Starship Asterisk*

Hello BMAone23

Dark matter is the missing mass that is found in varies areas but mainly compacted matter

Harry on one of your post on dark matter:

"Although astronomers don't know what dark matter is made of, they hypothesize that it is a type of elementary particle that pervades the Universe."

then it seem to be moslty diffuse. So it does not look like what you said:

"Harry
Dark matter is the missing mass that is found in varies areas but mainly compacted matter"

Not many dark matter seem to be in compact matter. It look like to be the contrary.

Hello Doum

Mate dark matter is of those things that can be defined in many ways. Its just matter that we cannot see but infleunces their surroundings.

I could be wrong on both counts.

I'm open for options.

News on dark matter proprtion?


http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... found.html

Does Dark Matter Encircle Earth?
Scientific American Magazine - January 2009
Dark matter might exert measurable effects on Earth, the moon and gas giants

GOD wrote:

Larry Turner wrote:I'm wondering if the universe has different sized black holes, and that there may exist a multitude of very small black holes. The black holes we've discovered in the center of galaxies indicate the existance of black holes. Perhaps there are black holes of a smaller size spread through the universe that we have not been able to detect. They would be very difficult to observe. They could be the source of the dark matter, and possibly dark energy, that we have been unable to identify.

Your guess about what dark matter being tiny is correct, however it's not tiny black holes. It's simply matter that's smaller and vibrating faster than we can currently detect.

'GOD' - Thine own words condemn thee! Thou art not GOD! The Real GOD could detect matter no matter how small and fast it is vibrating. Shameful Imposter!

Larry Turner wrote:Sorry, I didn't read about the existence of small black holes. I thought of it while out on a walk.

Dark Matter is theorized to be black holes whose event horizon has evaporated. Sorry to hear you have such lonely walks.

And furthermore .. I don't know why anti-gravity bubbles in states of expansion are forbidden discussion on the forum when the concensus agrees that an 'unknown force' is causing the expansion of the universe. Are anti-gravity bubbles not an 'unknown force'?

Hello aristarchusinexile,

aristarchusinexile wrote:Dark Matter is theorized to be black holes whose event horizon has evaporated

Once again one has to be careful with terms lest current (and potential) Forum members are accidently misled.
Dark Matter is NOT theorized. It is at best hypothesized and it's composition other than it's non-baryonic nature and it's gravitational characteristic is unknown. I have not ever seen it proven to be made up of tiny black holes

Hello aristarchuinexile,

aristarchusinexile wrote:And furthermore .. I don't know why anti-gravity bubbles in states of expansion are forbidden discussion on the forum when the concensus agrees that an 'unknown force' is causing the expansion of the universe. Are anti-gravity bubbles not an 'unknown force'?

This is however different than your Dark Matter post in that the "unknown force" is for want of a name is called by the accepted name Dark Energy and is not hypothesized but is in fact truly theorized because it was predicted- a very important criterium for being a theory. The "anti-gravity-expansions bubbles (alas) are not predicted and I believe that is the reason that they are not accepted in this Forum as a scientific subject for discussion as would be other proposals that do not fit the current model of PREDICTED universe theory.

These are not my rules, they are this Forum's rules. The guidelines help members shape their questions and responders shape their answers as well. Now everyone pretty much knows that you have issues with this set up but the Forum, while open to questions of any kind or subject and tries to accomodate a variety of opinions, it must abide by it's own rules and keep most of it's responses within theoretically accepted perameters. That I believe is kind of it in a nutshell. No conspiracies, no wool over the eyes, no hidden government agendas. Just the current model with it's theories and proposals along known tested facts and propasals within predicted theory

aristarchusinexile wrote:Dark Matter is theorized to be black holes whose event horizon has evaporated

Small black holes, brown dwarfs, MACHOs and other hard to detect baryonic matter at best only make up a small percentage of dark matter.

aristarchusinexile wrote:And furthermore .. I don't know why anti-gravity bubbles in states of expansion are forbidden discussion on the forum when the concensus agrees that an 'unknown force' is causing the expansion of the universe. Are anti-gravity bubbles not an 'unknown force'?

Dark energy has been hypothesized as the contributing factor to the expansion of the universe (including voids). Unless it can be shown that dark energy is insufficient, I see no reason to call it by any other name. But that leads me to a question of my own.

Why is the universe thought to be expanding at an increasing rate (laymen's terms, please)? I understand that the greater the distance, the greater the red shift and relative velocity. But the greater the distance, the further back in time. So how does this equate to an accelerating expansion?

astrolabe wrote:Hello aristarchusinexile,

aristarchusinexile wrote:Dark Matter is theorized to be black holes whose event horizon has evaporated

Once again one has to be careful with terms lest current (and potential) Forum members are accidently misled.
Dark Matter is NOT theorized. It is at best hypothesized and it's composition other than it's non-baryonic nature and it's gravitational characteristic is unknown. I have not ever seen it proven to be made up of tiny black holes

Hi Asrto .. I am gravitationally attracted to the general meaning of the word theory, 'an idea .. a proposition'. If someone on the wildly swaying top floor of a Babylonian tower wants to digress from the general meaning to make a name for themselves in Club Exclusivity, well, like Shania Twain says, "that don't impress me much". Here's something interesting.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... ing-1.html

astrolabe wrote:Hello aristarchuinexile,

aristarchusinexile wrote:And furthermore .. I don't know why anti-gravity bubbles in states of expansion are forbidden discussion on the forum when the concensus agrees that an 'unknown force' is causing the expansion of the universe. Are anti-gravity bubbles not an 'unknown force'?

