# Dark Matter

129 posts / 0 new

@ LostLocke

"What is your explanation for where the other 85% of the gravity is coming from?"

From the edges of our yet to be seen observable universe. Imagine an infinite universe comprised of 'cells' each cell is formed like our observable universe. The majority of the mass is in the interstitial spaces between the cells, that, due to lack of tech, we can not see yet. This is why the expansion is speeding up, the mass that we see is getting closer to the edges that hold the most mass.

Just my opinion.

shiningone - Imagine an infinite universe comprised of 'cells' each cell is formed like our observable universe.

Seems like you are going Ptolemy on us; a model that puts us at the center of something (in this case a "cell").

@ Nyarlathotep

No, no, not at all. The earth is at the centre of 'our' observable universe in as much as that is where we are observing from. That does not mean the earth is, actually at the centre.
I like to point out a small video that demonstrates the kind of structure I'm talking about. It is on the wiki page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93B%C3%A9nard_convection
There is a quick video on the right. It shows expansion cells in heated fluid. Now, imagine that in three dimensions. Imagine our universe is just one of those cells, surrounded by an infinite amount of cells.
I believe the universe is eternal and infinite in size. No need for a beginning, no need for a god cause.
Thanks for responding.

LostLocke - What is your explanation for where the other 85% of the gravity is coming from?

shiningone - From the edges of our yet to be seen observable universe.

shiningone - That does not mean the earth is, actually at the centre.

That explanation seems incompatible with many of the principle of modern physics and cosmology.

For example, with a finite boundary like that, if you are not in the center, then you are closer to one edge than the other, which violates the principle of isotropy.

Also the boundary of the visible universe is receding at the speed of light, so if your model is relying on material at (or beyond) that boundary, to explain local observations, it would require that information is flowing from the boundary to the local area faster than the speed of light (violating special relativity).

Another problem: after certain kinds of galactic collisions, some galaxies don't have this dark matter problem; and that is going to be very difficult to explain with your idea. How is extra material at a distant boundary going to effect most of the galaxies in a region, but not effect others?

And finally, the problem called dark matter involve galaxies exhibiting more internal gravitational attraction than expected. But adding additional material at a distant boundary isn't going to increase the galaxy's internal attraction. So this idea (even if true) doesn't address the dark matter problem.

While what you have suggested sounds plausible at first, even a tiny peek into the details leads to massive contradictions with other extremely well tested principles.

@ Nyarlathotep

"The observable universe is different from the actual universe. The observable universe is the region of the universe we can observe, defined by how far light has traveled since the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago. But this does not mean that Earth is the center of the universe. If you were to move to another star 10 billion light years away, you would still be the center of your own, significantly different observable universe.

However, the Big Bang wasn’t a normal explosion starting from a single point in space. Rather, space itself was expanding, with everything in the universe moving away from everything else. Today we observe a universe that appears fairly isotropic; that is to say, it looks basically the same in every direction. In general, the galaxies along any line of sight from Earth are distributed in the same way. There is no “preferred” direction in the universe, which indicates that there is no inherent center of the universe."

Now, as you say, with a finite boundary like that, if you are not in the center, then you are closer to one edge than the other, which violates the principle of isotropy.
Yes, we could be closer to one edge than the other, but, because of the vast distances involved, we could still have an isotropic view from where we are, but eventually, that view would change. We just haven't viewed far enough yet.

As to your faster than the speed of light issue.
It's true that in special relativity, nothing can move faster than light. But special relativity is a local law of physics. Or in other words, it's a law of local physics. That means that you will never, ever watch a rocket ship blast by your face faster than the speed of light. Local motion, local laws.

But a galaxy on the far side of the universe? That's the domain of general relativity, and general relativity says: who cares! That galaxy can have any speed it wants, as long as it stays way far away, and not up next to your face.

https://www.space.com/33306-how-does-the-universe-expand-faster-than-lig...

"Another problem: after certain kinds of galactic collisions, some galaxies don't have this dark matter problem; and that is going to be very difficult to explain with your idea. How is extra material at a distant boundary going to effect most of the galaxies in a region, but not effect others?"
Not sure where you are going with this one. Everything in the universe is expanding. Dark matter or no dark matter. Btw my idea, does not have dark matter, just to clarify that.

"And finally, the problem called dark matter involve galaxies exhibiting more internal gravitational attraction than expected. But adding additional material at a distant boundary isn't going to increase the galaxy's internal attraction. So this idea (even if true) doesn't address the dark matter problem."
The question of internal gravitational problems seems to me more about issues of black holes and their effects, not dark matter.

Please bare in mind, I am not an expert in this field. This is just my hypothesis.

But dark matter is now being mapped. It is not directly related to black holes.

https://www.nao.ac.jp/en/contents/news/science/2018/20180302-hsc-fig-ful...

