Dark matter/ Dark Energy

[Incendia]

Hello reader,

 

I personally do not believe in this dark matter and dark energy stuff. It is only the excepted idea as it has been forced upon us. No alternatives have been given as far as I know.

I think it is a merely a mathematical convenience and see no real reason to believe it exists. I believe that something yet undiscovered that is the real DM/DE.

 

No alternatives are ever discussed. If there are any will people please tell me about them below. If there are not will the people here please begin to think of possible alternatives.

 

We constantly find new planets and stars. This could mean that a lot of this 'missing mass' is actually there. Maybe even all of it is there. Perhaps blackholes contain it all.

I don't know. I just don't believe in a mysterious, thing that makes up almost all of the mass in the universe, that we cannot see. We haven't seen the entire universe. Perhaps one side has a little more of the mass than the other.

 

Though I do not believe it exists I do want to learn about it in the event some is actually found.

 

What evidence is there?

What are the alternatives?

Main question:

Why is there only one form of dark matter? There is anti-hydrogen...why no dark-hydrogen or a dark matter equivalent? Why are there not theoretical dark matter elements?

[lemur]

Currently I am wondering whether gravitational fields "thin" between galaxies to the degree that only EM waves with a certain magnitude or higher can get from one galaxy to another. Put another way, I wonder if the relative gravitational field density within a galaxy does not allow for more EM traffic than is visible from another galaxy. I wonder if such a threshold of light-intensity would not explain the failure to observe much in terms of planets/satellites around other stars. Still, I don't know how plausible it is to theorize that gravitation could be a medium for EM radiation in such a way that weak gravitation would require higher intensity EM waves. I can't think of any reasons to reject this hypothesis.

[Incendia]

...wut?

 

...How is EM relative? What hypothesis? I think you posted this on the wrong topic...

[lemur]

...wut?

 

...How is EM relative? What hypothesis? I think you posted this on the wrong topic...

 

How am I supposed to clarify if you are reading beyond the words as I write them. I explained my hypothesis. Maybe you can't understand that I used the term "hypothesis" to refer to something I thought on my own without reading in a book but I did not use the word to mean anything formal. I'm just pondering whether certain intensities of EM waves require minimum thresholds of gravitation to propagate. This is based on my "hypothesis" that gravitation is the medium for EM wave propagation. This idea seems implicit in the fact that spacetime topography is curved due to gravity, but sometimes I think people assume that gravity is something that exists in space instead of space being a function of gravity. So to simplify what I am hypothesizing even more: lower gravity = thinner space = higher threshold of EM wave intensity to propagate. Therefore, I wonder if a good deal of relatively low-level emissions simply don't make it from one galaxy to the next. Did you actually read my previous post before reacting to it?

[Janus]

Hello reader,

 

I personally do not believe in this dark matter and dark energy stuff. It is only the excepted idea as it has been forced upon us. No alternatives have been given as far as I know.

The reason that you most likely haven't heard of the alternatives is that, to date, all of them have failed to match observation(they make predictions contrary to what we see happening.

I think it is a merely a mathematical convenience and see no real reason to believe it exists. I believe that something yet undiscovered that is the real DM/DE.

DM and DE are separate issues are are not related to each other. Since we do not know just what DM or DE consist of, of course it is going to be something yet undiscovered.

 

No alternatives are ever discussed. If there are any will people please tell me about them below. If there are not will the people here please begin to think of possible alternatives.

 

The alternatives have been explored. As I stated above, they have all come up short in one way or the other.

 

 

We constantly find new planets and stars. This could mean that a lot of this 'missing mass' is actually there. Maybe even all of it is there. Perhaps blackholes contain it all.

It is pretty easy to discount additional stars and planets. Even if we can't make out individual star in a galaxy, they would still contribute to the over all brightness of a galaxy. Even planets will radiate at some temp above background temp. Since we explore galaxies with radio telescopes that could see this radiation, we should be able to detect them, especially considering how much mass they would have to account for.

Black holes could only make up a small percentage of the needed mass. Black holes are formed from stars going supernova. Supernovas spread heavy elements throughout space. If enough black holes had formed to account for DM, the elemental make up of the universe would be a lot different than what we measure.

I don't know. I just don't believe in a mysterious, thing that makes up almost all of the mass in the universe, that we cannot see.

Why should it be important that we be able to see it? Just because we find it handy to explore the universe using the electromagnetic spectrum, doesn't mean that the universe has to oblige us.

 

Besides we already know of one type of matter that matches the properties that DM would have in the neutrino.

We haven't seen the entire universe. Perhaps one side has a little more of the mass than the other.

