light but rather slower than. That matter in turn expanded for several billions of years and then formed many MINI BANGS. It was only after those mini bangs that the stars and galaxies that we see today began forming and light started to shine. That could explain the distribution of the super galactic bubles that the galaxies expand within as well as the fact that those expand from a central point. This would give the universe a potential age vastly older than the visible light age and make allowances for the differences. Since no one knows much about the "cosmic dark ages", they might have lasted for billions of years instead of hundreds of millions on years.

[S. Bilderback]

Could these distant red galaxies in fact be full of huge red stars being first generation stars giving them their red color?

The answer to your question is, no.

The red shift doesn't really pertain to the color of the stars, it pertains to the Doppler change in the signatures of the elements. Hydrogen can be detected by the wavelengths of the light it emits when it is ionized or the light it absorbs when cool measures the red/blue shift measured by the signature of hydrogen (or other elements and compounds) and how the signature lines in the light spectrum move toward the red or blue end of the spectrum. So if a star is speeding away from us, the hydrogen signature slides to the more red part of the spectrum, or it is speeding toward us the signature shifts to the blue.

[gordhaddow]

starryknight
Hello from another newcomer. Your last question is far more relevant than the searching for revelation in the technical drapings of cosmology and relativity. And the answer to <<So does this god have control of all the universe or just this part of it.>> is that there is no control, no plan; creation (wherever, whenever) was just a joke - but the joke is so good, she's still laughing at it!
Gord

[harry]

The question where does everything come from?
Should be changed to:
How does everything get recycled?.

Keep Cool.

[Empeda2]

The further we see into the distant universe, the more red shifted (even red) galaxies we tend to see. Is this what makes us think that the expansion is speeding up?

No - this is because it's the space between the galaxies that is expanding, and there's mroe space between us and more distant galaxies so they 'recede' faster.

We used type 1a supernovae to determine that the universe is accelerating. They are a standard candle.

The classic 2D anology is points on a ballon. If you draw a load of dots on a balloon and then blow it up, all the points move away from each other, though they are not moving thorugh anything, rather the space between them is expanding...

[S. Bilderback]

The question where does everything come from?
Should be changed to:
How does everything get recycled?.

Where did everything that gets recycled come from? Please refer back to my earlier posting on entropy/matter and mathematically proving why time cannot be infinite before posting a reply.

[Empeda2]

The recycled theory is an old one - pre big bang - didn't it involved hydrogen being constantly created from a point of origin? My memory is hazy, but didn't it screw up pretty much most observational evidence?

[Orca]

We know that to get the galaxies to where they are today means that they had to exceed the speed of light many times over for a time.

We do?



Anyway, I was posting to add a link to an interesting article about dark matter and the expansion of the universe.

Oh and here's another one. This one is about the discovery of the most distant individual supernova gamma burst found to date. It had a redshift of 6.29; this puts it at about 13 billion light years away (so far only quasars have been seen at that distance, and they contain the mass of billions of stars).

[S. Bilderback]

A snip from one of the links:

The most distance quasar known is at redshift 6.4. GRB 050904 was also very long, lasting over 200 seconds. Most bursts last only about 10 seconds.

This is more of the evidence why the accelerating expansion of the universe maybe only an effect of a "Time Filter" caused by a changing state of relativity, instead of the existence of exotic matter.

[harry]

Hello to all,smile

Maybe the recycled theory is old, but something which is right never grows old.

I will stick to my guns until the cows come home as so to speak.

As for the expansion theory look at what is happening to our 35 galaxies local group: they behave like a unit, and this unit is part of a larger cluster which behaves like a unit and it goes on.

As soon as i find the evidence to prove that i will let you know. That is for the red shift problem and the movements of the galaxies.

Stay Cool

[Empeda2]

Maybe the recycled theory is old, but something which is right never grows old.

I thought the mathematics had disproved it - I might be wrong mind, it's only a vague memory from Cosmology 101! I'll seee if Ican look it up somewhere...

[S. Bilderback]

Here is a link I found on the galaxy recycling theory that's been poses:
http://www.galaxytheory.com/#SHA

There is no science here. The density vs. forces in a stirred cup of hot chocolate with marshmallows will blow the theory right out of the water. There is no quantitative reference to the forces needed or created to meld all falling matter in to neutrons, which is the main attribute of the theory, also it can't explain why the whole shebang doesn't collapse into a big black hole due to entropy.
The sheriff of physics says “we’ll have none of that perpetual motion stuff in this town”.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... 9EC588EEDF

Here’s a link to a better theory on a recycled universe.

[harry]

Steady state and Big Bang.

We are at the door steps of explosive information coming out from our "what ever smile"

The past theories are like concrete that have set and are sometimes very hard to work with.
The Concrete of today and the next are yet to be formed.

Do not put me into a model that is set by others.

What my ideas are simple and are workable.
The steady State is OK for a start and the Big Bang may expalain some points.

The process of recycling is the key to it all.
Matter to energy and energy to matter.

Hey!! I could be wrong, but I will never ever give up on an IDEA that has concrete (smile) grounds.

[Empeda2]

I think the idea's a nice one Harry - the constant recycling of energy and matter.

My question to you (yep, sorry, another one!), how does the uncertainty principle fit into your recycling theory? i.e the idea that energy can be 'borrowed' from nature within a certain time period?