## Attach Image/Video?:

No

@ David killens

They have mapped gravitational lensing, which they are saying is where dark matter is. It is still just noticing an effect. Gravity is also an effect. We still do not know what gravity actually is. If we did we would have a unified field theory combining all of the four forces in our universe.
I did not suggest 'dark matter' or the effect we are seeing, having an effect on black holes. I suggested the, internal gravitational effects inside a galaxy could be more a cause of black holes rather than the the effects from the mass at the edges.
Again, this is just speculation on my part remember.

We understand how "normal" black holes are created. But how super massive black holes (the monsters that live in the center of galaxies) are formed is a mystery. Who knows, I am not discounting that dark matter and supermassive black holes may have a connection.

This is how science works, a mystery pops up, and then many people work very hard at finding an explanation. For a scientist, if you get two questions after finding one solution, life is good. It all started when an attempt was made to calculate the mass of the universe.

Just about everything is an effect. We work with electricity every day, yet no one has ever observed electrons migrating from atom to atom. You do not have to see in detail or even observe the causal source to understand what is going on.

All I know is there is some unexplained and unexpected mass out there, and our present technology cannot directly observe it.

Agreed, in general. I'm still not happy with black holes though. You say we understand how they are created, I say we agree on the most common idea of how they are created. We know nothing in reality about what black holes are, really.

The thing is, calculations done decades ago indicated that a sun required a certain amount of mass to transform into a black hole once it was burned out. The amount of mass, the life-cycle of suns, and predictive math gives us an answer on them. But at the heart of galaxies are what are referred as "super massive black holes", and they can be billions of times the mass of our sun. They truly are the biggest and baddest things in the known universe.

But we also know the age of this universe, and the math versus times does not compute. According to the classic physics of black hole formation, it would take many billions of years longer than the age of our universe to get to their massive sizes. Why and how is still a mystery, and since dark matter involves a lot of mass and gravity, I have not personally ruled out that dark matter may be instrumental in the formation of super massive black holes.

We search, we discover, we learn and think. I love science, it never fails to surprise and give us puzzles to figure out.

@shiningone
`[From a moderator: do not plagiarize material here. Before you create new posts; remove your plagiarized material by editing your post. If you want: replace it with a short summary and a link to the material.]`

shiningone - The question of internal gravitational problems seems to me more about issues of black holes and their effects, not dark matter.

The problem of internal gravitation in most galaxies is EXACTLY the dark matter problem we've been discussing. I don't want to seem nasty, but it seems you are talking about something totally different.

So you are saying, it's dark matter that effects spiral galaxies, not the black hole in the centre of it?

Again, dark matter is the name applied to the problem stemming from the gravitation force calculated from the observed mass of a galaxy is wildly different than the amount of force required to keep the galaxy bound together. Now that you know that, look at what you said:

shiningone - The question of internal gravitational problems seems to me more about issues of black holes and their effects, not dark matter.

How can this conversation continue with that kind of misunderstanding?

I guess it can't. For starters you want me to agree to wild assertions made by physicists to fill in the gaps of their loose theories of how the universe is constructed. Not only that, but the only thing you want to debate about it, is contentious fine points that polish off their loose grand theories. Everyday it seems new 'discoveries' are coming up that contradict 'current models'. eg that the speed of rotation of spiral galaxies is the same at the edges at it is near the centre. Dark matter is a hypothesis, one I don't believe in. It may solve a few problems but it causes more problems else where.
I am not an expert in cosmology, far from it, so you won't be getting a debate on the finer points of the 'current accepted hypothesis'. To speak with ANY authority on it is absurd.
I have my little idea on what the actual universe looks like, and I'm quite happy to talk about it, but if your looking for praise and recognition of knowing about the finer points of what I consider guess work, your barking up the wrong tree.
As far as I'm concerned, leading cosmologists are more interested in their grant money than the actual truth. As cynical as that may seem. But, I appreciate the responses all the same. It's just, I'm probably not who you want to talk about this with.

Clearly. That is also how you got busted for plagiarism, as the person who wrote this:

shiningone's citation - There is no “preferred” direction in the universe, which indicates that there is no inherent center of the universe.

Is clearly not the same person who wrote this:

shiningone - The question of internal gravitational problems seems to me more about issues of black holes and their effects, not dark matter.

ffs sake, I had NO intension of deceiving anyone. It was just a short cut to explaining what I wanted to say. Give me a break. I immediately put quotes and source. ffs.

ALSO, FUCK YOU. I just explained an honest appraisal that basically said you know more about that stuff than I do, and you come at with that shit. fuck off.

Nyar was exercising his responsibility as a forum moderator. He was right and it was legitimate.