Sorry, but this makes no sense in addressing either the DM or DE issue.

 

Though I do not believe it exists I do want to learn about it in the event some is actually found.

 

What evidence is there?

Galaxy rotation curves.

Gravitational lensing surrounding galaxies

It is the one model that explains all the observations, including the Bullet cluster(The Bullet cluster is the instance where two galaxy clusters have collided. By examining the results of that collision, we can compare the what we see to what the DM model predicts, vs, other models.)

What are the alternatives?

The only alternative is that gravity doesn't behave like we thought it did. The problem is that all attempts to come up with a new model of gravity have failed. In addition, the Bullet cluster observations have shown that no new model of gravity, unless it includes DM can work.

Main question:

Why is there only one form of dark matter? There is anti-hydrogen...why no dark-hydrogen or a dark matter equivalent? Why are there not theoretical dark matter elements?

For the same reason that it is not visible; It does not interact via electromagnetically. It does not interact or emit electromagnetic radiation, nor does it form the electromagnetic bonds need to make atoms or elements. This also explains why it does not clump like baryonic matter and remains more or less evenly distributed. IOW, its properties naturally lead to the type of distribution we see in our observations.

 

The non-interaction means that, just like the neutrino, it can pass right through matter and itself as if it wasn't even there. This becomes important in the case of the Bullet Cluster. The visible matter is slowed by the collision, but the DM is not. Thus the DM halos should separate from their respective clusters. This is what we see in the aftermath of this collision. By mapping the gravitational lensing caused by the DM, we can see that it is located away from the visible matter.

[Incendia]

I don't believe in either and they are both dark. The questions apply to both.

 

Dark matter = the missing mass...

 

We wouldn't need it if the universe had a mass imbalance with the majority of it on the other side.

 

Thank-you for answering my questions...that is all...

[zapatos]

Janus -- Excellent overview. Thank you.

[rktpro]

Much of the evidence for dark matter comes from the study of the motions of galaxies.^[8] Many of these appear to be fairly uniform, so by the virial theorem the total kinetic energy should be half the total gravitational binding energy of the galaxies. Experimentally, however, the total kinetic energy is found to be much greater: in particular, assuming the gravitational mass is due to only the visible matter of the galaxy, stars far from the center of galaxies have much higher velocities than predicted by the virial theorem. Galactic rotation curves, which illustrate the velocity of rotation versus the distance from the galactic center, cannot be explained by only the visible matter. Assuming that the visible material makes up only a small part of the cluster is the most straightforward way of accounting for this. Galaxies show signs of being composed largely of a roughly spherically symmetric, centrally concentrated halo of dark matter with the visible matter concentrated in a disc at the center. Low surface brightness dwarf galaxies are important sources of information for studying dark matter, as they have an uncommonly low ratio of visible matter to dark matter, and have few bright stars at the center which would otherwise impair observations of the rotation curve of outlying stars.

[Janus]

I don't believe in either and they are both dark. The questions apply to both.

 

It doesn't matter what you "believe", what matters is where the abundance of the evidence points.

The only thing dark matter and dark energy have in common is the word "dark". It was first applied to DM, for the obvious reason that it emitted no light. When it was learned that the expansion of the universe was accelerating, they needed a term to apply to whatever was causing it. Even though "dark" really carried no meaning in this case, they decided on "dark energy" just for the verbal symmetry and nothing else.

 

Dark matter = the missing mass...

 

We wouldn't need it if the universe had a mass imbalance with the majority of it on the other side.

 

The other side of what? Again, this statement make no sense when applied to DM.

DM is needed to explain the rotation curves of galaxies. They rotate too fast and differently than they should according to the visible mass distribution. It is also needed to explain the mass discrepancy in galaxy clusters, neither of which can related to any type of mass imbalance in the Universe.

[Cosvis1]

Hi to all, I found your ideas very interesting and I would like to add some ideas. The basic stuff of the universe is energy which comes in various forms, one form is matter but also in various other forms like electro magnetic radiation or light, kinetic energy and gravitational energy. Scientists refer to the missing mass of the universe as Dark Matter or Dark energy, but it must also be a form of energy. The problem is to discover this missing form of energy. The basic form of energy is a quantum particle which travels at the speed of light and has a canstant quantity of energy. Einstein showed that this basic form of energy is affected by gravity and has a kinetic effect, thus it must also have some form of matter. It can not have the ordinary form of matter consisting of rest mass, but it could have a zero rest mass matter or virtual mass. This possibly could explain the existence of the missing mass in the universe, that is, if all form of energy consists of virtual mass that has a gravitational and kinetic effect on the universe.

Yours cosvis1