This is however different than your Dark Matter post in that the "unknown force" is for want of a name is called by the accepted name Dark Energy and is not hypothesized but is in fact truly theorized because it was predicted- a very important criterium for being a theory. The "anti-gravity-expansions bubbles (alas) are not predicted and I believe that is the reason that they are not accepted in this Forum as a scientific subject for discussion as would be other proposals that do not fit the current model of PREDICTED universe theory.

These are not my rules, they are this Forum's rules. The guidelines help members shape their questions and responders shape their answers as well. Now everyone pretty much knows that you have issues with this set up but the Forum, while open to questions of any kind or subject and tries to accomodate a variety of opinions, it must abide by it's own rules and keep most of it's responses within theoretically accepted perameters. That I believe is kind of it in a nutshell. No conspiracies, no wool over the eyes, no hidden government agendas. Just the current model with it's theories and proposals along known tested facts and propasals within predicted theory

I recognize your intent as good and noble, Astro, and the reality of the forums strictures in my opinion account for its minimal reaction in most viewers, they being unwilling to abandon free thought.

"The observed value of dark energy is 120 orders of magnitutde smaller than what is predicted by quantum physics."
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... ing-1.html

I don't agree with this url in that it suggests we are living in a void, but we may be living near the border of an unrecognized void.

bystander wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Dark Matter is theorized to be black holes whose event horizon has evaporated

Small black holes, brown dwarfs, MACHOs and other hard to detect baryonic matter at best only make up a small percentage of dark matter.

aristarchusinexile wrote:And furthermore .. I don't know why anti-gravity bubbles in states of expansion are forbidden discussion on the forum when the concensus agrees that an 'unknown force' is causing the expansion of the universe. Are anti-gravity bubbles not an 'unknown force'?

Dark energy has been hypothesized as the contributing factor to the expansion of the universe (including voids). Unless it can be shown that dark energy is insufficient, I see no reason to call it by any other name. But that leads me to a question of my own.

Why is the universe thought to be expanding at an increasing rate (laymen's terms, please)? I understand that the greater the distance, the greater the red shift and relative velocity. But the greater the distance, the further back in time. So how does this equate to an accelerating expansion?

It's only seemingly necessary to equate distance and time if we are held within the walls of Big Bang; but I speak as an unbeliever in Spacetime. I'm going to have to ponder your last question.

However, I found this today .. "The observed value of dark energy is 120 orders of magnitutde smaller than what is predicted by quantum physics". That statement is of course only a possibility in itself.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... ing-1.html

Hello aristarchusinexile,

aristarchusinexile wrote:I recognize your intent as good and noble, Astro, and the reality of the forums strictures in my opinion account for its minimal reaction in most viewers, they being unwilling to abandon free thought

An unbelievable assumption even coming from you!

astrolabe wrote:Hello aristarchusinexile,

aristarchusinexile wrote:I recognize your intent as good and noble, Astro, and the reality of the forums strictures in my opinion account for its minimal reaction in most viewers, they being unwilling to abandon free thought

An unbelievable assumption even coming from you!

I'm only trying to help by commenting on what I observe .. and that is a strict formula for discussion which excludes thought opposing Big Bang except by those professionals with advanced skills in math, those people being far too busy with their professions to participate in internet forum discussion. I can't recall how long ago it was, 6 months? A year? But I remember an electrical engineer being told his field was not science, and he telling the forum what he thought of their idea of science, and left. I have been repeatedly told my thoughts are not scientific, but I have a lot of spare time, and am familiar enough with internet discussion groups to know I won't find total freedom of expression because of the common human tendency to want to assert power over others .. the 'I've got the power because I've got the button which controls activity' mentality. I suppose I'm placing myself dangerously closely to banishment again, but that's mild compared to what has been done to others, including Aristarchus and Poe. Of Poe: "More modern critics also suggest Eureka is a sign of Poe's declining mental health at the end of his life.[37] Astrophysicist Arthur Stanley Eddington disputed this notion, declaring that "Eureka is not a work of dotage or disordered mind."[4] (from Wikipedia) In the text, Poe wrote that he was aware he might be considered a madman" for his theories of the universe arising from one singularity, black holes, etc. He predated Hubble by, I think it was 80 years? So, to increase use of this valuable website, I suggest that on this forum, even though someone's ideas might be considered Mad or Unscientific, they be allowed to open discussion, and as long as discussion continues, that it be allowed to continue. What harm can it do? I don't agree with Poe on his one singularity creation, but I appreciate his mind.

aristarchusinexile wrote:that is a strict formula for discussion which excludes thought opposing Big Bang except by those professionals with advanced skills in math, those people being far too busy with their professions to participate in internet forum discussion.

True, but it doesnt invalidate the formula. If you are not one of those people, you know what to do.

aristarchusinexile wrote:the 'I've got the power because I've got the button which controls activity' mentality.

people who gave us these buttons and wrote the rules, own this place, they pay hosting bills, and so have all the rights to demand you to behave here. there are certainly other forums with very different rules, that allow or even encourage this kind of discussions.

well, back to magic buttons, this thread was, or should have been, about DM/DE and not global internet thought control conspiracy, so I am going to use one of them to lock it have a nice day.