I agree. He was right in pointing it out to me. The FIRST TIME. So I immediately put quotes and source! But then I gave a reply to one of his comments essentially saying he is smarter than me in that area, so it's probably better to talk to someone else more qualified and he hits me AGAIN with essentially "you are fucking dishonest". After, I put quotes and source. I don't need that shit. I came here to speak to intelligent people, that we don't get on youtube most of the time. I'm not trying to "pull one over" on people.
I have been on LiveLeak for quite some time. You have never met a bigger bunch of fucking assholes in your life. The point is, they think nothing of copy and pasting other peoples quotes and such. It was just a reflex action.
I completely agree with what he said as a mod, so corrected it. But coming at me after with an insult was not bloody needed.

Well, responding the way you did probably won’t result in much other than earning you a shitty reputation. Just sayin’...

Responding the way I did? By admitting my mistake and complaining about being persecuted for it twice ?
Listen, I have four daughters, that I can't see because they live in another country. I have chronic lower back pain from a slippery disc that keeps fucking up my chances of a full time job. I live in a country that is governed by evil psychopathic bankers that keep waging war on on millions of innocent people.
Do you really think I'm worried about a 'shitty reputation' on a website that is one of thousands I could chose from?
Besides, there is 2000 views on my first post here, and I have only seen about 10 people max, responding. I think I'll leave it up to them to decide. If I'm not welcome, just let me know.

@Diotrephes

" If 85% of matter is Dark Matter then why is there no evidence of it in our solar system? "

It takes 8 minutes for light to travel from our sun to us. It takes 100,000 years for light to travel from one end of our Milky Way Galaxy to the other side. The Milky Way is part of the Local Group galaxy group (which contains more than 54 galaxies), which in turn is part of the Laniakea Supercluster. This supercluster spans over 500 million light-years, while the Local Group spans over 10 million light-years.

And this is the scale being used to detect dark matter.

@Nylarlathotep

Hmm. You sound like you know what you’re talking about.

Let’s change the subject. How about “Nothingness”?

Kidding. Well. I’m done for the night. Thanks for all the laughs, folks!

I'll just point out that it is science in the first place that looked at how much detectable matter there is in galaxies and noted the problem. It was science that points out that the assumption of dark matter is just that and therefore further research is needed.

If the scientists finding this would have used the religion model, they would have either:
1. Not reported their findings at all to avoid showing they didn't know everything, or
2. Made an unsubstantiated claim that the dark matter was detected, or
3. Inferred a magical being was holding everything together.

It's likely three new sects of the religion would be formed, each claiming one of the above. No matter how much evidence or logic was used against their position, they would hold fast, saying a magical entity spoke to them.

Dark matter/energy are labels for what we have yet to discover. Dark matter/energy is hypothetical. In other words, scientists admit that they are not certain about it's existence. On the contrary, religious people are absolutely certain that their God exists and must be obeyed.

Huge difference.

@rat spit

Sound like anyone you know, Atheists? Maybe a certain Deity by the name of God, hmm? What are your views on this sort of scientific woo woo?

For scientists, dark matter is an observed phenomenon that they still don't have a thorough explanation for, and needs to be further investigated.

The existence of god, on the other hand, is not an observed phenomenon but theists refuse to investigate it.

The evidence for dark matter is very limited but it still exists, so scientists look for it. Other scientists are looking for other explanations because they don't believe the evidence warrants investigation.

If you have evidence for a god that doesn't rely on a logical fallacy and actually affects physical things, then scientists will look for that too.

@Atheists

No one seems to know the doctrine of Theravāda Buddhism well enough to be aware that transmundane meditative states exist where by a person can literally reach “the cessation of perception and feeling.”

I’m talking about a monk who doesn’t so much as flinch as his body is turning to charcoal. The doctrine of Theravāda Buddhism explains how he is able to do this. Science fails in understanding - Buddhism supplies the answers and we have an explanation of our miracle which depends on a supernatural occurrence.

If that example isn’t enough, please watch at least two minutes of this extraordinary faith healer. The miracle will both astonish you and leave you speechless.

https://youtu.be/93aPfV8I2PA

@ Rat Spit

Jeez here I go again bubble popping...

Yes, buddhist traditions have long practised "mind over body" techniques. They are practised in several traditions not just Thervadans.

It is not magic, it is not supernatural, it is the result of long years of self discipline and training. I have witnessed practitioners cutting themselves and "willing" the wound not to bleed. I have witnessed what would ordinarily be mind boggling feats of acrobatics, controlling blood pressure, holding of breath....none are supernatural. None are magic. All are training.

There ya go, bubble burst..by the way I studied zen for more than 30 years.

So, my hairy, flea carrying friend, have a great day and....Next? My bubble pricker is getting a lot of use these days...

## Pages

Donating = Loving

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.